This is especially a problem when talking about health care, which admittedly is a difficult topic. The argument people sometimes present is “perfect government” (in which the efficient government delivers services efficiently) versus “imperfect markets.”  Other times, it’s “perfect markets” versus “imperfect government.” Neither is very useful, as what really needs to be looked at is the actuality of how markets and government play out. Any debate that happens needs to involve what can be realistically expected from both the market and the government.

Market solutions, even in “perfect markets,” are relatively upfront about their negative points. A market solution, like one for health insurance, may not “include” everyone; a competitive market will bring the price down to a certain point so as to include more people (and sometimes, even most people) but there may be people who are still priced out and cannot afford the service, or insurance, or good. This is a flaw that is often used to attempt to discredit the solution.

The problem is that the government solution has flaws that are not initially apparent. For instance, in places like Massachusetts, Canada, and Great Britain, everyone has health insurance and coverage, but that equates to long wait times and rationing of care and quality. A lack of competition (and an excess of bureaucracy) stifles innovation possibilities and slows any moves toward efficiency. Also, governmental solutions have the backing of the law behind them; if one is unhappy with the service, there are limited legal methods to bypass them.

(Tangential note: Some may argue that rationing happens currently in the system we have, but rationing by price is a very different and more efficient mechanism than rationing by political clout. At any rate, the current system is too distorted by special interests and governmental infrastructure to be considered a market.)

The case of the sick little girl that Jen mentioned draws upon another part of the argument oft overlooked by pro-government solution proponents: the role of private charities. In the competitive market solution, people have more money to spend on other goods, including private charity.  Private charities must do good work in order to garner further donations; so in the long-term, the better charities will receive the most money and make the most impact. The market may leave some people out, but the private sector can pick up the loose ends.

So, while the market solution admittedly does not “include” everyone, it is disingenuous to compare it to a governmental solution that does “include” everyone. Each has their own faults, but the market solution has mechanisms to fix them, whereas one must resort to the black market to get around the flaws in the governmental solution.

(Also posted at The Lesson Applied)

The Story of Stuff, while interesting, made a few factual errors and misleading statements that I think hurt their overall message. For one, it mixed terminologies. It referred to the natural resource of “forest” as a land space, of which we only have 4-percent of the original space in the US, while ignoring the idea of “forest” as trees, of which we have even more today than before the European settlers. Of those 2,000 trees that are destroyed per minute, a good portion were grown specifically to be cut down. This is a great example of property rights solving environmental problems: because many tree companies own the woods where they mill, they have an incentive to replenish the area

There is a tradeoff between people and resources that I do not think the first video adequately addressed. We could have kept that 80% “forest” as a land space, but then we must also choose which 3 billion people we will no longer feed or house, something I do not think the Story of Stuff is ready to address.

The stories about e-dumping were appalling, but I think the man who talked about transparency was on the right track. Understanding which companies are legitimate will go a long way toward solving the problem. A classmate from my high school started an ewaste recycling company, YouRenew.com, that seems to do a better job. It pays people for their electronics and then reworks them to sell as used pieces, only recycling as a last resort.

It’s disturbing and unfortunate that individuals in third world e-recycling have to choose between possible death from toxic chemical exposure, or certain death from starvation. These are choices our ancestors in the Industrial Revolution had to make as well, and it’s never a good thing. At the same time though, the “sweatshop process” industrializes a population to go beyond their current state of poverty, for future generations to reap the benefits. While I would hardly advocate it, there is another side to it, that could be seen in the young man’s response to why he did it: the money is good, and the alternatives are bleak. The process goes as thus: individuals in a country decide that the wages in the factory are better than the alternative (in many cases, starvation or prostitution), after a certain time, the country builds up capital (both in skilled workers and in money) and is no longer willing to accept the wages and conditions, and moves on to another industry (with more safety precaution and skill-level needed.) This can be seen to a certain extent in India, where tech outsourcing has become very popular

That being said, I think the event’s message was botched during the event and also on the blogosphere.  I have shared a lot of my feelings about the event in the comment section of Christine Harbin’s Show-Me Daily post, but as I’ve since learned that other campuses plan to replicate the event, I have a few general insights to share.

