Return to the Free Liberal Homepage

July 09, 2007

CATO versus Michael Moore

CATO's Michael Cannon has formed the Anti-Universal Care Club, universal care being the left's new euphemism for socialized medicine.

Posted by NormSingleton at 09:56 PM | Comments (0)

July 03, 2007

WWE versus the state: round II

One reason for the rush to judgment regrading the role steroids played in the Benoit murder/suicide may be that some government lawyers hope that if they can pin this tragedy on Benoit's use of steroids, they can launch an investigation into whether other World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) stars are using steroids. This may allow the federal government to avenge one of the few high-profile defeats suffered by federal prosecutors in recent times.

In the early nineties, the feds indicated WWE Chairman Vince McMahon on charges of using and distributing steroids. Aswe all know, most businessmen in Mr. McMahon's situation would have accepted the government's plea offer. Instead, Mr. McMahon told the government's lawyers where they could shove their plea offer, went to trial, and was acquitted on all charges. Wonder how many federal Nifongs are gleefully rubbing their hands at the thought of having another shot at the businessman that got away?

Posted by NormSingleton at 08:43 PM | Comments (0)

June 04, 2007

Brave New World Update

The nicotine Nazis have been busy in Europe. British doctors will now deny surgery to smokers unless they quit. Britain's National Health Service (NHS) claims that this is motivated solely by a deserve to improve the lives of Britain's smokers, the fact this will save the government money never entered their minds. Wonder how long it will be before NHS is refusing treatment to the overweight until they drop a few pounds...and what new restrictions on our freedom to make our own choices regarding smoking, eating, and exercising Hilliary, Obama and John Edwards have in mind as part of their "universal health care" plans?

Meanwhile, the EU is considering extending its' indoor smoking ban to doorways. No doubt the ban will soon be extended to all "public" sidewalks and roads.

Posted by NormSingleton at 08:59 PM | Comments (0)

March 29, 2007

Brave New World Update

Paralleling the US Government's scheme to subject all children to mental health screening Britain plans to began monitoring children to determine which ones are at risk of becoming criminals. Can a full-fledged Department of "Pre-Crime" be far behind?

Posted by NormSingleton at 08:56 PM | Comments (0)

February 15, 2007

Good News in the War on Drugs

Good news is a relatively rare commodity these days, so it is with great happiness that I report some good news in the "war on drugs." First and foremost, a new study has found that AIDS patients do indeed benefit from smoking marijuana.

Also, in what could be a boon to additional research on the effect of marijuana on patients having various diseases, a DEA judge -- I didn't know such people existed -- has recommended that the federal government allow researchers to grow the pot they use in their studies. Previously, the feds prohibited other outlets from growing the pot needed for the studies and when scientists asked permission to do so, they were often denied access. Typical government catch-22. Anyway, the battle isn't over yet, DEA Administrator and notorious drug warrior -- you don't get to that position by being "soft on drugs" -- Karen Tandy has the final say. Here's hoping she makes the right call.

Posted by PaulGessing at 12:32 AM | Comments (0)

December 17, 2006

Invasion of the Body Snatchers?

I have long felt that the ongoing shortage of body organs for transplants is an artificial result of federal regulations that prohibit any financial incentives for those who -- upon death -- donate their bodies to save the lives of others. As is so often the case when government policies fail (the United Kingdom and Canada both have similar "no-compensation" policies), additional regulations are adopted. The UK and Canada are now considering rules that would essentially allow the state to "steal" the organs of the dead. The authors of this article suggest we go the other direction by allowing financial incentives for those who choose organ donation.

This seems to me like "Economics 101," but financial incentives are the only proven way to create desired results while also respecting personal freedom.

Posted by PaulGessing at 01:00 PM | Comments (0)

March 07, 2006

The Marginal Benefit of Health Care

I went to the doctor last week. I spent $100 and waited an hour for the doctor to see me -- he was late. I patiently read my economics book while in the waiting room, so at least the time wasn't wasted. But, my money, I'm not sure.

He told me that I have a sick nose. Thanks doc, I knew that. That's why I'm here. I wonder if he tells amputees, "you have a sick arm." Or the blind, "you have a vision problem." I was instructed to take allergy pills, wash my nose every three hours, and to keep the temperature down at night as that dries out the nose. "If you don't feel better, come back and see me in 10 days."

I followed the advice. I don't feel any better.

So, the logic goes... if the medical professional gives you incorrect advice, you should return and pay MORE money? In economics we stop consuming where marginal benefit equals marginal cost. My costs have already exceeded my benefits. I have no incentive to go back to the doctor. It would be like buying another lottery ticket in the hope that my bad luck couldn't continue forever. Maybe if I give him another try he'll nail the diagnosis.

What if there is a tumor eating my brain? 10 days of waiting can't help that out. I have four choices: 1.) Do nothing in hopes that time will heal me. 2.) Pay more money to someone who has already failed. 3.) Pay money to another person whose qualifications I'm unable to judge. 4.) Put my faith in alternative medicine, voodoo, or Christian Science.

Cross-posted to my personal blog.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Posted by KevinRollins at 01:50 AM | Comments (1)

January 03, 2006

Who's Afraid of Frankenstein?

On their blog, Gary Becker and Richard Posner counter the wrong-headed arguments against allowing cash payments for human organs. From an economic perspective, only allowing charitable giving of organs before or after death acts a price control, reducing the well-being of many market participants.

There is a concern that such a market will cause some individuals to “rob” others of their organs – the victim waking up in the bathtub of ice scenario. Or even murder them and cut them up to be sold to the highest bidder. One fear of genetic engineering is that we might have body part farms, where people are “grown” to be “harvested.” All of these are possible though, with the prohibition in place.

With free exchange of organs, it is less likely these practices will occur, as the availability of legal organs will be greater, so the incentive to engage in truly criminal activity will be less. Getting rid of this prohibition is the best way to improve the lives of many people.

There was a brilliant Law and Order rerun the other day which put flesh and blood onto such “cold” free-market arguments. It depicted a desperate father trying to save his dying son, by illegally buying a kidney on the black market. The father and the doctor are arrested for their willingness to break the law to do good, while the cops seem to recognize that they are enforcing a law that is only hurting people.

This is the sort of thing we should remember when talking about public policy. Every bad law does not just offend our abstract sense of truth, and of right and wrong, but it has real consequences. The prohibition of a human organs market does not just cause a certain number of people to die needlessly. It also punishes those who try to do what is right despite the law. We need to recognize that these “criminals” are not blood-thirsty predators, but people who are just everyday folks, who want to save their loved ones.

-- Kevin D. Rollins

Posted by KevinRollins at 01:28 PM | Comments (0)

Free-for-all (frfr-ôl) -- n. A disorderly fight, argument, or competition in which everyone present participates.

from Dictionary.com



supportus.png

If you enjoy our site or our print publication, please consider making a contribution today!


SIMPLE AD ERROR VIEW COUNT NOT UPDATED
Advertisement


Return to the Free Liberal Homepage


Subscribe to our list:


About the Free Liberal
The Free Liberal is an independent journal of transpartisan thought.

The views expressed herein are those of the writers individually and not necessarily those of the Free Liberal, the Center for Liberty and Community, or its board of directors.