Obamacare is not the law of the land.

Obamacare is not a law that Congress and the President negotiated together and passed.

As Hayek pointed out: Socialism needs a central plan. There are an infinite possible number of different central plans, any one of which will step on the toes of quite a lot of people, so one can never get majority support for any one central plan, or even the support of a significant plurality for any one central plan.

So the ordinary procedures of legislative rule will not work, will never come to agreement. And, as we saw, they did not work, did not come to agreement.

The normal procedure for passing laws, as laid down in the constitution, is that one house of the legislature passes an act, and the other house agrees to that act, and then the president signs it.

But what in fact happened is that neither house would vote for a version of Obamacare that the other house would accept, nor one that the president would sign.

Obamacare was passed by the mysterious extraconstitutional process of  “reconciliation”, resulting in a bill that neither house has ever voted for, which contains numerous amendments rejected by both houses, and fails to contain numerous amendments accepted by both houses, thus was not “reconciliation” at all, but the permanent government overruling the merely elected government when the merely elected government was unable to reach agreement.

After being passed by this extraconstitutional process, it was further amended by presidential decree, an unprecedented extraconstitutional action,

This abandonment of constitutionality and legality is an unavoidable consequence of socialism.

To implement socialism one needs a single individual, or a very small cohesive group, small enough to sit around a coffee table and feel each other’s breath, with immense power.

Ever since Reagan decreed unlimited free healthcare for the poor and illegals, we have had socialism without a central plan. It works very badly.

Our ruling elite think themselves terribly smart people and are sure they can do better, and I am sure any one of them could do better. I am equally sure that one hundred of them can not do better, and will very likely do a great deal worse. If power is too diffused in the legislature for the legislature to give effect to socialism, it is also too diffused in the permanent government for the permanent government to give effect to socialism.

Indeed, that is the basic problem with the permanent government. Power is diffused, leading to the tragedy of the commons, public money being a commons, and power over the subjects of the government being a commons. That we are ruled by an unelected government is not the problem. Democracy sucks. That the permanent and unelected government lacks a czar with the power to defund any activity, fire any bureaucrat or group of bureaucrats for any reason or no reason at all, impose a loyalty oath, and shoot any bureaucrat that violates his loyalty oath, is the problem.

Obamacare illustrates that democracy has been dead for a long time. So does gay marriage and affirmative action. The problem, however, is not so much lack of democracy, as absence of a central power. The rationale for government is to make one decision for all, in particularly, and most importantly, the decision of war or peace, that if it chooses peace, permits no one to cause trouble, if it chooses war, commands all to harm the enemy. But, in fact, our government is not capable of making one decision for all. It is anarcho tyranny.

A common semi humorous definition of anarcho tyranny is that everything is illegal (that is the tyranny) except crime, which is legal (that is the anarchy)

But a more serious definition is that the government is vast, powerful, intrusive (that is the tyranny) but is itself anarchic, itself subject to the tragedy of the commons (that is the anarchy)

The one definition, of course, tends to cause the other definition. The government being itself anarchic is uninterested in upholding law, since the rule of law, though it would benefit everyone, would not particularly benefit any one member of the government that himself attempted to uphold the rule of law without support from other members of the government, and the government being itself anarchic cannot restrain any one member of government from capriciously deeming any act by any subject illegal and punishing it.

26 Responses to “Obamacare is not the law of the land.”

  1. […] is not the law of the land. Related: Obamacare website crashing because they don’t want you to know the cost. Related: […]

  2. a punk band named luckey haskins says:

    “…the permanent government overruling the merely elected government when the merely elected government was unable to reach agreement”

    But the reconciliation was done by the elected representatives. Or are you saying that the elected representatives are also part of the permanent government?

    • jim says:

      But the reconciliation was done by the elected representatives.

      No, it was passed by the elected representatives. Reconciliation however artificially narrows the options, and this artificial narrowing is a magical mystery process done by mystery people.

      By artificially narrowing the options, you avoid the problem that there are umpteen possible central plans, so you can never get a majority for any one of them. But some mysterious people had to artificially narrow the options.

  3. […] Obamacare was passed by the mysterious extraconstitutional process of  “reconciliation,&#8221… […]

  4. Zach says:

    Nothing is “the law of the land”. Been obvious for a long time brah!

    But, you are quite right in saying:

    “A common semi humorous definition of anarcho tyranny is that everything is illegal (that is the tyranny) except crime, which is legal (that is the anarchy)

    But a more serious definition is that the the government is vast, powerful, intrusive (that is the tyranny) but is itself anarchic, itself subject to the tragedy of the commons (that is the anarchy)”

    Sad but true. The irony is so striking as to be comical (as you allude to).

    Time to chillax in a recliner folks. Bust out a cigar or two, and watch the madness become real.

  5. […] Jim on the implausibility of any “Law of the Land”: […]

  6. VXXC says:

    “How many divisions has the Constitution? Zero.”

    I would doubt that Mr. Walker if the issue were put that starkly.

    [The “cops” agree that Obamacare is the Law of the Land?]

    But damn that’s some fighting spirit.

    How many Divisions does _______ have?

    • Matt Walker says:

      The military serves the government, and will continue to do so. Just like the National Park Service. Who’s going to fight them? 30,000,000 aging overweight deer hunters too afraid of their wives to stay out late, too lazy to train, too apathetic to vote, and too loaded down by kids and debt to risk anything?

      • jim says:

        The military serves because they believe the government is constitutional and is the voice of the people.