The point of the gulag was to make people realize that socialism ultimately includes oppression.  It was supposed to bring attention to the socialist programs in the U.S. (Medicaid, welfare, Social Security, etc.) and the dangers of this type of system.  I think it was a great message to get people thinking, but I don’t think most people knew that was the actual point nor were they given the right pieces of information to bring them to that conclusion.

I am a member of Wash. U.’s YAL, but was not involved in the planning process for the gulag.  I was at the event in my capacity as an intern for the Show-Me Institute, along with Josh Smith and Chrissy.  We videotaped the event and talked to passersby, engaging a few in debate about socialist policies.  After we left, the event was shut down by the administration, who said it was because the tools had not been registered.  St. Louis blogs and media, like Gateway Pundit, Dana Loesch, St. Louis Post-Dispatch and KMOX, wrote about the event.  Some cited an official calling the event “offensive” as the reason it was shut down.  Everyone can have their own take, obviously, but in my opinion, this new narrative does nothing for the purpose.

When reserving the space, YAL told the university they were distributing pamphlets, but omitted the part about power tools and building a structure.  If I had run the event, I think I would have gone about registering it in the same manner.   But I would not have gotten upset (and to his credit, Dirk did not) when the university found an excuse to shut an event down.  The important message was the implications of socialism, not the so-called “oppression” of the university.  (While I disagree with the vagueness of the rules, I defend the right of private institutions to determine the rules for their private property, especially in regards to safety and potential liability issues.)

There are real instances of the rights of conservatives being abused on campuses and in the real world.  This was not one of them, and this fuss does nothing to further the cause of liberty.

Most people walking by the gulag for the two hours I was there did not understand its purpose.  All the club members were participating in the event, shouting out anti-capitalist catch-phrases, leaving the spectators to attribute their own meaning to the event.  Josh, Chrissy and I did more to engage the crowds and explain the purpose than anyone else.  Yes, the club is small, but that was the crucial part.

The lesson here? It is not enough to offend people if you do not articulate a take home message.  The blogosphere has focused on the “fact” that the university took it down because it was “offensive,” but that obfuscates any meaningful message that could actually resonate with people.  Most college liberals will not be able to understand the most radical messages (like anti-child labor laws, a point on the handout) and will outright reject the entire message because of that.  The gulag was a spectacular opportunity to get people’s attention and to give them the building blocks to understand the importance of liberty and free-markets.  I only wish that could have been better articulated.

The only people who will care that Wash. U. found the gulag offensive are those that already agree with the anti-socialist message. But why have an event if the purpose was just to preach to the choir?

————————————————————————–

(I edited a short video segment of footage I shot of the event, once SMI posts it to You-Tube I’ll post it here.)

Dede Scozzafava, the “moderate Republican” was hardly moderate before a conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman, entered the New York congressional race (her campaign website has since changed to show a more conservative side, but too little too late).  Scozzafava is liberal both fiscally and socially.  While I do not take issue with her social views, I do take issue with the term “moderate Republican” since her views are very liberal.  It would be better to called her a “liberal Republican” (or even a RINO- Republican in name only)

The New York party leadership was upset with the national attention of the race and tried to portray it as strong-arming from the national party overpowering local desires:

“They’re trying to bang 435 elections across the United States into the same mold,” said James Ellis, chairman of the Franklin County Republican Party. “It’s a detriment to democracy.”

But it was not the national party that was being polled to show that Hoffman was trouncing Scozzafava in popularity.  It was the people of the district, and they made it clear that they wanted a conservative candidate.  This should be a lesson to the party bigwigs: they are not the voters.  American voters across the country, in Tea Parties and elsewhere, have shown they want real conservatives.  The right has not mastered the word manipulation like the left, and these grassroots voters are called “astroturf” and “tea-baggers.”  With a few words, the left discredits the legitimate opinions of citizens.

