|
|
|
September 17th, 2007
12:36 pm - Career Meme, or I really should have been a civil engineer
Look at all these do-nothing jobs. Just how I likethem!
1. Economist
2. Business Systems Analyst
3. General Contractor
4. Civil Engineer
5. Civil Engineering Tech
6. Management Consultant
7. Public Policy Analyst
8. Operations Research Analyst
9. Technical Writer
10. Oceanographer
11. Artist
12. Furniture Finisher
13. Land Surveyor
14. Locksmith
15. Biomedical Engineer
16. Anthropologist
17. Petroleum Engineer
18. Mediator
19. Mining Engineer
20. Biologist
|
January 30th, 2007
January 4th, 2007
01:30 pm - What is worse: socialized medicine or fascist medicine?
With the democrats retaking congress socialized medicine (er, "universal healthcare") will once again take the center stage. While I certainly expect the far left to spew more rhetoric, I do not expect them to come anywhere close to passing a major health reform bill.
This year, I'm much more worried about the healthcare proposal coming from right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich's Center for Health Transformation. The proposal is to legislatively mandate that everyone must buy health insurance and adds subsidies for families under the three times the federal poverty level ($60,000 per year for a family of four). This proposal is already law in Massachusetts, and California is considering adapting it as well.
Even groups that nominally in favor of free-market healthcare, like the American Enterprise Institute or the Galen Institute, are taking cautious optimism. After all, they argue, surely this system provides more choice than socialized medicine and these reforms would take much force out of the socialized medicine movement. However, they want to merely recast the same system, forcing everybody into paying for insurance they may not want or need. I believe that under a free-market medicine would be radically transformed, but these proposals keep us locked in the current system.
I am aghast; the idea of requiring everyone to purchase is antithetical to liberty. This is a fascist system pure and simple: force people to pay corporations and provide them corporate welfare. Could this actually be worse than socialized medicine?
|
October 20th, 2006
03:54 pm - Democrat-libertarian Coalition Building in Health Care
Over at Cato Unbound Harold Meyerson still doesn’t get it: There are very real limits to the Democrats’ libertarianism. In particular, with corporations now disinclined to provide health benefits and pensions, Democrats will inevitably call for greater state provision of these necessities, though only after the public’s concern over the withdrawal of the private-sector safety net becomes both pervasive and acute. Meyerson continues to present health care as an incommensurable issue between Democrats and libertarians. Oh really? I think we all want a health care system that is broadly accessible. Rather than focusing on how to generate an accessible system, let’s change the focus on eliminating barriers to access. Of all the barriers to access I could name, the biggest barrier is employer provided health insurance. After all, isn’t the root of the problem the fact that health insurance is tied to employment? This places all of the power in the hands of corporate managers, who decide whom will receive what benefits, if any at all. Health benefits are lost when people change jobs, reducing mobility, and the self-employed and chronically unemployed are often unable to obtain insurance. Health benefits are subject the budgeting whims of managers, who are increasing using cost sharing and reducing benefits to meet budgets. What is the reason for the dominance of employer provided health insurance? It’s well-intentioned social policy that made these benefits exempt from income taxation. During WWII, FDR initiated wage freezes which prompted employers to expand benefits instead. These benefits were traditionally untaxed, and after the war the IRS put this exemption into regulation. The result? Over 60% of Americans receive their health insurance from their employers. Any other sort of financing concept is immediately at a disadvantage, since it must be paid from post-tax income. This environment inhibits innovation in health financing. All in all, both sides share a common enemy: employer provided health insurance. Both sides want to eliminate the employer’s responsibility in providing health financing. However, most Democrats would place this responsibility in the hands of the state, while libertarians would place this responsibility in the hands of the individual. While it is worthwhile to continue that debate, let’s form a coalition to fight our common enemy.
|
August 1st, 2006
May 10th, 2006
04:37 pm - Building Consensus with Egalitarian Liberals in Healthcare Reform
The purpose of
this essay is to discuss the possibility of consensus between libertarians and egalitarian
liberals on healthcare reform. It will
be argued that libertarians and egalitarian liberals would both find their
goals met by deregulating the supply of healthcare. Such deregulation would undoubtedly lower
healthcare costs, resulting in less unmet need in healthcare. This essay will conclude with some
reflections on the effect of medical price information on liberal autonomy.
