Quote of the Day
Coming together is a beginning.Keeping together is progress.
Working together is success.
Henry Ford
Image of the Day
 |
| via Libertarian Republic |
 |
| Via Lawrence Reed/FEE |
From Reason:
After her 7-year-old daughter, Liza, was diagnosed with an aggressive and generally fatal kind of brain tumor in 2011, Jennifer Scherr decided to treat the cancer with cannabis oil. Scherr's father-in-law, Curtis Scherr, a Chicago police officer, nevertheless agreed to help her grow marijuana in the hope of prolonging his granddaughter's life. He obtained the high-intensity light bulbs Jennifer needed and stopped by the house periodically to check on the grow operation. But about a week after Liza died in July 2012, Curtis ratted out her grieving mother, filing a search warrant application in which he reported having seen 50 marijuana plants in Jennifer's basement. A state judge issued a warrant, which a dozen or so DEA agents used to search Jennifer's house on July 19. They did not find any contraband, since Jennifer had discarded the plants after Liza's death.The search warrant was upheld (apparently not disclosing your relationship to the target is not a legal or professional ethics standard). Illinois has thankfully liberalized medical marijuana policy since then. Apparently New London, CT is not the only municipality with a hiring preference for not-so-smart cops.
Chart of the Day
 |
| Via Mercatus Center of George Mason University |
The courts have been sympathetic since the Abood decision to letting unions recover prorated costs of collective bargaining from non-union employees, an alleged free-rider problem, but is this on a collision course when public sector collective bargaining itself is a political issue with many states struggling to cope with unsustainable retirement liabilities? If I were still an educator, would I be forced to pay for political speech I oppose? Bedrick from the Cato Institute argues that the recent Harris v. Quinn decision may provide just such an opening for the Friedrichs case....
Liberate the Foodies
Facebook Corner
 | ||
| Via | Boycott A&E Until Phil Robertson Is Put Back On Duck Dynasty |
(Christian Libertarian.) Areference to DiLorenzo's post, pointing out religious zealots behind some of our nation's wars.
Tom DiLorenzo is brilliant as usual, in this essay exposing how some Christians were cheerleaders for our nation's bloody involvement in the Civil War and WWI, which many libertarians, including myself, feel were unnecessary.
Obscure reference to Lew Rockwell in a prior comment. Lew Rockwell, a former staffer for Ron Paul and long involved with mises.org, uses his personal website as a portal with dozens of libertarian columnists. I'm not sure what the reference to "black homosexual feminism" is; what seemed to pop up in a Google search is a well-known kerfuffle involving the brilliant free market economist Walter Block. (I have not reviewed the full kerfuffle because some source posts are no longer available, but Block was attemping to describe how much of the gay community has gone from more of a traditional live and let live perspective to a politically correct one.)
(Christian Libertarian). What does everyone think of the immigration situation going on right now? Where all of the children are coming here illegally to escape violence in Central America. I know as Christians, the Bible tells us to take care of orphans (James 1:27), but I'm having a hard time believing they should stay here and not be deported. I don't think it's our responsibility to pay for their housing, food, medical bills, etc.
[This thread quickly accelerated into several disagreements, many of them arcane nuances of the economics of immigration and the concept of open borders. I found myself drawn into 2 long exchanges excerpted below, on immigration and Canada's healthcare system, which quickly reminded me why I hate to get bogged down in forums. On immigration and other topics, libertarians have nuances, but from a principled perspective, open borders is a logical extension of free trade principles and basic liberty to travel. Now Milton Friedman, a towering figure most libertarians respect, had a quixotic twist on liberalized immigration, where he argued you need to get rid of the welfare state first. Others have raised other arguments: for Ron Paul, it dealt with migrants crossing private property without permission; Rand Paul has adopted a border-security-first standpoint. One stream in this thread focused on a quixotic labor protectionist argument in border areas. I didn't list every exchange or the other discussant's responses (there were also 2-3 other discussants focusing on other nuances of his arguments).]
