I’m sure you’re all well aware of the “controversial” Supreme Court decision with Hobby Lobby and the insurance they offer their employees. I’m not really sure why religion had anything at all to do with this case. It shouldn’t really matter if you decide to offer insurance based on your religion or your favorite color. Personally, I don’t know why we need a court to tell us what we can and can’t do with our privately owned business, but apparently we do.
Earlier today a coworker asked me my opinion on the ruling. This is the kind of guy who always asks my opinion, knows what it is going to be, then acts completely shocked that something so crazy could possibly come out of my mouth. I told him I don’t think anyone should force an employer to give his employees anything. It is a voluntary agreement, the employee knows what is being offered, and if the employee doesn’t like it he can find another job..And that’s when he thought he had me!
“You hypocrite! So if you don’t like what your employer gives you, you can leave! But then you say I’m wrong when I tell you if you don’t like the country you can leave!” I wish this wasn’t true.
It all comes down to private property and whether we have the right to do what we want with what we own. By saying, “If you don’t like the laws, you can move to Somalia!” you’re presupposing the government’s “authority”. The people were here first and gave authority to the government (It’s debatable, but for statist sake). Say you had a party at your house. It is your house, you own it, you have authority and no one really argues that. If you have to run to the store you could assign authority of your house to a friend, “Hey Rollo, I’m running out to the store, can you take care of everything while I’m gone?” Rollo now has authority in my house.
However, that authority ends when I say it does since it is my house. Rollo can’t refuse to let me in, or make up some crazy rule saying I have to pay him half my income in order to stay there and if I don’t he’ll throw me in a cage. That doesn’t remotely make sense. The same rules should apply to government.
In the second case, “If you don’t like your job, you can leave!”. There is no aggression against anyone. I start a business and decide to offer no insurance at all to my employees. It might be hard, given the market, to attract good employees, but it is ultimately my decision. I’m the one who took the risk to start a business and I am the one buying labor from my employees at an agreed upon price. It is absolutely absurd to think that you should be able to voluntarily agree to a price for your labor then when the contract starts, demand more payment (assuming no fraud is involved).
This is similar to the employee running to the mafia after he is hired and having them threaten the employer with locking him in a cage if he doesn’t offer insurance. It is a clear aggression against the employer’s property.
The two situations aren’t even similar and I’m disappointed that some people do not see the clear difference.
