Posted on 11/08/2013 7:15:48 AM PST by The Firewall
“The Affordable Care Act” represents more than just an unprecedented declaration of state power: It specifically draws it’s power from the abrogation of self-ownership. It directly harms The People by restricting their inalienable right to self-determination.
Obamacare is designed to inflict harm on some so others may benefit. The White House is already fighting the natural revulsion to this proposition by fostering sentiments of nationalism and “the greater good”.
You cannot tax something you do not own. Since the only way to avoid being subject to the Individual Mandate is to not occupy the human form, it effectively represents a tax on life itself. The proposition that any person or group has the authority to tax your existence is not only absurd, but dangerous. This phenomenon is known as “slavery”.
Of course these techniques and tactics are not new – just new to this generation of Americans, who lacking knowledge of history, lay defenseless in the path of socialism.
Well put. Just wish the Democrat bobbleheads understood.
The progressive model of governance is no different than Frank Perdue’s. Vast chicken factories of dupes, mindlessly whiling their days away pecking at the BS fed to them on the boob tube, ignorant of their fate but reliably producing eggs (’rat votes). Eloi to the progressive Morlocks.
Once they forget about the “Ovens” all else is a walk in the park for the ‘heads full of mush”. Teachers, students, all equally unaware of history.
Agree with the overall sentiment, but the statement “You cannot tax something you do not own.” is clear nonsense.
“Ownership” is one thing, “control” is another, the “ability to tax” is another.
Why on earth would you think they don’t?
...happily selling out the land of the free for the promise of the land of the free stuff...
Your distinction between “ownership” and “control” is arbitrary.
What practical “ownership” exists when you must pay a tax for the privilege of retaining possession?
Ownership means you can sell, rent, or hypothecate an asset with no further permission, as long as you do not exceed the police powers (eg; zoning, most typically) you should have known about when you acquired the asset, in most cases.
It is true that the state can do all those things to your asset, but for the moment, they have to insert at least one legal proceeding into the chain of events.
The statement “you can’t tax something without owning it” as written is kind of silly in my view because you cannot tax yourself for your own ownership of an asset. Well, I suppose you can, but it would be kind of meaningless.
I object to the blurring of coherent meaning. It’s like calling homosexual unions “marriages”. It’s like calling what has been done to healthcare “reform”.
“Ownership means you can sell, rent, or hypothecate an asset with no further permission”
By this definition you cannot own your home or property it’s built on. You are simply the custodian.
“It is true that the state can do all those things to your asset”
“I object to the blurring of coherent meaning”
Like the phrase “home ownership”? A phrase that lost it’s meaning decades ago, yet people believe such a thing still exists.
When another “controls” that that you possess, “ownership” as you describe is meaningless.
The real owner is the one who collects rent so that you may continue using your “possession”.
““Ownership means you can sell, rent, or hypothecate an asset with no further permission”
By this definition you cannot own your home or property it’s built on. You are simply the custodian.”
You’re right. Nobody can sell their house. Nor rent it out. It has never happened. Got it. Bye!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.