So what? If government has to power to force you to do something as the price of doing some other thing, what difference is there from the power to force you to do something regardless of what else you might be doing? Power is power.
Do you object to compulsory vaccinations?
So. . . there’s this job opening . . .
But until then you are completely ok with paying money for your fellow citizens to suffer and die needlessly?
Then the government can force you to pay tuition to Trump University?
That’s a pretty gross distortion of his opinion of the Supreme Court, and also (again) completely unrelated to the question I asked. If you just wanted to take a gratuitous swipe at a poster you don’t like, may I ask that you do not use my posts as a spring board?
Also, it’s an utterly fascinating topic, I’m sure, but alas more appropriate for a different thread, no?
This is not relevant to the issue I’m addressing with HMS Irruncible.
Notice that I have yet to offer an opinion on whether or not the legislation just passed should or should not have been passed. Be careful about your assumptions there.
Bricker asked why government should be allowed to take money from person A and give it to person B to provide person B with necessary medical care. Irruncible’s answer was because they’ve been empowered to do so by the passage of the ACA; no other justification for the action is needed besides the fact it was done. My response is that this is a very dangerous assertion as to why something should be done. Your response has nothing to do with this, as I see it.
Granted. I suppose it was a bit roundabout. I should have addressed more directly Bricker’s actual agreement with Irruncible, as shown in post 137.
I recommend reading one of Americas better contributions to the world, Hohfelds “Fundamental Legal Conceptions, As Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other Legal Essays” It is quite interesting, ad deals with rights, and the governments power to compel or not.
Because I have a choice if I want to drive. The only choice to avoid being forced to purchase health insurance is to pay or die. Do you see the difference?
Yes I object to compulsory vaccinations. I think vaccinations are the absolute right thing to do though. I don’t think vaccinations are compulsory though, technically speaking.
There is no particular reason that “government” in general cannot force you to pay tuition to Trump University.
There MAY be particular reasons what a (specific) government may not be able to force you to do that, state, or federal. See the relevant constitution.
Can the **federal government of the US force you to do that? Only if they have the authority to do it under the Constitution of the United States. I refer you back to that document and ask under what provision of Article I the Congress could do that? If you can justify it under Article I (as amended directly or implicitly by the amendments) then the answer is yes, they can.
Up for discussion: should they.
If you asked if I’m completely OK with murderers going free because of the Fourth Amendment I’d probably respond, “No – But I’m ok with that result on balance.The value the Fourth Amendment brings to society outweighs the occasional poor result that a murderer escapes trial because the police violated the Fourth Amendment to gain the evidence showing the man’s murderous ways.”
But you asked instead if I’m completely ok with paying money for your fellow citizens to suffer and die needlessly. And my answer is: No, but on balance, I accept the result."
Do you understand why I prefaced my comment thusly?
In a similar thread, ages ago, I answered a similar question without making my nuance clear, and the resulting quote had one poster following me around for years claiming I reveled in death. So to be clear: I do not.
I don’t get it. What’s so hard to understand? Why is it so incomprehensible to people that if you think something governmental is worth doing, maybe it is worth trying it at state level first? Call it an experiment. If your objection is the economies of scale - we have pretty big states out there. If something doesn’t work in California, it probably won’t work when scaled up to the US level.
We have very varied states, still, with fairly varied governments in them. I am sure Massachusetts can easily pass certain liberal laws that would be anathema in Alabama. And if it works so well in MA, maybe AL eventually will look and learn.
Why can’t liberals just try their solutions in some more liberal states first? Like Vermont trying to institute a single payer health care reform (and failing miserably).
That is how and why the US federal system was set up. When a state would try something that would work wonders, other states would note and copy. And if it fails, at least it fails on small scale and not on the scale of the whole county.
Apart from the fact that when things are experimented with on the state level, people would be able to vote with their feet. Which is much harder to do when you have to leave the country to do it.
You appear to state that there is some difference between “choosing to drive” and “choosing to continue being a resident of this country/state.” I would assert that logically speaking, there is no fundamental difference, where the power to do something is concerned.
Again, whether it should be exercised remains up for discussion.
That’s a pretty gross distortion of my opinion.
Before going further, it appears you are now making a completely different argument from what I was responding to:
“So what? If government has to power to force you to do something as the price of doing some other thing, what difference is there from the power to force you to do something regardless of what else you might be doing? Power is power.”
:o
i’m assuming the Esq in your handle means youre a lawyer so you should know that its not a very dangerous assertion. its the basis of almost all law; if someone with the power to do something does it, and someone else with the power to say that action is unlawful, doesnt do it, then that action receives the full power of becoming legal and justified.
if thats not good enough, how about precedent? medicare, medicaid, social security, the veterans administration, these are all examles of the govmint taking $ from person A and giving it to personB for their medical care.
mc
So, about that job…
I wasn’t denying your assertion, per se. To the extent you were asserting that forcing someone to pay to Trump University is an expression of the type of power I was talking about, you are correct. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
However, you tried to use a specific example to make a general point. The trouble with that is the specific example may have OTHER issues besides the general issue under discussion. Which I was addressing.