Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:
For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)
Mirada Barzey of Ramen and Rand has the latest Objectivist Roundup. Go check it out!
Read more...Here's the announcement that I posted a bit prematurely last week. It's now kosher, as it has been officially announced by the Anthem Foundation.
Just a few days ago, I heard some great news from Dr. John Lewis:
I have accepted a five-year position at Duke University as Visiting Associate Professor in the Philosophy, Politics, and Economics Program. This is made possible with the awesome support of BB&T and Anthem, and with the support of the academics associated with PPE. The program is based jointly at Duke and at University of North Carolina, and will allow me to teach at both schools. In addition to UG courses, I will be doing a graduate course on Thucydides in the spring.Hooray! UNC's description of the PPE program says:
Historically, the separation of the social sciences, in particular the divide between philosophy and economics, and between philosophy and political science, occurred only recently. If we look back to the founding fathers of economics such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, and John Stuart Mill, it becomes clear how close these disciplines once were. Economics grew out of the moral considerations of those theorists and their aim of finding socially stable ways of mutually beneficial cooperation. Similarly, the political theories that shaped the work of the founding fathers, and indeed, the political constitutions of a broad range of other countries, have their roots in the work of philosophers.Wow, that sounds like a great program. Congratulations, John! Read more...
The separation of the social sciences allowed the disciplines to narrow their fields of investigation and, as a consequence, to develop specific tools for their particular domains. In our highly interconnected world, however, such separation stands in the way of people developing the sort of comprehensive understanding that is demanded by the social, economic, and political problems that we face.
To overcome this shortcoming, the subjects of philosophy, politics, and economics need to be (re-)integrated. The PPE Program does precisely this."
Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:
For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)
Not long ago, Paul and I spent a few days camping with my parents, Jamie and Susie, as they travel around the southwest in their small RV with their black German Shepherd Daisy. We brought Conrad with us: he was really quite stellar despite the totally new mode of life.
My parents keep blogs of their travels, so you can see what we did with them. We appear about halfway through this entry on my father's travel log. He has the good descriptions and pictures. And you'll find the funny pictures capturing the essence of our adventures on this entry of my mother's blog.
The dogs got along famously, despite a bit of barking at first. Conrad is a dominant dog, but he learned that he had to play the part of the submissive puppy to get Daisy to play with him. Here's a picture of them playing from my father's blog:
And here's a drawing of them playing with toys from my mother:
Conrad hasn't had much of an interest in toys, but Daisy showed him the true pleasure of the activity. She shredded one of his toys -- a long stuffed squeaky dog -- into bite-sized bits in about three minutes. In return, Conrad was delighted to jump around in the bushes while vigorously shaking one of her toys. It was hugely entertaining for everyone.
Although I did work some during the trip, the break from the usual grind was really, really good for me. I don't think I would have been able to work the monster week that I did last week -- over 70 hours (!!) of writing and editing -- without that.
I know that this particular topic isn't supposed to be funny, but I was highly amused:
A man breaks into a house to look for money and guns. Inside, he finds couple in bed. He orders the guy out of the bed and ties him to a chair. While tying the homeowner's wife to the bed the convict gets on top of her, kisses her neck, then gets up & goes into the bathroom.Ha!
While he's in there, the husband whispers over to his wife: "Listen, this guy is an escaped convict. Look at his clothes! He's probably spent a lot of time in jail and hasn't seen a woman in years. I saw how he kissed your neck. If he wants sex, don't resist, don't complain... do what ever he tells you. Satisfy him no matter how much he nauseates you. This guy is obviously very dangerous. If he gets angry, he'll kill us both. Be strong, honey. I love you!"
His wife responds: "He wasn't kissing my neck. He was whispering in my ear. He told me that he's gay, thinks you're cute, and asked if we had any Vaseline. I told him it was in the bathroom. Be strong honey. I love you too."
Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:
For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)
I've been working ten-plus hour days editing the dissertation this whole week, so I've got nothing in my queue. And I can't possibly spare the time required to write anything. So consider this an open thread on food.
Here's the question: What delectable food have you discovered lately?
For me, it's pastured eggs scrambled in coconut oil with goat cheese.
During an earlier NoodleFood discussion on whether physicians should be forced to work during pandemics as a condition of retaining their medical license, the discussion turned towards the appropriateness of medical licensing in general.