I. Finding Consensus with Egalitarian Liberals
Egalitarians
liberals have deep convictions about the role of healthcare in justice. For example, Norman Daniels has argued the
egalitarian requirement of fair equality of opportunity demands that that each
person enjoys “normal human functioning.” Thus those with disease and disability are
entitled to a “fair share” of healthcare.
Libertarian healthcare
reform proposals often run afoul of egalitarian liberals. The focus of libertarian reforms has been the
passage of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), which
allows health savings to have the same tax-free status as employer supplied
health insurance. However, HSAs have
been criticized by egalitarian liberals. Among these criticisms is that HSAs do not help meet the medical needs of the unemployed
or low income workers, and may in fact decrease financial equity. This issue represents a genuine impasse
between libertarians and egalitarian liberals.
Egalitarian liberals think that there is an entitlement to healthcare,
while libertarians deny any such entitlement.
Nonetheless, this
impasse between libertarians and egalitarian liberals exists on the consumer or
demand side of the healthcare market. Consensus
might be found on reforms that focus on the supply side of the market. Rather than correcting for medical need by
proving healthcare, egalitarian liberals could come to support reforms that
prevent medical need. Medical need could
be prevented by deregulating the supply of healthcare.
II. Prioritizing Deregulation of the Supply of Healthcare
The regulation of
health care results in billions of dollars in expenses, resulting in an
artificially high price of healthcare.
Christopher Conover has estimated that that the social costs of
regulation in 2002 were $339.2 billion which, less the $170.1 billion in social
benefits, leaves a net cost of $169.1 billion. Thus regulation cost the average US
household $1,546 in 2002 and accounted for 10% of US health expenditures.
As
the supply of healthcare is deregulated, it will cost less to provide
healthcare. Such a supply shift would
ultimately lower prices. Faced with
lower prices, the consumer will find health care more affordable. If more people can afford healthcare, then
they need not rely on government assistance to purchase healthcare. Thus, medical need could be prevented by
deregulating the supply of healthcare.
Thus,
egalitarian liberals can join libertarians and make the deregulation of the
supply of medicine a priority. Since
deregulation will undoubtedly lower prices, the needy will be able purchase
more healthcare. This will result in
less reliance on government funding while meeting medical needs. Furthermore, those so impoverished as to
still need government assistance will cost society less.
III. Information and Autonomy
Liberals
may also support deregulation in health care out of respect for individual
autonomy. In bioethics, the standard of
informed consent respects patient autonomy by allowing the patient to make
decisions that reflect their values. However, there is a class of information that
has been excluded from patients: the price and quality of healthcare.
Government’s
encouragement of excessive coverage has resulted in little incentive for
consumers to price and shop for healthcare. As a result, there is little information
available to patients about the price and quality of healthcare. This information undermines the ability of
patients to make informed decisions. Thus,
liberals can come to support deregulation since it will provide more
information to patients, allowing patients to make autonomous decisions.
IV. Conclusion
This essay has
briefly dealt with issues in building consensus between libertarians and
egalitarian liberals in healthcare reform.
Due to the egalitarian belief that justice requires the provision of
healthcare to the needy, it is unlikely that consensus can be built on reforms
for the demand side of the market.
However, deregulation on the supply side of healthcare will lower the
price of health care, preventing unmet need from occurring in the first
place. Finally, deregulation may find
more support form liberals generally when it can provide cost and quality information,
permitting patients a more autonomous decision.
( References )
|
April 26th, 2006
03:57 pm - Are Democrats more Libertarian than Republicans?
Ever since the Contract with America fell apart, I’ve been rather suspicious of libertarians that claim the republicans are the more libertarian party. Now I have seen data the shows that the Democrats in congress were more libertarian than the Republicans in 2005.
Logan Ferree, of the Democratic Freedom Caucus, has been tracking the voting record of members of congress. It is not too surprising that Democrats fare much better than Republicans in social freedom issues in both the House and the Senate. What is surprising is that the Democrats have been voting for economic liberty more than Republicans both in the House and in the Senate.
