Another Mass Shooting In The Us...

[StevePalermo]

<p><p>

The crux of the matter here is that the Supreme Court ruled that the state has the power to force you to buy something that, given a choice, you might opt not to buy. The issue of the sanctions for failure to comply currently having no teeth, was never debated by the Supreme Court. The fact of the matter is that according to the Supreme Court, the state can punish you for not having health insurance. That principle has already been settled. All it takes now is a small amendment to the existing law, and failure to comply could become a crime in which the ultimate punishment is death.

Never pass laws that you are not willing to kill to enforce.
"Law professors and lawyers instinctively shy away from considering the problem of law’s violence. Every law is violent. We try not to think about this, but we should. On the first day of law school, I tell my Contracts students never to argue for invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill. They are suitably astonished, and often annoyed. But I point out that even a breach of contract requires a judicial remedy; and if the breacher will not pay damages, the sheriff will sequester his house and goods; and if he resists the forced sale of his property, the sheriff might have to shoot him."

But isn't car insurance compulsory? Never heard anyone complaining about that and its been around for much longer. And as for ' a small amendment to the existing law, and failure to comply could become a crime in which the ultimate punishment is death' is pure hyperbole. That could apply to any law could it not?

 

[wineguy999]

But isn't car insurance compulsory? Never heard anyone complaining about that and its been around for much longer.

True, but isn't the point to protect others in the event of an at-fault accident?

ACA must be there to protect us from ourselves. :lol:

 

[ElQueso]

But don't they have collective responsibility for the decision, or can dissenters claim it is a illegitimate decision because they voted against it? The court made the decision with him in it. Or is collective responsibility a foreign concept in the USA?

Collective responsibility also known as collective guilt is a concept in which individuals are responsible for other people's actions by tolerating, ignoring, or harboring them, without actively collaborating in these actions.

A quick definition of collective responsibility. Are you trying to tell me that someone is responsible for the actions of others, even when they have stated they are wrong and have done all they can to repudiate actions for which they do not agree?

"Dissenting Opinion" actually should say everything about whether or not Scalia had any part in a collective responsibility, considering he voted against it and wrote the dissenting opinion, which as a SC judge was all he could actually do. I'd say the conservatives who voted to allow the law to stand absolutely have a collective responsibility for having taken one more step to making the US Constitution an irrelevant document, as so many people would like.

Maybe Collective Responsibility is just another "meme" that people throw around carelessly in Ireland?

 

[ElQueso]

But isn't car insurance compulsory? Never heard anyone complaining about that and its been around for much longer. And as for ' a small amendment to the existing law, and failure to comply could become a crime in which the ultimate punishment is death' is pure hyperbole. That could apply to any law could it not?

It is a privilege to drive a car. Car insurance is not mandatory if you are not going to drive a car.

Are you now saying that life is a privilege granted by the government? Personally, I don't have much of a choice but to live and to think that I have to pay insurance while I'm alive is a bit of a bummer.

 

[StevePalermo]

A quick definition of collective responsibility. Are you trying to tell me that someone is responsible for the actions of others, even when they have stated they are wrong and have done all they can to repudiate actions for which they do not agree?

"Dissenting Opinion" actually should say everything about whether or not Scalia had any part in a collective responsibility, considering he voted against it and wrote the dissenting opinion, which as a SC judge was all he could actually do. I'd say the conservatives who voted to allow the law to stand absolutely have a collective responsibility for having taken one more step to making the US Constitution an irrelevant document, as so many people would like.

Maybe Collective Responsibility is just another "meme" that people throw around carelessly in Ireland?

I was thinking of this " collective responsibility is a constitutional convention in governments using the Westminster System that members of the cabinet must publicly support all governmental decisions made in Cabinet, even if they do not privately agree with them." A different approach of course.

 

[camberiu]

And as for ' a small amendment to the existing law, and failure to comply could become a crime in which the ultimate punishment is death' is pure hyperbole. That could apply to any law could it not?

It is not a hyperbole. Laws are enforced with force, deadly force. And yes, any law. Just ask the family of Eric Gardner, who was killed by police for selling lose untaxed cigarettes in the streets of NYC. That is the whole point of the argument of "don't pass laws that you are not willing to kill to enforce". Because that is what the state does: it enforces laws with deadly force if needed.
And we have passed many laws that are not worth killing to enforce, and people are dying because of them.

 

[StevePalermo]

It is a privilege to drive a car. Car insurance is not mandatory if you are not going to drive a car.

Are you now saying that life is a privilege granted by the government? Personally, I don't have much of a choice but to live and to think that I have to pay insurance while I'm alive is a bit of a bummer.

With the almost total lack of public transport in many parts of the USA its extremely difficult to get by without a car. Or would it be OK to walk 21 miles to and from work everyday! http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/03/detroit-man-walking-commute-funds-raised/22788543/

And no, I'm not saying that life is a privilege granted by the government. I don't know where you got that from! but what was happening was that when people couldn't afford or were denied health insurance they would just turn up at the ER room for treatment. Surely its economically more efficient that people have insurance?

I don't think we're going to agree on anything here. I've tried before with libertarians and it just doesn't work.. we don't have any common premise. But I'd be very happy to buy you a drink when I'm back next year!

