Political Theory

Re: Constitutionality is a matter of semantics (health care)

Autolykos — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:27:40 GMT

Thanks, Daniel.

Re: Constitutionality is a matter of semantics (health care)

Daniel James Sanchez — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:18:58 GMT

http://mises.org/Community/groups/memberissues/forum/default.aspx

Re: Constitutionality is a matter of semantics (health care)

Autolykos — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:10:01 GMT

How do I get to the Member Issues forum? I don't see a link to it on the main forum page.

Re: Constitutionality is a matter of semantics (health care)

Daniel James Sanchez — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:08:36 GMT

Gentlemen, please move the drama to the member issues forum, or to private message.

Also, John, please stop being so antagonistic all the time.

Re: Constitutionality is a matter of semantics (health care)

John James — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:00:13 GMT

Autolykos:
I see that you're upping the ante, John. Go right ahead. No matter how much you up the ante, I'm not going anywhere. All I can see is you digging your hole deeper.

Not intimidated.

Re: Constitutionality is a matter of semantics (health care)

Autolykos — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:58:53 GMT

I see that you're upping the ante, John. Go right ahead. No matter how much you up the ante, I'm not going anywhere. All I can see is you digging your hole deeper.

Re: Constitutionality is a matter of semantics (health care)

John James — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:55:11 GMT

Autolykos:

What sort of effect do you expect to have on me by linking to past posts of mine? Or is this your way of telling the peanut gallery, "See, he does this all the time"? Even then, why should I care?

And just for the record, I'm certainly not trying to intimidate or bully you into silence. Maybe you should look again at the last sentence of that last post of mine you linked to.

Regardless, I don't think that outright mocking me is helping your case one bit.

Did you actually expect that to indimidate me? Well you're wrong. It won't.

Re: Constitutionality is a matter of semantics (health care)

Autolykos — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:50:17 GMT

What sort of effect do you expect to have on me by linking to past posts of mine? Or is this your way of telling the peanut gallery, "See, he does this all the time"? Even then, why should I care?

And just for the record, I'm certainly not trying to intimidate or bully you into silence. Maybe you should look again at the last sentence of that last post of mine you linked to.

Regardless, I don't think that outright mocking me is helping your case one bit.

Re: Constitutionality is a matter of semantics (health care)

John James — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:26:37 GMT

Autolykos:
Right, so where was I?

You will not intimidate me.

What are you concerned with here, John?

Not being intimidated.

That's right.

You cannot intimidate me.

As if that's going to shut me up. I would think you'd know better by now.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how definitions aren't (ever?) arbitrary.

That's not going to intimidate me.

So what are you concerned with?

Did you seriously just ask me the same question in the same post...before I would have a chance to answer?

I'm not intimidated.

But they will intimidate you, right? Or was it "won't" intimidate you? I forget.

Sure you do.

Re: Constitutionality is a matter of semantics (health care)

Michael J Green — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:58:26 GMT

To actually answer your question, Friedmanite: Yes, policy 2 is constitutional and would probably never even reach the Supreme Court. The federal government does have the authority to levy a health care tax and offer refunds for those who buy an insurance policy. The problem is that doing so means admitting that it's a tax, which would not get enough votes in Congress. Instead, the administration is trying to get the same result via the commerce clause, allowing them to claim they have not raised taxes. But just because it accomplishes the same end does not make the means constitutional.

Re: Constitutionality is a matter of semantics (health care)

Autolykos — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:00:40 GMT

Right, so where was I?

John James:
That's too bad.

So in other words, you're apparently not concerned with actually helping me to understand how those two statements must be equivalent. What are you concerned with here, John?

John James:
Oooooooo.

That's right.

John James:
Oh yeah. I forgot who I was talking to.

As if that's going to shut me up. I would think you'd know better by now.

Perhaps you'd like to explain how definitions aren't (ever?) arbitrary.

John James:
Whatever you say, chief.

My opinion has not changed. Again, it doesn't seem to me like you're concerned with changing my opinion. So what are you concerned with?

John James:
But they will intimidate you, right? Or was it "won't" intimidate you? I forget.

Sure you do.

Re: Constitutionality is a matter of semantics (health care)

scottscobig — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:40:17 GMT

Dude, you are awesome! It's all so simple, isn't it? Everyone wants money and power and freedom, etc. But relatively few understand how all of that money and power were created here in America. So they literally seek to kill the goose (the constitution) that laid the golden eggs. Just freedom; that's the answer, the solution to all of our problems.

Re: Constitutionality is a matter of semantics (health care)

John James — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:39:03 GMT

Lotta love in this forum.

Re: Constitutionality is a matter of semantics (health care)

gotlucky — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:26:24 GMT

I meant end the discussion, but I was trying to empathize with JJ, or is it sympathize? I can never remember which is which.

Re: Constitutionality is a matter of semantics (health care)

Autolykos — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 20:25:15 GMT

gotlucky:
PS I don't really mean "go away", Autolykos!

.. Then what did you mean?