Logan was kind enough to use this data to plot a point of every member of congress on a Nolan Chart. In the Senate, most of the Republicans are in the authoritarian section, with the Democrats centered on the line in between left-liberalism and centrism. The most libertarian member of the Senate is Russ Feingold, and the other two libertarians are Democrats: Ron Wyden and Jeff Bingaman. In the House, once again the Republicans are tightly concentrated in authoritarianism, although the Democrats are more spread from left end of authoritarianism to the left end of libertarian, but still centered on left-liberalism/centrism. The most libertarian member of the house is Ron Paul, but all the other libertarians are Democrats: Barbara Lee, John Conyers, Barney Frank, Cynthia McKinney, Major Owens, Maxine Waters, Tammy Baldwin, Dennis Kucinich, Danny Davis, John Tierney, Frank Pallone, and Peter DeFazio,
Someone that is still unconvinced may say: But the Republicans have Ron Paul, the most libertarian member of congress, and his Republican Liberty Caucus. It is indeed true that Ron Paul is an exemplary libertarian. What is questionable is how libertarian the other RLC members are. In 2005, the RLC had 10 “action alerts:” votes in the house that were taken to be key libertarian issues. Although Ron Paul had a perfect record on these votes, only 7 out of 22 RLC members voted with Ron Paul on these issues the majority of the time. The two members of the house that voted with Ron Paul the most on these issues: Barney Frank and Cynthia McKinney.
Still think Republicans in congress are more libertarian than Democrats?
|
April 6th, 2006
March 20th, 2006
10:13 am - 0.5/5
I wrote Penn about my application status. They responded that I was not admitted.
I wrote Missouri about my place on the waitlist. I was told that I was 6th on the list. 7 were granted funding out of 70 applicants.
As far as I know, I am still waitlisted at Wisconsin.
|
March 6th, 2006
04:15 pm - Write Your Own Caption
In an e-mail from my old roommate, Dave Roberts, suggested that this picture needs some inventive captions:
So, I am opening up comments to find the best caption. The winner, who will be judged solely by my capriciousness, will be sent some sort of SWAG I've got around the house.
( Here are a few of mine to get started )
|
02:36 pm - 0.5/4
I have been rejected from Chicago.
The only school I have had no word from yet is Penn. As far as I know, I'm still on the waitlist (for funding and/or admissions) at Missouri and Wisconsin.
|
March 3rd, 2006
03:12 pm - Still 0.5/3
I have just been informed that I am currently on the wait list at Wisconsin.
|
March 1st, 2006
09:27 pm - 0.5/3
I have just found out from my parents that I have been rejected from Maryland (the letter was sent to their house in MD).
|
February 27th, 2006
04:31 pm - 0.5/2
I have been accepted at Missouri, but I am on the waitlist for funding.
This does not bode well for the four remaining schools.
|
February 22nd, 2006
05:31 pm - Behold my technical prowess!
After having lunch with me today, ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) kraorh discovered he had locked his keys in his car. Fortunately, I had a wire coathanger in my car. After a few tries, I managed to jimmy the lock open.
|
February 21st, 2006
04:51 pm - Means to the End
In anarchism, as well as libertarianism in general, there are three approaches to eliminating the role of the state:
1) Revolutionism - We use force to take control from the state. Good luck doing this in the contemporary US, but if it happens I'll join you in the street.
2) Gradualism - We subtly subvert the state. An example of this is agorism, which subverts the state by promoting the back market.
3) Reformism - We change the state from within.
I personally prefer reformism, with gradualism in some cases. (Go ahead, import those drugs from Canada.)
The public almost certainly prefers reformism. Gradualism is seen as distasteful while revolutionism is scary.
Big-L Libertarians and anarchists seem to prefer gradualism with a healthy dose of revolutionism ("from my cold, dead hands"). Yet those are the tactics that the public is not ready for.
As long as the end is the same, does it really matter which of these means we use?
|
February 13th, 2006
07:44 pm - 0/1
I forgot to update that I was rejected from Duke last Monday.
|
January 18th, 2006
11:10 pm
All of my applications for grad school are done. All I can do now is wait and worry...
|
November 29th, 2005
07:19 pm - Is Libertarianism a Liberal Theory?
