No it's not...at least in the real world.
And Jesus Said Unto Paul of Ryan ...
- Thread starter annabenedetti
- Start date
No it's not...at least in the real world.
Perhaps. Yet, your solution is in need of a practical apparatus...what do people currently in need do in the interim?
Last edited:
ClimateSanity
New member
Give to Caesar what is Caesars. To apply this verse to taxes demands that our labor or indeed the essence of us that is capable of profits is owned by the state. I refuse. I'm not a slave.
Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
ClimateSanity
New member
If authorities behave like robbers, then it is robbery. Yes. We are to submit to these robbers.
Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app
Do you not profit by the state in the manner of protected assets, infrastructure, civil rights...etc.
These are not free.
So what makes sex not rape?
Mutual consent.
What makes a job not slavery?
The necessarily one-sided awareness that it should be viewed only as a temporary stepping stone to striking out on one's own, if one is to ever really end up at "job security."
What makes a transaction not robbery?
See the second answer.
Good deal. then lower corporate taxes because they all own stock and the market rising makes them more money. Then cut high earner tax to a flat 10% and they have more money.
Then when they get too old to care for themselves they can buy a nursing home, rather than have to pay to live in one. They pay the staff, so they get whatever they want. Then they use the place as a big tax write-off.
As it is, look out now market drops!
Forced insurance in the name of " charity", through a Robin Hood type situation, is pure evil in sheep's clothing.
Sent from my RCT6303W87DK using Tapatalk
What makes that objectively true? We're forced (in the sense that a law requires us) to do all sorts of things we might be disinclined to do that work a palpable good. The Amish don't want an army. Some people want to drive 100 mph to the store for eggs. No compact can survive that though and we need one to thrive.
On taxes for anything, the truth is that all of us are in each other's pocket. The Darwinian alternative isn't arguably more moral, or moral at all.
Nothing in the United States Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights guarantees that government has responsibility to improve the condition of all citizens.
The U.S. Constitution talks of promoting general welfare and the government’s rights to levy and collect taxes in a uniform manner to accomplish it.
Heathcare has now been changed to forced “implementing” specific welfare and is a tool of acting to try and transform America into the Obama administration's Alinsky inspired ideology.
If you can't grasp that, I can't make it any clearer.
Sent from my RCT6303W87DK using Tapatalk
It does indeed.
Thanks for giving me insight into your thinking. I don't have any problem understanding it. I just don't agree with it. Good health care is like preventative maintenance. It saves you money in the long run. And the millions who lacked it were still filling emergency rooms when their conditions were less easily and inexpensively treatable. Most charitable notions serve us in the long term. One of the really curious and remarkable things about the good is how it tends to enrich in unexpected ways.
drbrumley
Well-known member
The law requires us......oh yeah, that line. The law makes no one do anything. It's just which fight one chooses to take on.
There's a liberal tax exemption on the long form, is there?
lain: That's the right wing fantasy, to be sure. The left wing fantasy is that conservatives care about two things, how much they have and how much they can keep.
As with most fantasies, they aren't realistic even if they have elements of truth to them. They tend to fall apart under anything like scrutiny the way your initial faux statistic and the assertion it was meant to support did when I asked the obvious question.
That truth. You aren't suggesting the law is mostly a well intentioned suggestion, are you?
Not sure what fight you're starting there. Let me bring you up to speed on my position. Laws are like locks. They influence essentially honest people and make the dishonest consider an easier alternative. There are laws that compel us to considerations and laws we simply agree with. Most laws serve our own interest and fall into the second category. Some inconvenience us even as we realize they serve that interest and we make choices about the extent of our abiding by them (say, speed limits on the interstate). Those choices tend to entail risk/reward and our ability to bear the consequence without endangering our relative prosperity. Some laws offend us, work contrary to what we believe is our or the right and we resist them or not, by one means or the next. For most that means using the mechanism of the law to oppose.
That's a quick thumbnail, at any rate.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Repealing Obummercare In Less Than 40 Words
Becky Akers
Thirty-eight, to be precise:
“Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.”
That trenchant knock-out comes from “U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Huntsville,” who “introduced the bill Friday.”
This paragon of few but hard-hitting words also “challenged his fellow lawmakers in Washington to sign the discharge petition that would bring the bill out of committee, where it otherwise could be left to die. Brooks’ bill has no co-sponsors at this point. ‘If the American people want to repeal Obamacare, this is their last, best chance during the 115th Congress,’ Brooks said. ‘Those Congressmen who are sincere about repealing Obamacare may prove it by signing the discharge petition.'”
Please, Freedom Caucus, support this legislation as vehemently as you rejected–and rightly–the Establishment’s sop to the insurance lobby.
Becky Akers
Thirty-eight, to be precise:
“Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.”
That trenchant knock-out comes from “U.S. Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Huntsville,” who “introduced the bill Friday.”
This paragon of few but hard-hitting words also “challenged his fellow lawmakers in Washington to sign the discharge petition that would bring the bill out of committee, where it otherwise could be left to die. Brooks’ bill has no co-sponsors at this point. ‘If the American people want to repeal Obamacare, this is their last, best chance during the 115th Congress,’ Brooks said. ‘Those Congressmen who are sincere about repealing Obamacare may prove it by signing the discharge petition.'”
Please, Freedom Caucus, support this legislation as vehemently as you rejected–and rightly–the Establishment’s sop to the insurance lobby.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Once again, you show by this post; force, and nothing of justice....
Where I'd say you meet a reasoned proffer with a bumper sticker insult which isn't an accurate reflection of anything but your bias.
Just curious in return, db, what is needed for you to consider consent given? Because in this republic the laws are enacted by representatives of the constituency they serve.