The Cato Institute: Cato Weekly Video
I like Michael Shermer.
Shermer is the gregarious skeptic/atheist/libertarian who deserves inclusion in the now famous Dawkins-Hitchens-Dennett-Harris axis of atheism. In his brief explanation of his book The Mind of the Market, he brings up the fascinating similarity between two complex systems: the market economy and biological evolution. He closes by remarking how conservatives need to accept evolution the way they've accepted market economics, and liberals need to accept markets the way they've accepted evolution.
This brings up an important point. We are programmed by evolution to see complicated things as products of design, particularly if they function well. Christian conservatives often see the ordered complexity of living things as evidence of intelligent design. Similarly, leftists believe that similar kind of "intelligent design" is necessary to bring order to an economy. Intelligent, elite experts must gather together to dictate the distribution of resources. Without human design, chaos must ensue.
What the leftists fail to realize is that no human intelligence can regulate the complicated dance of a vast, teeming, glorious economy like ours. God, at least, as an omniscient, omnipotent being, could have designed the complexity of life. The only problem is: he didn't.
Because he doesn't exist.
Probably.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Which is Worse, Democrats or Republicans?
I am really trying to decide.
This is the basic Republican platform:
Lower and flatter taxes, lower government intervention, lower overall spending, higher military spending, market health care, , school choice, immigration enforcement only, the Patriot act, a "tough" justice system, preventing affirmative action, a more interventionist foreign policy, abstinence only education, laws against gay marriage, restrictions on abortion, nuclear power, keeping the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and free trade.
Democrats like these things: Higher, more uneven taxation, income redistribution, environmental protection, strong emphasis on renewable energy, gay marriage or civil unions, lower penalties for drug offenses, strong restrictions of free trade, comprehensive immigration reform, single payer universal health care, abortions for everyone, affirmative action, repealing don't ask, don't tell, a less interventionist foreign policy, repealing the patriot act, more spending, and more welfare/income redistribution.
The issues in bold are the issues on which I agree with the party. The Dems took 6 out of 16, the GOP got 9. I still have to weigh these issues in importance. Does school choice make up for starting wars? Does gay marriage make up for the coercive confiscation of property?
I guess I'll do what Americans have been doing for a long time, now. I'll wait and see who the candidates are, then hold my nose and vote for whoever happens to be least bad.
This is the basic Republican platform:
Lower and flatter taxes, lower government intervention, lower overall spending, higher military spending, market health care, , school choice, immigration enforcement only, the Patriot act, a "tough" justice system, preventing affirmative action, a more interventionist foreign policy, abstinence only education, laws against gay marriage, restrictions on abortion, nuclear power, keeping the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and free trade.
Democrats like these things: Higher, more uneven taxation, income redistribution, environmental protection, strong emphasis on renewable energy, gay marriage or civil unions, lower penalties for drug offenses, strong restrictions of free trade, comprehensive immigration reform, single payer universal health care, abortions for everyone, affirmative action, repealing don't ask, don't tell, a less interventionist foreign policy, repealing the patriot act, more spending, and more welfare/income redistribution.
The issues in bold are the issues on which I agree with the party. The Dems took 6 out of 16, the GOP got 9. I still have to weigh these issues in importance. Does school choice make up for starting wars? Does gay marriage make up for the coercive confiscation of property?
I guess I'll do what Americans have been doing for a long time, now. I'll wait and see who the candidates are, then hold my nose and vote for whoever happens to be least bad.
Friday, January 25, 2008
This Presidential Election is the Most Important One Since the Last One
We mean it this time, guys! We know that we, the Media, have been saying this during every presidential election since before you were born. And we meant it, every time! Every presidential election is somehow the most important of our lives. Eventually they will become so intense we will rip our collective arms off, and our heads will explode.
Whats this? You think that we, the Media, are guilty of hyping the importance of these elections to boost ratings? Are you really implying that we would compromise our journalistic integrity just to increase add revenue, that we would sell ourselves to the advertisers like cheap, crack-addled whores?
Maybe you're right. What are going to do about it? Turn off your TV? Not likely! You listen to us. You'll watch what we tell you to watch! Please! Don't walk away! Katie Couric will blow you for 5 bucks! For ten you can have Stone Phillips! Come back!