Penn philosopher Samuel Freeman has an interesting paper I've just read: "Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism is not a Liberal View" Philosophy and Public Affairs, 30, 2 (Spring 2001), 105-151. [Sorry, no free link online]
This is especially interesting to me, since one of my professors claims that libertarianism can only be understood as anarchism, while minimalism is in fact a form of liberalism. As a consequence of this view, he thinks that Robert Nozick is in fact a liberal.
Freeman defines libertarianism with three core theses: the primary concern of justice is a system of property; that the state is a fundamentally coercive institution; and that individuals have full self-ownership. So, he considers Nozick a libertarian.
Freeman obviously sides with the liberals. I've heard all of his arguements against libertarianism before, so I do not care to rehash them here.
However, he brings up an issue that has been bothering me deeply (although in regard to health care). Imagine we have a libertarian society where protection is covered by a singular private organization. First, since protection is a necessity, participation in such an institution is not a strictly autonomous (voluntary) choice. Second, since participation in such an institution will undoubtedly give the institution authority over the participating individual. If we can define coercion as authority without consent, then we have to conclude that this instution is coercing this individual.
So, my concern is that in developing voluntary, mutually beneficial insitutions we may in fact end up with a system no better than contractualism. Freedman observes this in part in his description of liberalism:
[Liberal p]olitical power is held in trust, as a fiduciary power; those who occupy political offices act in a representative capacity, for others’ benefit. Since it is held in trust, political power is not to be exercised for the benefit of the person who occupies political office. So far as political power is contractual, then, it is not based in a mutually beneficial bargain between ruler and ruled. Here a distinction is to be drawn between a social contract versus a mutually beneficial contract of government between ruler and ruled. It is the former idea, not the latter, that plays such an important role in the history of liberal thought, providing an account of legitimate political power. The social contract is conceived as a (hypothetical) agreement among equals, by everyone with everyone else. Its purpose is to form political society (the Body Politic), then to establish a constitution and create on its basis a government that serves as agent for the People. This is very different from a private contract between (unequal) parties for mutual benefit, which is the economic model used for contracts of government.
First, I must say that it seems odd for a Rawlsian liberal to argue that recieving different benefits in the "contract of government" makes the system unjustifiable; after all, isn't that the purpose of the difference princple? So, he must be concerned that those in power will provide social services that benefit the privileged more (he uses an example of a serf agreeing to a fiefdom contract).
However, this seems to be a strawman if used to represent all of libertarianism. After all, mutualism supports the volentary "contract of government," but also wishes to remove exploitation. Freeman fails to consider left-libertarian ideas in general (especially in his critique of libertarian property rights), so in turn he fails to appreciate the general theme of left-libertarianism: that equality can be generated without the state.
So, lets recall the primary difference between the "social contract" and the "contract of government:" voluntary participation. However, the reason that I have been entertaining Freeman is the concern that particpation in institutions that provide necessities may not be truely voluntary. That said, it cannot be questioned that participation in a libertarian institution is more voluntary than inclusion in the state (after all, no one chooses where they will be born). Nonetheless, this still has the problem of coercion that plagues liberalism.
In the end, I have to conclude that, like liberalism, certain mutualist intitutions will have a fiduciary responsibility to their participants. Mutual benefit is an inadequate idea for the sort of equality mutualists desire; after all, economics teaches us that all free trade is mutually beneficial. Rather, mutualism needs to take power differences into account.
|
07:05 pm - Where I'm applying to grad school
In the end, I just took Lieter's average scores for my three main intrests (philosophy of biology, philosophy of social science, and political philosophy) and pluged them in the spreadsheet. In the end, only 7 programs where noted in these interests. I eliminated Harvard (ranked excellent in phil bio, but with only half-time faculty member Godfrey-Smith...how did this happen?) and Notre Dame (too historically oriented; every student has to take a qual in history of phil...I'm mostly interested in contemporary philosophy [with the noteworthy exception of late modern political philo]). This leaves the following list:
Duke University
University of Wisconsin, Madison
University of Chicago
University of Pennsylvania
University of Maryland, College Park
Plus I'm still applying to the University of Missouri, Columbia, as a safety. Damn, that Peter Vallentyne is sharp.
|
|
|