That word choice is at issue in the NY Times article.  Americans recognize that Democrats can be conservative but we don’t apply analogous terminology to the liberal Republicans. When Democrats say “we need more moderate Republicans” what they really mean is “we need more Republicans who vote almost entirely Democrat.”

Republicans need to reposition themselves and redefine what “Republican” and “moderate Republican” really means.  This needs to come from the people, and not just a select group of the party leadership.

I regret to inform you that I will not be renewing your yellow journal.

I briefly considered it if it still was 38 cents/issue, merely because I enjoy getting mail and it’s cheaper than sending myself a letter every week.

But the negative externalities (mainly, its effect on my blood pressure) have caused me to reconsider.

No hard feelings, it’s just that we AREN’T all socialist now.

Sincerely, Caitlin

That strategy first showed its face in April, when the president released Justice Department memos with details of the enhanced interrogation program. Arguing against the full release of these memos was Mr. Panetta and four prior CIA directors. Disclosure, they said, would damage national security. Arguing for their release was [Attorney General Eric] Holder, and White House General Counsel Greg Craig, who articulated the views of Moveon.org. The president threw the left some red meat, refusing even Mr. Panetta’s pleas to redact certain sensitive details.

If we want to have a Central Intelligence Agency, which is not unreasonable considering the global climate, then we can’t be changing the rules for them.  If the administration promises not to prosecute those who “acted in good faith,” they cannot later prosecute people who acted in good faith.  Even the threat of this undermines the CIA and threatens any future secret-gathering.  The CIA may need some sort of internal check, but few would argue that publicizing secret information or prosecuting people retroactively is a good idea.

We haven’t had a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in eight years.  Whatever one thinks about the CIA and W.’s counter-terrorism strategies, they have ensured that much. Yet Congress and the White House seem equally interested in destroying the CIA.  Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, claimed that the CIA had lied to her about waterboarding, something that has since been proven to be patently false.  The White House is undermining any sense of stability the CIA may have had, forcing it to backtrack and go on the defensive.

As of ten-years ago, the CIA had a $30 billion budget.  If the CIA cannot trust that they will not be the target of lawsuits and politics, it will not be able to perform its job.  With such a significant amount of money invested, and national security at stake, one can only hope that the current administration will allow the CIA to do its job and find less disruptive ways to keep the agency in check that don’t publicize national secrets.

There once was a girl who wasn’t real cool,
She followed the law, she obeyed every rule.
Her application’s not pretty,
But you should have pity,
Please, let her go to your law school!

…any thoughts? Suggestions? (I know, the rhythm is a little off! I’m working on it!)

I think that Yale’s admissions is going to love it.  :-)

But the biggest danger for growers is law enforcement. Lieutenant LeGault and his fellow officers often land at camps via helicopter, dangling in the air on harnesses and ropes.

Yet arrests are rare. Growers are typically armed, but they most often flee if they hear helicopters overhead or officers hiking toward them. In Santa Barbara County, officials say that in 18 raids, they have netted 225,000 plants but made no arrests.

18 raids, and zero arrests! Astounding! Even people who think drugs should be illegal should feel uncomfortable about this poor expenditure of tax dollars.  Is it really stopping crime?  (Apparently not… according to the article, the planters just move deeper into the forest.)  Especially considering that many deem marijuana safer than alcohol or tobacco– the latter two are more addicting, and alcohol poisoning and smoking cigarettes are considerably more dangerous than too much marijuana– is this really a good use of California resources?

Consider if the state were actually allowed to tax and regulate these plants: Instead of spending money on wild goose chases, they could be augmenting the state coffers with tax dollars.  The forest fire problem would be a non-issue because it would not be as lucrative to grow the plants illegally.  (And growers would not have to hurriedly abandon campsites.)  Problem solved!

Do we even wonder why California is bankrupt? The money wasted on helicoptors and fruitless raids could arguably have been better spent… but why pay school teachers when you can fight a losing drug war?