Spontaneous Order

Career Meme, or I really should have been a civil engineer

Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:40:01 GMT

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

"Your stupid diseases are making the Invisible Hand feel bad!"

Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:45:47 GMT

What a bunch of tripe: A Health Care Reformer Is A Conservative Who Got Sick

What is worse: socialized medicine or fascist medicine?

Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:30:45 GMT

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?

Democrat-libertarian Coalition Building in Health Care

Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:00:17 GMT

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.

Which Major Arcana Are You?

Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:49:07 GMT

The Star
You scored 65 change, 58 wellbeing, 73 wisdom, and 53 truth

The woman in this card represents the subconscious mind gathering knowledge from the universal subconscious and pouring it over humanity. The right leg that supports her weight is bent in a 90degree angle suggesting that all will be learned if you search in the right places, with her foot resting in the pool of knowledge. The left hand pours the waters over the land and it disburses into 5 separate streams representing the 5 natural senses of man.

some extra words:

regaining hope
having faith in the future
thinking positively
believing
counting your blessings
seeing the light at the end of the tunnel
feeling great expectation
looking forward to success
being inspired
regaining motivation
realizing an inner strength
seeing the way clear
being stimulated to a higher level
creating
receiving the answer

being generous
wanting to give or share
spreading the wealth
opening your heart
giving back what you have received
letting love flow freely
offering with no reservations
holding nothing back

feeling serene
experiencing peace of mind
relaxing
finding your still center
remaining untroubled
savoring perfect calm
being tranquil amid trouble
enjoying harmony

Building Consensus with Egalitarian Liberals in Healthcare Reform

Wed, 10 May 2006 21:48:56 GMT

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.[1]” Thus those with disease and disability are entitled to a “fair share” of healthcare.[2]

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.[3] However, HSAs have been criticized by egalitarian liberals.[4] 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.[5] 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.[6]

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[7]. Thus regulation cost the average US household $1,546 in 2002 and accounted for 10% of US health expenditures.[8]

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.[9] 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.[10] As a result, there is little information available to patients about the price and quality of healthcare.[11] 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.

[1] Norman Daniels, Just Health Care (Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 32- 3.

[2] ibid, pp. 8, 32.

[3] Michael Cannon and Michael Tanner, Healthy Competition (Cato Institute, 2005), pp. 66- 8.

[4] I must emphasize that I do not share this position, and believe HSAs will increase choice and access.

[5] Norman Daniels, Donald Light and Ronald Caplan, Benchmarks of Fairness for Health Care Reform, (Oxford University Press, 1996), pp 94- 6.

[6] Richard Epstein, Mortal Peril, (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 1999), pp. 27- 58.

[7] Cannon and Tanner, pp. 111- 2.

[8] ibid.

[9] Thomas May, Bioethics in a Liberal Society (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), pp.15- 21.

[10] Cannon and Tanner, pp. 54- 9.

[11] ibid.

Are Democrats more Libertarian than Republicans?

Wed, 26 Apr 2006 21:02:48 GMT

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?

Who knew Gimli was also a city in Manitoba?

Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:59:00 GMT

dj_subversive would make a great scourge.

Praxis! (LJ) by twirlandswirl

Username

Clan

Personal Status

City you claim

Gimli

Seneschal

shiningthing

Harpy

carnap

Sheriff

hash_poop

Keeper

kraorh

Scourge

dj_subversive

Percentage of supporters: 91%

How many months will it last?

Quiz created with MemeGen!

0.5/5

Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:18:04 GMT

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.

Write Your Own Caption

Mon, 06 Mar 2006 22:25:02 GMT

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.

"A Meeting of the Minds."

"Pres. Bush then exclaimed: 'I'm glad Cheney don't hunt these!'"

"Pres. Bush knew something was wrong when he discovered the waterbuffalo was named 'Monica Lewinski.'"

"Pres. Bush was embarrassed after he found out that the waterbuffalo was not the Indian ambassador."

"Pres. Bush learns that waterbuffalo is more than a racial epithet."

"Pres. Bush explains that their cattle 'just don't look right.'"

0.5/4

Mon, 06 Mar 2006 20:38:55 GMT

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.

Still 0.5/3

Fri, 03 Mar 2006 21:15:39 GMT

I have just been informed that I am currently on the wait list at Wisconsin.

0.5/3

Thu, 02 Mar 2006 03:30:12 GMT

I have just found out from my parents that I have been rejected from Maryland (the letter was sent to their house in MD).

0.5/2

Mon, 27 Feb 2006 22:33:41 GMT

I have been accepted at Missouri, but I am on the waitlist for funding.

This does not bode well for the four remaining schools.

Behold my technical prowess!

Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:36:09 GMT

After having lunch with me today, 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.

Means to the End

Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:52:52 GMT

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?

0/1

Tue, 14 Feb 2006 01:46:14 GMT

I forgot to update that I was rejected from Duke last Monday.

Thu, 19 Jan 2006 05:12:20 GMT

All of my applications for grad school are done. All I can do now is wait and worry...

Is Libertarianism a Liberal Theory?

Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:15:11 GMT

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.

Behold the power of ginsing

Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:50:43 GMT

I took the GRE general last night. I got 650 verbal and 750 math. This will probably place me in the 90th precentile for each. I actually ran out of time on the math, leaving two questions. I think I centered in on the 700s early in the test; the reason I ran out of time is that most of my questions were tricky. Last time I got 580/780, so I'll consider this an improvement.

Cheap Ayn Rand Bashing

Sun, 06 Nov 2005 23:25:28 GMT

Kevin Carson posted something on the LeftLibertarian yahoogroup that made me laugh:

"My best guess," the inspector said, "is that the victim was burning a copy of Critique of Pure Reason" in his fireplace. When he inadvertently set the rug on fire, he tripped over his cape trying to put it out. And then, falling to the floor, he impaled the back of his throat on his cigarette holder."

"How freakish!"

"Unfortunately, this is not the first such case I've seen. It happens much more often than you'd expect. It usually starts with Ayn Rand."

Wed, 03 Aug 2005 20:28:35 GMT

How's this for a great chair: Elmer Andersen Chair in Corporate Responsibility

Tweeking my choices

Wed, 03 Aug 2005 20:27:12 GMT

Here's my current list with Leiter rankings in parenthesis:

Pittsburg HPS? (4)
U-CA-Irvine (17)
U-WI (23)
U-MD (25)
Duke (29)
U-MN (34)
Safety: U-MO (Valentyne)

Bold means I really like the program. I'm a bit worried I'm shooting too high here, though.

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:12:07 GMT

Red rover send Carl Rove over

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:35:15 GMT

An astute observation by the BBC:

He could not have picked a better way of removing from the headlines the embarrassing story about his closest aide Karl Rove, who has been implicated in the row over the leaking of a CIA agent's name.

With the Supreme Court set to dominate the news agenda, leading Democrats are irked that they are losing a chance to make the most of the president's discomfort.