I qualified who the "us" is in this scenario, it is those of us who do not subscribe to your view that all must participate in these socialist collectives.
The law allows you to create what they propose without coercing people who do not wish to participate, but yet the legislations drafters don't seem willing to allow anybody to opt out. That, my friend, is government force, and it's unjustified.
What I want to know is why? Why can you not allow people to opt out?
So, a lack of personal health insurance equals a lack of law?
I'd like to see you defend that contention.
I know I'm supposed to be playing the part of "drunk happy nut" in this senario, but all I am really trying to do is prevent you from being able to steal my income.
Hehehe, no wonder there is such misunderstanding, and ill will in these forums, ah, they are so ripe with misunderstandings.
My point was that I will stop reporting income to be taxed if they insist I join the eighty percent tax bracket. Sorry, but I'm not going to pay for the population explosion of inner city youth that is a result of this clealry revolutionary legislation.
Now, when they send people to seize my property, or jail me for not being a communist, they'll be the ones using force, and they'll be the ones dealth with as the situation requires.
However, don't discount the fact that this legislation could make me become much more comfortable with the idea of becoming a pirate, and looting from people who would steal from me.
Why should I trade labor for a wage if I don't get to keep the wages?
I'm sorry, but I just cannot believe that you respect me. If you did, you would understand how important it is that you not use government force to coerce me into a collective I do not support. Because in the end, the government will send people with guns to make me comply, or imprison me for not complying. ( Assuming the shooting does not commence. )
If you're willing to use force, why should I be denied the use of force to defend myself from such aggression?
It's been debated, it's not for me. I see it as a bad investment on my part.
Oh, since I disagree with the collective, I must desire the opposite?
I hope you see what a baseless claim that is? To suggest such is silly, and not really even deserving of a reply.
Yeah, that's how things are done here in the United States.
Collectives can exist here legally, all you need in people willing to participate. ( Hint, hint... )
Boy, you really are comfortable filling in all the blanks with your own warped ideas, aren't you?
Again, just because I oppose your alleged "solution" doesn't mean I am opposed to the problem.
Again, if you're really concerned for my mental health, get your damned politicians off of my jock, and out of my personal life.
It's not like we don't both know what the problem is.
I think you are getting ready to tell me that it's an anger management issue on my part, which will really send me off the deep end.