I am for liberalized immigration in general; what we have is a rigged market and organized crime has obscenely profitable margins to smuggle people across the border. Immigration is pretty much win-win from the perspective of economic growth except possibly some short-term effects on low-wage workers. Right now crony unionists have blocked temporary worker programs, and we've got an antiquated quota system with zero-sum between relatives of citizens vs. merit-based applicants. I'm much more of an "open borders" guy, but at minimum we should be expanding quotas so they don't bottleneck employers.
As to the current crisis, a large percentage are youths with relatives living in the United States, and I think we should facilitate family reunification. As to the others, I think first of all, we should treat all visitors to this country with due patience, respect, and understanding, like we would expect for our own children venturing beyond our borders. I think policymakers have been sending mixed messages, but we need to coordinate through diplomatic channels with the source countries; they cannot afford to export their next generation to the US.
It's also important for us to treat the disease and not the symptoms. For example, if the US War on Drugs is contributing to violence in the region, we need to reexamine our prosecution of victimless crimes. (Personally, I see recreational drug use as a terrible abuse of God's gift of life, but there is too much collateral damage in this misguided war.)
(separate comment)
It's unconscionable that the US government interferes with good-hearted Americans willing to adopt orphans from whatever country.
There is a reason you lock your doors to your house... You can't just let random people come in unsupervised.
1. We need to secure our border period. We have no idea who is coming in. It could be immigrants wanting to work, it could be free loaders trying to leech off the system. It could be terrorists trying to do harm. It could be a bunch of kids who were possibly carrying deadly pathogens ect...
2. We need to fix the immigration process to make is more efficient and to give people who want to study/work better options.
3. We need to gather up all the illegals who are here and remove them, they are a serious security risk. If someone broke into your home you are justified in defending you property by force. There is no difference here...
We are not a nation of nannies we can't care for everyone who comes even if we want to, it would damage us. We cannot help them up if we let them drag us down.
No, I disagree with "reason you lock your doors". In academia and IT consulting, I've moved to various states to find my next position (I've worked in TX, WI, IL, FL, CA, MD, WV). I didn't have to worry about visas, etc. Why should a company or client have to go through government hoops, like when I had to work at a Brazilian client onsite? "Illegals" refers to restrictive immigration policies dating from the 1920's. It is based on bad economics (by trying to manipulate labor supply), it violates free market principles, and it subtracts from economic growth. Stop engaging in fearmongering about unauthorized immigrants; the last statistics I've seen show most immigrants are, if anything, more law-abiding; they are, by almost every credible study, a net contributor to the US economy. People do not migrate to a place if they don't think there are good prospects for employment; in fact, in the period around the start of the economic tsunami in 2008, there was a net outflow to the improving Mexican economy.
...
False. Specialization of labor, the law of comparative advantage--this is all basic economics, guys. Also, decriminalization would ease our unsustainable prison problem, not to mention enormous drains on law enforcement.
....
False again. For example, labor flows may enhance distinctive competencies.
Only if regulated. But I'll give an example. If i am an American high school grad that lives in America and I work at a factory in order to support myself the cost of living is XX, then you have another guy Pedro who live in Mexico his cost of living is half of the American worker. Pedro drive a hour to work at the same factory but is willing to do it for less pay because he needs less pay. This would drive the cost of unskilled labor down. If the pay of unskilled labor is down Americans who have no choice will have to lower standards of living in order to survive. Some Americans that can will increase skills but not everyone can.
You're missing the big picture. Say, if the supply of factory workers increases, it can stimulate the market for factory workers. There may be a short-term hit on lower wages (maybe 5% in figures I've seen).
...
In general, as proven in electronics, the company has an incentive to bring down prices to gain market share. And as we've noticed for trade in general, lower prices increases the standard of living. I recently quoted some NAFTA related research that indicated that for Mexicans, the prices on many staples had dropped in the aftermath.
...