Steve Simpson of the Institute of Justice had the following excellent comments to make in response to some questions. With his permission, I'm reposting his remarks here.
With respect to the question that doctors know up front that they agree to certain terms before they accept a license, hence they've voluntarily contracted to any associated obligations:
First, doctors do not consent to medical licensing in the sense in which that consent could legitimately be said to impose further obligations on them, the way one consents to the obligations in a contract.With respect to the concern that private medical licensing groups would have a conflict of interest between setting high standards vs. retaining their members (and hence government would be better at protecting the public from shady practitioners):
Doctors do not get to decide to practice with a license or without a license. They are compelled to practice with a license whether they want to or not. So it is wrong to claim that they somehow consent to whatever obligations come with licensing. The state offers them the "choice" of practicing with a license or not practicing at all. That is not a choice the state has to authority to impose upon doctors, any more than it has the moral authority to offer citizens the "choice" of being enslaved citizens or not being citizens at all. I could say much more about this, but I'll leave it at that.
Second, your view that private medical licensing would constitute an inherent conflict of interest because it would be doctors essentially engaging in self-regulation is wrong on many fronts. The fallacy at the root of your view is that individuals are capable of objectively governing the lives of others but not capable of governing their own lives because of their own self interest in the latter situation but not the former. There is much to say to this, and reading Atlas Shrugged would be a good place to start in learning why that view is the exact opposite of the truth, but let me say just a couple things.And with respect to occupational licensing in general:
You say that there is no guarantee that private medical boards will set high standards or improve them as necessary. But there is, and it's the best guarantee that has ever existed--rational self interest. Doctors are neither insane, nor irrational (indeed, if they were, I submit they would not be doctors now would they). Nor are their patients. Doctors have no desire to harm or injure their patients, for, among other reasons, if they do they will not remain doctors for very long, they will have no patients, they will get sued, etc.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that state regulatory boards will set high standards either. Indeed, state regulatory boards have no incentive whatsoever to keep current with the latest developments in medicine and to ensure that their standards are high. What is the cost to them if they do not do so? They are committees, and thus each individual can always shuffle off the responsiblity for their failures to someone else, and even if they are found to have failed to set high enough standards, they suffer no consequences whatsoever. Their income and careers are not on the line, they will never be fined or sanctioned for their failures, and rarely, if ever, are any regulatory boards ever held accountable for their failures.
But there's another mistake in your thinking about this that many people make, which is to consider any regulatory boards to be separate from the professions they regulate. This is flawed as a matter of both history and common sense. Historically, occupational licensing has typically been championed by the very professionals who are to be licensed. They do this both to "professionalize" their industries--because it is much better to be "state licensed" than simply to be qualified--and to make it much harder for others to compete with them.
As a result, all occupational licensing agencies or boards that exist today are composed of the very professionals that they regulate. This makes perfectly good sense when you consider that no one else is qualified to regulate them. Who is going to decide what the proper standards for doctors are but doctors? Likewise lawyers, plumbers, carpenters, engineers, architects, stenographers, morticians and funeral directors, barbers and cosmetologists, florists, etc. Do you know what standards even a licensed florist or interior decorator must meet to be qualified? I don't. So who, but other florists and interior designers are going to regulate the florists and interior designers?
The term for what I am talking about is "regulatory capture," which simply means that the idea that regulatory boards and agencies of any type are somehow "separate" from the industries they regulate and thus "objective" is utter, unbridled nonsense. It is a pipe dream. It is the sort of thing that we all believed in fourth grade when we thought that committees should run the whole wide world because that would be "fair." My point is not simply that regulatory capture is likely to happen.
My point is that occupational and industrial or economic regulation is virtually impossible without regulatory capture, and, indeed, the regulators actively want the participation of the industries they regulate because otherwise they would not know what the hell they were doing. So your view that regulatory boards are somehow more "objective" and less "conflicted" than private boards is just not true factually and by the very logic of what such regulation aims to do.
I could go on about occupational licensing all day. At IJ, we've done quite a lot of work on the subject, so if anyone is interested in more concrete examples of how licensing evolves in a given profession, check out our website, particularly the economic liberty cases and some of our research publications (www.ij.org). Or just shoot me an email (or ask a question here) and I'll do my best to answer it or direct you to more information.Thank you, Steve, for this great impromptu analysis!
The idea that licensed workers voluntarily consent to the obligations imposed on them by states is really unjust in more ways than I mentioned. As a lawyer, I see this all the time.
