Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"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
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?
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?
please explain how they do not have to participate???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.....
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.
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".
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?
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 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.
"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
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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![]()
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.
"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