|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> mandating participation in commerce? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1451230636 Message started by DesertRat on 12/27/15 at 07:37:16 |
|
Title: mandating participation in commerce? Post by DesertRat on 12/27/15 at 07:37:16 Is it constitutional? |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by raydawg on 12/27/15 at 08:19:29 No..... It is akin to mandating a religion. Oh I am sure opposition will find lofty merits in doing so, kinda like those crusaders with sword and horse. Example: We have seen the oil industry subsidized/regulated by the government, and we have seen how they impact and control our lives by the grasp they have upon our sack. Once you allow the government into capitalism, well, its too late to become un-pregnant once you've been screwed..... However, our gubbermint will pay for its demise tho :-[ |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by Serowbot on 12/27/15 at 08:26:50 I assume you refer to Healthcare... A national Health would render the question moot... That's my preference. As it is,... it is unaffordable to the average citizen,... but you can't live without it, without being a potential burden on society. Neglecting routine, preventive care,... is essentially gambling, not only with your life, but with other people's money. Should, serous illness occur, and that is more likely than not at some point in a lifetime,... the average individual cannot afford it without some sort of assistance program... Be that private or public... Is fire or police protection "mandated commerce?... How about national security?... |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by DesertRat on 12/27/15 at 09:35:37 for the good of the whole at the expense of the individual. Are we free then? If the government can mandate participation in commerce, what is stopping them from mandating further? Why not mandate tornado insurance for those in tornado alley? Let's take it further, mandate they build all structures underground or they cannot live there! Their reckless choice is raising all of our premiums! Why not mandate flood insurance for those in flood prone areas? Let's take it further, mandate they build all structures on stilts or they cannot live there! Their reckless choice is raising all of our premiums! |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by raydawg on 12/27/15 at 09:42:14 Well bot you bought the talking points I see..... First, our fire, police, or the military is a service that the government provides. We are NOT mandated to be part of the police force, firemen, or army men. That is volunteer and has restrictions placed upon who can and can not join. Lets extend you example using your examples...... If you are not of physical abilities to provide the needed requirements to perform a task, let say as a fireman, but since it is a government program, we can not discriminate, you might put your fellow fireman AND the public you hope to serve, at risk, because your need trumps their...... sorta selfish, eh? Ok.... Lets extend that to healthcare then. Bot, you drink too much, smoke dope/cigarettes, and drive an extremely fast motorcycle. You are making me pay for your life choices and habits, because you could never afford insurance to cover your lifestyle, or you just don't want to spend money on such things. I don't want to pay for you..... Why should I? Ok....... Since I am in a certain income level, I get hammered, unlike so many politicians who decide these policies that IMPACT MY LIFE...... I will opt out and reduce my income, or hide it....darn, the law made me an OUTLAW, but if you are here illegally, as in against the law, that type of outlaw is politically ok.... go figger ::) So, my options are pay more to cover others, or just become less, and demand more. Gee, that seems sustainable, don't it.... And I didn't even get into how the government will manage "sin" in order to reduce/maintain cost to the program. You fat smoking bacon eat'n lazy do nut'n can't pass a physical the gubbermint mandates for able bodies..... ah, yes ;D BTW, my descriptor of you was in jest, and yes, we need a program that provides services to people in need of medical attention. As a kid we had clinics that provided such, that charged on a sliding scale, free being to those who could not pay. It worked great, was simple to manage. Lets focus on those who fit this need, not on everyone else. Bo told me I could keep my coverage, and it would not cost more, why did he lie bot? |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by raydawg on 12/27/15 at 09:43:54 7E5F495F484E685B4E3A0 wrote:
Or let me subsidize those liberal Malibu residents from those BIG winter waves ;D |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by Serowbot on 12/27/15 at 09:46:50 5B7A6C7A6D6B4D7E6B1F0 wrote:
Reverse that... For the good of the individual, at the expense of the whole... ..or, more realistically,... for the good of the vast majority of us, at the expense of the vast majority of us... No one chooses or wants, cancer or a heart problem... no one chooses to have their child born less than perfect... ...and,.. we do have building codes, and insurance requirements... We even have a national health,... it's just that not everyone can get it... Medicare/Medicaid... and it has the highest satisfaction rate, and lowest cost, of any insurer in the US... |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by DesertRat on 12/27/15 at 10:29:40 I do not make enough (student) to buy through the exchange. And was sent a Medicare letter giving exactly 10 hours to respond by MAIL to the attached forms, requesting more info, which I had ALREADY filled out online via the federally mandated exchange. So WTF do I do now? I'm back to square one. Paying for MY needs as they arise. As a FREE person. Yaaaa ME. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by raydawg on 12/27/15 at 11:19:14 As a FREE person What does that mean? Do you not owe an obligation to others? Are you not being selfish to think you can supply your own needs? What about others who can't? Do you fight your own fires, police your own presence against threat? And do you fight your own battles too? Do you know how self supporting is wrong? Do you know by your very thoughts and actions you are dissing victim-hood? Are you god? ;D Do you not know you ain't s'pose to be your brothers keeper, NO, but his enabler :-[ DANG.....this drywall, taping, muding, sanding is NOT fun, it makes painting seem a joy ( remodeling wife's bath, from new tile floor to skylight, and everything between ) ARG, break over >:( |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by Serowbot on 12/27/15 at 11:43:24 65766E73766070170 wrote:
I think God would make enough to buy healthcare through the exchange if he needed it... ..but,.. he's invulnerable... unlike us... Dawg,... go talk to someone at a clinic... They often employ people especially to help you navigate the exchange/ Medicare system... It confused the heck out of me,... and I found a very helpful lady to guide me through it... Now,... a real national health system would not need all this BS of qualifying and re-applying every year, or every time income changes... Everyone is just covered... period... no stress, no hassle... Better for your health... Stress is a killer... ;) |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by raydawg on 12/27/15 at 12:07:10 3A2C3B263E2B263D490 wrote:
I think God would make enough to buy healthcare through the exchange if he needed it... ..but,.. he's invulnerable... unlike us... Dawg,... go talk to someone at a clinic... They often employ people especially to help you navigate the exchange/ Medicare system... It confused the heck out of me,... and I found a very helpful lady to guide me through it... Now,... a real national health system would not need all this BS of qualifying and re-applying every year, or every time income changes... Everyone is just covered... period... no stress, no hassle... Better for your health... Stress is a killer... ;)[/quote] I can do you one better bot..... A national sales tax on all consuming. Anybody consume, you just paid into the system and are thus invested. No more write offs, nada, no more deductions, nada, no more brackets, nada, no charity, business, NOTHING.... It would be a tax that is collected at the local level, and they get their cut, then county, sate, federal..... No more to WASHINGTON THEN BACK to where its needed. It will never happen, however, even if TRUMP is elected :D BTW, I am almost there. I am gathering data presently to see how/when to collect, and how to claim my SS, and how to hang on to what little I have. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by pg on 12/27/15 at 13:51:39 697F68756D78756E1A0 wrote:
I am genuinely interested to see your remarks Bot. Who decides what is good for the individual? What would be a scenario that even you may think that the government would be overstepping their bounds? Or perhaps would it take a government mandate that you do not believe in before your rights are infringed upon. For example, legislation that would make it mandatory for everyone to own at least a 12 gauge shotgun in every home..... Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by DesertRat on 12/27/15 at 14:01:42 Is mandating participation in commerce constitutional? "Congress cannot mandate any American to engage in commerce against their will." Any other examples, besides OblamoCare, where Congress has asserted its Commerce clause authority to require the purchase of a private product? So, tell me again, are we truly FREE? What next? |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by Serowbot on 12/27/15 at 14:14:17 Scotus says it is... The Constitution empowers them to decide, as the 3rd branch of government... You may agree or disagree with their decision, but not with their Constitutional trust to make that decision... ...unless,..you don't believe in following the Constitution... You can't have it both ways... :-? |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/27/15 at 14:29:05 A majority of black robed government employees who have not demonstrated a desire to engage in intellectual honesty telling me what the Constitution says doesn't impress me. The collectivist mindset has no bounds. It's not Constitutional to tell a business owner who they must serve. Should a business owner choose to discriminate for or against any segment of society, say, open a bar and serve only midgets and women over six feet tall. His money. His risk. If the market is there, then he can profit. Few of you can even grasp the concept of freedom. Not exactly your fault, since freedom, like free enterprise, have never been seen by anyone alive here. Our Constitution was thrown out before any of u s were alive. At least the facade was still in place when prohibition was enacted. Rather than someone just Saying, That is illegal now, they Did amend the constitution. Look around. License, user fees, begging permission, keeping records to prove your innocence, and it's all NORMAL. Amazing, watching people WATCHING their rights turned into privileges, while they chant about how free they are. Go read the commerce clause. Consider the mindset of the People who wrote it. You REALLY believe that they Meant to give a centralized government such complete control? Regular, Regulate, keeping things EVEN. Not allowing any state to unfairly tax products, lay tariffs, THINK. How can anyone who has an ounce of honesty question the desire of the authors of the Constitution in the second amendment? They had to fight against tyranny. Tyrants who wanted to control the People. Unarmed People are not the Sovereign. The people are the Sovereign in America. Good grief. Just because it's become normal doesn't make it RIGHT. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by Serowbot on 12/27/15 at 14:38:49 So.. rather than having a Supreme Court to decide... You should?... or shall I?... ;D Should Obama?... or Congress?... ...or should it be a popularity contest?... one man one vote,.. decided how to interpret the Constitution... Is it only right when you agree with it?... Then,.. clearly you should be the Decider and Chief.. Personally,.. I don't think Supreme Court Justice should be a lifetime appointment... In fact,.. it might be better on a 6 month rotation or something... Nuttin' should be a lifetime appointment... that's nuts... :-? |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by pg on 12/27/15 at 14:58:38 6A7D7B7778681A0 wrote:
I am genuinely interested to see your remarks Bot. Who decides what is good for the individual? What would be a scenario that even you may think that the government would be overstepping their bounds? Or perhaps would it take a government mandate that you do not believe in before your rights are infringed upon. For example, legislation that would make it mandatory for everyone to own at least a 12 gauge shotgun in every home..... Best regards,[/quote] Not answering is a concession by omission. :-X Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by Serowbot on 12/27/15 at 15:11:54 Not when I have to argue with 4 people at the same time... I skip the absurdist questions... |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by DesertRat on 12/27/15 at 15:14:01 I just can't wrap my head around the fact that SCOTUS ruled that we must participate in commerce for a private product. Agree or not, I am NOT free, a slave, if I am forced to do anything. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by Serowbot on 12/27/15 at 15:22:29 Worse than forced to have affordable healthcare... We have been forced to die in foreign lands for the sake of money, by chicken hawk politicians with their fingers in the till..... ... kinda' makes healthcare, small potatoes... :-/ |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by DesertRat on 12/27/15 at 15:47:15 I signed up, denied, sent letter, dropped. Still I do not have "affordable healthcare". Yet I am held accountable for NOT having private insurance, under penalty of law. How is war related to forced participation in commerce? *btw, I served my country, my stepson now serves. For generations WE have served. What did we serve for, if not freedom of choice? |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by Serowbot on 12/27/15 at 16:14:35 PM'd you DRat... :-? |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/27/15 at 16:28:53 An HONEST court would be okay. There's no way to read the Constitution and come up with those answers. Unless, of course, those are the answers you Want and don't care about what the Constitution actually says. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by DesertRat on 12/27/15 at 16:46:24 Got it Bot, thanks :D |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by MnSpring on 12/27/15 at 17:06:13 “Still I do not have “affordable healthcare" “ … mandating participation in commerce?…” As in Health care, it is, MANDATED, under PENALTY H.C, IS the SAME. It is the SAME insurance, Companies, the Same Providers, The SAME Everything. The only difference is , The ONLY difference is, If you are, ‘Poor’, as to the Fed Regs, you get a a Part Of of your Premium PAID, by, EVERYONE ELSE THAT PAYS TAXES. as to the Fed Regs. If you do, NOT, ‘BUY”, Your are, ‘PUNISHED”. If you do NOT BUY, from a Company, a PRIVATE Company, “YOU are, PUNISHED” So what part of: “ mandating participation in commerce” do you NOT understand ?????? |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by DesertRat on 12/27/15 at 17:24:29 MnSpring, is it constitutional to mandate participation in commerce? |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/27/15 at 17:35:33 Now who can see that and not just wanna giggle? I do so enjoy this place. Soon as Spring gets the spittle off his monitor from that last rant, I'm sure you will get a straight up yes or no answer. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by DesertRat on 12/27/15 at 19:32:46 all is well, justin, that is why I redirected back to my OP. Hope MnSpring is okay. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by pg on 12/27/15 at 21:07:48 756264686777050 wrote:
I am genuinely interested to see your remarks Bot. Who decides what is good for the individual? What would be a scenario that even you may think that the government would be overstepping their bounds? Or perhaps would it take a government mandate that you do not believe in before your rights are infringed upon. For example, legislation that would make it mandatory for everyone to own at least a 12 gauge shotgun in every home..... Best regards,[/quote] Not answering is a concession by omission. :-X Best regards,[/quote] Regardless, it is an omission. ::) Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by raydawg on 12/28/15 at 08:25:23 756264686777050 wrote:
I am genuinely interested to see your remarks Bot. Who decides what is good for the individual? What would be a scenario that even you may think that the government would be overstepping their bounds? Or perhaps would it take a government mandate that you do not believe in before your rights are infringed upon. For example, legislation that would make it mandatory for everyone to own at least a 12 gauge shotgun in every home..... Best regards,[/quote] Not answering is a concession by omission. :-X Best regards,[/quote] Regardless, it is an omission. ::) Best regards,[/quote] Its SOP for bot ;D |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/28/15 at 10:51:28 There was a town that required citizens to own a gun. I guess if it's okay for one to outlaw them, it's just as okay to require them. I don't agree with either position. Though, just as I believe it's smart to wear a seat belt, I believe it is smart to be armed. And, again, the government has no right to decide for me. I can hear the shrieking. But, YOU choosing to Not wear a seatbelt exposes Society to losses and costs, so you Must wear it. Okay, maybe that's true. Maybe My irresponsible behavior Does expose society to costs. Was there a time when that wasn't true? Was there a time when , if I was foolish and got hurt, that only I and maybe family and friends were impacted? Let's talk about this. Because THIS is leading toward a concept. Freedom. And the personal responsibility that is inexorably attached to it. You believe in the individual being responsible to the community? Then you believe in the individual being able to protect himself. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by raydawg on 12/28/15 at 11:34:43 JOG..... Here is an exchange from one of my all time favorite movies. If you are not familiar with the movie " As Good as it Gets" then I will briefly set the scene. Jack Nicholson ( Melvin) is an author, and by this woman's question she queries him as to how he captures a woman's perspective so aptly. Receptionist: I can't resist! You usually move through here so quickly and I just have so many questions I want to ask you. You have no idea what your work means to me. Melvin Udall: What does it mean to you? Receptionist: [stands up] When somebody out there knows what it's like... [place one hand on her forehead and the other over her heart] Receptionist: ... to be in here. Melvin Udall: Oh God, this is like a nightmare. [Turns around and presses the elevator button multiple times] Receptionist: Oh come on! Just a couple of questions. How hard is that? [Scampers up to Melvin] Receptionist: How do you write women so well? Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability. JOG, I would suggest this is also explain how liberals think too ;D |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by Serowbot on 12/28/15 at 11:35:27 322D2B2C31360737073F2D216A580 wrote:
Not on my bike... :-? |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by LostArtist on 12/28/15 at 12:43:30 002137213630162530440 wrote:
if it's not, how do you justify paying for food, water and shelter? These are all things that ARE PAID for, maybe not by the poor person using them, but someone PAID for them for someone else to use. in capitalism, everything is commerce and participation in commerce IS MANDATED by capitalism |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by Dane Allen on 12/28/15 at 13:49:53 052432243335132035410 wrote:
It is completely unconstitutional and we are not a free people any longer. Socialism is the Trojan horse that is putting us further into chains. And, yes, there is a much further fall, we are no where near rock bottom. Our Stalin is out there, probably in a University right now. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by Dane Allen on 12/28/15 at 13:53:54 092A36310437312C3631450 wrote:
if it's not, how do you justify paying for food, water and shelter? These are all things that ARE PAID for, maybe not by the poor person using them, but someone PAID for them for someone else to use. in capitalism, everything is commerce and participation in commerce IS MANDATED by capitalism [/quote] I think you are confusing Commerce with Economics in part of that statement but absolutely nothing is mandated by capitalism with regard to commerce. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by LostArtist on 12/28/15 at 15:09:52 00252A21052828212A440 wrote:
if it's not, how do you justify paying for food, water and shelter? These are all things that ARE PAID for, maybe not by the poor person using them, but someone PAID for them for someone else to use. in capitalism, everything is commerce and participation in commerce IS MANDATED by capitalism [/quote] I think you are confusing Commerce with Economics in part of that statement but absolutely nothing is mandated by capitalism with regard to commerce.[/quote] no, it is, capitalism places monetary values on EVERYTHING, food is not a right, it's a commodity to be sold, shelter is not a right, it is a commodity to be sold, even water is not a right, it is a commodity to be sold. Luckily capitalists haven't figured out how to make air into a commodity quite yet. in our capitalist society, you are required to BUY food, to BUY shelter, to BUY water. everything has a cost to it at some point and someone is paying it via COMMERCE. even your very birth is capitalized on. nothing is FREE. now if you want, I guess you can drop out of society as much as possible and be a bum and catch your own food, fishing or however. skin your catches and make your own clothing and stuff, (the Amish and maybe some Native American societies do this) but in general, in our society, yes, commerce is mandated by strong societal norms, not laws. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by Serowbot on 12/28/15 at 15:40:05 As I said before,.. if that's a problem for you, we can fix it by socializing it... All it takes is an expansion of Medicare to cover everyone... See how easy that was?.... ;D |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by LostArtist on 12/28/15 at 17:02:36 .? |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by MnSpring on 12/28/15 at 17:02:38 " ... is it constitutional to mandate participation in commerce? ..." I believe not. Who decides what is good for the individual? A rabbit goes into a Fox Den. Who decides what’s for Lunch ? A Town Board, (or the like), in Syria. Who decides what clothing Women should wear ? A State Legislation, ( who know nothing about current firearm laws, never purchased a firearm, never used a firearm, are afraid of a firearm). Who decides what the Laws about Firearms should be ? A Federal Legislation, (who knows Nothing about Health Care, Never paid a premium out of pocket). Who decides what H.A. should be for the individual ? The Pendulum, has swung to far the other way. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by MnSpring on 12/28/15 at 17:19:22 Oh, and: “ … paying for food, water and shelter? …” A person does not, HAVE, to pay for those thing. Many people, ‘Choose’, by mater of convince. They don’t HAVE to ! So much the same as a Car/Truck. Some people say, a person, HAS TO, have a D.L. and register the car, and get License tabs each year. Wrong. a 12 year old, CAN, Buy a car/truck. And if that car/truck is used on private property. ANYBODY, can drive it, use it, own it, and NOT get a Lic for it. ANYBODY. If, you want to use that on a, ‘Public’, road. A different story. But again, you don’t HAVE to ! Unless you want to go from point A to point B. (In a car/truck), which travels over Public Roads, (which many people do, for sake of convince). BUT, you do NOT, ‘HAVE’ to, if you walk, use a bicycle, or use a horse & buggy. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/28/15 at 17:55:38 62415D5A6F5C5A475D5A2E0 wrote:
if it's not, how do you justify paying for food, water and shelter? These are all things that ARE PAID for, maybe not by the poor person using them, but someone PAID for them for someone else to use. in capitalism, everything is commerce and participation in commerce IS MANDATED by capitalism [/quote] I think you are confusing Commerce with Economics in part of that statement but absolutely nothing is mandated by capitalism with regard to commerce.[/quote] no, it is, capitalism places monetary values on EVERYTHING, food is not a right, it's a commodity to be sold, shelter is not a right, it is a commodity to be sold, even water is not a right, it is a commodity to be sold. Luckily capitalists haven't figured out how to make air into a commodity quite yet. in our capitalist society, you are required to BUY food, to BUY shelter, to BUY water. everything has a cost to it at some point and someone is paying it via COMMERCE. even your very birth is capitalized on. nothing is FREE. now if you want, I guess you can drop out of society as much as possible and be a bum and catch your own food, fishing or however. skin your catches and make your own clothing and stuff, (the Amish and maybe some Native American societies do this) but in general, in our society, yes, commerce is mandated by strong societal norms, not laws.[/quote] The government isn't Mandating that you buy anything. It's your choice. You don't Have to Buy food. You can raise your own, be a hunter/gatherer, beggar or thief. The obvious disdain for capitalism is gut wrenching. Would it be wrong of me to believe that You don't want to work for free? Or do you believe that everyone should be fed, clothed,housed, cared for medically equally, regardless of what jobs they perform? Do you believe in merit ? Are outcomes for everyone supposed to be equal? Does the idea of entrepreneurship and wealth creation do anything for you? Do you understand that wealth creation by one individual does not take from anyone else? I have time. Please, answer each question. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by raydawg on 12/28/15 at 19:11:44 JOG...... Life should be fair. Its only their attempt at making it fair for all. They care more than you do. Everyone deserves a chance and the pursuit of happiness. One should not be born with an advantage, or have access to a better life because they were born to better circumstance. We have seen how we must consider feelings, over results, and no longer keep score in some children sport games. We must not consider gender either, access to all, equally. I am waiting for this reasoning to extend to the NBA. We need to have quotas that echo our population, as it is not fair height challenged folk like bot, will never be able to overcome his born shortcomings, and afford the trappings and chicks NBA players get to have..... This is wrong >:( To use the excuse these BIG guys create more wealth, and are therefor entitled to share in with that windfall, well heck, it ain't american ;D |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by LostArtist on 12/28/15 at 20:00:19 57484E4954536252625A48440F3D0 wrote:
if it's not, how do you justify paying for food, water and shelter? These are all things that ARE PAID for, maybe not by the poor person using them, but someone PAID for them for someone else to use. in capitalism, everything is commerce and participation in commerce IS MANDATED by capitalism [/quote] I think you are confusing Commerce with Economics in part of that statement but absolutely nothing is mandated by capitalism with regard to commerce.[/quote] no, it is, capitalism places monetary values on EVERYTHING, food is not a right, it's a commodity to be sold, shelter is not a right, it is a commodity to be sold, even water is not a right, it is a commodity to be sold. Luckily capitalists haven't figured out how to make air into a commodity quite yet. in our capitalist society, you are required to BUY food, to BUY shelter, to BUY water. everything has a cost to it at some point and someone is paying it via COMMERCE. even your very birth is capitalized on. nothing is FREE. now if you want, I guess you can drop out of society as much as possible and be a bum and catch your own food, fishing or however. skin your catches and make your own clothing and stuff, (the Amish and maybe some Native American societies do this) but in general, in our society, yes, commerce is mandated by strong societal norms, not laws.