Is it really immoral to withhold consent of the governed?

[The T]

And by the way? The Congress has repeatedly thwarted efforts to make the Congress subject to the same law. It was summarily rejected by the Congress.

My question is just this:

When did Congress CEASE being 'Citizens'?

 

[midcan5]

"It is not enough to ask, ‘Will my act harm other people?’ Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, ‘Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people?’ The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit

Your act is wrong (immoral) because you are trespassing in a nation of living, acting, participating citizens, who as citizens agree to do their part. You are still, regardless of your apathy, participating in its freedoms, in its civic, economic, religious and political world. Of course if you just sit there, make sure it some place a train runs through.

As for all the BS about the mandate, citizenship requires adherence to the laws of the land. If you don't like them run for office on an anti-American democracy platform.


"The Court soon modified its holding in the Butler decision in Helvering v. Davis (1937). There, the Court sustained the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935 and adopted an expansive view of the power of the federal government to tax and spend for the general welfare. In Helvering, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare. To date, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare. Moreover, since congressional power to legislate under the Commerce clause has expanded the areas falling within Congress's enumerated powers, the General Welfare clause has decreased in importance." General Welfare Clause: Information from Answers.com


"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." Thomas Jefferson


"Of all forms of government and society, those of free men and women are in many respects the most brittle. They give the fullest freedom for activities of private persons and groups who often identify their own interests, essentially selfish, with the general welfare." Dorothy Thompson

 

[The T]

"It is not enough to ask, ‘Will my act harm other people?’ Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, ‘Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people?’ The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit

Your act is wrong (immoral) because you are trespassing in a nation of living, acting, participating citizens, who as citizens agree to do their part. You are still, regardless of your apathy, participating in its freedoms, in its civic, economic, religious and political world. Of course if you just sit there, make sure it some place a train runs through.

As for all the BS about the mandate, citizenship requires adherence to the laws of the land. If you don't like them run for office on an anti-American democracy platform.


"The Court soon modified its holding in the Butler decision in Helvering v. Davis (1937). There, the Court sustained the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935 and adopted an expansive view of the power of the federal government to tax and spend for the general welfare. In Helvering, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare. To date, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare. Moreover, since congressional power to legislate under the Commerce clause has expanded the areas falling within Congress's enumerated powers, the General Welfare clause has decreased in importance." General Welfare Clause: Information from Answers.com


"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." Thomas Jefferson


"Of all forms of government and society, those of free men and women are in many respects the most brittle. They give the fullest freedom for activities of private persons and groups who often identify their own interests, essentially selfish, with the general welfare." Dorothy Thompson

It does NOT require citizens standing idly by applauding while the Constitution is shredded before thier very eyes. While their Liberties are put in jepoardy.

YOU FAIL

 

[manu1959]

What if I told the government that I don't want to participate in this law and I just sit there and not participate in it. Now, of course, I would be violating the law but would violating that law be an immoral act if I still conduct my life in a moral way as my own conscience dictates and do not harm anyone else such as an act of theft or murder. Would my non-participation in the law be immoral if I am not harming anyone else.

Why should I be governed when my interaction with anyone else around me is not harmful in any way? What have I done to someone else?

you would be no worse than the pres or congress or anyone else written into the bill that does not have to participate.....

 

[Diuretic]

What if I told the government that I don't want to participate in this law and I just sit there and not participate in it. Now, of course, I would be violating the law but would violating that law be an immoral act if I still conduct my life in a moral way as my own conscience dictates and do not harm anyone else such as an act of theft or murder. Would my non-participation in the law be immoral if I am not harming anyone else.

Why should I be governed when my interaction with anyone else around me is not harmful in any way? What have I done to someone else?

You could live in an airtight cabin on the seabed in international waters, that should do it.

 

[Care4all]

What if I told the government that I don't want to participate in this law and I just sit there and not participate in it. Now, of course, I would be violating the law but would violating that law be an immoral act if I still conduct my life in a moral way as my own conscience dictates and do not harm anyone else such as an act of theft or murder. Would my non-participation in the law be immoral if I am not harming anyone else.