Whats this? You think that we, the Media, are guilty of hyping the importance of these elections to boost ratings? Are you really implying that we would compromise our journalistic integrity just to increase add revenue, that we would sell ourselves to the advertisers like cheap, crack-addled whores?
Maybe you're right. What are going to do about it? Turn off your TV? Not likely! You listen to us. You'll watch what we tell you to watch! Please! Don't walk away! Katie Couric will blow you for 5 bucks! For ten you can have Stone Phillips! Come back!
America is Subsidizing Canada's Cheap Drugs
At the Freakonomics blog at nytimes.com, Zola P. Horovitz, a biotech industry consultant discusses why prescription drug prices are so high in America compared to Canada and Western Europe. She identified the problem as precisely what I always expected. Government interference.
Normally, in a free market economy, multiple firms compete and this forces them to continually lower prices and increase quality in order to win customers. Just look at your cellphone.
Now picture your cell from 5 years ago, if you even had one. Your current one is probably cheaper, brighter, lighter, more compact, and has more features than your cell from just a half decade ago. Why?
Why is it that computers and DVD players and cell phones and mp3 players always get cheaper and better? Why do health care and medicine always get more expensive. There are four basic reasons.
1. Demand is skyrocketing. Populations in Europe and North America are getting older, and old people get sick. In addition, world economic growth is so fast that poor people who only had access to primitive medicine before are becoming middle class people who would actually like to see life after 40.
2. The costs of researching medicines is extremely high.
3. Insurance encourages people to use medicine more inefficiently. Insurance generally covers some procedures outright, some require a copay, and some are simply not covered at all. So if your insurance covers an X-ray for something, you figure you might as well get it--even if it is probably unnecessary. Hell, you aren't paying for it anyway. If you were paying for the procedure outright, you might not get it. Since most people with insurance use medical resources inefficiently, the prices of everything goes up. This especially hurts the uninsured who have to pay for everything outright.
4. Government mandated price controls. When governments mandate low prices, supply plummets, shortages occur, and non price controlled units become extremely costly.
Look at rent control in New York City. Prices are artificially low, so landlords have no incentive to improve quality--they couldn't charge any more, so whats the point? There are shortages, too. Ask anyone who tried to find an apartment in NYC. And if they do find an apartment, and it isn't rent controlled, it will cost them many times what a free, competitive market would charge.
This is exactly what we see happening in America today. Other countries have established universal health care systems. These governments negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and agree to pay only slightly more than the cost of the medicine itself. The pharma companies have no choice. They can only take a slight profit or nothing at all. The government dictates this.
But somebody has to pay for all the billions of dollars of research the pharma companies do. And so it falls to us (and to the growing middle classes in developing countries that cannot afford universal coverage) to subsidize health research for everyone else. The question, then becomes what happens when America moves to universal health care--this will definitely happen if a Democrat wins in 2008--like everyone else? Who will pay for research then?
Government research grants are ineffective (since they give the money upfront, there is no incentive to try hard). Will all the countries share the burden of paying for research? Will medical progress stall because people can't manage to trust Capitalism, despite the evidence right before their eyes?
Next time some freeloading Canadian brags about how much more "progressive" Canada is, hit him with some knowledge.
Normally, in a free market economy, multiple firms compete and this forces them to continually lower prices and increase quality in order to win customers. Just look at your cellphone.
Now picture your cell from 5 years ago, if you even had one. Your current one is probably cheaper, brighter, lighter, more compact, and has more features than your cell from just a half decade ago. Why?
Why is it that computers and DVD players and cell phones and mp3 players always get cheaper and better? Why do health care and medicine always get more expensive. There are four basic reasons.
1. Demand is skyrocketing. Populations in Europe and North America are getting older, and old people get sick. In addition, world economic growth is so fast that poor people who only had access to primitive medicine before are becoming middle class people who would actually like to see life after 40.
2. The costs of researching medicines is extremely high.
3. Insurance encourages people to use medicine more inefficiently. Insurance generally covers some procedures outright, some require a copay, and some are simply not covered at all. So if your insurance covers an X-ray for something, you figure you might as well get it--even if it is probably unnecessary. Hell, you aren't paying for it anyway. If you were paying for the procedure outright, you might not get it. Since most people with insurance use medical resources inefficiently, the prices of everything goes up. This especially hurts the uninsured who have to pay for everything outright.