[/quote] The government isn't Mandating that you buy anything. It's your choice. You don't Have to Buy food. You can raise your own, be a hunter/gatherer, beggar or thief. You can't raise your own without paying someone something for land and the resources needed to raise your own. Yes you can be a hunter gatherer, but at some point you are going to have to buy something to use for your gathering or your hunting. beggars and thieves are still CONSUMING something that has value, they are taking part in commerce, raising prices by stealing and increasing the cost of protection of goods to market or protection of goods at home, or the cost to jail them, etc. there is a COST to their activities which will be reflected in the marketplace, meaning the REST of us will pay for it so those activities force us all to pay for that commerce. The obvious disdain for capitalism is gut wrenching. I don't disdain capitalism, I just understand that capitalism isn't all sprinkles and unicorns and rainbow farts, it's not capitalism that I disdain, it's the worst of the worst kinds of GREED that abuse capitalism Would it be wrong of me to believe that You don't want to work for free? this is irrelevant, working for free isn't an option, it doesn't matter if I want to or not, capitalism DEMANDS that I get paid, capitalism mandates that a value be placed on my labor, I only get to choose what kind of labor I do, I only want to be paid because things cost money, things like rent and food and entertainment I would love to be creative and add to society as a productive member without being BRIBED to do so Or do you believe that everyone should be fed, clothed,housed, cared for medically equally, regardless of what jobs they perform? you think that people should just die? allowed to starve, go naked and allowed to die of disease UNLESS they add value to your view of society? if so, you believe that human life has no innate value and are an evil person now can people upgrade their healthcare and lifestyle? yes of course, but there should be some basic level of those things for everyone Do you believe in merit ? Yes, what the hell does that have to do with mandating commerce? Are outcomes for everyone supposed to be equal? no, I'm not arguing that ANYWHERE HERE, quit bringing YOUR BIAS that you think I'm saying and listen to what I'M ACTUALLY SAYING Does the idea of entrepreneurship and wealth creation do anything for you? No, not really, I'm not motivated by money, sorry, just doesn't work for me. I'm motivated by problem solving and the problem itself, sometimes that problem is money, as in how to get it to pay the rent, food, etc... you know FORCED commerce so I got a job that solves those problems Do you understand that wealth creation by one individual does not take from anyone else? Yes, again, I'm not arguing anything for or against that here, that AGAIN HAS NOTHING to do with forced commerce. I have time. Please, answer each question. [/quote] the question of this thread is "Mandating participation in commerce?" and simply, Capitalism mandates participation in commerce. without participation in commerce Capitalism FAILS. We live in a capitalist society, which is awesome, I engage happily in capitalism to the best of my judgment and ability. But I'm not idiotic enough to think that capitalism is all sprinkles and unicorns, it has it's bad side, mainly the golden rule "those that have the gold MAKE THE RULES" but currently it's the best system in the world and as far as I can tell it has the best chance to solve many of humanity's problems if it's guided by moral principles, it's the erosion of those principles that's the problem. and lets be clear here, especially about healthcare, those of us who have been buying health insurance have ALWAYS been forced into commerce to pay for those who have not been buying health insurance. OUR PREMIUMS go up when emergency room visits go up and doctors and other healthcare assets go unpaid by those that don't have health insurance and USE healthcare. Those that had/have the gold set it up that way a long time ago. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by LostArtist on 12/28/15 at 20:04:09 0E2F392F383E182B3E4A0 wrote:
except that it's not a PRIVATE product. INSURANCE is a publicly held commodity, those of us that buy it actually end up paying for those in the public that don't buy it but use it anyway. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/28/15 at 20:08:21 The communal system failed because it treated the older and wiser the same way as the young and brash. It failed because it rewarded the less productive as much as the more productive. It failed because members of the community found that they could do less and still get the same benefit. All of these problems arose in a very religious community in which gluttony and laziness were considered sins and drunkenness was rare. How much more would communism fail in a larger society where such problems are rampant! By returning to a system in which the older and wiser are respected, and by reorganizing so that one’s benefit was directly tied to his production, the Pilgrims ensured the survival of their colony. Governor Bradford, however, ultimately attributes the failure of the “common cause” to something much deeper: Upon the point all being to have alike and to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them. Governor Bradford is basically saying that communism failed because of the corrupt nature of humans. People are imperfect and sinful. The utopia Marx and Lenin dreamed of could only work if it were filled with perfect people- and no such infallible people can be found in this world. Furthermore, the communal system undermines the relations God instituted among men- marriage and family. With husbands growing food for other people’s children, wives washing other men’s clothes, and children doing chores for other families, the basic foundational social unit of society is undermined. Without that, no society can hope to survive. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1285981/posts So many are confused about capitalism, having never actually seen it. I understand. All anyone here has seen is a shadow of it. Crony capitalism, though the very strong and enterprising have been able to achieve beyond the norm. Well, they, and the crony capitalists, the well connected. Lost Artist, did you not read one of the many times I described how my grandfather went from having leased a thirteen stool snack bar to buying a country store with gas pumps and a feed store and bait and tackle? Try that today. He added on to his house, had gutters installed, and in the sixties, that was a big deal, he upgraded the vehicles, and Saved Money while doing it. Thanks to the government, You Can't. You and the majority of the people here are unable to understand what the Fed is and how it has affected OUR lives. The same power that runs IT runs the other fractional reserve, debt based, currency systems. Go LOOK at the countries on General Wesley Clark s list. Note that the recent countries that needed Democracy spread were on the list. How exactly does that get explained? I have no idea what kinda artist you might be, but Lost doesn't Have to be a part of your self image. Understanding what is happening isn't that hard, BUT, it can't be done through agenda driven eyes. We MUST,First, lay down all we think we know, and Look for the TRUTH. Think about what the authors of the Constitution had been through. Why was there a Declaration of Independence? What HAPPENED? Don't rely on what you were Taught. THINK. Don't BE what someone suggested. Think. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by LostArtist on 12/28/15 at 20:26:56 736C6A6D70774676467E6C602B190 wrote:
That's one case where GREED actually worked for good. The greed of the Americans vs the greed of the British. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by pg on 12/28/15 at 20:49:50 Milton Friedman on Capitalism vs: Socialism 2.5 min clip [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A[/media] 45 min clip [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHPI1emZFVg[/media] Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/28/15 at 22:00:53 You point out ANY idea where mankind is involved and show me where GREED can't be a factor. I WORKED for what I got. I didn't steal it or screw someone out of it. What is more greedy, capitalism, earning ones Own way, or Communism, living either carrying a parasitic burden or being the burden? Choose to fail to grasp the points. Don't let anything challenge what you need to believe. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by WebsterMark on 12/29/15 at 05:35:26 Lost, Jog is correct, for the most part. Note: I've pointed this out to Jog before, holding on to some outlandish conspiracy theories that are easily proven false means it's far to easy to dismiss some of his, dare I say, more brilliant post. Greed, in context, is good. All of us benefit from greed and our greed delivers benefits to others. Small and emerging business still succeeds today as it did 100 years ago. The battle field is different and the weapons confronted have changed, but the basic concept of war remains. It's not easy, you have to either be extremely lucky, extremely talented, work extremely hard or some combination of the three in order to compete. Example: Anheuser Busch (InBev) bought up yet another small craft beer brewer in Colorado last week and the usual stuff was written how the little guys don't stand a chance. I assume you would be one saying that also. But I see that the original owners made millions. Just exactly how did they "lose" in this deal? AB/InBev is greedy, they want this small brewers customers. If AB doesn't continue to provide product to meet demand, some other small brewer out there working his a$$ off will see his sales grow. The Invisible Hand remains busy. What you're talking about is intervention that prevents winners from succeeding and props losers up. That's ObamaCare. Goverment is inserting itself in a marketplace and using it's legislative power to remove greed from the equation. We will all suffer as a result, our friend and ObamaCare lover Sew will too, if he lives long enough. He very well may face a Sarah Palin death panel if he's deemed too old and not worthy of investing money in. Anyway, Greed is good. You and I benefit from it every single day. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by HovisPresley on 12/29/15 at 05:54:19 487A7D6C6B7A6D527E6D741F0 wrote:
................................................... Is this 'pick-and-chose' Christianity? |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by raydawg on 12/29/15 at 08:11:51 My verse of the day: For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. —James 3:16 Using context as reasoning, then brings it under this passage in Corinthians: All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify. Or another way to say it: We are free to do all things, but there are things which it is not wise to do. We are free to do all things, but not all things are for the common good. You saw what Jesus did with enterprising folk, when he turned over their tables. Wasn't often you saw such action from him. Must be a reason, eh? I think I understand what LostA was alluring to. He was stating in order for capitalism to be successful, mandating participation (advertising, etc) is needed, or it will fail because it can not generate income. Yes, it is volunteer participation (on our part), as opposed to forced through a governments decree, however, their are exceptions, like public utilities, trade licensing, transportation, etc, where it seeps into the private sector. To use a "hermit" excuse to opt out is stretching reality to almost fantasy. The problem with Obamacare is that it is FORCING those who had coverage, and were told they could keep it without impact from his desires..... To cover those who don't have it, OR...... As many have/had, choose to not buy it, at this stage of their lives. It should have focused solely on the problem of getting coverage to those who want it, but can't afford it, AFTER they have given up spending their money on vices and folly, first. If I am to "donate " to a cause, I want some say over what my money does then, and I don't want it to go to able bodies who in all reality just need to man up, and become productive citizen of our society for the COMMON GOOD of all of us! Generations of/on government programs is NOT good use of our SHARED resources, no! It causes RESENTMENTS which will only tear a society apart. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by raydawg on 12/29/15 at 08:12:47 61465F405A795B4C5A454C50290 wrote:
................................................... Is this 'pick-and-chose' Christianity? [/quote] Seems so ;D |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by raydawg on 12/29/15 at 08:25:51 Here..... I posted this cartoon on another thread. This really exemplifies how capitalism benefits from government mandates/laws, its akin to peanut butter and jelly ;D http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm288/eddy-haskell/eddy-haskell145/funny_zpsne0tl4o9.jpg (http://s299.photobucket.com/user/eddy-haskell/media/eddy-haskell145/funny_zpsne0tl4o9.jpg.html) Do you see the look on the couples face? Do you understand why? |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by LostArtist on 12/29/15 at 09:11:30 none of you get it, it's simple, it's in front of you EVERY DAY and yet you are all so stuck with blinders on you don't get it. EVERYTHING HAS A PRICE ON IT, everything except for air, (for now) Our capitalist society mandates we all BUY stuff, we have to buy FOOD, food has a price on it, its a HUGE industry and we are all forced to buy it or have someone buy it for you, but there is a price on every food product, unless you are brave enough to do the hunting and gathering thing and more or less drop out of our society for that, the penalty for not consuming food is DEATH. I don't hear any of you complaining about being forced to buy food. I'm not complaining about it here either, just using it as an example to put out the completeness of capitalism's invasion into our lives. Also, let's be clear, I'm NOT arguing AGAINST our system, I like capitalism, it's not perfect but it's the best solution to a lot of human problems. There are definitely places where capitalists have bought and expanded their influence but that is a byproduct of the innate greed in capitalism. so while yes, sometimes greed is good, sometimes it can be bad too. the problem a lot of you guys have is you are looking to have black and white definitions of everything. Life is much, much more complicated than "capitalism good, communism bad" life is NOT BINARY on healthcare insurance, the CAPITALIST PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE companies were in HUGE favor of the ACA, especially the individual mandate part of it. They all but forced that part of the law in place. the greed of PRIVATE capitalist insurance companies had a heavy influence on the ACA, so while you all want to blame Obama for the evil individual mandate, you just seem ignorant to the fact that the individual mandate was originally a HERITAGE foundation idea the was supported first by REPUBLICAN Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, back when he was a solid republican, before the party went far right conservative as it is now. but republicans have a history of supporting this kind of "forced commerce" back to Nixon at least. according to this Forbes piece at least: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/ another important thing before I stop this for now, greed is not partisan PG, I like and agree with the first Milton Friedman clip you put up, I haven't seen the second one yet. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by pg on 12/29/15 at 09:41:39 PG, I like and agree with the first Milton Friedman clip you put up, I haven't seen the second one yet. Thanks, he was absolutely brilliant. The second clip is fantastic as well. I particularly like what he has to say between 14:45 - 17:15. If you are not interested in listening to the whole thing, at least listen to that portion. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by WebsterMark on 12/29/15 at 10:11:58 EVERYTHING HAS A PRICE ON IT, everything except for air, (for now) If that's your point, no one's arguing against it, I'm certainty not. But there's a fundamental difference between food and the health insurance mandate. Surely you see that, right? |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by raydawg on 12/29/15 at 10:31:53 586A6D7C7B6A7D426E7D640F0 wrote:
Uh Web, less you forget about global warming? Air is TAXED with carbon offsets :o |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by WebsterMark on 12/29/15 at 10:40:50 I am in the air business. If air doesn't have a price, I can promise you it certainly has a cost. The average person eats 2 pounds of food a day, drinks 4 pounds of fluids a day but breath in 48 pounds of air a day. this is way off topic and probably deserves it's own post, but it's shocking how little attention is paid to air in manufacturing facilities. |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by raydawg on 12/29/15 at 12:09:38 586A6D7C7B6A7D426E7D640F0 wrote:
Well just to make sure the record is correct and can NOT be spun..... Bill did NOT inhale ;D |
|
Title: Re: mandating participation in commerce? Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/29/15 at 21:11:38 5675696E5B686E73696E1A0 wrote:
You understand how necessary food is. Note, there is no Law telling you how many calories you must ingest daily or what ratio of carbs to protein you Must have. Food is a necessity. Health insurance isn't. Odds Are, you're gonna need a doctor. But there's no ODDS on needing food. There's no right way for the government to mandate buying health insurance. People have gotten so far removed from the concepts that America was built on that they have lost sight of the role of government. People, WE, by design , are the Sovereign. Look it up. Understanding what that word means is Past important. It's crucial. Consider this. You own a huge home. You're rich, Trump plus rich. You have five maids, a chauffeur and limo for everyday family member, houses , not rooms, for every servant, And one day you wake up and realize that THEY are eating steak. THEY are telling You that you will be having beans and weenies, and you better be happy to have it. That's what OUR servants have done. Are you happy about it? Maybe if we give them more power over our lives, America will be great again. I'm Still just so confused! I mean, our Best and Brightest, Always out maneuvered on every trade deal. Eventually, stupid stops working as camouflage for sabotage. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |