How about you HAVE to watch political commercials? Because if politicians can’t tell you their ideas, how will you know who to vote for? See, it’s good for you.
So I was trying to convince others of my thoughts on a mandate/tax/whatever….
How is this for a thought experiment? Does it work?
John Ashcroft is the new AG and we have a President from the religious right.
Giving to charity is good for you. It’s needed. You have the money. It makes you a better person. New mandate….you must give x amount of dollars to one of these specific (and of course religious) charities. Of course they can make a religious exemption to certain classes, but no, not for you.
I think it works as a thought experiment…..Morgan is pretty sure that liberals can’t do thought experiments and that’s what makes them liberals.…he’s probably right, but I’m keeping mine lined up unless you have a better one.
UPDATE:
NeoNeocon has a good snippet from a post from someone who is not necessarily conservative.
So far as I can tell from an initial reading of the 5-vote majority, the Court offers no functional reason whatsoever for its analysis of the taxing power. Indeed, the Court insults our intelligence by describing the conventional analysis of taxation under its prior precedents as somehow “a functional approach” (page 35). Of course, there is nothing “functional” about its definition of the taxing power, if the only relevant factors are the power of a taxed individual to avoid action or inaction that is taxed. If the test is, as Chief Roberts describes it, paying the tax “may often be a reasonable financial decision,” then Congress will have fairly unlimited power to regulate any activity simply by imposing an exaction just short of what it would take to eliminate the activity altogether. If the only other limit is that Congress (or the IRS) cannot “penalize” persons who choose to pay the tax, by stigmatizing them as “outlaws” (page 38), then such a limit is worse than formalistic: It is not even consistent with the precedent (Doremus) upholding the Harrison Narcotics tax.
How is such a taxing power consistent with any sensible notion of enumerating powers? Why would any sane framer, whether Hamilton or Luther Martin, Federalist or Anti-Federalist, ever agree to such an arrangement? The Court does not say.
ithinkthereforeierr.wordpress.com 
That example works pretty well for me. And I agree that the problem with Liberals is that they constantly support more power in government, without any thought into what the ramifications are. I think their worldview is that government already should have all the power, so there’s no loss of liberty, and the goal is just to prevent the specific laws they don’t like, not keep government out of society.
I know. It seems so bizarre that they just can’t imagine a different government than their ideal having all this power.