The states in which I'm licensed are constantly imposing new requirements, like mandatory pro bono, additional "continuing legal education" and the like to which I never consented and that are burdensome, costly, almost always a complete waste of time, and useless from the standpoint of improving my qualifications. In fact, what does motivate me to do a good job is precisely the opposite of all of these (and more) unchosen obligations.
I am motivated by the chosen obligations I freely decided to accept when I became a lawyer. My own desire to produce excellent work, to give my client the best work I can, to win my cases or at least to outlitigate the other side at every step, and to constantly produce a better brief or better argument or better analysis than I did the last time out.
But even if those things didn't motivate me, I and every other regulated professional would be motivated by the desire not to be embarrassed or to develop a bad reputation (and I have both colleagues, clients, and judges to worry about) or the other things I mentioned in my last post. In fact, I have never in my 15 year career met anyone who was ever motivated to produce good work by the states in which they were licensed. I could produce consistently incompetent and crappy work for years before any of the three states in which I'm licensed would take notice. My colleagues, my employer, my clients, and all the judges I appear before would take notice long before the state bars.
So my point is that the notion that we voluntarily assume the obligations of our state licenses is both a classic moral inversion--because it is in fact the voluntary obligations that motivate professionals and regulated occupations to produce high quality work--and it is illogical in that it contradicts the supposed purpose of licensing, which is to impose obligations on regulated occupations that they did not choose, because, allegedly, they can't voluntarily regulate themselves. See the contradiction? On the one hand, the obligations of licensing are "voluntary." On the other, licensed occupations can't be self-regulated because "voluntary" regulation would not work. Heads they win, tails we lose.
The latest Objectivist Roundup can be found at Amy Mossoff's The Little Things.
Read more...Breaking news from the American Medical Association on dealing with the swine flu:
In the event that quarantine and isolation measures are needed, physicians should ensure that the least restrictive measures are employed in a manner that does not discriminate against particular socioeconomic, racial or ethnic groups.OK, let me try to unpack this.
Apparently, President Obama's "stimulus" plan called for sending an extra $250 to ten thousand dead people. One 83-year-old fellow's mother died back in the 60's, and her check showed up at his place.
Social Security representatives said there is a good explanation. Of the about 52 million checks that have been mailed out, about 10,000 of those have been sent to people who are deceased.On the bright side, maybe such errors will be helpful when He is running the health care industry. Read more...
Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:
For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)
If you're on FaceBook, I encourage you to promote the reading of Atlas Shrugged by this simple Facebook App -- Atlas Shrugged Pledge. And don't forget to forward it to your friends!
Read more...Last week, my father left me a voicemail message regarding Paul's and my plans to meet them for a bit of camping as they traveled through southern Colorado. Due to the dissertation, I'd already delayed our planned meet-up by a day. In his message, he said that if I decided that I needed to take another day (or longer) that I should do that. It would be fine with them. Then he said, very emphatically, "you need to do what's good for you, not what's good for us."
When I say that I wasn't raised in an altruistic family, I mean it. My parents are awesome.
Sadly, I posted the good news about John Lewis somewhat prematurely. It's all true, but you're just not allowed to know about it yet. So if you read this post earlier, you are hereby instructed to forget about it. If you have no idea what news I'm talking about, not to worry, I'll post it later.
Read more...
Brian Jennings is the author of a new book on the Fairness Doctrine, Censorship: The Threat to Silence Talk Radio, and he came through Boise on his promotional tour a couple days ago. The biggest talk-radio station in the area had a live-broadcast event featuring him and local talk show host Nate Shelman (who was the anchor speaker for Boise's Tax Day Tea Party). It was all about free speech, censorship, and the Fairness Doctrine.
So there I was, sitting among a couple hundred conservative folks, trying to figure out how I could point out hypocrisy and inspire a genuine stand for liberty without being booed out of the room.This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:
Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:
For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)
Straight from the "better late than never" department, here's the link to this week's Objectivist Roundup, hosted by John Drake's Try Reason.
Read more...This is mind-blowingly clever:
Noteboek from Evelien Lohbeck on Vimeo.