 

[StevePalermo]

It is not a hyperbole. Laws are enforced with force, deadly force. And yes, any law. Just ask the family of Eric Gardner, who was killed by police for selling lose untaxed cigarettes in the streets of NYC. That is the whole point of the argument of "don't pass laws that you are not willing to kill to enforce". Because that is what the state does: it enforces laws with deadly force if needed.
And we have passed many laws that are not worth killing to enforce, and people are dying because of them.

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Your previous quote "All it takes now is a small amendment to the existing law, and failure to comply could become a crime in which the ultimate punishment is death".[/background]

But the killers of Eric Gardner are under investigation, it was a murder not a justifiable killing. At least I hope that's what they find. Are you saying that there should be no laws because all it needs is a few extra words and the state can start killing the citizens with impunity?

 

[ElQueso]

Or to non-libertarians/ideologues she could push it into something even better! Of course the state is good at violence, but gun owners kill more people in the USA than the state surely, or did I miss something? And to gain access to health care when it had been denied to me before is the kind of oppression that I can cope with thanks. My life and health is more important to me than adhering to some libertarian principle.

One study after a quick search on the internet shows that since WWII, the US has killed between 20 and 30 million humans.

https://www.sott.net/article/273517-Study-US-regime-has-killed-20-30-million-people-since-World-War-Two

From 1968 to 2014, approximately 1.5 million Americans have died from gun deaths (got this from a site who quoted CDC numbers from this link http://wonder.cdc.gov/mortSQL.html). This was quick searching - but I doubt that some 18.5 million Americans, or more, were killed by gun violence in the US from 1946 to 1967. I could be wrong.

I did a real quick average, BTW, on automobile deaths in the US since 1968 (to compare with gun deaths fo the same period) and came up with roughly 1.84 million deaths. Wow - more than gun deaths! Are you ready to outlaw automobiles?

I'm glad to know that you find your life more important to you than libertarian principles. Considering you're not a Libertarian (or you wouldn't be arguing any of this without letting us know you are merely playing Devil's Advocate) that's a bit ingenuous of you to have said that, unless you meant that if you were a Libertarian you would rather have your life and health before your principles. That also makes me wonder if you feel as heavily about your own principles, at least where life and health are concerned. To be fair, I don't know how far my principles stretch when faced with death or poor health, as I've been blessed with life and health so far (or really, I have merely been lucky since I don't believe in a supreme being who created me and cares whether or not I have life and health.).

But your statement about preferring to gain access to health care when it has been denied to you is not a logical extension of the ACA being created. First, what about all the people who were knocked out of having health care as a result? Does that not matter to your principles? And who said there were people without access to health care? That really cracks me up. Hospitals can't refuse anyone in the US. People that have had problems as a result of this are rare and are held up as the "poster children" for pushing crappy legislation like ACA. Or do you believe that only conservatives are capable of incorrect propaganda? And do you think making health care more expensive to have (except for those who now get it for free, and are still not paying taxes though everyone else has to) will somehow magically make it the same for everyone?

What the ACA put forth was not better than what was there. It didn't help to fix anything. I think what was there before was horrible, but what is there now is worse. What it did was put another layer of stupidity on top of existing stupidity and evil politicians have something to show their constituents, who love ideas but not reality, so they can keep being elected.

I can understand people wanting a universal health care system. I can understand wanting everyone to have the same level of health care. ACA isn't that. That's the biggest problem, as a citizen of the US, that I have with ACA and how it was passed and what it actually does (or doesn't do, as the case may be). It was rammed through Congress without real discussion, in a time when the Democrats pretty much controlled Congress. It was a political stunt that screwed more people than it helped.

It certainly is not even a step in the direction of universal health care and anyone who thinks so is extremely naive at best.

 

[ElQueso]

With the almost total lack of public transport in many parts of the USA its extremely difficult to get by without a car. Or would it be OK to walk 21 miles to and from work everyday! http://www.usatoday....aised/22788543/

And no, I'm not saying that life is a privilege granted by the government. I don't know where you got that from! but what was happening was that when people couldn't afford or were denied health insurance they would just turn up at the ER room for treatment. Surely its economically more efficient that people have insurance?

I don't think we're going to agree on anything here. I've tried before with libertarians and it just doesn't work.. we don't have any common premise. But I'd be very happy to buy you a drink when I'm back next year!

I come from a city (Houston) where things are not easy without a car, but certainly not impossible. There were city buses that came way the hell out to the suburbs. good, clean buses that a lot of people used. We had ride share programs as well. It is not impossible to exist in Houston without a car, though not fun for sure. People could buy motor scooters that don't require insurance if they didn't want to pay for insurance. Or even a motorcycle and pay very, very little insurance. Worst case scenario, get a bicycle. I've ridden to work on a bicycle for 7 miles at one point in my life. Also, no one says you have to live so far from where you work.

Of course we have a different take on things. Or, we're supposed anyway. Our country started off ruggedly independent. Our Declaration of Independence claimed all men were created equal, and that all men have a right to pursue happiness. Nowhere did the founders say that the US government was there to guarantee happiness, not even in the Constitution.

For my part, I believe that car insurance should absolutely not be required. That if someone damages someone else's property they should pay for it.

But I was pointing out that the comparison of car insurance being required by the government to health insurance being required by the government isn't anywhere near the same thing. I was being facetious about saying that life was a privilege granted by the government because as such, it was the only way that you could compare the requirement to own health insurance with the requirement to own car insurance.