Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (12167)	12/9/2009 12:23:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

That seems a pretty big stretch to me. Can you back that notion up? What happens when you violate a law that is enforced strongly (meaning one where they aren't going to let you slide)? They impose a criminal penalty on you. What happens if you resist that penalty? Neither does anyone passing a law that requires a fine for inaction. False. If someone doesn't have accounts that can be seized, and won't pay the fine, they either drop it (unlikely, but it could happen, and if it does than the law is not "enforced strongly"), or they seize property to pay it (possibly with deadly force if its resisted), or they arrest the person who doesn't pay (again possibly with deadly force). Sure, there are always some nuts out there but you can't design laws around nuts. I didn't say or imply they should design it around nuts, but they know the "nuts" are out there. The possibility is far more reasonably anticipated than the nagging leading to bank robbery case. If you look beyond each specific law, and rather to a large series of continued encroachment of individual liberty eventually it becomes almost certain that there will be some reaction along those lines, and in fact there has been cases of something along those lines happening. Further, no one expects this law to be enforced strongly, I don't think. Well I suppose they might not go so far as say Ruby Ridge.

To: Lane3 who wrote (12167)	12/9/2009 12:46:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

And it really isn't even about the "nuts" or the nuts, as it is about the fact that any imposition of government control contains within it the idea of enforcement. Its not "some nut might go crazy and resist", its "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington -- Its the fact that people will sometimes respond forcefully to force and control and doing so isn't initiating force, imposing the control is. Edit - Not that I'd support using force to respond to force in this situation, doing so is foolish, and likely to only have negative consequences for all involved.