Here's another insanely creative video:Ayn Rand's interview with Playboy is now available on the Playboy web site. I was going to select just one or two particularly good exchanges to reproduce here, but too many struck me as interesting. You'll just have to read the whole thing -- but here are two on emotions to whet your appetite:
PLAYBOY: Couldn't the attempt to rule whim out of life, to act in a totally rational fashion, be viewed as conducive to a juiceless, joyless kind of existence?Read more...
RAND: I truly must say that I don't know what you are talking about. Let's define our terms. Reason is man's tool of knowledge, the faculty that enables him to perceive the facts of reality. To act rationally means to act in accordance with the facts of reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts. Emotions are the result of your value judgments; they are caused by your basic premises, which you may hold consciously or subconsciously, which may be right or wrong. A whim is an emotion whose cause you neither know nor care to discover. Now what does it mean, to act on whim? It means that a man acts like a zombi, without any knowledge of what he deals with, what he wants to accomplish, or what motivates him. It means that a man acts in a state of temporary insanity. Is this what you call juicy or colorful? I think the only juice that can come out of such a situation is blood. To act against the facts of reality can result only in destruction.
PLAYBOY: Should one ignore emotions altogether, rule them out of one's life entirely?
RAND: Of course not. One should merely keep them in their place. An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions--provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows--or makes it a point to discover--the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow--then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction--his own and that of others.
Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:
For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)
An op-ed from Don Watkins of the Ayn Rand Institute. (I meant to post this some months ago, but I never got around to it.)
Big Government, not Big Media, Threatens Free SpeechRead more...
Contrary to widespread cries that media consolidation threatens free speech, the real threat comes from laws regulating media ownership.
By Don Watkins
Self-appointed consumer watchdogs--including Obama's recent pick for FCC chair, Julius Genachowski--have long complained about media consolidation. So it was no surprise that when the FCC recently loosened restrictions barring companies from owning a newspaper and TV station in the same city, these critics went apoplectic and are now urging the House to follow the Senate in blocking the measure.
Media consolidation supposedly threatens free speech. A few conglomerates, critics warn, have seized control of our media outlets, enabling these companies to shove a single "corporate-friendly" perspective down our throats. As Senator Byron Dorgan put it, "The free flow of information in this country is not accommodated by having fewer and fewer voices determine what is out there. . . . You have five or six corporate interests that determine what Americans can see, hear, and read."
Leave aside that Dorgan's comments are hard to take seriously in the age of the Internet: his position is still a fantasy. Media consolidation is no threat to free speech--it is the result of individuals exercising that right.
All speech requires control of material resources, whether by standing on a soapbox, starting a blog, running a newspaper ad, or buying a radio station. Media corporations simply do this on a larger scale.
Consider the critics' favorite bogeyman, News Corp. When Rupert Murdoch launched the company, he and his fellow shareholders pooled their wealth to create a communications platform capable of reaching millions. They further expanded their ability to communicate through mergers and acquisitions--that is, through media consolidation. As News Corp.'s owners, shareholders were able to exercise their freedom of speech by deciding what views their private property would (and wouldn't) be used to promote--the same way a blogger decides what ideas to champion on his blog. Like most other media companies, News Corp. even extended the use of its platforms to speakers from all over the ideological map--including opponents of media consolidation.
Do News Corp.'s resources give Murdoch an advantage when it comes to promoting his views? Absolutely. Free speech doesn't guarantee that everyone will have equal airtime, any more than free trade guarantees that every business will have the same amount of goods to trade. What it does guarantee is that everyone has the right to use his own property to speak his mind.
Some of today's most prominent voices, such as Matt Drudge, have succeeded without huge financial resources. But regardless of how large a media company grows, it can never--Dorgan's complaints notwithstanding--determine what media Americans consume. It must continually earn its audience. Fox News may be the leading news channel today, but if it doesn't produce shows people want to watch, it will have all the influence of ham radio. Just think of how newspapers and the big-three network news stations are losing audiences to Web-based sources.
Now consider the actual meaning of government restrictions on media ownership. The FCC is telling certain Americans that they cannot operate a printing press or its equivalent. Such restrictions cannot protect free speech--they are in fact violations of the right to free speech. There is no essential difference between smashing someone's printing press and threatening to fine and jail him if he uses one; either way, he can't use it to express his views.
What galls critics of media consolidation is not that News Corp. stops anyone from speaking--it's that they don't like the choices Americans make when free speech is protected. In the words of one critic: "[M]arket forces provide neither adequate incentives to produce the high quality media product, nor adequate incentives to distribute sufficient amounts of diverse content necessary to meet consumer and citizen needs." Translation: Can you believe what those stupid consumers willingly pay for? If I got to decide what Americans watched, read, and listened to, things would be different.