        A government generally needs both power and legitimacy to govern. If it governs on the basis of power without legitimacy it needs someone competent on top who imposes discipline on the government. Governing that way is a tricky business, with a high death rate.

        The permanent government lacks cohesion, discipline, or able people. To govern, it needs its myths. It is weak. You look at governments that are short of legitimacy. They are strong – or dead.

  7. Matt Walker says:

    The law of the land is whatever the courts, cops, and civil service agree it is. They all agree that Obama care is the law of the land. If de jure law disagrees, de jure law is a soap bubble. How many divisions has the Constitution? Zero. It’s not even alive.

    • jim says:

      If a government does not credibly claim legitimacy, apt to wind up as government by colonels – or sergeants.

      • Red says:

        We’ve taken a lot of steps towards that under Obama. It’s gotten much harder to keep up the little lies about how the system works.

  8. VXXC says:

    You asked someone perhaps me for link the other day to “this”.

    Well the This is the singularity you’ve got I meant Tea.

    However Pundita also posted on the Singularity we’ve got, economic collectivism.

    http://pundita.blogspot.com/2013/10/singularism.html

  9. Red says:

    The fact that the republicans can’t actually defund Obama care despite having officially defuned Obama is pure crime think. Every time I point it out people change the subject and pretend like I said something else.

    • jim says:

      Because it makes obvious that the elected government is not really in control – that the permanent government is out of control, that democracy has expired, or is in the process of expiring.

      People know it, and they don’t know it. They feel it is dangerous to know it.

      • VXXC says:

        Democracy died 1933-1947. Tea vs Acela is a spasm of democracy. Whether rebirth or official declaration of death remains to be seen.

        Putin is not what you think he is, nor was Frederick the Great. A man Great by War with Daddy’s Army and Treasury, Great was his ability to beguile intellectuals then and to this very day.

        Frederick the Great was a product of 1000 years of European and Germanic nobilty, a process that began in 3d century Germania as a project of Rome.

        If DEC wants FreddyGreat they can go fight for him, the people and their defenders will not, nor should they. A dog does not fight for a clearly crueler master, in order to form a more perfect tyranny. Nor do men sworn to the opposite.

  10. Matthew says:

    Bobby Knight.

  11. Red says:

    Prince Harry would make an outstanding king.

    • spandrell says:

      Nah. He’d spent his time hunting and whoring while he delegates the government to an eunuch like Cameron.

      • jim says:

        The less a King does, the better.

        Ideally a King should do absolutely nothing except kill people who would like a sliver of his power.

        • Zach says:

          Call for a monarchy, then want the monarchy to do nothing, which suggests, free people operating under liberty in a free market will do just fine.

          Anarcho Capitalism?

          • Thales says:

            In Anarcho Capitalism, there’s nothing to prevent the private production of defense from scaling all the way up to armies. Monarchy, rent-a-cops is basically the hard limit.

            • jim says:

              We are always in anarchy, and never in anarchy. Most systems can be usefully analyzed as variations of anarcho capitalism, or as dysfunctions or malfunctions of anarcho capitalism. Since Anarcho capitalism must always have some degree of malfunction, Anarcho Capitalism can never exist. Since there is no Ring of Fnargl that magically guarantees the rulers can reliably win, Anarcho Capitalism always exists.

  12. VXXC says:

    This is an excellent post.
    =============================

    Having said that I see no man living I will kneel to, or trust with this power. There is no FreddyGreat [there never was].

    I am far from alone in these judgements and sentiments.

    You see your ignoring that the American Government sprang from the Americans, that they are not dead or even any longer asleep, and that they will have no King.

    And the logical end of socialism if you accept what we actually have, and human nature is what we call neo-liberalism.

    Obamacare is not socialized medicine, it’s neo-liberal medicine. It’s IMF HMO, it’s plunder and ruin. Hardly new to us talking, opposing thumb chimps. I see no chimp living or in sight, or reasonably possible to kneel to, who for instance is strong enough to do this? Who?

    Who is your King?

    From whence does this gift from Heaven spring? He or she would come from the Cathedral. We’d have the Cathedral with the KGB.

    Want a name? Hillary. Here’s another – Larry Summers. Lloyd Bankfein. Jamie Dimon. Janet Yellen.

    Maybe Erik Prinz. Or perhaps King Dave [Petreaus. We call him King Dave]. King Dave might have a chance, but like Stilcho he’s allowed himself to be taken out. He’d Stilicho again, it’s his nature. See the accidental shooting.

    The reaction wants FreddyGreat because the Reaction is a splinter of sanity of the Cathedral.

    • jim says:

      You see your ignoring that the American Government sprang from the Americans, that they are not dead or even any longer asleep, and that they will have no King.

      Half of them have no fathers. Sixteen million of them have Obamaphones.

      Obamacare is not socialized medicine, it’s neo-liberal medicine.

      Reagan care was unlimited free medicine for short fat indio women and their hordes of bastard spawn. Obamacare is more of the same, with free abortions and free sex change operations, and more subsidy of women by men.

      I do not know what neoliberalism is, but I am pretty sure it does not involve free sex change operations.

      From whence does this gift from Heaven spring? He or she would come from the Cathedral. We’d have the Cathedral with the KGB.

      Such as, for example, Putin.

      The reaction wants FreddyGreat because the Reaction is a splinter of sanity of the Cathedral.

      Quite so.

Leave a Reply for VXXC