Fire the government
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-10-2013, 08:09 PM
RE: Fire the government
(04-10-2013 07:29 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @Chas, you sure have a knack for avoiding any questions you find uncomfortable to answer.

(04-10-2013 04:27 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If I, as a US citizen, however, went to Canada, got legal residency, lived there and paid into the Canadian tax and health care system, and spent, say 10 months out of the year in Canada, and was covered by Canada's health system even for those 2 months I was in the US, I would still be required to buy US health insurance from one of the private, for-profit insurance companies that donated to Obama's campaign, even though I would have no use for such insurance and would never use it. You don't dispute this, correct? Is that fair?

Your answer was, predictably, silence.

Quote:So you've changed your definition of 'force'? You previously denied that financial penalties were 'force'.

Of course not. I gave you a very clear example how refusing to pay the Obamacare penalty would lead to be shot and/or tased. The Swiss version of the IRS does not use force. In the US, the IRS very much uses force. Did you see today's news about Lauryn Hill? That's not force? She didn't just get a fine, she got handcuffed and thrown in jail. That is force. Nothing I said has changed.

Side note: It's true that the ACA doesn't give the IRS to imprison people for refusing to pay Obamacare. However, that's irrelevant, since the IRS has discretion in applying the money. If you owe $10,000 in taxes + a $1,000 Obamacare penalty, the IRS will simply apply the first $1k of your $10k payment to the Obamacare penalty, claiming that you only paid $9k on your $10k tax bill, and then they can haul you off at gunpoint. So it's silly to argue that a 'penalty' which is imposed by the IRS is not force.

You predictably haven't addressed the fact that you contradict yourself.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 08:18 PM
RE: Fire the government
Quote:You predictably haven't addressed the fact that you contradict yourself.

I guess in addition to not answering uncomfortable questions, you also love making general statements without any specifics to back them up. The only contradiction you asserted was the issue of a fine vs. force. But I haven't contradicted myself or ever changed my position. If there's a fine and no risk of going to jail for refusing to pay it, then it's not force. Such as property taxes, and the Swiss income tax system. If you refuse to pay the fine and you get hauled away at gunpoint and shot/tased for resisting, then it is force. You like to pretend that the definition of force is somehow vague, confusing or contradictory. It's not. It's really simple. You just don't like admitting that the disagreement between us is simply that you want to use force (threats of violence), and I do not. But no matter how much you pretend to be confused about what constitutes force, the fact is that is the only disagreement between us. We both agree that we want everyone to have access to quality medical care. The only disagreement is that I favor a voluntary, peaceful solution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 08:22 PM
RE: Fire the government
(04-10-2013 08:18 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:You predictably haven't addressed the fact that you contradict yourself.

I guess in addition to not answering uncomfortable questions, you also love making general statements without any specifics to back them up. The only contradiction you asserted was the issue of a fine vs. force. But I haven't contradicted myself or ever changed my position. If there's a fine and no risk of going to jail for refusing to pay it, then it's not force. Such as property taxes, and the Swiss income tax system. If you refuse to pay the fine and you get hauled away at gunpoint and shot/tased for resisting, then it is force. You like to pretend that the definition of force is somehow vague, confusing or contradictory. It's not. It's really simple. You just don't like admitting that the disagreement between us is simply that you want to use force (threats of violence), and I do not. But no matter how much you pretend to be confused about what constitutes force, the fact is that is the only disagreement between us. We both agree that we want everyone to have access to quality medical care. The only disagreement is that I favor a voluntary, peaceful solution.

Tax fraud in Switzerland is a criminal offense. You seem to ignore that.

I have no problem with the appropriate use of force.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 09:14 PM (This post was last modified: 04-10-2013 09:22 PM by frankksj.)
RE: Fire the government
(04-10-2013 08:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  Tax fraud in Switzerland is a criminal offense. You seem to ignore that.

Jeez, did you forget to take your meds??? You forgot already that we went over this in the other post? Remember, I gave you links to the Swiss tax authority website, to wikipedia, to cnn, to nbc, to the nytimes, etc., which all confirmed that tax evasion (refusing to pay taxes) is NOT a crime in Switzerland. Nobody goes to jail for it.