In order to "correct" the choices Americans make, these critics demand that the FCC violate the free speech rights of some speakers in order to prop up other speakers who, absent such favors, would be unable to earn an audience. In short, they want a gun-wielding Uncle Sam--not the voluntary choices of free individuals--to determine who can speak and therefore who you can listen to.
The critics of media consolidation are frauds. They are not defenders of free speech--they are dangerous enemies of that freedom.
Don Watkins is a writer and research specialist at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."
Wow: A police officer refuses to handle the repeated 911 calls of a panicked young woman as her father has a seizure on the kitchen floor. Why? She used the f-word to express her frustration -- before the officer even answered the call. He scolds her, refuses to hear about her emergency, hangs up on her repeatedly, delays calling for rescue, lies about the calls, and then arrests the poor girl.
Based on this report, the officer ought to be fired, not merely suspended and trained. He behaved infamously -- in a way thoroughly inexcusable to a police officer in a free society -- not merely once but repeatedly. (Via The Agitator.)
Due to restricted internet access, posting will be light this upcoming week. I'll post just one thing each day. Also, please don't behave like wild beasts in the comments.
Oh, and please don't e-mail me. I'm unavailable.
This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:
Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:
For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)
Ten years ago today, Paul and I were married in La Jolla, California.
Wow. That was fast.
I'm so insanely happy to be married to Paul. Without a doubt, he is the best choice I ever made.
If you like, you can view some photos from the wedding. And here is the text of the very brief ceremony, read by Paul's friend John Hauschild:
On behalf of Diana and Paul, I wish to thank you, family and friends, for coming to celebrate their marriage on this beautiful day here in La Jolla. We have all come together, united by their love, to rejoice with them in the new life they now undertake together.Ten years later, our life is rather different -- and so much better -- than we imagined on that day. Read more...
Diana and Paul have been friends ever since they met in St-Louis nearly five years ago. During that time, they spent much time together, arguing philosophy, wandering bookstores, and bicycling through Forest Park. Two years ago, Diana moved to Los Angeles and Paul to San Diego. Despite the distance, they kept up their friendship. At this time, Paul also introduced Diana to his good friends Cliff and Alexa, who are standing with them here today.
After much debate and discussion with Alexa, Diana decided to move down to San Diego and ask Paul if he was interested in pursuing a romantic relationship. To the surprise of both of them, Diana and Paul fell quickly and deeply in love. Three months later, Paul asked Diana to marry him. And three months after that, we are here to join them in marriage.
Diana and Paul's story exemplifies the saying that "Love is friendship set on fire."
To Diana and Paul, the decision to unite in marriage means a solemn obligation to live together, to please one another, to protect and comfort each other, to assist, support, and encourage each other in all endeavors. They share a love of mutual respect, affection, consideration, and good humor. Paul's steady and cheerful disposition compliments Diana's playful exuberance.
As Mignon McLaughlin said, "A successful marriage requires falling in love many times, always with the same person."
This ceremony is a simple one, but one with great meaning. The vows you are about to exchange represent your commitment to each other, and an affirmation of the love you share.
[Face each other]
Do you, Paul, take Diana to be your wedded wife, to love, comfort, honor, and respect as long as you both shall live?
[I do]
Do you, Diana, take Paul to be your wedded husband, to love, comfort, honor, and respect as long as you both shall live?
[I do]
May we have the rings? These rings are an unbroken circle, with no beginning and no end, symbolizing your everlasting love.
Paul, as you place this ring on Diana's finger, repeat after me. With this ring, I thee wed.
[With this ring, I thee wed]
Diana, as you place this ring on Paul's finger, repeat after me. With this ring, I thee wed.
[With this ring, I thee wed]
You will be together from this day forward, so...
May the road rise up to meet you
May the wind be always at your back
May the rain fall softly upon your fields
And the sun shine warm upon your face
Diana and Paul, by the authority vested in me by the State of California, it is my privilege to pronounce you man and wife.
Paul, you may kiss the bride!
I haven't watched The Simpsons in years, but this Sunday's episode promises to be of interest, according to the description in TV Guide:
Sunday, May 10: The Simpsons (8pm): Oscar winner Jodie Foster lends her voice as Maggie, who portrays the girl-power protagonist from Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead.(Via Randex.) Read more...
