It appears that in the wake of House vote for Obamacare last night, proponents of Obamacare are still trotting out the car insurance argument: We are expected to believe that if government has the right to mandate that motorists have car insurance, then by analogy government has the right to mandate that people have health insurance. (You do know that under the House bill, certain people may be fined for not having health insurance, right?)
But the attempted comparison with car insurance is invalid; mandated car insurance and health insurance are not comparable. Government owns the highways, streets, and freeways that you use. It’s their property; they have every right to set the rules for the use of their property on the part of guests on their property. However, government does not own the land that you live on. Government does not own the land on which you live, sleep, breathe, and in most instances work for a living. In fact, government does not own you. Government has no right to tell you or anyone else what they must do or what they must pay on your own property: it’s not theirs.*
Of course, this is only one problem with this entire matter of Obamacare. There are also issues of gullibility, hypersimplicity, foolishness, greed, idolatry (!), the supposed end of America as a constitutional republic. In the meantime, the lawsuits have already begun, and come November there will be those who will have neither forgiven nor forgotten the congressional votes of last night. I look forward to having an excuse to say “Sic semper tyrannis, if not worse.”
_______
* Perfunctory expounder: Yeah, yeah; of course governments exist of God more or less to punish evildoers and to commend those who do right. Governments will always have some moral right to enforce its laws. But where in Romans, chapter thirteen does the apostle Paul say that government exists for the purpose of taking money for purposes of flawed logic? Or how is it necessarily morally wrong, and thus punishable, not to have health insurance but to pay out of pocket as needed?
But the attempted comparison with car insurance is invalid; mandated car insurance and health insurance are not comparable. Government owns the highways, streets, and freeways that you use. It’s their property; they have every right to set the rules for the use of their property on the part of guests on their property. However, government does not own the land that you live on. Government does not own the land on which you live, sleep, breathe, and in most instances work for a living. In fact, government does not own you. Government has no right to tell you or anyone else what they must do or what they must pay on your own property: it’s not theirs.*
Of course, this is only one problem with this entire matter of Obamacare. There are also issues of gullibility, hypersimplicity, foolishness, greed, idolatry (!), the supposed end of America as a constitutional republic. In the meantime, the lawsuits have already begun, and come November there will be those who will have neither forgiven nor forgotten the congressional votes of last night. I look forward to having an excuse to say “Sic semper tyrannis, if not worse.”
_______
* Perfunctory expounder: Yeah, yeah; of course governments exist of God more or less to punish evildoers and to commend those who do right. Governments will always have some moral right to enforce its laws. But where in Romans, chapter thirteen does the apostle Paul say that government exists for the purpose of taking money for purposes of flawed logic? Or how is it necessarily morally wrong, and thus punishable, not to have health insurance but to pay out of pocket as needed?
2 comments:
Not just fined, but up to a year in jail. Just to live in the US.
You are so silly Kwame. Of course we are the Gov't's property and surely you don't believe they would actually try and tell us how to live, what to put in our bodies, how much to exercise. Oh wait...
If they are providing us with healthcare and we are messing up and costing them extra, it is not entirely unreasonable to think that is where we are headed. (probably not super near future)
But that is another post, right?
I had not heard anything about possible jail time. I doubt they would jail anyone anyhow as opposed to garnishing wages.
Anyway, once the Republicans retake control of Congress it will be necessary, at some point in the future whether near or far, to just start amending the U.S. Constitution to prevent radicals and deconstructionists from doing any more harm than they have already done. Specifically, an amendment proscribing a deconstructionist interpretation of the law would be helpful, if even feasible. Moreover--and if feasible and only consequent to passage of the aformentioned amendment--it would be nice to see SCOTUS decisions eligible for a review or possible revoking every 100 years or so; after all, everyone thinks there is one Supreme Court ruling or another that was a bad or unconstitutional call on the part of various Supreme Court justices.
If this does not happen, or if proponents of either statism or a Nanny State don’t learn to control themselves, the sure result will be the growth of garden-variety libertinism and anarchism.
And from there, who knows what happens next? But rest assured, and make no mistake about, the emerging American socialist empire, born from the ashes of the old American republic, cannot endure and will not endure before it collapses of its own weight and excess.
And it won't be an entirely pretty thing. Lots of people will have to suffer many things before humanity finally gets it through its thick skull that statism and socialism are worthless and, first and foremost, that up to a certain point (one which most socialists and liberals fail to recognize) it is unjust to take money from someone’s pocket against their will to give to someone else! Extabibically speaking, governments derive their just powers precisely from the consent of the governed! (But alas, no one remembers this elemental truth.)
Post a Comment