November 30, 2007 § 1 Comment
November 30, 2007 § 3 Comments
I was planning to say something, but there is really too much to be able to make specific comments as yet. It is amazing how much he can say in such a short space.
November 27, 2007 § 10 Comments
The quotable Lawrence Auster, on the media’s conspicuous and universal avoidance of the accurate term “Islamic” to describe the rioters in France:
[E]ven if the French themselves no longer care, I am still very grateful to Charles Martel for turning back that youth invasion of France in 732. If they had won, they would have forced all the French to become teenagers.
November 21, 2007 § 3 Comments
I’ve done very little thinking about health care policy. I realize that it is important, but every time I’ve attempted to think about it I’ve just glazed over. It isn’t even that it is intrinsically uninteresting: as a key human concern in the modern world where technology, morality, life and death come together I am hard pressed to think of another subject that objectively ought to be more interesting.
But I haven’t thought about it much.
Nevertheless it is a subject of enough importance that you can’t help but encounter it periodically if you regularly read blogs with political and social content. And it seems to me that there are any number of quite distinct things which are entangled together in discussions about health care.
One thing to realize is that on average insurance is a lousy deal, on purpose, and that is a good thing. Much like Las Vegas and Atlantic City, it is designed to be a lousy deal on average. That is pretty much its central point. The risks insurance cover are small in probability, but large in terms of financial (and other) consequences. So when we buy insurance we intentionally pay more than we are statistically likely to pay if we didn’t buy insurance; but we are protected against catastrophic loss. That is pretty much the whole point to it: when we buy insurance we are betting against the house and hoping to lose. And it is worth it.
Another thing to realize is that modern health “insurance” isn’t so much. That is, it isn’t mainly insurance. It is more like a collective bargaining organization for consumers which negotiates pricing with health care providers. The standard pricing at a hospital is in my experience many times – literally several hundreds of percent – higher than the negotiated rates paid by the “insurance” companies and HMO’s. That is pretty much the only reason my family is enrolled in a group plan. In general I could save a lot of money by just paying directly if I could get the same price the “insurance” company gets. When I buy health “insurance” what I am mostly doing is paying a subscription fee for a service which gets me lower prices than I could get on my own if I paid for each use as a one-off. That still leaves the traditional insurance role – protection against major losses – untouched, but it is the primary use I make of health insurance.
A third thing to realize is that health care for the poor, for those who cannot afford it for themselves, is an utterly distinct subject which has virtually nothing to do with insurance (where we pay more than the actuarial expectation of what we will cost on average for coverage of high-consequence low-likelihood events) or with health cooperatives (where we also pay above actual cost but we have the advantage of collective bargaining as consumers). When things have virtually nothing to do with each other it is usually best to keep them distinct; otherwise we are creating a recipe for obfuscation, gerrymandering, and all kinds of political, bureacratic, and financial dishonesty, confusion, and other shenanigans. That doesn’t mean I am against health plans for the poor. But it does mean that if we don’t keep them distinct from insurance and health care subscriptions which are in fact paid for by those who use them we are opening ourselves up to corruption.
November 20, 2007 § 13 Comments
The best things in life are free, and columnist Kevin Jones explains how public libraries are becoming the new taxpayer funded peep shows.
While acknowledging that library rules forbid overt sexual conduct from patrons, the administrator insisted sexual arousal does not violate regulations: “We offer lots of materials that patrons might use to arouse themselves; they range from romance novels to photographic works,” she writes. Even in context, this reads more like a recommendation than anything else.
It all makes sense if you think about it. We aren’t permitted to make moral judgements about the substance of things in the advanced liberal order, especially not when it comes to public services like libraries. As Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” So as far as the government in the advanced liberal order is concerned content is arbitrary, and public libraries have to cater to the needs of all content consumers equally. Anything else would be unfair, biasing one concept of “the mystery of human life” over another in the use of public funds, and we can’t have that.
If that means you have to watch where you step and send your teenage daughter to the library with a bodyguard, well, that’s just the price of progress.
November 16, 2007 § 4 Comments
To prevent us ostentatious philosophers from abandoning our own body, blood, and humanity, may I suggest that discussions pertaining to philosophy (law included) be engaged in with each participant enjoying a glass of wine, a mug of beer, or a shot of whiskey (I prefer Bushmills). It is to be hoped that good imbibing will remind us of our embodiment as our heads soar into the clouds, and that we are engaged in a discussion with people also enjoying the delights of life, who are each more important than the sum of all theories, systems, disciplines, and philosophical projects.
November 16, 2007 § 26 Comments
The video is fairly lengthy but may be of interest.
In a nutshell, Goldberg may be coming around to a sane moral position. I don’t follow him enough to know if he believes in exceptionless moral norms or is at bottom a moral relativist; if the latter then “taboo” understood as a positive thing may be as close as his moral philosophy allows him to come to placing something morally off-limits. In any event there is movement in the right direction.