Although the individual mandate was declared constitutional on the grounds that it is a tax, it is pretty obvious that it is simply a government forcefully requiring its citizens to purchase a product. No where in the constitution is the government given the power to do so. By justifying the individual mandate on the grounds that the government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, it sets the precedent for the government to be able to mandate the purchase of anything that it views as beneficial to society. This is where Locke comes into play.
Locke's principle that everyman has a right to his own property, which is also a principle found in the Constitution, is blatantly violated by enforcing an individual mandate. An individual's money is their's and their's only, and by forcing an individual to use his property in a certain way the government is committing theft. The result of passing this law is allowing the government to ignore property rights, and this is both immoral and detrimental to society. In my opinion, the enlightenment principles of Locke, upon which the country was founded, have been thrown out the window with the passing of this individual mandate.
Christopher,
ReplyDeleteI understand how John Locke's ideas would relate to the opposition of Obamacare however there are many flaws with the argument itself. Many journalists and critics have commented on the similarity of car insurance and obamacare. If you own a car, you have to buy insurance otherwise you would be driving around illegally. This legislation has been around for years, however it has been irrefutable for around the same length of time. The same logic should apply for healthcare as well. Not only would it makes the whole healthcare system function a lot more effectively but it primarily benefits those who are opposed to the healthcare legislation!
I understand how John Locke would not be in support of health care legislation but I also feel that some of the problems that we face today are ideas that philosophers and political theorists of the past could have never foreseen. Thus although we can associate his ideas with modern problems, I don’t know if we would actually ever know for sure Locke’s views on a particular study such as this.
This was a great topic to bring about though, especially with the presidential elections just behind us.
Malini
Malini,
DeleteAfter reviewing my post I believe that I was not thorough enough in defending my argument. I will try to respond to some of the flaws you point out.
Although I pointed out that requiring one to purchase something is incompatible with the right of private property, I was not thorough in establishing private property as an inherent right, one that is rooted in human nature. We both recognize that our health care situation needs to be fixed, but we disagree on the way to do so. I do not advocate the the Individual Mandate because I believe it is a blatant violation of individual rights, and I believe that change through deregulation of the health sector (explanation would warrant a much longer discussion) is what is best for health care.
My goal in writing this was to show that we must be careful not to give up rights because our current situation does not seem to be efficient. It is important to look into other (free market) solutions to the problem.
Christopher,
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting topic that I'm glad that you brought up. Contrasting Locke's view of property with the practical effect of the Affordable Care Act ("ACA"), particularly in exercising the Commerce Clause as justification is a deeply complex topic.
Let me be clear in that I am vehemently against the ACA, I believe it is bad policy that does not adequately address the health care problems in our country, and I believe it is a vastly ineffective expansion of government. That said, it is important to take an in depth look at Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius, the SCOTUS case dealing with the President's health care law. Justice Roberts, a noted staunch conservative, ruled that the law would not be upheld on the basis of the Commerce Clause - the government's usual rationale to intervene with property rights - but instead by Congress' power to levy taxes, clearly enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution.
I echo Justice Roberts as he wrote "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of
their political choices." I agree with you and presumably Justice Roberts in my belief that the ACA is bad law and bad policy, but I believe that the majority opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius offers a competent and convincing defense of the law's constitutionality.
Brad