PajamasMedia.com has just published my latest health care OpEd, "Health Care Reform vs. Universal Health Care".
Here is the opening:
Health Care Reform vs. Universal Health CareThe three basic facts I discuss include:
President Obama and Congress have now shifted their attention towards health care reform. This subject is critically important to anyone who might need medical care someday — namely, all Americans. Unfortunately, too many pundits and politicians erroneously equate "health care reform" with government-run "universal health care." Before we rush headlong into any such program, here are three basic facts that Americans should know about universal health care...
1) Government-run "universal health care" leads to rationingRead the whole thing here. Read more...
2) Health care is not a "right"
3) Free-market health care reform can and does work
Titan Deck Chairs has the latest Objectivist Roundup. Go get it while it's fresh and hot!
Read more...George Mason law professor Adam Mossoff recently wrote me about his working paper on "the invention, patenting and commercialization of the sewing machine in the antebellum era." The paper -- "A Stitch in Time: The Rise and Fall of the Sewing Machine Patent Thicket" -- can be freely downloaded from SSRN.
Here's his abstract:
The invention of the sewing machine in the antebellum era was an achievement on par with the latest high-tech or pharmaceutical discovery today. This paper presents the first comprehensive empirical study by a legal scholar of the invention, patenting and commercialization of the sewing machine in the nineteenth century.He also mentioned to me the following:
In so doing, it challenges many assumptions by courts and scholars today about the alleged efficiency-choking complexities of the modern patent system, revealing that complementary inventions, extensive patent litigation, so-called "patent trolls," patent thickets, and privately formed patent pools have long been features of the American patent system reaching back to the antebellum era. This is particularly significant with respect to patent thickets, as there is a vigorous debate on whether patent thickets exist. The sewing machine patent thicket -- called the "Sewing Machine War" -- confirms that patent thickets are not just a theoretical construct. But the Sewing Machine War also reveals how patent-owners have strong incentives to resolve patent thickets.
In the case of the Sewing Machine War, these incentives prompted the formation of the first patent pool in American history -- the Sewing Machine Combination. Even more important, this innovative contractual solution to the first patent thicket occurred at a time when patent-owners received strong legal protection of their property rights (injunctions), including even injunctions issued on behalf of Elias Howe, who was a "non-practicing entity" or "patent troll." The Sewing Machine Combination ultimately spurred further commercial innovation that was essential to the success of the Industrial Revolution in the United States. Thus, the story of the invention of the sewing machine is a striking account of early American technological, commercial and legal ingenuity, which heralds important empirical lessons for understanding how the successful American patent system has weathered patent thickets and related problems.
Objectivists will appreciate this historical case study, because it's a great concretization of the values made possible by the political and economic freedom secured to American citizens in the nineteenth century. All in all, it's a fascinating tale of early American ingenuity in every aspect of modern life--in technology, law, and commerce.The topic is currently under discussion at The Volokh Conspiracy, where Adam has been guest-blogging there for the past week on his paper. He has quite a few posts already, and you can find them all via the first post.
Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:
For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)
Joseph Kellard recently sent me the following inquiry. I couldn't think of any examples offhand, so with his permission, I'm posting it here:
I'm looking to write about the environmentalists' use of the term "smart" to describe some of their policies: e.g., the anti-"sprawl" greens are pushing "smart growth" city planning, while other environmentalists tout wind, solar and their ugly new light bulbs as "smart energies."Please post your replies in the comments -- or e-mail Joseph directly at theainet1@optonline.net. Read more...
Are you aware of any other uses of this term in environmentalist circles? (Yes, I know, there are other uses of "smart" today with no green connections, such as "smart phones").
Professor Carl Coleman of Seton Hall Law School has written an interesting paper entitled, "Beyond the Call of Duty: Compelling Health Care Professionals to Work During an Influenza Pandemic".
I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I'm in substantial agreement with the abstract:
In anticipation of pandemics and other mass disasters, several states have enacted little-known laws that authorize government officials to order health care professionals to work during declared public health emergencies, even when doing so would pose life-threatening risks. Health care professionals who violate these orders could face substantial penalties, ranging from license revocations to fines and imprisonment. The penalties would apply even to individuals whose jobs do not normally involve clinical responsibilities, as well as to health care professionals who are retired or taking time off from work to care for their families. This Article argues that these laws impose burdens that exceed the ethical commitments individuals make when they accept a professional license. In so doing, they compel health care professionals to engage in what is normally considered supererogatory behavior -- i.e., acts that are commendable if done voluntarily, but that go beyond what is expected.(The full paper can be downloaded here.)
