My Answer to Paul Krugman
In responding to Peter's request that I address the question posed by Paul Krugman, I can do no better than to quote extensively from a piece entitled What is Wrong with the Individual Mandate? that I posted last December in response to a similar question posed by ParisParamus:
There is a simple answer to the question . . . . Government exists first and foremost for the sake of our protection. Without it, our lives and our property would not effectively be our own. Government exists also to promote our well-being. For its support, however, taxation is necessary, and we have tacitly agreed that, to be legitimate, these taxes must be passed by our elected representatives. By our own consent, we give up a certain proportion of our earnings for these purposes.
The money left in our possession, however, is our own -- to do with as we please. It is in this that our liberty largely lies. Romneycare and Obamacare, with the individual mandate, changes radically our relationship vis-a-vis the government. The former presupposes that state governments have the right to tell us how we are to spend our own money, and the latter presupposes that the federal government has that right as well. Both measures are tyrannical. They blur the distinction between public and private and extend the authority of the public over the disposition of that which is primordially private. Once this principle is accepted as legitimate, there is no limit to the authority of the government over us, and mandates of this sort will multiply -- as do-gooders interested in improving our lives by directing them encroach further and further into the one sphere in which we have been left free hitherto.
Managerial progressives see only the end -- preventing free-riders from riding for free. And they ignore the collateral damage done by way of the means selected. . . . For . . . social engineers, citizens are subjects to be worked-over by the government for their own good. [Managerial progressives] are inclined to treat us as children subject to the authority of a paternalistic state under the direction of a benevolent and omniscient managerial class. . .
Raising taxes to reward free riders is, of course, objectionable. We should oppose it on principle. But it does not in and of itself narrow in any significant fashion the sphere of our liberty. It is a question of the proper use of the public purse. The individual mandate sets a new precedent. It extends government control to the private purse.
The point I made in that can be put in another way, and this has been done. As George Will recently reported, the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian public interest law firm, has argued that the individual mandate is "incompatible with centuries of contract law," which regards "a compulsory contract is an oxymoron." Here again, the point is that the individual mandate blurs the distinction between public and private:
The brief, the primary authors of which are the IJ’s Elizabeth Price Foley and Steve Simpson, says that Obamacare is the first time Congress has used its power to regulate commerce to produce a law “from which there is no escape.” And “coercing commercial transactions” — compelling individuals to sign contracts with insurance companies — “is antithetical to the foundational principle of mutual assent that permeated the common law of contracts at the time of the founding and continues to do so today.”
In 1799, South Carolina’s highest court held: “So cautiously does the law watch over all contracts, that it will not permit any to be binding but such as are made by persons perfectly free, and at full liberty to make or refuse such contracts. . . . Contracts to be binding must not be made under any restraint or fear of their persons, otherwise they are void.” Throughout the life of this nation it has been understood that for a contract to be valid, the parties to it must mutually assent to its terms — without duress.
Here again the key fact is that the government is intruding in a sphere where, in principle, the government cannot intrude. It is not protecting our liberty -- which consists in the right to dispose of our own property as we see fit and to enter into contracts or not enter into contracts as we see fit. It is violating that liberty.
If Krugman cannot see this, it is because he does not care one whit about our liberty. He sees himself -- no doubt rightly -- as a member of the managerial class, and he believes that he can run our lives better than we can do so ourselves, that he can spend our money in a more rational fashion than we can, and that he can make contracts for us in a more rational fashion than we can. The authors of Romneycare and Obamacare entertain a similar presumption.
There is one problem with all such arguments, and it is insuperable. Even if Paul Krugman were more rational than each and every one of us -- and his columns raise grave questions about that presumption -- he does not care as much about our welfare as individuals as each of us does.
I may at times be mistaken but I am a far better judge of what is good for me than is someone who cares far less for my well-being than I do. That is the ground for our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and it can be preserved only if we have the right to dispose of our property as we see fit and the right to enter into contracts or to refuse to enter into contracts as we see fit. Running roughshod over forms and formalities is fatal to liberty.
- Comment (45)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
Professor, I think Krugman would view your response as supportive of socialized medicine. If the government lacks the moral power to correct a clearly failing market, and that market provides essential goods, than the only alternative is to nationalize that market. Medicare-for-all.
Keep in mind that America hasn't had a truly free market in healthcare since at least World War II. The individual mandate (along with certain other reforms) is one way of fixing that. Tax credits and auto-enrollment (the Ryan/Heritage approach) may be another, though to my knowledge that has never been tried without a public option. Regardless, we have to do something, since what we have right now clearly isn't a real market.
Edited on March 31, 2012 at 4:10amOct '10
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
And I would also like to point out that the political demand for universal healthcare is only going to grow. I believe that if we do not reform the system soon (as in the next two or three years), in five or ten years the left will win this argument and socialize the whole sector.
