SCOTUS Affirms Fascism as Domestic Policy

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." –Benito Mussolini

The battle lines have been drawn. For those who have taken the apathetic path, the luxury of a middle ground is fading away. The time to pick sides is now and the choices couldn't be any more clear: Capitalism, freedom, individual rights, and economic prosperity or Statism, a society equal only in suffering, enslaved to the whims of the mob, unfettered force released upon you and your fellow man, and economic degradation.

Today's Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling in regards to ObamaCare reminds us of a very simple fact; both political parties are united on a statist vision for this country, differing only in how to achieve that vision. 

It also reminds us of the consequences of compromising one's principles. Chief Justice John Roberts is nothing less than a traitor to all liberty-seeking people. The entire purpose of the SCOTUS is that of keeper of our republic- to preserve the individual rights of the people recognized by our Constitution and protect them from encroachment by the Executive and Legislative branches. It has utterly failed as such institution. It is true this hasn't been the first time such a failure occurred. ObamaCare is the culmination and consequence of a decades long slide away from freedom. But today’s ruling has now affirmed fascism as the de facto domestic economic policy of the United States.

As Benito Mussolini pointed out, fascism is merely the merger of political power (force) and economic power (trade). It involves property “ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government,”¹ in this case, health insurance. Also, it should be noted that individualism holds the tenet of self-ownership; your body is YOUR property and under YOUR control. What this ruling essentially does is invalidates any vestige of individualism existing within this country’s borders and declares that even though you own your body, it is under the control of the federal government. You must buy this product because Big Brother says so. 

Now, I’ve tried to wrap my head around how a Supreme Court Judge, seen as a Constitutionalist in the eyes of many, could uphold such an obvious abrogation of individual rights. In his Washington Post piece entitled “Why Roberts did it,” Charles Krauthammer, essentially states that by calling it a tax, Chief Justice Roberts has cornered President Obama to admit it is so, with the hope that this fires up the people enough to support and elect Romney to the presidency and Republicans to the House and Senate, who promise to repeal it. It’s an interesting theory, but there's one problem with it: if Obama is reelected it falls apart and we are left with four more years of a Statist plus ObamaCare. If the theory holds and Romney wins the presidency and is able to rescind such a “tax,” the dangerous precedent set today by the Supreme Court remains–Congress can now compel any action from the people, so long as it is justified as a “tax”. Chief Justice Roberts had the option to just strike it down, to stand on principle and vote against it which would have been the deciding vote in outright invalidating the law today while protecting and preserving the rights of the people. He compromised and now it’s the people who will suffer. 

Krauthammer also asserts that Roberts voted this way to give the appearance of a non-ideological Court. That is a total cop-out. So what if people believe the decision was ideological? It should have been! To be ideological is to have a set of core beliefs and principles that one stands by no matter what. That is not a vice, that is a virtue! We need leaders who are rationally ideological, who understand the importance of individual rights and who are not afraid to defend them absolutely. This justification, if true of Roberts, shows him to be nothing more and nothing less than a coward. 

Also, there seems to be an odd denial of the “law of identity” at play here. As I recall from the first day of oral arguments, it was decided that the case can be tried since this was not a tax being imposed. The Anti-Injunction Act stipulates that one cannot bring suit against a tax before it has been levied. The individual mandate, which is now considered a tax, won’t be levied until 2014.  So, according to Roberts, a non-tax is a tax. A is not A. Go figure.

But make no mistake about it, individualists like myself have surely been empowered by this ruling to advance the cause of true freedom, to ensure that the government works for all people, and not just those in need, and not just those with large bank accounts. A government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth–because we won’t let it. 

Emboldened we are!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources:

¹ "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus," Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 202