In making this argument, the Article rejects commonly-made assertions about health care professionals' ethical obligations, including the claim that health care professionals assumed the risk of infection; that a social contract requires health care professionals to work despite potential health risks; and that individuals who have urgently-needed skills have an obligation to use them. It concludes that, while health care professionals can legitimately be sanctioned for violating voluntarily-assumed employment or contractual agreements, they should not be compelled to assume life-threatening risks based solely on their status as licensed professionals. In place of singling out health care professionals for punitive measures, the Article argues that policy-makers should institute mechanisms to promote volunteerism.
I've never checked the anagrams for my name before. But thanks to the internet anagram server, I found this gem for Diana Hsieh:
ha ha die sinYeah! Die sin die! I laugh as you die! Read more...
This video, "The ABC's of Virginia Alcohol Law", was the 2009 winner of the "Best Video of the Year" award from the Sam Adams Alliance:
It also features frequent NoodleFood commenter Steve Simpson from the Institute of Justice, discussing how the state of Virginia infringes on the free speech rights of some honest businessmen by outlawing their ability to make true statements about the products they sell.
(Via Ari Armstrong, who was also the 2009 winner of the "Modern Day Sam Adams" award.)
This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine:
Here's yet another Open Thread for your thoughts:
For anyone in the fiery grip of a random question, comment, joke, or link they'd like to share with NoodleFood readers, I hereby open up the comments on this post to any respectable topic. (Please refrain from posting personal attacks, pornographic material, and commercial solicitations.)
Speaking of communicable respiratory diseases, I highly recommend watching this hysterical video about the best way to sneeze and cough if you are ill. You'll not only prevent the spread of your germs, you'll also be less gross!
Here's the introduction:
Many diseases are spread by poor coughing and sneezing techniques. Most people put their hands in front of their mouths and noses to stop germs from getting into the air. Unfortunately, this technique puts the germs on their hands. The germs are then spread to telephones and doorknobs and many other surfaces from which they are then picked up by the next user. This is how colds spread quickly through schools and workplaces, and how the flu spreads quickly through entire cities. It would be very easy to cut this mode of infection drastically by simply getting people to cough and sneeze properly.And here's the video:
I'm delighted to report that I have successfully warded off some kind of illness -- a cold or the flu -- with Vitamin D. Or so I have good reason to believe.
I began to get sick on Tuesday afternoon. My throat was sore and itchy, my nose was stuffy and sneezy. I was feeling icky. When I woke up around 2 am on Wednesday morning, I was sure that I was coming down with something. I felt downright miserable. In every other case when I've felt that bad, I've gotten sick.
I took some extra Vitamin D on Tuesday evening, then I took a large dose on Wednesday morning -- about 15,000 IU, I think. (If I recall correctly, up to 50,000 IU is safe.) I also sat in the sun for a good while that Wednesday morning, with lots of skin exposed. I also spent about two hours in the sun that afternoon. By Wednesday afternoon, I felt perfectly fine.
A few months ago, Paul and I took a hefty dose of Vitamin D when we both developed scratchy throats. Neither of us got sick. However, in that case, the prospect of a cold/flu wasn't quite so obvious as in my recent brush.
So, despite spending three days per week at Boulder for the past few months -- including through a particularly nasty flu season -- I did not get sick. In the past, I've gotten sick at least once per winter. Last year, I got sick three times, once quite badly. This fall, winter, and spring, I've been perfectly healthy -- even though I've been far less concerned to avoid sick people than I have in the past.
My personal findings integrate nicely with what I've read on the effects of Vitamin D, most notably this medical report: Epidemic Influenza And Vitamin D.
In addition, I've had no allergies this year whatsoever. A few years ago, I developed allergies for the first time around late March. They mostly disappeared for a few years. Last year, I had them very badly for a full month. I was miserable. This year, happily, nada.
Of course, certainty in such cases requires attention to long-term trends. However, I do think the preliminary data looks darn good.