Oct '10
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
Think of education. Is there a stronger case for compulsory education than for compulsory health insurance? Yet compulsory education is a fact of modern life. Education also shows the difficulty of rooting out socialism once it has taken root. Despite the real human costs of our failing public school system, the teachers unions block reform at every point.
Feb '11
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
Professor Rahe, great answer to Krugman's challenge, but I might add 3 things: (1) anyone who has the time should listen to the oral arguments from Tuesday you will hear Krugman's questions aswered there, I listened to them again today and Paul Clement was brilliant. (2) Not purchasing health insurance doesn't increase the costs those who purchase it have to pay, it just doesn't lower them. (3) Krugman may not like the fact that what he cannot do through the commerce clause he can do through the taxing power, but is a necessary deterrent, politicians will be hesitant to raise taxes (See Obama's constant denial of calling this a tax). This is not unprecedented, in New York v. U.S. Justice O'Connor noted how Congress cannot commandeer the states to adopt regulations though they can encourage them to adopt regulations through the spending clause (in Dole v South Dakota they did exactly this).
Feb '11
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
Joseph, Nixon proposed socialized health care as President, I would say we have moved public opinion vastly against government regulations since then.
Oct '10
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
I don't. Have you ever been to Europe? I've been to the Netherlands and Ireland, and neither were as hyper-regulated as America is; you can tell this at a glance from the lack of the sort of standardized disability physical infrastructure we have here.
Americans have a reputation for intrusive government. Europeans will admit their governments reach deeper into their pockets, but American government at all levels intrudes much more on all other aspects of life.
Edited on March 31, 2012 at 4:33amNov '11
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
I would be more worried about this were not the socialized healthcare systems elsewhere collapsing, a trend that is only going to accelerate with the aging of populations, though Americans' isolation from the facts of life in socialized economies and their continuing admiration of Europeans will help the Left.
Edited on March 31, 2012 at 4:48amApr '11
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
Paul A. Rahe:
If Krugman cannot see this, it is because he does not care one whit about our liberty.
Going into the SCOTUS case, the conservative legal field was pretty evenly split on whether there was a Constitutionally significant difference. For myself, I'm kind of agnostic; I've heard learned and esteemed conservative jurists argue both sides, and both sides have informed views.
I don't know if you're saying that the only way to arrive at Krugman's conclusion (which, you'll recall, looked like a good question to Peter Robinson), is to care not one whit for liberty, or if you believe that this is simply how Krugman got there, but I would appreciate your clarification. I would like to think that you have not, yet again, mixed analysis with hyperbolic ad hominem.
Oct '10
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
As I have mentioned on other posts, pay attention to the fact that Homeland Security has just placed orders for 450 million hollow tipped bullets.
We are having the argument about the constitutionality of ObamaCare.
The administration is preparing for the possibility that we win.
Jul '11
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
Raycon, DHS may get 450 million bullets but will they find enough free men willIng to use them on their own people? I would think this might be a good dept to defund though considering we have a military and I like and trust their leaders better.
Edited on March 31, 2012 at 5:53amMay '10
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
Paul A. Rahe:
As George Will recently reported, the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian public interest law firm, has argued that the individual mandate is "incompatible with centuries of contract law," which regards "a compulsory contract is an oxymoron."
The levying of taxes is every bit as compulsory as the requiring of citizens to purchase health insurance. In both cases, the "agreement" is coerced and the notion of a contract is oxymoronic. Furthermore, some people explicitly reject government, e.g., anarchists. Therefore I think its misleading to suggest that when the government dispossesses us of our property for things like the common defense or the judicial system its consensual but when it does so in accordance with an individual health insurance mandate its compulsory and therefore aberrational.
Edited on March 31, 2012 at 6:00amAug '10
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
The IJ's position can be boiled down thusly: If the government tells insurance companies what coverage they must provide, and tells them how much they may charge for it, and then requires that we all buy it, the whole exercise is a fraud that pretends to be a health insurance market but is really just socialized medicine with some extra overhead to cover the pretense.
At some fundamental level, the socialists intuit this, and are forcing us in this direction because at some point it will become obvious that the insurance companies are providing nothing but some unnecessary money handling services. They will be gradually phased out, and in the end, single payer will be what's left over when you remove the insurance companies and just leave the mandates.
Nov '11
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
Has Judge Bork (who, as we all know, endorsed Mitt Romney) ever expressed an opinion on the Constitutionality of the individual mandate?
Oct '10
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
DocJay: Raycon, DHS may get 450 million bullets but will they find enough free men willIng to use them on their own people? I would think this might be a good dept to defund though considering we have a military and I like and trust their leaders better. · 5 hours ago
Edited 5 hours ago
Excuse me? Are we supposed to take that seriously?