Why should I be governed when my interaction with anyone else around me is not harmful in any way? What have I done to someone else?

you would be no worse than the pres or congress or anyone else written into the bill that does not have to participate.....

please explain how they do not have to participate???

 

[PixieStix]

Are you serious?

I am serious. Why does anyone deserve to be restrained when no one else around them complained about their actions? When a person goes to work and does no harm to no one else he does not need any restraint because society is chugging along fine. No rapes, murders, theft, or anything else like that.

Didn't you listen to Jesus? You are your brother's keeper.

It is also an act of FREE will, at least Jesus gives us that oprion

 

[Care4all]

I think it's funny that they are going to have Washington government employees hiring IRS people to check to see who doesn't have health insurance and then have the IRS fine them for not buying insurance. Wouldn't it be nice if we could get those same IRS people to gather in all the government employees in Washington that don't pay their taxes too? Which would be the worst crime? Not having insurance or not paying your taxes? If you are a Democrat I suppose it would be the crime of not buying insurance that would be the most severe slap in the face of the "law".

do you have any link on the gvt adding irs employees to enforce this? i have heard the claim 3 times now by the right wing but have never seen it sourced?

or is this just personal speculation of what will happen???

care

 

[Contumacious]

What if I told the government that I don't want to participate in this law and I just sit there and not participate in it. Now, of course, I would be violating the law but would violating that law be an immoral act if I still conduct my life in a moral way as my own conscience dictates and do not harm anyone else such as an act of theft or murder. Would my non-participation in the law be immoral if I am not harming anyone else.

Why should I be governed when my interaction with anyone else around me is not harmful in any way? What have I done to someone else?

We Marxists don't give a shit about your rights.

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state…

Karl Marx

.

 

[midcan5]

It does NOT require citizens standing idly by applauding while the Constitution is shredded before thier very eyes. While their Liberties are put in jepoardy.

YOU FAIL

What liberty would that be? The liberty to break the law?

 

[bucs90]

What if I told the government that I don't want to participate in this law and I just sit there and not participate in it. Now, of course, I would be violating the law but would violating that law be an immoral act if I still conduct my life in a moral way as my own conscience dictates and do not harm anyone else such as an act of theft or murder. Would my non-participation in the law be immoral if I am not harming anyone else.

Why should I be governed when my interaction with anyone else around me is not harmful in any way? What have I done to someone else?

Are you serious?

I am serious. Why does anyone deserve to be restrained when no one else around them complained about their actions? When a person goes to work and does no harm to no one else he does not need any restraint because society is chugging along fine. No rapes, murders, theft, or anything else like that.

The reason is this: You are doing fine in life. You have a job, shelter, food, etc. Therefore, it is the duty of the liberal government to take a little of what you have to give to others who are not doing fine. Often not doing fine as the result of laziness, drug use, criminal activity or simple lack of willingness to be independent.

Thats what liberals do. They salivate at the thought of a big government who can take those who are doing well in life and knock them down to equal levels with those who aren't.

 

[bucs90]

"It is not enough to ask, ‘Will my act harm other people?’ Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, ‘Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people?’ The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit

By that logic, it would be immoral for me to accept a job that others applied to, as my actions will keep them unemployed longer.

By that logic, it would be immoral for me to go to college and improve my education with the intent of getting a better resume, because those who don't go to college will be at a disadvantage.

 

[bucs90]

It does NOT require citizens standing idly by applauding while the Constitution is shredded before thier very eyes. While their Liberties are put in jepoardy.

YOU FAIL

What liberty would that be? The liberty to break the law?

The liberty granted by the Constitution that is being shredded.

Why do you bow down so quickly to all that is government? What if the government passed a law banning the wearing of blue jeans? You would be first in line to burn your jeans and declare them the "Cloth of the demons"??

I'm seeing more and more Obama worshippers that are just bowing down to The Great One and assuming "If Obama says it is so....shall it be so" and just crumbling for this man. You lefties would've fit right into some of the old Eastern European dictatorships.