4. Government mandated price controls. When governments mandate low prices, supply plummets, shortages occur, and non price controlled units become extremely costly.
Look at rent control in New York City. Prices are artificially low, so landlords have no incentive to improve quality--they couldn't charge any more, so whats the point? There are shortages, too. Ask anyone who tried to find an apartment in NYC. And if they do find an apartment, and it isn't rent controlled, it will cost them many times what a free, competitive market would charge.
This is exactly what we see happening in America today. Other countries have established universal health care systems. These governments negotiate with pharmaceutical companies and agree to pay only slightly more than the cost of the medicine itself. The pharma companies have no choice. They can only take a slight profit or nothing at all. The government dictates this.
But somebody has to pay for all the billions of dollars of research the pharma companies do. And so it falls to us (and to the growing middle classes in developing countries that cannot afford universal coverage) to subsidize health research for everyone else. The question, then becomes what happens when America moves to universal health care--this will definitely happen if a Democrat wins in 2008--like everyone else? Who will pay for research then?
Government research grants are ineffective (since they give the money upfront, there is no incentive to try hard). Will all the countries share the burden of paying for research? Will medical progress stall because people can't manage to trust Capitalism, despite the evidence right before their eyes?
Next time some freeloading Canadian brags about how much more "progressive" Canada is, hit him with some knowledge.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Prostitution Existed before Government. It will Exist After as Well
When you close your eyes, the room does not disappear.
This may sound like a meaningless truism, but this bit of common sense is an important thing to acknowledge when dealing with prohibitionists. Prohibitionists are the kind of people who tell you that if a problem exists, we should make it illegal, and then it will go away. Problem solved.
In reality, of course, prohibited things can't be made to disappear. Only police states, like China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union were good at making "objectionable", "immoral", or "counter-revolutionary" things go away. But even with the iron grip of totalitarianism, prohibited items managed to slip through the bloody fingers of governments.
When the United States prohibited alcohol in the 1920s, the effect was a small decrease in alcohol use, a slight decrease in public drunkenness, and an enormous increase in violent, organized crime.
In addition, alcohol became much more dangerous. Homemade moonshine was sometimes dangerously toxic, killing and blinding many people. Hidden stills sometimes exploded, killing and maiming hundreds.
Prohibiting prostitution would have a similar effect. If prostitution was legal, more people would use prostitutes, since it would be easier and safer than trying to pick up an illegal streetwalker (who might secretly be a police officer).
Most women would not even consider prostitution, legal or illegal. Still, I guess there are some women who would consider becoming prostitutes if it was safe, legal and regulated, and especially if they didn't have to worry about pimps, who are usually violent and abusive, and demand a commission from their prostitutes. These women (and men) would choose prostitution. I would argue that when an adult freely chooses to do something, and which does not infringe on anyone else's rights, it is not for society, government, police, or any other group of well-intentioned busy-bodies to interfere.
And, of course, illegal prostitution is a source of income for organized crime, and is strongly correlated with abuse, coercion, and sex slavery.
If the government regulated brothels, mandating STD tests and monitoring workplace conditions, prostitutes would be treated not as criminals, but as respected members of the community, at least by government. Any poor treatment by brothel owners or patrons, any abuse, rape, or contract violation, could be reported to the police by prostitutes, without fear of being imprisoned.
Clearly, we can see that if our concern was the well-being of prostitutes, sex work would be made legal. If our concern is not the well-being of the women themselves, what is it?
Christian conservatives oppose prostitution because they believe it is immoral to by or sell sex. Interestingly, the Christian churches used to own and sponsor brothels. Feminists (well, some feminists) oppose it because it is "exploitative" of women. Frankly, I am inclined to agree with both of them. Having sex with a prostitute under the current laws is immoral and exploitative. Many of the woman are forced into prostitution by abusive pimps and human traffickers. They are being exploited, and it would be immoral to fund their exploiters.
Even more immoral, of course, would to let puritanical Christians or dogmatic feminists interfere with doing what is best for prostitutes, and human freedom in general: legalizing prostitution.
This may sound like a meaningless truism, but this bit of common sense is an important thing to acknowledge when dealing with prohibitionists. Prohibitionists are the kind of people who tell you that if a problem exists, we should make it illegal, and then it will go away. Problem solved.