Oct '10
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
Paul DeRocco: The IJ's position can be boiled down thusly: If the government tells insurance companies what coverage they must provide, and tells them how much they may charge for it, and then requires that we all buy it, the whole exercise is a fraud that pretends to be a health insurance market but is really just socialized medicine with some extra overhead to cover the pretense.
At some fundamental level, the socialists intuit this, and are forcing us in this direction because at some point it will become obvious that the insurance companies are providing nothing but some unnecessary money handling services. They will be gradually phased out, and in the end, single payer will be what's left over when you remove the insurance companies and just leave the mandates. · 5 hours ago
Except insurance companies can tailor their plans. Instead of one monopolistic public plan, consumers can pick the plan (and, implicitly, it's method of rationing) that best suits their needs.
Edited on March 31, 2012 at 10:51amMar '11
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
From one perspective, a friend of liberty might support the individual mandate in the place of outrightly socialized medicine. This choice preserves my ability to chose my provider and my plan, and as to the latter there is likely to be more real choice here than otherwise because the market will be somewhat competitive. From this perspective, while the mandate may not be desireable in every case, it preserves more liberty than socialized medicine.
Yet, this perspective might forget that if this bill stays in place, it will have two very lasting effects: 1) change the relationship of the federal government towards commerce (and 1/5 of the economy) in a way that is likely to radically alter the incentive structure in the health care market—the assumptions our first friend of liberty made about choice that make sense now in the early in the bills life will no longer make sense a decade on: any sense of choice will very shortly be proved illusory; and 2) this bill will further acclimatize everyday Americans to allowing the federal government to run day to day choices for many of them.
Mar '11
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
As a result of these two lasting effects, this bill very insidiously lays the foundations for a single-payer system while simultaneously removing the will to fight of the 50% or so who reject it now. Realizing this, some friends of liberty have concluded it is far better to force the partisans of bureaucratic, administrative tyranny to be forced to make their case for their endgame in the light of day, while the citizenry still possesses the spirited instincts eternally necessary for liberty's preservation.
A decade from now, we won't have Obamacare as it is going into effect in 2013. Playing on the terror in the face of suffering and death, and the unassailable public opinion in favor of egalitarianism that characterizes many of our fellow citizens, the partisans of single payer NHS style care will have all the leverage they need to make our friends and neighbors abandon their otherwise sound common sense in favor of bureaucratic despotism.
Oct '10
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
Joseph Eagar
DocJay: Raycon, DHS may get 450 million bullets but will they find enough free men willIng to use them on their own people? I would think this might be a good dept to defund though considering we have a military and I like and trust their leaders better. · 5 hours ago
Edited 5 hours ago
Excuse me? Are we supposed to take that seriously? · 3 hours ago
You may choose as you wish. In 1935 the Jews in Germany faced the same kind of credibility test. Many chose not to believe.
How, I might ask, short of all out warfare, can any agency require to lay in that level of firepower?
Re: My Answer to Paul Krugman
James Of England
Paul A. Rahe:
If Krugman cannot see this, it is because he does not care one whit about our liberty.
Going into the SCOTUS case, the conservative legal field was pretty evenly split on whether there was a Constitutionally significant difference. For myself, I'm kind of agnostic; I've heard learned and esteemed conservative jurists argue both sides, and both sides have informed views.
I don't know if you're saying that the only way to arrive at Krugman's conclusion (which, you'll recall, looked like a good question to Peter Robinson), is to care not one whit for liberty, or if you believe that this is simply how Krugman got there, but I would appreciate your clarification. I would like to think that you have not, yet again, mixed analysis with hyperbolic ad hominem. · 10 hours ago
The former. I am also not impressed with "the conservative legal field." Most of them are the legal descendants of Oliver Wendell Holmes, and they are only concerned with predicting what the judges will do.
Edited on March 31, 2012 at 2:35pmRe: My Answer to Paul Krugman
Michael Labeit
Paul A. Rahe:
As George Will recently reported, the Institute for Justice (IJ), a libertarian public interest law firm, has argued that the individual mandate is "incompatible with centuries of contract law," which regards "a compulsory contract is an oxymoron."
The levying of taxes is every bit as compulsory as the requiring of citizens to purchase health insurance. In both cases, the "agreement" is coerced and the notion of a contract is oxymoronic. Furthermore, some people explicitly reject government, e.g., anarchists. Therefore I think its misleading to suggest that when the government dispossesses us of our property for things like the common defense or the judicial system its consensual but when it does so in accordance with an individual health insurance mandate its compulsory and therefore aberrational. · 9 hours ago
Edited 9 hours ago
By compulsory, do you mean coercive? I have trouble following your argument.