fox quotes the congressional budget office, assessing the constitutionality of requiring people to buy health insurance: "The government has never required people to buy any good or service, as condition of lawful residence in the United States." that was with regard to the clinton proposal in the 90s. but, good point.

john stuart mill, in on liberty, has an interesting response to an objection. the view he is defending is that everyone should be free to dispose of his life and property as he see fit. the objection is familiar, indeed it is the present theory of our government in its essence: people's bad decisions - to descend into vice, for example, or to go uninsured - impose costs on everybody. no decision affects only oneself. mill's response is in a way shockingly simple. right. if no decision affects only oneself, and if it is legitimate to intervene in decisions where they impose costs on others, then there is absolutely no aspect of anyone's life that is not the subject of legitimate control. that is, on this view there is absolutely no principled limit to the power of the state: it entails an entire eradication of human freedom, a catastrophe for the prospects of human happiness. so here's where mill drew the line: in a case where an action affects "in the first instance" primarily oneself, and only through that initial effect indirectly affects others, a sphere of autonomy must be preserved inviolate. the costs of that must be borne, because the costs of the alternative are incomparably more vast.