 

[rikules]

What if I told the government that I don't want to participate in this law and I just sit there and not participate in it. Now, of course, I would be violating the law but would violating that law be an immoral act if I still conduct my life in a moral way as my own conscience dictates and do not harm anyone else such as an act of theft or murder. Would my non-participation in the law be immoral if I am not harming anyone else.

Why should I be governed when my interaction with anyone else around me is not harmful in any way? What have I done to someone else?

Are you serious?

I am serious. Why does anyone deserve to be restrained when no one else around them complained about their actions? When a person goes to work and does no harm to no one else he does not need any restraint because society is chugging along fine. No rapes, murders, theft, or anything else like that.

so
you're saying that pot smokers
and homosexuals
and johns who frequent prostitutes
should not be constrained
because they are causing no harm to anyone else?

 

[George Costanza]

What if I told the government that I don't want to participate in this law and I just sit there and not participate in it. Now, of course, I would be violating the law but would violating that law be an immoral act if I still conduct my life in a moral way as my own conscience dictates and do not harm anyone else such as an act of theft or murder. Would my non-participation in the law be immoral if I am not harming anyone else.

Why should I be governed when my interaction with anyone else around me is not harmful in any way? What have I done to someone else?

For those not versed in Ihopespeak, allow me to interpret -

IHope is trying to talk about the conservative argument against health care that goes, it is unconstitutional for Congress to penalize citizens for doing nothing. Since the current health care legislation does just that - you will be fined if you do not have health care commencing in 2014 - the cons argue that such a law is unconstitutional.

Ihope suggests that, if she refuses to buy health insurance, but nonetheless lives her life in an otherwise moral way, where's the harm, so long as she is not harming anyone else.

Let's look at her first premise - the argument that it is unconstitutional to penalize citizens for doing nothing. If you think the Federal government can't do that, just try "doing nothing" next April 15th.

And her second argument - that people who don't get health insurance are not hurting others by simply not having health insurance. Wrong. Where do people without health insurance go when they get sick or are injured? Emergency rooms. Been to an emergency room lately? Enjoy the minimum, four-hour visit there no matter what your problem is? Also, if freeloaders could opt out of health insurance, they could wait until they were hurt in an accident or contracted a disease and then demand health insurance for their "preexisting condition" without having paid premiums previously, thereby driving up the costs of health care for everyone else.

 

[bucs90]

What if I told the government that I don't want to participate in this law and I just sit there and not participate in it. Now, of course, I would be violating the law but would violating that law be an immoral act if I still conduct my life in a moral way as my own conscience dictates and do not harm anyone else such as an act of theft or murder. Would my non-participation in the law be immoral if I am not harming anyone else.

Why should I be governed when my interaction with anyone else around me is not harmful in any way? What have I done to someone else?

For those not versed in Ihopespeak, allow me to interpret -

IHope is trying to talk about the conservative argument against health care that goes, it is unconstitutional for Congress to penalize citizens for doing nothing. Since the current health care legislation does just that - you will be fined if you do not have health care commencing in 2014 - the cons argue that such a law is unconstitutional.

Ihope suggests that, if she refuses to buy health insurance, but nonetheless lives her life in an otherwise moral way, where's the harm, so long as she is not harming anyone else.

Let's look at her first premise - the argument that it is unconstitutional to penalize citizens for doing nothing. If you think the Federal government can't do that, just try "doing nothing" next April 15th.

And her second argument - that people who don't get health insurance are not hurting others by simply not having health insurance. Wrong. Where do people without health insurance go when they get sick or are injured? Emergency rooms. Been to an emergency room lately? Enjoy the minimum, four-hour visit there no matter what your problem is? Also, if freeloaders could opt out of health insurance, they could wait until they were hurt in an accident or contracted a disease and then demand health insurance for their "preexisting condition" without having paid premiums previously, thereby driving up the costs of health care for everyone else.

