individual mandate — the question is about market failure NOT Government vs. Personal Liberty

Brian Lehman has a post over at United Liberty asking, "would any libertarian still support Obama?"

The current crop of GOP hopefuls, with the possible exception of Gary Johnson and perhaps a couple others, looks less than thrilling for libertarians (or really anyone).  It is entirely possible that we will end up with a Huckabee, Romney, or other nominee that one could find impossible, or at least difficult, to support.  Is anyone’s vote then going to Obama?

My first comment was that his failure to distinguish between left and right libertarians leaves the question unanswerable. Or at best leaves you with the answer— some will some won’t.

A lot of people don't know a lot about the distinctions between left and right libertarians.  Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts the gist of it as so...

Libertarianism is often thought of as “right-wing” doctrine. This, however, is mistaken for at least two reasons. First, on social—rather than economic—issues, libertarianism tends to be “left-wing”. It opposes laws that restrict consensual and private sexual relationships between adults (e.g., gay sex, extra-marital sex, and deviant sex), laws that restrict drug use, laws that impose religious views or practices on individuals, and compulsory military service. Second, in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as “left-libertarianism”. Both endorse full self-ownership, but they differ with respect to the powers agents have to appropriate unowned natural resources (land, air, water, minerals, etc.). Right-libertarianism holds that typically such resources may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes her labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them. Left-libertarianism, by contrast, holds that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner. It can, for example, require those who claim rights over natural resources to make a payment to others for the value of those rights. This can provide the basis for a kind of egalitarian redistribution.

Beyond the basic quandary of self ownership--that natural resources obviously can't be created out of sheer pull yourself up by your bootstraps willpower. One of the key questions is that of power.  

If power is distributed inequitably the ability for the individual to harness their natural capacities free of imposition and restraint from outside authority--be it the state, corporation, or herd--is obviously an infringement on the individuals liberty.  The solutions to alleviate this infringement will split libertarians generally speaking down left/right lines.  Right libertarians are only concerned about the state encroachment on personal liberty which was great in a preindustrial capitalist economy.  

Those of us in the modern world realize encroachment of liberty and self government is also channeled through corporate hierarchies that remove individuals from decisions making that impacts their everyday lives.  I heard it all the time on the campaign trail--and mostly from Republicans who wanted to get back to the personal relationships between doctor and patient, small business owners on mainstreet, et al...

A commenter followed up by saying, "it’s extremely doubtful. What with FBI raids by Eric Holder and Individual Mandates and a failure to bring Gitmo down."

  

In response I noted that, on individual mandate — the question is about market failure so its not clear cut Government vs. Personal Liberty because of the issue of free-riding which is simply an abuse of personal liberty at the expense of others.  Turning a blind eye to the free rider problem is not inherently Libertarian.

Libertarians that put free-riding on taxpayer dollars as the greater evil than the imposition of a fee to help defray costs of health care market (which is a total market failure) will not necessarily have a problem with the individual mandate.

Here is a defense of the individual mandate over at Reason Magazine--which is a right-libertarian magazine-- which notes that, "the proposal for mandatory health insurance offers a way to maintain our private system, expand consumer choice, lower costs, and allow medical progress to continue."

The question about the individual mandate is really a question about the most efficient way to fix a market failure.  The individual mandate requires individuals to participate in the health care insurance market--as they are already a part of the health care market as a whole--because free-riding means people can get away with not paying into the system until they get sick.  The idea that "not getting cancer" is a personal decision that people can make and/or save up for is utterly absurd.  More government intrusive measures could be implemented such as a single payer system which just gives everyone basic health care, requires them to pay for it via taxes, and then gives them the freedom to purchase any extra health care services they desire out of pocket.  

For those who want to protect the private insurance market and want private sector companies to compete the individual mandate is the way to go.  Its the reason conservatives came up with the idea long before it made it into ObamaCare.

So when it comes to the individual mandate you don't necessarily get one answer from a libertarian.