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 (12204)	12/9/2009 5:36:43 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Laws usually aren't optional. Enforcement is expected. In the case of tax law that enforcement can be harsh. If you pass a law knowing it has an enforcement mechanism that may be used, your responsible for using it. That doesn't mean your evil for doing it, the question of being responsible for a result, and the morality of the action are two different issues. One could argue that what the people passing the law are responsible for is good, or just reasonable, or at least acceptable, or that it isn't. I'm not passing judgment on the passing of the laws at this point, only saying those who pass laws have a responsibility for the law being enforced. I don't think they can reasonably say "we just passed the law, what happens when its enforced is none of our doing", unless its enforced in a way that violates the law, or at least is clearly uncalled for in the body of existing laws after the change they made. I agree that a law that forces folds to buy insurance is wrong (but maybe not much more than many other laws that are widely accepted), but that's mostly a separate issue. Not entirely separate, since the more of a reach, or a wrong, or an unusual special action, the new law is, the more clearly the chain of responsibility holds, but still it really wasn't my point.