I didn’t think I could be surprised by the AUDACITY of government officials. But this is REALLY something.
The bastard YIGAL LAHAV the mayor gangster around here has decided to tax all of us in Karnei Shomron RETROACTIVELY for the months January to October 2014 and he has the kindness of heart to allow us to pay it UP TO THREE INSTALMENTS.
Is this even LEGAL? Is there any lawyer out there who can step in and help us 7,300 people?
Any private person who DARED charge someone retroactively for services already rendered and paid for would be PUT IN PRISON.
What disgusting GALL.
Here’s the sick letter.
http://www.karneishomron.co.il/?CategoryID=430&ArticleID=1760
The Jewish Libertarian 
Band together? Most everyone up there is so numbed out and/or taken in by the State’s “holiness,” don’t expect a Qarnei Shomron Tea Party anytime soon.
you must lack sufficient public self-justified outrage, or you could band together and solve the problem with Alinksy tactics. parasites need their hosts for survival *.
see these links for ideas:
http://www.garynorth.com/public/6274.cfm
https://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/8/28/speaking-laughter-to-power.html
or you can pay him off. as they say, “an honest politician is one when when bought stays bought…”
but the actual issue almost certainly lies in the Federal/national government, to which the local governments are mere lackeys with only cosmetic leeway.
if you don’t believe me, see here for the technical details:
http://www.kav.org.il/100994/811
http://www.kav.org.il/100994/812
[by the way, i don’t see you mentioning that site here. is it because they are not pure libertarians?]
the sole seat of power here is in the Knesset, unlike in the US (at least in the far past and to a degree), which is part of Feiglin’s plan for government reform, as you know.
* see more here:
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/10firstmonday.html
In these and other areas, powerful perpetrators commonly use many or all of the following methods to inhibit outrage:
cover up the action
devalue the target
reinterpret what happened by lying, minimising, blaming and framing
use official channels to give an appearance of justice
intimidate or bribe the people involved.
Consider the example of torture. Governments that sanction torture hide its practice (cover up the action). They label the victims as criminals, traitors or terrorists (devalue the target). If challenged over their treatment of prisoners, governments may reinterpret what happened by claiming that torture techniques were not used (lying), minimising the effects, blaming rogue operators, or saying the interrogation methods were legitimate (framing). Occasionally they hold formal inquiries into allegations of torture, which may whitewash the actions or apply penalties to low-level perpetrators but almost never to policy-makers (official channels). Finally, they may threaten whistleblowers and offer rewards to those who co-operate (intimidation and bribery). All these methods were used in relation to the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib by US guards, revealed in 2004 (Gray and Martin, 2007).
In response to these five types of methods of inhibiting outrage, targets can use five corresponding types of counter-methods:
expose the action
validate the target
interpret what happened as an injustice
avoid or discredit official channels; instead, mobilise support
resist intimidation and bribery.