Health Care: Why Conservatives and Libertarians Should Support the Libertarian Party

Under ten days after Obamacare was signed into law, leading Republican Senators began to downplay any talk of repealing the measure. On April 1st, Michelle Malkin didn't "feel much like laughing" as she noted that the GOP was "already starting to go wobbly on repealing the health care reform monstrosity," and directed readers to the Ace of Spades, where Drew M. wrote:
10 days! The GOP can't even muster courage for two whole weeks before they start thinking that maybe, just maybe they are being too strident about the whole health care repeal thing. . . . If the path of least resistance is to nibble at the edges of this law, that's what most Republicans will do. It's our job to keep them focused on the task and more afraid of what happens if they go wobbly than not.
Of course, whatever they state in their campaign speeches, it is highly unlikely that many Republicans will actively work to repeal the measure, since they did not oppose it on principle, but rather opposed its passage by Democrats, who happily pointed out that many of its major provisions have long been supported by prominent Republicans. Unlike Republicans, whose position on this issue is determined almost entirely by a variable political calculus, Libertarian candidates for office stand united against it as a matter of course. Consider the following examples:
Lex Green, Libertarian candidate for governor of Illinois: "I strongly believe that the best way to control costs in any industry, health care include, is free markets. But health care is an industry that is one of the most regulated by our federal government. Therefore we must think of an alternate approach . . . The solution that I want to bring to the issue is to enforce competition such as should occur in a free market health care arena."

James Brown, Libertarian candidate for governor of Colorado: "Healthcare Reform: Individual Diversity over Corporate/Government Monopoly. A government that has waged war on medicine should not dictate medical choice."

Ken Matesz, Libertarian candidate for governor of Ohio: "It is our Constitutional duty to nullify federal laws passed which overstep the Constitutional limits. Ohio must stand firmly between the general government and the free citizens of Ohio. There is no authority in the U.S. Constitution for the general government to exert control over health care."

Jake Towne, independent libertarian candidate for Congress in Pennsylvania: "Our health care is simply too important to be left to bureaucrats in Washington, plus it is unconstitutional. I strongly disapprove of the Democrats' Obamacare and also the incumbent Republican's "Medical Rights and Reform Act" as both are simply matching strains of the same disease - socialized medicine."

Alex Snitker, Libertarian candidate for Senate in Florida: "the federal government is not authorized to condition funding to State or local governments on compliance with mandates which require them to do what the federal government is not authorized to do directly . . . When Congress enacts laws and regulations that are not made in Pursuance of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, the People are not bound to obey them . . . When the federal government exceeds its Constitutional authority, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy."

While Republicans are busy litigating Obamacare, Libertarians are calling for nullification and interposition. The Kn@ppster writes, "Don't repeal/litigate, nullify/interpose!"
In litigation, the parties accept that the courts have jurisdiction over this or that issue, and walk away with whatever the courts give them. The Supreme Court of the United States, (including its "conservative" members in cases like Raich v. Gonzales) has already ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause can mean pretty much anything Congress wants it to mean. Litigating ObamaCare is a dead-end road.

In nullification, the state governments say "we've determined -- for ourselves, we don't need any of you black-robed ninnies to do it for us -- that this piece of legislation is unconstitutional on its face, and we're not going to stand for it, at least within our own borders. Injunction? You can shove your injunction up your ass. If you attempt to come here to enforce it, our National Guard will do the shoving for you. Complimentary. No charge."
Sadly, many self-described conservatives and libertarians have allowed themselves to be convinced by professional propagandists that the Republican Party stands for something other than the indefinite reproduction of the global warfare and corporate welfare state. In this, they are not so very different from their liberal and progressive counterparts in the Democratic Party.


Eric Dondero said...

So, why do you presume that all Libertarian Party members are pacifists who "hate War"?

It was only in the mid-1970s when the Rothbardians took control of the Party that the LP became majority Anti-War. Before then, the Party was Pro-War on Communism. Even today, many of us Libertarians are Pro-Defense.

Stop making assumptions. You are making an ass out of yourself.

d.eris said...

Actually, I don't presume that and I have never said such a thing. Obviously, you don't read very well. You must be a Republican or a Democrat.

Nonetheless, it is a truism that the warfare state, anywhere and everywhere, is a threat to liberty, anywhere and everywhere. Being "big on defense" is just one more pathetic defense of big government.

Samuel Wilson said...

Be fair, d. For a libertarian to be big on defense is an arguably logical extension of the primal fear that everyone on earth is out to get one's stuff. Some libertarians may not have thought out the statist consequences of their anxiety, but you can't control how people think, and they'll be the first to tell you so.

d.eris said...

Well, I did feel a little bad, I must admit. I didn't mean to insult the illiterate by comparing them with the advocates of the Republican and Democratic parties. But reading could be a curative for two-party statism.