You can take the same argument and apply it in context within the US. For example, I've lived in three areas (Silicon Valley, Chicago, DC) where the cost of living will increase in surrounding areas as workers look for something more affordable. I have some (Asian) Indian friends whom have noticed the same phenomenon in rapidly growing zones like Bangalore.
...
[on sticky prices] Apples and oranges. We are dealing, for instance, when refiners buy oil at the spot market and it's working its way to retailers.
I agree with Ronald A Guillemette. Even beyond his point though, oil is a heavily interfered with commodity. Between regulations, restrictions on production, extra taxes, and subsidies, the government is more involved in oil than even most other products. No surprise that it is a disaster price situation.
[A discussant wrote of naturalized relatives from the Philippines and Korea whom had unsuccessfully applied on behalf of relatives; in one case a grandfather who had aided US servicemen during WWII found himself unable to follow his spouse to the US, and in the other case a naturalized Asian female missed her family so much that she divorced her husband and moved back to her homeland. The discussant took down her post, which she thought was too long and unorganized, before I could copy it.]
I think [discussant's] story is poignant and telling. We should have an immigration system that accommodates free flow of families. So much for a country believing in family values. Why should bureaucrats decide this matter?
I'll give you another example of stupid government policy. An accounting PhD student friend (at the time I was earning mine in MIS). He took a faculty position in San Diego. His girlfriend a few years later was in a horrific auto accident, left paralyzed waist down. They could never get married because under state rules, the state would bleed my friend's assets dry before they would resume coverage of her expenses. This brings up other issues like catastrophic expenses, but the point is that the State undermines private sector institutions of marriage and family with totally unnecessary regulations.
(a follow-up on another thread from yesterday which asked for intro to libertarians sources)
Speaking of youtube (re: LearnLiberty), the EconStories videos are inspired. I particularly like the "Deck the Halls With Macro Follies"...
(continuing on a thread from yesterday's post involving the thread owners description of his Canadian relatives' view of nationalized health care as security)
Their words not mine, I know what you mean, but when you talk to people and begin to explain to them, they will be more free and more secure with less government, the look of bewilderment on their face says it all. Mention the word anarchy and they leave the room.
I do have to take issue with you a bit, on the Canadian healthcare system. I live 15 minutes from the border, and have family in Canada! There are cases were Canadians come across the border to get knee replacements and other non life threatening issues that take longer in the Canadian healthcare system. However, there are quite a few people, I know who cross the border to Canada to get cheaper prescription Meds. Canadians also have longer life expectancy and a slightly better infant mortality rate than the US. Even though the US is the gold standard in biotechnology, and innovation many people, I talk to love the Canadian health system. They love the fact at minimum they essentially have catastrophic insurance for free ( I know its not really free)! They get regular checkups, vaccinations, all the same stuff we get in the US insurance system. The difference between the two countries is the level of innovation and research, in surgical techniques, pharmaceutical development, and biotech!
Every time, I go to Canada, I always make a point to try and ask a local about their healthcare system. I have yet to come across a Canadian that dislikes the system. Canada is a relatively free country, if the health system was that bad in Canada the people would protest or start leaving the country. If you do not see how someone could perceive "free healthcare" as security than you may have a tough time winning new libertarians! Anytime, my family visits me in the US the first thing they do, is purchase travelers health insurance, I suppose it makes them feel more safe and secure, who would of thought that!
Even though the US health system with all its flaws because of government is the most innovative system, does not mean other nations healthcare systems do not provide quality care. I am tired of Americans demonizing the Canadian healthcare system, of course it has its flaws, but if the people of Canada are for it, that is their right and choice!
I also take issue with your earlier response as a whole. Briefly, in response to the pharmaceutical question, this is an Econ 101 issue that no libertarian should ever be confused about: the difference between average and marginal costs. The US pharmaceuticals have to recover development costs (including failed drugs); Canada micromanages pharmaceutical prices; now a US company may decide for purposes of incremental revenue/profits/market share, etc, to participate in Canada's market, but effectively Canadian consumers are freeloading off American consumers. Technically if arbitrage were to happen (e.g., reimporting American drugs from Canada), pharmaceutical companies would likely withdraw from the Canadian market.
