3 ms·

Slavery was also considered above-board at one point, so... lets not use that as justification, shall we? carrying private service X is required for you to ex

Slavery was also considered above-board at one point, so... lets not use that as justification, shall we? carrying private service X is required for you to exist in the united states. If you don't pay for X, you get fined Y as a punishment. yep, I'm sure the powers-that-be considering that above-board should be the only justification we need!

vkou 4y ago
> Slavery was also considered above-board at one point, so... It was also perfectly constitutional[0], hence the need for that 13th amendment. And that civil war thing. As it turns out, the constitution kind of sucks[0], it has a lot of problems with it. Fewer than it did in the past, but we aren't quite at the end of history just yet. You're going to need a better complaint than 'it's unconstitutional', as this is pretty verifiably constitutional. The people who have been empowered[1] by the founding fathers to determine what is, and what is not constitutional have determined that this is constitutional. It's not a matter of opinion at this point. > carrying private service X is required for you to exist in the united states. And that's nothing new. Government can compel all sorts of things from you. Showing up to contribute your labour to a jury duty. Involuntary servitude in the military. Taxing the land you live on. Following emergency orders. Not heading a communist political movement. Every society - even this society - provides you with privileges, and requires obligations from you. This obligation has been ruled to be well within the legal framework of this society, and if you think it should be outside that legal framework, you should look into passing a constitutional amendment on the subject. Or, you could believe that this obligation is a constitutional, but bad idea, and have the legislature repeal it. Either way, it's currently constitutional. [0] [0] You're confusing 'constitutional' with 'just'. They are not the same thing. [1] Actually, SCOTUS' powers in this sphere are what's unconstitutional[2], but we all close our eyes, and collectively pretend that they are. [2] You're not going to find anything in either the constitution, or passed legislature granting SCOTUS the incredibly broad powers it currently enjoys. These powers were invented out of thin air, and are backed by neither fiat, nor democratic will. All that the constitution says on the subject is 'We should, like, probably have courts. That should do stuff, maybe.'
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  stop tilting at windmills, the question is whether or not the government can force you to pay for a __PRIVATE__ service just for __EXISTING__ within the borders of the US. There is __NO PRECEDENT__ for this. The closest you can get are things like car insurance where you're required to carry insurance in order to drive on US roads. You can choose not to drive, you cannot choose to "not exist". That puts this into an entirely different category. The fact that it originally got rationalized as a tax opens a whole different can of worms. Good luck refusing to pay taxes.
  - vkou 4y ago
    I'm entirely willing to accept that it's a bad law (It is, for multiple reasons - unfortunately, the situation without it is even worse), I'm simply drawing the line at claims that it's an illegal law (It's not, it's been pretty thoroughly litigated).
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      I said unconstitutional, not illegal.

vkou 4y ago

> Slavery was also considered above-board at one point, so... It was also perfectly constitutional[0], hence the need for that 13th amendment. And that civil war thing. As it turns out, the constitution kind of sucks[0], it has a lot of problems with it. Fewer than it did in the past, but we aren't quite at the end of history just yet. You're going to need a better complaint than 'it's unconstitutional', as this is pretty verifiably constitutional. The people who have been empowered[1] by the founding fathers to determine what is, and what is not constitutional have determined that this is constitutional. It's not a matter of opinion at this point. > carrying private service X is required for you to exist in the united states. And that's nothing new. Government can compel all sorts of things from you. Showing up to contribute your labour to a jury duty. Involuntary servitude in the military. Taxing the land you live on. Following emergency orders. Not heading a communist political movement. Every society - even this society - provides you with privileges, and requires obligations from you. This obligation has been ruled to be well within the legal framework of this society, and if you think it should be outside that legal framework, you should look into passing a constitutional amendment on the subject. Or, you could believe that this obligation is a constitutional, but bad idea, and have the legislature repeal it. Either way, it's currently constitutional. [0] [0] You're confusing 'constitutional' with 'just'. They are not the same thing. [1] Actually, SCOTUS' powers in this sphere are what's unconstitutional[2], but we all close our eyes, and collectively pretend that they are. [2] You're not going to find anything in either the constitution, or passed legislature granting SCOTUS the incredibly broad powers it currently enjoys. These powers were invented out of thin air, and are backed by neither fiat, nor democratic will. All that the constitution says on the subject is 'We should, like, probably have courts. That should do stuff, maybe.'

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
stop tilting at windmills, the question is whether or not the government can force you to pay for a __PRIVATE__ service just for __EXISTING__ within the borders of the US. There is __NO PRECEDENT__ for this. The closest you can get are things like car insurance where you're required to carry insurance in order to drive on US roads. You can choose not to drive, you cannot choose to "not exist". That puts this into an entirely different category. The fact that it originally got rationalized as a tax opens a whole different can of worms. Good luck refusing to pay taxes.
- vkou 4y ago
  I'm entirely willing to accept that it's a bad law (It is, for multiple reasons - unfortunately, the situation without it is even worse), I'm simply drawing the line at claims that it's an illegal law (It's not, it's been pretty thoroughly litigated).
  - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
    I said unconstitutional, not illegal.