In reality, of course, prohibited things can't be made to disappear. Only police states, like China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union were good at making "objectionable", "immoral", or "counter-revolutionary" things go away. But even with the iron grip of totalitarianism, prohibited items managed to slip through the bloody fingers of governments.
When the United States prohibited alcohol in the 1920s, the effect was a small decrease in alcohol use, a slight decrease in public drunkenness, and an enormous increase in violent, organized crime.
In addition, alcohol became much more dangerous. Homemade moonshine was sometimes dangerously toxic, killing and blinding many people. Hidden stills sometimes exploded, killing and maiming hundreds.
Prohibiting prostitution would have a similar effect. If prostitution was legal, more people would use prostitutes, since it would be easier and safer than trying to pick up an illegal streetwalker (who might secretly be a police officer).
Most women would not even consider prostitution, legal or illegal. Still, I guess there are some women who would consider becoming prostitutes if it was safe, legal and regulated, and especially if they didn't have to worry about pimps, who are usually violent and abusive, and demand a commission from their prostitutes. These women (and men) would choose prostitution. I would argue that when an adult freely chooses to do something, and which does not infringe on anyone else's rights, it is not for society, government, police, or any other group of well-intentioned busy-bodies to interfere.
And, of course, illegal prostitution is a source of income for organized crime, and is strongly correlated with abuse, coercion, and sex slavery.
If the government regulated brothels, mandating STD tests and monitoring workplace conditions, prostitutes would be treated not as criminals, but as respected members of the community, at least by government. Any poor treatment by brothel owners or patrons, any abuse, rape, or contract violation, could be reported to the police by prostitutes, without fear of being imprisoned.
Clearly, we can see that if our concern was the well-being of prostitutes, sex work would be made legal. If our concern is not the well-being of the women themselves, what is it?
Christian conservatives oppose prostitution because they believe it is immoral to by or sell sex. Interestingly, the Christian churches used to own and sponsor brothels. Feminists (well, some feminists) oppose it because it is "exploitative" of women. Frankly, I am inclined to agree with both of them. Having sex with a prostitute under the current laws is immoral and exploitative. Many of the woman are forced into prostitution by abusive pimps and human traffickers. They are being exploited, and it would be immoral to fund their exploiters.
Even more immoral, of course, would to let puritanical Christians or dogmatic feminists interfere with doing what is best for prostitutes, and human freedom in general: legalizing prostitution.
Checks from the Government! It must be an Election Year
President Bush is promising $150 billion to taxpayers, with the stated goal of jump starting the economy. That's right. $150 billion. Sounds like a lot, but our economy is worth 14,000 billion dollars. Thats like giving a dollar and change for every hundred dollars we spend. Its effect on our economy would be negligible. But its effect on our budget deficit would not be negligible. Taking this money in the form of debts owed to foreign countries in order to provide a stimulus that will probably not have an effect on a recession that still may not happen is stupid, and deeply immoral.
Stupid and immoral? Naturally the Democrats want in on that action. Of course, Democrats want this money to go to their favorite constituents: poor people. Never mind that poor people pay barely any taxes in the first place, and take more income from the government in the form of Welfare, Unemployment, Medicaid, subsidized housing, etc.
Interestingly, Hillary Clinton also want to use some of the money to "invest" in alternative energy sources. That sounds good. But look deeper. Hillary Clinton's plan goes beyond injecting money into research. She wants to subsidize them and start building factories. That would certainly be good for people who want manufacturing jobs, as well as whatever companies lobby hard enough to receive government pork. But it also rewards inefficient methods (photovoltaic solar panels) which can be produced in large scale now over potentially revolutionary techniques like flexible film solar cells. In doing this, Clinton is actually damaging our nation's ability to innovate.
Clearly this is stupid. But immoral? Yes. Borrowing money (for P.R. stunts) today to be payed off by future generations is deeply immoral. Our leaders are digging us ever deeper into debt. They don't give two shits. They got elected. Thats all they care about.
Stupid and immoral? Naturally the Democrats want in on that action. Of course, Democrats want this money to go to their favorite constituents: poor people. Never mind that poor people pay barely any taxes in the first place, and take more income from the government in the form of Welfare, Unemployment, Medicaid, subsidized housing, etc.
Interestingly, Hillary Clinton also want to use some of the money to "invest" in alternative energy sources. That sounds good. But look deeper. Hillary Clinton's plan goes beyond injecting money into research. She wants to subsidize them and start building factories. That would certainly be good for people who want manufacturing jobs, as well as whatever companies lobby hard enough to receive government pork. But it also rewards inefficient methods (photovoltaic solar panels) which can be produced in large scale now over potentially revolutionary techniques like flexible film solar cells. In doing this, Clinton is actually damaging our nation's ability to innovate.
Clearly this is stupid. But immoral? Yes. Borrowing money (for P.R. stunts) today to be payed off by future generations is deeply immoral. Our leaders are digging us ever deeper into debt. They don't give two shits. They got elected. Thats all they care about.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
2000 Wives: Why Polygamy is the World's Most Destructive Idea
Throughout history, societies have experimented with a variety of marital arrangements. In "traditional" societies, polygyny is often practiced. Polygyny exists when one man marries multiple women. This arrangement may well be the most destructive concept in the world.
Yes. Really.
When the Sultan has 2,000 wives and 10,000 concubines, that leaves somewhat less potential lovin' for your average "Yusef Sixpack". Obviously once the Grand Vizier and each of the Sultan's 800 sons gets his 80 wives and 200 concubines, that leaves a great number of men left wanting some action. The men who lose out will inevitably be the less powerful, poorer men without family connections. In order for the powerful men to protect their flocks of wives from their horny subjects, some system is needed. Ladies and Gentlemen, meet organized religion.
Yeah, teach them that sex is unclean and immoral. Women are dirty, dangerous temptresses--vaginas are the devil's playthings.
As the Jesuits said, "Get 'em while they're young and anything is possible."
Look at the state of Islam today. Why are the terrorists (mostly young men) so reckless with their lives? Because their lives suck. Hard. They aren't allowed to have sex. Which wouldn't be so bad, but they aren't allowed to masturbate either. They aren't even allowed to drink away their desires: alcohol is strictly forbidden. Add to this the fact that they are drilled in absurd fanatical madrassas, and taught to memorize the ridiculous bullshit of an illiterate 7th century Arab merchant, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Remember, when you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose. These are prepackaged, dangerous sociopaths: just aim and fire.
Unfortunately for us in the rich, and happy, and lucky West, all that angst and rage is being expertly aimed at us by Al Qaeda and their fellow travelers. I maintain that our best defense against this reckless hate is not guns or bombs. Our wonderful, vibrant, shiny, sexy culture is our greatest (ahem) asset.
Remember, every possible convert won over to our side by Baywatch and baseball, by Friends and Family Guy, is more than canceled out by dropping bombs and invading countries.
Yes. Really.
When the Sultan has 2,000 wives and 10,000 concubines, that leaves somewhat less potential lovin' for your average "Yusef Sixpack". Obviously once the Grand Vizier and each of the Sultan's 800 sons gets his 80 wives and 200 concubines, that leaves a great number of men left wanting some action. The men who lose out will inevitably be the less powerful, poorer men without family connections. In order for the powerful men to protect their flocks of wives from their horny subjects, some system is needed. Ladies and Gentlemen, meet organized religion.
Yeah, teach them that sex is unclean and immoral. Women are dirty, dangerous temptresses--vaginas are the devil's playthings.
As the Jesuits said, "Get 'em while they're young and anything is possible."
Look at the state of Islam today. Why are the terrorists (mostly young men) so reckless with their lives? Because their lives suck. Hard. They aren't allowed to have sex. Which wouldn't be so bad, but they aren't allowed to masturbate either. They aren't even allowed to drink away their desires: alcohol is strictly forbidden. Add to this the fact that they are drilled in absurd fanatical madrassas, and taught to memorize the ridiculous bullshit of an illiterate 7th century Arab merchant, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Remember, when you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose. These are prepackaged, dangerous sociopaths: just aim and fire.
Unfortunately for us in the rich, and happy, and lucky West, all that angst and rage is being expertly aimed at us by Al Qaeda and their fellow travelers. I maintain that our best defense against this reckless hate is not guns or bombs. Our wonderful, vibrant, shiny, sexy culture is our greatest (ahem) asset.
Remember, every possible convert won over to our side by Baywatch and baseball, by Friends and Family Guy, is more than canceled out by dropping bombs and invading countries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
