You are using an outdated browser.
Please upgrade your browser
and improve your visit to our site.
Skip Navigation

'A Defense of Selfishness'

Some state lawmakers in South Dakota think they have a clever gimmick for showcasing the unconstitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate: They're proposing a law that would require all citizens to buy a firearm for self-defense. Explains one of the lawmakers:

Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance.

Funny, except that it turns out that such a requirement wouldn't be at all unprecedented. As Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin explains at his blog, Balkanization, the federal government in 1792 enacted a law requiring "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen" to join the militia and to

provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service . . . .

As you may recall, the lawmakers of 1792 included a lot of people who helped write the Constitution. Not only did they likely have a pretty good grasp of that document's original meaning, they also had a firm grip on the deeper meanings of American citizenship, as Balkin goes on to write:

The requirement to join the militia (and purchase arms for the defense of the state) was an aspect of civic republicanism-- the political idea that citizens had a duty to work toward the public good and make sacrifices on behalf of their fellow citizens and the republic ... 
What is lost in the debate over the individual mandate is that the point of the individual mandate is also civic republican in nature. It requires citizens to make a far less significant but also public-spirited sacrifice on behalf of other Americans who cannot afford health insurance. Individuals must join health insurance risk pools to make health care affordable for more of their fellow citizens. This is a very modest request that individuals not be entirely selfish and that they contribute to the public good in a small way by helping to make health care accessible and affordable for all Americans. Indeed, under the terms of the Affordable Care Act, one doesn't even have to purchase insurance; one can simply pay a small tax instead. And one doesn't have to pay at all if one is too poor to do so or has a religious objection.
The notion that being asked to either buy health insurance and make health care accessible for one's fellow citizens--or to pay a small tax-- is a form of tyranny akin to George III's regime is simply bizarre: it shows how perverted and twisted public discourse has become in the United States. The assault on the individual mandate is really an assault on the public duty to assist other Americans in need, and in particular, an assault on the legal obligation to pay taxes to contribute to the general welfare. The assault on the health care bill is not a defense of liberty. It is a defense of selfishness.