Which Ism Best Describes Obamunism?
I have been accused of hyperbole [of all things!?] — and of calling a couple of our Commanders in Chief by labels that are disagreeable to their courtesans, serfs, jesters, sycophants and ghost writers. After writing "National Socialist Fascist Communist Healthcare," I received a few interesting emails, one of which attempted to show me how the use of the word "fascist" might not be appropriate in that title since he maintained there is no universally accepted definition of fascism. The next article, "Euthanize ObamaCare" elicited one very special response: "Euthanize You!" she said. She also demanded to be removed from my opt-in email list. You think you know a person!?
When I was designing the title of that article, I must admit to a bit of sensationalism, tactically speaking. But, after careful reflection, the only word I might think of removing would have to be "Healthcare." Of course I know a catchy title can get an otherwise unsuspecting reader to go to the opening paragraph. Otherwise I might choose something like, "Just another Healthcare article if you have some time on your hands" or perhaps something like, "I think a National Healthcare Plan might be a bad idea."
If the plan were only "national" it would be unlawful and unconstitutional. And that aspect will move important medical decisions and resources further away from where they belong. "Nationalizing" anything not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution is a violation of the Oaths of Office of everyone involved, as well as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of our Bill of Rights. Healthcare was private in the beginning and the free market will always be the right place for its decisions and resources.
I didn't use the words "Nazi" or "Hitler" in the title. Come on!
But wasn't "Nazi" some sort of acronym for National Socialism? And wasn't power in Germany fairly well concentrated and centralized in one party, under one Dictator? Surely the good ole USA would never attempt to centralize all power under a de facto one-party system with dictatorial powers being concentrated more and more every day. National Socialism could never come to America. Why, the People would never put up with it. Would they? Actually, FDR was selling National Socialism on this side of the Atlantic and Hitler was selling it on his side. Their marketing techniques were somewhat at odds.
If the plan were not Socialistic, Fascistic, and/or Communistic, it might be a little bit Constitutional. If the money for any such plan were to go back to the person who "contributed" in the precise amount he put in it would still be unconstitutional because the government cannot lawfully operate an insurance program. That's one reason Social Security is not called "Social Insurance" as it is in some other modern socialist States. The Supreme Court ruled [correctly for once] a long time ago, that the government could not operate an insurance business or describe any of its programs as "insurance." If you could only get out what you put in why would you want to participate? The combination of Keynesian economics with insurance-like programs under government control creates a lottery mentality where millions are drawn in by the hope of pick-pocketing their own grandchildren or fellow citizens. Not trusting their own capabilities mixed with those who elect to join cooperative entities based on the freedom of association without coercion, they have been conditioned to believe the government must be involved for anything to be financially sound over the long term. In this case they are choosing to trust a government that admits it is missing more than $10 Trillion Dollars and refuses to account for it. Some Fiduciary eh?
It is Socialistic because it aims to distribute costs across all demographics by any other means than the free market or any basis for security of private property. If the whole country gets sick enough everyone is supposed to get poor enough to take care of everyone else — always with the notable exception of the elite — who always have their own plans — their own escape hatch. And the government is going to make it all cost less — just this once.
The cost factors can also be expanded indefinitely as "advances" in medicine become more and more costly. This is convenient for the government solvers of bigger and bigger problems. A larger government budget tends to have more wiggle room for pork barrel.
It is Fascistic, in that it aims to involve government and business in various combinations in order to control or regulate outcomes — always directing more wealth and power to the centralized authority. The authoritarian consolidation of business and government is the essence of Fascism. It is not allowed by our Constitutions.
It is Communistic, to the degree that it is consistent with the Communist Manifesto. Review the Communist Manifesto if you need to. Then read Ron Paul's Manifesto. One of these things is not like the other. Communism has always evolved into some sort of Animal Farm where an Elite makes one set of secret rules for itself and another for the Proles. It is marketed as leveling but results in class envy and class warfare. Human beings naturally tend toward some sort of free market solutions within the context of any economic environment. In prison, anything that is contraband becomes "money." A communist country is a larger version of a prison. You can't come and go as you please. If you can't leave your healthcare plan — perhaps it has communistic characteristics?
Are we living in a free country — or is it getting more and more like Animal Farm? Obviously some Americans are more Equal than others. Outcome-based economics of any description can never be made lawful. All of the unlawful isms involve this characteristic to one extent or another. In other words the ends always justify the means. At the core of all their means is the problem of theft by or through government, or mutual plunder as Bastiat would call it.
Once this corrupt government owns healthcare it will be run so poorly that they will be forced to prohibit competition. Monopolies are bad. Government monopolies are worse. Free market competition always embarrasses government-controlled business efforts.
Perhaps those who support the plan should be asked to justify it by recourse to the Constitution, private property rights, individual sovereignty and Liberty. The concept of Equal Protection Under the Law must be abandoned under such a plan.
It is also Criminal in nature because it involves taking property from one citizen, by force if necessary, and giving to another who has not earned it. Bastiat maintained that an act cannot be decriminalized merely by changing the perpetrator's name to "government."
If I knock down your front door at 3 in the morning, hold a shotgun to your head, and demand say $2400 for a routine medical procedure for one of my kids, would that be a crime? What if I rob your kid's piggybank to take my cat to the Vet?
Where will it end?
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." ~ Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1802
Conversely, Jefferson would predict that the People, left alone to associate and solve their own problems with their own money, without having their substance wasted by government, would be more adequate to the task of pursuing their own happiness.
Please regard my titles as alarms going off — that is their purpose.
I am not really into name calling. I merely use some sensationalism to get Americans to become true Americans. Ideas have consequences. They also fit into to certain reasonably well-defined categories. As everything un-American comes into vogue there will less and less use for the distinctions between Americanism, Constitutionalism, and all the other isms. A considerable amount of history will have to be discarded so as not to confuse those future generations who are being enslaved now. Will they still be slaves long after the definition of slavery is obliterated? Down the Memory Hole we go.
These are dangerous times — and inflammatory labels are only one small way to get some attention. Thankfully we also have the incredible leverage of the Internet.
Jefferson saw a very bright future for us — only if we maintained our principles:
"To preserve [the] independence [of the people,] we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." — Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:39
"Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods." ~ H.L. Mencken
The most important preexisting condition required for any national healthcare plan to pass into law will have to be gullibility.
September 14, 2009
Bill Huff [send him mail] is a Classical Libertarian and proprietor of LEXREX.com and JamTheCulture.com; a former public school music teacher turned home schooling advocate; a US Navy veteran, and host of WarIsARacket.com. He is available as a guest lecturer or for interviews on talk radio.
Copyright © 2009 Bill Huff