It is time we had an interdisciplinary world. It is time we created a society where all levels of thinking and society can work together – so the individual psychologies can live together in a more
integrated society. Interdisciplinary thinking tries to promote environmentalism, capitalism, religion, heroic
individualism, and families simultaneously. Beauty, truth, and ethics are united.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Jail for Me for Being Uninsured?!?
Think my previous post was hyperbole? Well, consider this article, which points out that if I don't buy health insurance, I could get a year in jail. And if I refuse?
9 comments:
I.J.
said...
A bit. And they'd probably just taser you in front of your wife, children and neighbors. What's the big deal?
And if I choose to defend myself against what I consider to be an injustice? ANd if my wife attempts to defend me?
Here's my rule: if you're not comfortable killing someone to make them do something or prevent them from doing something, it shouldn't be law. It is one thing for a government to provide a service -- it is another thing to threaten to kill me if I don't partake of their service, or of the services of their biggest donors. That is what the Baucus bill proposes to do.
But you do realize that that is, in the end, the real choice, right? Its likelihood is irrelevant. in the end we have to realize that this is what we are advocating with all criminal laws. Are you comfortable killing someone for selling cigarettes to a minor?
I'm sorry--I just don't see how the possibility of injury or death while resisting arrest means that all laws are death threats. I "get" it, but from where I'm standing it just looks wrong.
I understand -- you get it, which means you understand it intellectually, but it "looks wrong" because in your gut you don't yet believe it. It hasn't moved from head knowledge to heart knowledge. Part of that is our refusing to believe that people in government have anything but the best of intentions. Good propaganda on their part. Nevertheless, I could be persuaded that they do have good intentions, but are merely ignorant of the consequences. The end result is the same.
Let me ask this: what is reasonable to lose one's liberty over? What is reasonable to lose one's livelihood over? To what degree are liberty and livelihood related to life? What else does a threat of liberty and livelihood amount to than a death threat to deprive you of them? What keeps a man in jail? Or enslaved? What must you do to keep a man in such conditions?
If there is a criminal law on the books, then that means that if you engage in the criminal activity, you could be fined (loss of livelihood) or jailed (loss of liberty). To pay a fine, you have to agree to the law (think of Kafka's The Trial here). To be imprisoned, you either agree to it by showing up, or they send someone to get you under threat of violence and death. You are kept in the prison under the threat of violence and death. Why else would you stay, except you were forced to remain there?
9 comments:
A bit. And they'd probably just taser you in front of your wife, children and neighbors. What's the big deal?
And if I choose to defend myself against what I consider to be an injustice? ANd if my wife attempts to defend me?
Here's my rule: if you're not comfortable killing someone to make them do something or prevent them from doing something, it shouldn't be law. It is one thing for a government to provide a service -- it is another thing to threaten to kill me if I don't partake of their service, or of the services of their biggest donors. That is what the Baucus bill proposes to do.
What about selling cigarettes to minors? Should that be legalized, or punishable by death?
But you do realize that that is, in the end, the real choice, right? Its likelihood is irrelevant.
in the end we have to realize that this is what we are advocating with all criminal laws. Are you comfortable killing someone for selling cigarettes to a minor?
I don't see it. There's either a logical leap or a logical step that I'm missing.
We were warned of this by the founders...
http://bellatorprolibertas.blogspot.com/
I'm sorry--I just don't see how the possibility of injury or death while resisting arrest means that all laws are death threats. I "get" it, but from where I'm standing it just looks wrong.
I understand -- you get it, which means you understand it intellectually, but it "looks wrong" because in your gut you don't yet believe it. It hasn't moved from head knowledge to heart knowledge. Part of that is our refusing to believe that people in government have anything but the best of intentions. Good propaganda on their part. Nevertheless, I could be persuaded that they do have good intentions, but are merely ignorant of the consequences. The end result is the same.
Let me ask this: what is reasonable to lose one's liberty over? What is reasonable to lose one's livelihood over? To what degree are liberty and livelihood related to life? What else does a threat of liberty and livelihood amount to than a death threat to deprive you of them? What keeps a man in jail? Or enslaved? What must you do to keep a man in such conditions?
If there is a criminal law on the books, then that means that if you engage in the criminal activity, you could be fined (loss of livelihood) or jailed (loss of liberty). To pay a fine, you have to agree to the law (think of Kafka's The Trial here). To be imprisoned, you either agree to it by showing up, or they send someone to get you under threat of violence and death. You are kept in the prison under the threat of violence and death. Why else would you stay, except you were forced to remain there?
That's what I thought. It still strikes me as hyperbolic, but I'll think more about it.
Post a Comment