Replies

Wow. Thanks. I had seen that at the time, but stopped reading when the explanation became tortured enough so as to seem contrived. So I missed the two govt part. Have you run across any other articles on this subject unrelated to Obamacare?

The explanation became tortured because it traces the tortured government contrivance of the laws, and their wrongful imposition of people they don't apply to. Think about it - if you want to convict someone of laws that don't apply, and you have to publish those laws, then you have to present them in such a way that they cannot be easily found, and that seem to say something other than what they mean when they are read.

So when someone explains the reality of the law, explains what it really means, they have to follow the twists and turns of the misrepresentations, and show the actual meanings one step at a time. There is no other way - and that's what legal construction is all about.

And after all, isn't that exactly what has happened? We have an entire country of 300 million people being subject to laws that don't apply to them, and they can't understand that simple fact even when they read the law. We have people going to school for three years just to learn how to read the law, and then being sworn to silence, and making their livings by making sure their clients do not understand the law. So why should it be surprising that an explanation of this tortuous process of disinformation, created over decades, that fools hundreds of millions of people, shouldn't take a little bit of effort to understand when it is traced out?

I'm not criticizing, I'm explaining. And I commend you for sticking with it. And I understand why you would suspect it as being contrived. Because the most insidious thing about hiding the truth in the way it is hiden in the law, is that when a normal person discovers it, it seems so insane that the actual meaning is hidden in such a tortuous fashion, that it must not be true.

But it is.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

Thanks. I get it. ;-)

But I am wondering about the concept of presuming an individual is a corporation in order to apply a different set of laws. I haven't seen the concept anywhere else, and my web searches only turn up the opposite - the idea of corporations claiming to have the rights of individuals.

Have you seen the idea anywhere but in the context of Obamacare? (Thanks for sharing your knowledge. BTW, I'm sipping your account name this moment, no ice, one drop of water.)