Libertarianism has remained a fringe movement largely due to widespread confusion about its core principles. Indeed, many professed libertarians have difficulty identifying what is and what is not consistent with its tenets. An excellent example of this phenomenon can be found in Ronald Bailey’s Reason article about the Coalition to Advance Healthcare Reform.
This article, which appears in a publication ostensibly sympathetic to libertarianism, contains assertions wildly at odds with the movement’s general philosophy. Noting, for example, that CAHR’s five core principles include the requirement that “individuals must carry mandated health insurance coverage,” Bailey writes the following:
As principles go these are pretty good, but how they are worked out in practice makes all the difference.
Pretty good? Is he kidding? How can anyone with even the faintest libertarian leanings approve of such a heavy-handed government mandate? What we are talking about here is the criminalization of the uninsured. Here’s how this sort of mandate is shaping up in California:
People who refuse to obtain health insurance could be tracked down by the state or a private contractor, enrolled in a plan and fined until they pay their premiums.
A libertarianism that acquiesces in this kind of behavior by any government entity, state or federal, is VERY confused.
Post a Comment