Is the 1964 Civil Rights Act the father of Obamacare?

Dean Ericson writes:

Some guy named Bruce Bartlett is being quoted as having said on his Facebook page:

“A government with the power to force us to buy health insurance can also force restaurants to serve black people.”

The comment is intended satirically, I think, as a way of criticizing Republicans for their perceived over-the-top-reaction to the ACA ruling. It’s saying that government power is a good thing used for good ends, and that to oppose it is unjust. But the civil rights legislation, and the principle it established of the federal government’s expanding power to manage society, have led to an ever-expanding list of supposed victims clamoring for ever-more government intervention. If America had resisted the growth of government power by rejecting the civil rights legislation, there is a much better chance that the ACA would never have come about. So, yes, it’s true that a government that can force businesses to serve blacks can also force people to buy health insurance. That’s not an argument for forcing people to buy health insurance; it’s an argument for repealing the civil rights laws.

I also see defenders of the ACA’s individual mandate justifying it on the grounds that it is no different from any other tax intended as social engineering, such as the home mortgage deduction, the tax exemptions for children and dependents, etc. I think that’s a good argument for abolishing the income tax and not allowing government the power to tax for social engineering purposes.

The supporters of Obamacare are telling us, “You agreed with all these other government usurpations, so now you have to go along with these new ones.” The non-liberal/leftist should take the lesson: do not accept any government usurpations or you’re going to be forced to eat, eventually, government-mandated sh*t sandwiches.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 03, 2012 12:30 PM | Send