What IS a crime is fraud, such as forging documents. It doesn't matter whether it's for tax reasons or not. 'Force' is when you use threats of physical force and violence (arrest, incarceration, etc.). The fact is that the IRS _DOES_ use force. So the disagreement between us is, as always, that you favor the use of force, and I favor a peaceful solution.

Quote:I have no problem with the appropriate use of force

Yes, you've made that very, very clear. Whenever you want somebody to do something, you want to send in people with guns to force them to do it. Just like conservatives. What you fail to acknowledge is that you say "appropriate use of force" like there's agreed upon, universal definition. There's not. What you're defining as "appropriate use of force" is simply any force you feel is appropriate. The difference between us is that no matter how much I think something is appropriate, I don't force other people to do it my way.

The case in point with Obamacare. I already explained my situation. Until now, I've had access to the best health care around, any procedure I might ever need, at a very affordable price, including exotic procedure's not offered in the US, like Kobe Bryant's. Now, with Obamacare, I am being forced to give up my current doctors and health care, and instead put my life in the hands of one of the private, for-profit corporations that funded Obama's election, which, btw, reward their staff for killing me off if when I get sick, and will possibly deny me access to treatment I may need.

You think it's an "appropriate" use of force. But I will bet you that if we check the health insurance companies revenues and profits 5 years from now, you will find that they're make a lot more money post-Obamacare than pre and that health care costs rise much higher than general inflation, which means that, as usually happens, your club-wielding is going to backfire and end up just being a massive transfer of wealth from the common people to the insurance industry. And this isn't surprising, because you guys always end up voting for fellow club-wielders who promise to force everyone to do things your way. But you're oblivious to the cold, hard truth that to get and stay elected they need the money from the corporations you're trying to regulate so, the corporations, the health insurance companies, end up writing their own regulation, which is why Obamacare is, from start to finish, nothing but a massive gift and transfer of wealth to the insurance companies.

BTW, in my prior post about a US person moving to Canada and still having to pay Obamacare, I asked you if you thought it was fair. I'll just keep asking the question until you answer it, since it's obviously making you dance in circles to avoid it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 09:32 PM
RE: Fire the government
(04-10-2013 07:36 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:There are many things "forced upon" you.
(Congress PASSED the damn law.)
It's how civilized societies agree to work.

Really? So if Congress re-instated slavery, you would argue that's how civilized societies agree to work?

Besides, define "civilized"? I would say the most civilized societies are those where the people live the longest, happiest, healthiest lives. Now, come up with a ranking of the countries in the world by how much they "force upon" their citizens. I can guarantee you the countries which are the most civilized, do the least amount "forcing upon" their citizens. And the countries that do the most, like North Korea, are total trainwrecks.

So it seems the core issue is this: Congress is adding more force and coercion with Obamacare. Is that a good thing? Should we take incremental steps to be more like North Korea and the other countries that initiate lots of force against their citizens, which are the countries where people die poor, young and destitute? Or should we go in the other direction, reducing the amount of force the government initiates, trying to be like the countries where people live the longest, healthiest, happiest lives?

The slavery example is stupid and unrealistic.
But if you wanna talk about slavery, your government FORCED slavery to be abolished. Hell, you had a whole war over it, lost, and had it rammed down your throat.

As the Chasinator said, it's what governments do. They pass law on our behalf. To say that it's "forced" upon us is stupid.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
04-10-2013, 09:58 PM
RE: Fire the government
(04-10-2013 09:32 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  As the Chasinator said, it's what governments do. They pass law on our behalf. To say that it's "forced" upon us is stupid.

Really? You know the US Constitution reads "Congress shall pass no law..." and goes on to list the things that Congress is and is not allowed to do, and it then states that anything that falls out of a small list of enumerated powers cannot be passed as law and the Supreme Court has the duty to strike down such laws as constitutional, leaving the matter up to the states to decide.