The April 30, 2009 National Review Online published an excellent article on banker John Allison (former CEO of BB&T Bank), including an extended discussion on how his success in business was a consequence of following Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
Here are a few excerpts:
Objectivist Philosophy for Fun and ProfitAllison understands the tie between abstract philosophy and real-world business success:
How a banker avoided ruin by cleaving to Ayn Rand's system of ethics
By Mark Hemingway
...The fact that BB&T didn't dive head-first into the shallow pool of subprime mortgages certainly goes a long way toward explaining the relative health of BB&T as an institution. But how was BB&T able to resist chasing after all that new mortgage money?
The answer is simple: Subprime mortgages were bad for the people who took them out. That went against BB&T's philosophy -- not for reasons of altruism but because it would have been poor strategy. "We're obviously a for-profit company, but we don't think that it's good business in the long term to do bad things to your clients, even if you make a profit doing it," Allison said. "So we chose not to do negative-amortization mortgages because we knew it was going to get a lot of people in financial trouble."
In retrospect, the wisdom of this approach might seem obvious. However, Allison navigated through the overheated mortgage market and the ensuing banking crisis by relying, in large part, on a philosophy that many others are now turning to: "I got interested in [Ayn] Rand in the late 1960s. I read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I had already been interested in economics, and as I finished college, I got interested in finance. I saw the banking system as central to a capitalist economy."
..."A lot of people miss the fact that Rand has a very strong ethical system," he observes. "Rand says you can derive ethics from reality. If anything, Rand is more rigorous in her ethical system than most codes are. If you’re dishonest, you are disconnected from reality, and that has consequences."(Read the whole article.)
However, simply because Rand doesn't endorse altruism for altruism's sake, many people misconstrue her to be amorally selfish. Rand "doesn't view ethics as self-sacrificial," Allison says, "she views ethics as a rational means to success and happiness. If you described her in principle, she would say that you shouldn't take advantage of other people because that is unethical behavior and self-defeating. But you also shouldn't self-sacrifice. What you really need to do is run your life in relationship to other people in context to what she calls the trader principle. The trader principle is about what I call creating win-win relationships. We trade value for value and we get better together, and we find these common grounds where we can get better together."
If that can be said to be BB&T's guiding principle, the empirical evidence would suggest that the bank's customers and shareholders are better off for it. In fact, it was misguided altruism that got us into the current financial crisis, and Allison has no problem identifying whose economic philosophy was flawed. "I think that government policy is the primary cause" of the financial crisis, he says. "Government policy set up the problems we have in the real-estate market, and it is the Big Kahuna in the room."
* HonestyHow well did that code of values work out for BB&T shareholders?
* Integrity
* Justice
* Reason
* Independent Thinking
* Reality
* Productivity
* Teamwork
* Self-Esteem
* Pride
Admittedly, I tend to be a bit of a worrier. While I can always articulate my reasons for worrying about something, I can be lead astray by my worries. Consequently, to counteract that tendency, I'm always very interested in to arguments that something isn't really much cause for concern. However, I do need facts and reasons, not merely claims like "don't worry about that" or "nothing bad happened last time" or "this other thing is even more worrisome." I want to understand the issue, not to be placated.
Hence, I was very interested to read this LA Times op-ed on why the swine flu isn't likely to cause a pandemic. Much to my delight, the reasons not to worry integrate quite nicely with my basic knowledge of evolutionary theory, including the relative success of the common cold relative to the failure of ebola. I won't quote any portion, as the whole op-ed should be read.
If only someone could do the same for my worries about the prospect of hyperinflation.
I'm Diana Hsieh, a philosopher specializing in practical ethics. I received my Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009.
Paul Hsieh is a physician specializing in orthopedic and emergency radiology. He blogs about science, technology, and random humorous items at GeekPress. He's a co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) and regularly writes for its blog, We Stand FIRM. He has published a slew of op-eds and essays on health care policy. You can e-mail Paul at paul@paulhsieh.com, and follow him on Twitter @PaulHsieh.
Greg Perkins is a software architect working in the R&D labs at Hewlett-Packard, Boise. His degree is in mathematics and computer science. Greg hosts The Objectivism Seminar. Aside from work and philosophy, he plays jazz saxophone professionally with groups such as The Sidemen and Onomatopoeia. You can e-mail Greg at greg@eCosmos.com, and follow him on Twitter @gregperk.
Back to TOP
Tweet
Share
Stumble
Reddit
