Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
F3SS

What should we be mandated to buy?

63 posts in this topic

We now by federal mandate have to purchase a product from a industry or face a financial penalty. The requirement to do this is to simply be alive. There's no real choice in the matter and there are people who are ok with that because of various reasons, freedom not being one of them.

What other industries should citizens be required to prop up from their paycheck or pay a penalty for the simple act of being alive? My answer is none but the precedent has been set.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The real answer is nothing...

But some folks think it's better to "share the pain"...

To me, it is crony capitalism at it's finest example...get the gov to force the people to buy a product from a private industry...Good times if you can get that deal...

Edited by Jeremiah65
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about somebody else's post education? I don't agree with it but could see it happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How about somebody else's post education? I don't agree with it but could see it happening.

That's what I'm getting at. Arguments for the greater good can be made about anything but that doesn't mean every citizen should have to back with their money and mounds of hope for change.

Edited by F3SS
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a capitalistic society they should pay for anything they use. Sadly, I can see it being things like clean water or clean air in the not to distant future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about somebody else's post education? I don't agree with it but could see it happening.

I doubt a "college tax" would happen because then we would have kids flocking to colleges for higher education. Then the government wouldn't have as many janitors and construction workers.

Keeping the majority of the population under-educated to keep a large stock of "grunt workers" is something they probably see as a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt a "college tax" would happen because then we would have kids flocking to colleges for higher education. Then the government wouldn't have as many janitors and construction workers.

Keeping the majority of the population under-educated to keep a large stock of "grunt workers" is something they probably see as a good thing.

Universal education would result in more people wasting their time and our money than it would result in white collar workers. Point being, there'd be plenty of janitors to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about somebody else's post education? I don't agree with it but could see it happening.

As I said in the other thread, Tennessee will be funding it with lottery reserves so there will be no taxpayer money going to post education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In California, along with other states, drivers have to have insurance. Does anyone think that's a bad thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In California, along with other states, drivers have to have insurance. Does anyone think that's a bad thing?

Driving on a public road increases risk of injury to another individual.

Edited by acidhead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No right should be forced on a person. Rights are things you have that by the constitution gives you.

Privileges are not rights and could have purchasers connected to them.

Life, liberties, and happiness are rights.

Driving a car is a privilege.

Education is not a right, it is not in the bill of rights, nor is it a privilege. By giving a kid an education the whole community benefits. Forcing people to buy obamacare only benefits the elderly and the handicapped.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said in the other thread, Tennessee will be funding it with lottery reserves so there will be no taxpayer money going to post education.

Only about ten percent will be going to educàtion. Education suffers when getting funds from the lottery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our tax dollars 'buy' all sorts of things. Most of which i don't believe "WE" should be buying, and i don't want MY share spent on.

But ,, more directly on topic... I think , soon, anyone receiving all, or a subsidized portion, of their "health" care ... will be forced to have "health" exams... and mandated to take whatever drugs they are prescribed.... (for the good of $ociety as a whole) .. $ee what i mean?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In California, along with other states, drivers have to have insurance. Does anyone think that's a bad thing?

I knew someone would say it. You missed the point sir. Car insurance is a mandate attached to owning a car. This is about mandates attached to being a living breathing citizen and nothing else.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No right should be forced on a person. Rights are things you have that by the constitution gives you.

Privileges are not rights and could have purchasers connected to them.

Life, liberties, and happiness are rights.

Driving a car is a privilege.

Education is not a right, it is not in the bill of rights, nor is it a privilege. By giving a kid an education the whole community benefits. Forcing people to buy obamacare only benefits the elderly and the handicapped.

No, no, no!! The constitution does NOT give us any rights. We are born with rights. The constitution lists which rights we have decided to allow the government to have. For example: the 2nd amendment does not say "you have the right to keep and bear arms", it says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". We already have the right.

You do have a right to drive a car, it is not a privilege. What you do not have a right to do is drive said car on public roads. They are owned by the public and therefore the public gets to decided who uses them and the criteria needed to use them. Stay on private property and no license or insurance needed.

I am sad that you think the only rights we have are the ones listed in the Bill of Rights. I am sad that you think we get our rights from the government. Don't they teach the Constitution in Civics class anymore?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We now by federal mandate have to purchase a product from a industry or face a financial penalty. The requirement to do this is to simply be alive. There's no real choice in the matter and there are people who are ok with that because of various reasons, freedom not being one of them.

What other industries should citizens be required to prop up from their paycheck or pay a penalty for the simple act of being alive? My answer is none but the precedent has been set.

I agree completely!

The government has no lawful authority to compel the citizen to do business with any particular agency. It is sophistry to claim otherwise, and nobody can cite any part of the Constitution authorizing the government to do this.

That the "conservative" Justice Roberts would advance such sophistry under the guise of a 'tax' is testimony to how utterly compromised the Court is.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No right should be forced on a person. Rights are things you have that by the constitution gives you.

Privileges are not rights and could have purchasers connected to them.

Life, liberties, and happiness are rights.

Driving a car is a privilege.

Education is not a right, it is not in the bill of rights, nor is it a privilege. By giving a kid an education the whole community benefits. Forcing people to buy obamacare only benefits the elderly and the handicapped.

'Pursuit of' -Happiness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom to engage in the market.

...not be forced to pay for another individual/group engagement in the market place

Oooooh but acidhead... dontcha know we yall one big happy family!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We now by federal mandate have to purchase a product from a industry or face a financial penalty. The requirement to do this is to simply be alive. There's no real choice in the matter and there are people who are ok with that because of various reasons, freedom not being one of them.

What other industries should citizens be required to prop up from their paycheck or pay a penalty for the simple act of being alive? My answer is none but the precedent has been set.

Banks.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks.

That was settled 101 years ago on Jeckyl Island. Good point I hadn't even thought of. We are required to support the Federal Reserve, a private institution and anything but federal. What a ruse. The generations that were ticked about that have long been dead and silenced and nobody today bats an eye about it. Attrition is the way for governments today to gain power along with a content populace. If you pull a Putin you just keep people angry. If you move slowly and deal with temporary backlash, in time the greater cause will be served. The founding fathers built a real nice wall but brick by brick it can be slowly dismantled and few will notice. Knock it down all at once and everybody notices. Even if it takes another hundred years the powers that be will gladly hand their agenda to their kin so long as their quest for power is completed whether they're dead or alive.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no!! The constitution does NOT give us any rights. We are born with rights. The constitution lists which rights we have decided to allow the government to have. For example: the 2nd amendment does not say "you have the right to keep and bear arms", it says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". We already have the right.

You do have a right to drive a car, it is not a privilege. What you do not have a right to do is drive said car on public roads. They are owned by the public and therefore the public gets to decided who uses them and the criteria needed to use them. Stay on private property and no license or insurance needed.

I am sad that you think the only rights we have are the ones listed in the Bill of Rights. I am sad that you think we get our rights from the government. Don't they teach the Constitution in Civics class anymore?

your correct I should have said listed in the constitution. Public roads are listed in the constitution but not in the bill of rights same witheducation. We did oOK with education until the fed. government stepped in. I don't think we want the something to happen to college education.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew someone would say it. You missed the point sir. Car insurance is a mandate attached to owning a car. This is about mandates attached to being a living breathing citizen and nothing else.

You sure about that?

You really think there is nothing more to being a citizen of a certain nation than being "living and breathing"?

You truly think that being a citizen places no responsibility to that nation other than to "live and breathe"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure about that?

You really think there is nothing more to being a citizen of a certain nation than being "living and breathing"?

You truly think that being a citizen places no responsibility to that nation other than to "live and breathe"?

You're just trying to twist it to keep our head butting consistent but the short technical answer is yes. I could be a wandering vagabond all my life and still be a citizen.

Vagabond: a person who wanders from place to place with no home and no job

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're just trying to twist it to keep our head butting consistent but the short technical answer is yes.

No, I am making a point that a citizen is not some self-centred adolescent with no thought for anything other than him/her self.

A citizen accepts the responsibility of being a citizen, and it could be very well argued that a 'vagabond' has relinquished that responsibility and no longer deserves the privilege of citizenship - just as immigrants are expected to exhibit some level of responsibility to the State to warrant being granted citizenship.

Or do you disagree with that, and allow that any immigrant, by simply taking up residency, should be granted citizenship automatically?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As much as I don't agree with it, owning an operating a vehicle on public roads is not a "right" as outlined in the Bill or Rights. There were no cars then. Driving on public roads is a privilege. It is not necessary for life and survival. So...as much as I groan about it...I deal with having to have insurance in case I mess up and maim or kill someone.

Forcing health insurance is a different matter. This is about personal health, personal well being. This needs to be a decision of the individual.

We have discussed this before, the "young invincibles"...those say 18 to 30 that just don't get sick that often. We are asking them to pay into the till to lower the costs for the older and more unhealthy. I have heard the arguments about "what if a young person is injured in an auto accident"...well then the auto insurance covers it...my daughter just had a car accident last month and her medical expenses and doctor visits were all covered by the car insurance company.

Everyone can look at this mandate and see whatever they want to see. I see crony capitalism. I see an industry being propped up by the GOV and their profit margin guaranteed as well as guaranteeing a nice flow of capitol into the securities markets. I have an issue with this...

Edited by Jeremiah65
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.