So, when you say "it's what governments do", what you're forgetting is that it's NOT what government would be doing IF government was upholding the rule of law. The President, Congress and Supreme Court all swear an oath to uphold the constitution. So they ARE breaking the law. Where we see things differently is that in my opinion the role of government is to uphold the law. The people agree to certain rules, they get written into a constitution, and government is supposed to uphold that rule of law. You seem to think it's simply inevitable that the government is never going to follow the rule of law in the constitution. But the reason it has become inevitable is only because guys like you don't hold government officials accountable when they break the law. Recent case in point: James Clapper, head of the NSA, lied under oath during sworn testimony before Congress. It's perjury. The law states that he should go to jail. If you or I did it, we would go to jail. The constitution also states that government employees have an obligation to report such criminal behavior, and that they are guaranteed government protection for doing so. But, when Edward Snowden exposed the crime, the government pursued him, and, Clapper, who perpetrated the crime, didn't even get a slap on the wrist.

You guys, see government employees as being above the law, as though they're some "super human" with special rights that us mere mortals do not. But the fact is they are humans just like the rest of us, and when you exalt them to god-like status, you're empowering tyrants. Here's an interesting video I and I shared where a guy explains how your view of government is a religion in every sense of the word: link. You're worshiping a different god, but you're still worshiping a god nonetheless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 10:01 PM
RE: Fire the government
(04-10-2013 08:18 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:You predictably haven't addressed the fact that you contradict yourself.

I guess in addition to not answering uncomfortable questions, you also love making general statements without any specifics to back them up. The only contradiction you asserted was the issue of a fine vs. force. But I haven't contradicted myself or ever changed my position. If there's a fine and no risk of going to jail for refusing to pay it, then it's not force. Such as property taxes, and the Swiss income tax system. If you refuse to pay the fine and you get hauled away at gunpoint and shot/tased for resisting, then it is force. You like to pretend that the definition of force is somehow vague, confusing or contradictory. It's not. It's really simple. You just don't like admitting that the disagreement between us is simply that you want to use force (threats of violence), and I do not. But no matter how much you pretend to be confused about what constitutes force, the fact is that is the only disagreement between us. We both agree that we want everyone to have access to quality medical care. The only disagreement is that I favor a voluntary, peaceful solution.

Chas is taking the position that the government is like the Godfather who makes an offer to the Hollywood bigshot which simply can't be refused. Since it can't be refused, there isn't any force being used.

The ACA cost us a lot of our liberty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heywood Jahblome's post
04-10-2013, 10:01 PM
RE: Fire the government
(04-10-2013 08:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 06:16 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  A financial trade-off forced upon us.

Legislation passed by a duly, legally, Constitutionally elected House, then passed by a duly, legally, Constitutionally elected Senate, then signed into law by a duly, legally, Constitutionally elected President.

And the current House, duly elected, is refusing to fund it. That's also their Constitutional right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
04-10-2013, 10:10 PM
RE: Fire the government
(04-10-2013 10:01 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 08:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  Legislation passed by a duly, legally, Constitutionally elected House, then passed by a duly, legally, Constitutionally elected Senate, then signed into law by a duly, legally, Constitutionally elected President.

And the current House, duly elected, is refusing to fund it. That's also their Constitutional right.

A House which was duly elected by constituents who want the law repealed.

We wouldn't even be here if a minority of elitist didn't use backroom deals and parliamentary shenanigans to pass a law the majority of the US didn't want. So while the ACA might technically be the law of the land, you shouldn't be surprised one bit were in the situation we are in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-10-2013, 10:18 PM
RE: Fire the government
(04-10-2013 10:10 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-10-2013 10:01 PM)BryanS Wrote:  And the current House, duly elected, is refusing to fund it. That's also their Constitutional right.

A House which was duly elected by constituents who want the law repealed.

We wouldn't even be here if a minority of elitist didn't use backroom deals and parliamentary shenanigans to pass a law the majority of the US didn't want. So while the ACA might technically be the law of the land, you shouldn't be surprised one bit were in the situation we are in.

Actually more people voted Democratic in the last election for Congress but due to the severe gerrymandering Republicans have built themselves a nearly permanent majority in the house.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: