So if the federal government passed a law?

[terrell9584]

That required every American to purchase one McDonald's hambuger per week and that they would be hitting you at tax time with a penalty if you did not provide 52 seperate receipts showing Big Mac purchases would you support or oppose such a law?


And do you think if the government passed such a law and a court sustained its legality in court challenges that it could have dangerous ramifications for personal freedom vs government power in the country?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Are people demanding that one hamburger per week is an inalienable human right in this scenario?

Is one hamburger a week essential for basic quality of life? Do people die because they can't afford one hamburger a week? Is one hamburger a week prohibitively expensive for a significant portion of the population, and the only way to lower the costs of one hamburger per week a three-legged stool plan, where everybody who can afford a hamburger per week but chooses not to do so because they think they're invincible and then has to leech off the public dole once they finally do need a hamburger has to pay for their one hamburger per week?

[terrell9584]

3. If it is an inalienable human right

Then why does the government have to force us to divert a portion of our income to a private company against our will?


And would the government being allowed to force you to buy a product from one private company open the door to them being allowed to force it from others as well?


And why is forcing people to buy a product from a private company preferable to having this service provided to the public free of charge or subsidized via taxes on the super rich?

[DJ13]

4. You dont force people to buy a right

At least not until the corporations bought our government.

[Orrex]

5. I've been seriously jonesing for a McRib, if that counts for anything.

[proudohioan]

11. Did someone mention McRib????

:yourock:

[JVS]

12. That's a Cadillac plan!

[terrell9584]

6. Leech off the public dole?

Really?

That's a very conservative form of argument.


And why should the government have the right to tell that person who can but chooses not to do so that they have to give their money to a privately held entity. Taxes are one thing. Government ordering people to give parts of their income to private entities is another thing entirely

[NoPasaran]

2. Say no to Big Burger!

Demand the right to purchase the weekly sandwich of your choice!

[onenote]

7. so if a law was passed that required you to purchase

and install a smoke detector from a private company and if you didn't you' wouldn't be allowed to sell your house....


oh wait, there are laws like that. I guess personal freedom died. Or was that when you were forced to have and wear seat belts?

[unblock]

9. this is the first time a forced purchase wasn't linked to anything remotely voluntary

having smoke detectors is only needed when you sell and in some cases not even then. afaik, the buyer can't get a certificate of occupancy, meaning you CAN sell and he CAN buy he just can't LIVE there.

i mean, you have to be able to sell wholy unlivable houses to someone who wants a rundown house to renovate, right?

usually no smoke detector means no certificate of occupancy and usually the buyer WON'T buy until that's taken care of but that's not the federal government forcing you to buy a smoke detector.


and the line on seat belts of course is that you're doing it when you choose to drive and you have no inate right to drive on public roads. i know we all view driving as a very essential part of our lives but legally you are chosing voluntarily to drive.



health insurance on the other hand is simply being forced on us, like it or not. you must buy it, there's nothing you can say or do to opt out.

you can choose not to sell your house, or choose to sell to someone who doesn't need a certificate of occupancy and thus avoid the smke detector requirement.

you can choose not to drive and therefore avoid the seat belt requirement.

but if you want to to avoid the health insurance requirement, you're simply out of luck.

[customerserviceguy]

10. Your analogy would be more spot on

if during a fire, the smoke detector suddenly decided to stop alerting you, because you had pre-existing matches...

[spanone]

8. that's like comparing hamburgers and health insurance