You miss a major, massive point:

- The Constitution does grant the government the right to tax.
- The Constitution does not grant the government the right to force a citizen to purchase a private good against their will.

As for your last paragraph, thats why we should not force a private company to cover pre-existing conditions. We can't out-legislate tragic stories. We have 300 million people. No amount of legislation will prevent tragic stories here and there. But tyrannical government is never the answer. Neither is dictatorship. And a dictatorship would include the ability of the leader to trump legislative branch laws with his own executive orders, which is what Obama supposedly just did with the abortion executive order.

All Hail the Supreme Leader Barack Obama the Magnificent

 

[bucs90]

Are you serious?

I am serious. Why does anyone deserve to be restrained when no one else around them complained about their actions? When a person goes to work and does no harm to no one else he does not need any restraint because society is chugging along fine. No rapes, murders, theft, or anything else like that.

so
you're saying that pot smokers
and homosexuals
and johns who frequent prostitutes
should not be constrained
because they are causing no harm to anyone else?

Right. I'm a true conservative.

Pot disgusts me, but is less harmful than alcohol. As a freedom lover, I also believe in gay rights. And prostituion on the streets of Miami is not any different than the prostitution practiced by liberal Democrats who were bought off for their healthcare votes. So I say if money can buy a vote, it can buy a boob.

 

[George Costanza]

The Constitution does grant the government the right to tax.
- The Constitution does not grant the government the right to force a citizen to purchase a private good against their will.

Two words for you, my friend: Commerce Clause.

As for your last paragraph, thats why we should not force a private company to cover pre-existing conditions. We can't out-legislate tragic stories. We have 300 million people. No amount of legislation will prevent tragic stories here and there. But tyrannical government is never the answer. Neither is dictatorship. And a dictatorship would include the ability of the leader to trump legislative branch laws with his own executive orders, which is what Obama supposedly just did with the abortion executive order.

All Hail the Supreme Leader Barack Obama the Magnificent

Interesting, but fails to address the point of how people without health insurance (the "do nothings" in Ihopespeak) harm other people who do have health insurance.

 

[George Costanza]

Right. I'm a true conservative.

Pot disgusts me, but is less harmful than alcohol. As a freedom lover, I also believe in gay rights.

So far, you're my kind of conservative.

And prostituion on the streets of Miami is not any different than the prostitution practiced by liberal Democrats who were bought off for their healthcare votes. So I say if money can buy a vote, it can buy a boob.

Whoops . . .

 

[ihopehefails]

"It is not enough to ask, ‘Will my act harm other people?’ Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, ‘Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people?’ The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit

Your act is wrong (immoral) because you are trespassing in a nation of living, acting, participating citizens, who as citizens agree to do their part. You are still, regardless of your apathy, participating in its freedoms, in its civic, economic, religious and political world. Of course if you just sit there, make sure it some place a train runs through.

As for all the BS about the mandate, citizenship requires adherence to the laws of the land. If you don't like them run for office on an anti-American democracy platform.


"The Court soon modified its holding in the Butler decision in Helvering v. Davis (1937). There, the Court sustained the old-age benefits provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935 and adopted an expansive view of the power of the federal government to tax and spend for the general welfare. In Helvering, the Court maintained that although Congress's power to tax and spend under the General Welfare clause was limited to general or national concerns, Congress itself could determine when spending constituted spending for the general welfare. To date, no legislation passed by Congress has ever been struck down because it did not serve the general welfare. Moreover, since congressional power to legislate under the Commerce clause has expanded the areas falling within Congress's enumerated powers, the General Welfare clause has decreased in importance." General Welfare Clause: Information from Answers.com


"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." Thomas Jefferson


"Of all forms of government and society, those of free men and women are in many respects the most brittle. They give the fullest freedom for activities of private persons and groups who often identify their own interests, essentially selfish, with the general welfare." Dorothy Thompson

Are you saying you believe in community participation should happen because of the barrel of a gun, threat of jail, violence against your person by the state, and just our neighbors demand it of us?