Second, there are a number of dysfunctional US regulatory policies that violate free market principles, starting with tax policies that encourage coverage of ordinary expenses, guaranteed issue and community rating, and lack of ability to operate across state lines.
I'm not going to spend all day refuting Canadian propaganda: I'll simply excerpt a brief Mises.org post: "Instead, most citizens remain supportive of the government health care monopoly because of decades of relentless propaganda by politicians and interest groups extolling the virtues of health care socialism. Many Canadians strongly feel that equal access to medical services is and should continue to be the moral guiding force for a successful health care system. They also hold firm to the notion that a free market health care system would result in American-style health care characterized by profit-hungry physicians and hospitals out to rip-off their patients. These myths are completely false and must be decisively refuted if private health care reforms ever receive the full support of the Canadian public." The full post is a little dated, but the overall critique remains valid: http://mises.org/daily/496/Canadian-Health-Care
According to the OECD statistics! Canada life expectancy 81.3/United States 78.1 [and several others]
Now really you should know better than that! US life expectancy figures are skewed by higher rates of homicides and fatal car accidents--which have nothing to do with health care. If you go to more apples to apples, the 5-year survival rate for cancer is best in the US, almost 3 percentage points better than Canada's, across the board (and Canada was in second place).
Even if, I believe your cancer statistic who cares if the US rate of cancer survival is better if you have a much higher cancer rate to begin with! Do you have a reference? From what, I see the cancer survival rates are similar if not better for Canada!
Are we really going to play ping-pong all day? By the way, I have published empirical research and have reviewed dozens of articles for publication. This is not an argument you want to have. As to the cancer study:
http://www.thelancet.com/.../PIIS1470204508701797/abstract
Now as to your disingenuous use of OECD statistics: "A few years back, Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa asked the obvious question: what happens if you remove deaths from fatal injuries from the life expectancy tables? Among the 29 members of the OECD, the U.S. vaults from 19th place to…you guessed it…first. Japan, on the same adjustment, drops from first to ninth." I've made my points. http://www.forbes.com/.../the-myth-of-americans-poor.../
Actually Ronald, I work as a research scientist myself, I would love to read any work that corrects a misunderstanding, I may have. Actually, Ronald, I would love to go there, whether, I win or lose a debate is irrelevant, maybe you are arguing, but I am not! I am only concerned with becoming better than, I was the day before. If it takes you or someone else to provide evidence that their is a better way of thinking or interpreting data, than I yearn for that correction. So no matter what happens in a debate in the long run, I win because the most important aspect is to strengthen my mind and to continue to grow and learn. I joined this group for that exact purpose, to be sharpened. If, I wanted to win debates, I would join the I am liberal thread!
You should then know the limitations of the garbage you are quoting. The first thing a researcher does is establish a nomological network, not take hit-and-run summary statistics and say, "Hey, the US health system explains lower life expectancies." That's not even real science--it's what I call kaleidoscope statistics. Now the Forbes piece offers some intriguing clues, e.g., "Finally, U.S. life-expectancy statistics are skewed by the fact that the U.S. doesn’t have one health-care system, but three: Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance. (A fourth, the Obamacare exchanges, is supposed to go into effect in 2014.) As I have noted in the past, health outcomes for those on government-sponsored insurance are worse than for those on private insurance."
You were commenting on your relatives' perceptions of US healthcare and then you argued the point using OECD statistics. Never mind that there are so many apples-and-oranges among national statistics: a notorious one is infant mortality, where the US factors in lower-age children than other countries. From a methodological basis, you have to be skeptical from the get-go. For example, how is it French babies have higher survival rates--is it the hospitals or doctors are better? A lot of this statistical stuff lacks sufficient standardization to do proper analysis.
Marriage Proposal Videos
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Henry Payne via Townhall |
Anne Murray, "Snowbird"
