Topic: Political Philosophy

I Got Hooked on the White Stuff Back in the ’70s

disco-stu.bmpNo, not that white stuff. And not the white stuff that Disco Stu bought from Garth Motherloving. The white stuff I got hooked on (growing up on the family dairy farm) is raw milk — milk that has not been pasteurized or homogenized. Today’s NYT has an article on the growing black and gray markets in raw milk, which the Food and Drug Administration and 15 state legislatures want to shut down.

Yes, that’s right — Uncle Sam and 15 state governments prohibit consumers from buying milk fresh from the cow. And in the nannies’ defense, milk was responsible for much food-borne illness in the era before universal pasteurization. Most consumers likely prefer protection from nasty bugs like E. coli and salmonella.

But others are willing to risk exposure to those illnesses. Some raw milk enthusiasts claim the white stuff is more healthful than processed milk. Others (I count myself among these) say simply that it tastes better that the milk you buy at the store — people who try raw milk for the first time often comment that it tastes more like melted ice cream than the stuff that comes in cartons.

So why should raw milk fans be prohibited from buying the product they want?

That question also underlies Tim’s post, yesterday, about another FDA prohibition — keeping terminally ill patients from accessing experimental medicines. There is no public health issue with these products (my drinking raw milk might make me sick, but it’s not going to make sick the people I interact with on the street). And there is no fraud and abuse issue — these consumers know that they’re buying raw milk; indeed, they want raw milk. Consumers of raw milk (or experimental drugs to fight their cancers or HIV) realize that there is risk to these products but, given their medical conditions and their preferences, they’re willing to bear that risk in exchange for the products’ (possible) benefits.

Government prohibition of the sale of these products is nothing more than bureaucracy’s blanket imposition of its own risk preference on a large, heterogenous population that includes many people with differing preferences. One of the chief virtues of a free market is that it does a far better job of satisfying the heterogenous preferences of a population of consumers than a central planner ever could. Unfortunately, government often intervenes in markets and diminishes that virtue.

As Tim writes in his post, the FDA and its state-level imitators put a happy face on that intervention, claiming they are looking out for the public’s health. But in these cases, why aren’t members of the public permitted to look out after their own health?

No Right to Life?

Open the newspaper, turn on the television, or surf the net, and you’ll find people saying the government can solve our problems and make life better.  This is the happy face of government:

Behind the happy face is an institution that is willing to strip of us of our right to self-defense, and, worse, deprive dying patients of life-saving drugs.   Who do these politicians and bureaucrats think they are?

For more on the right to life, go here, here, and here (pdf).

New at Cato Unbound: Peter Leeson on Practical Anarchy

Everybody seems to know we need government … But pirates didn’t! How did they manage without the state? In this month’s thought-provoking Cato Unbound lead essay, Peter T. Leeson, the BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism at George Mason University, explores what pirate “constitutions,” credit institutions among 19th century African bandit traders, and the well-being of Somalians after the collapse of the Somalian state have to tell us about the possibility of practical anarchy. It works better than you think, Leeson concludes. “As long as there are unrealized gains to realize, people will find ways to realize them” — state or no state.

Can organizations really solve complex problems of coordination without government coercion? Can voluntary bands provide public goods? Are there conditions under which groups are better off stateless? Leeson will be joined in tackling these question by three eminent commentators: Florida State economics professor Bruce Benson, author of the seminal The Enterprise of the Law: Justice without the State; Dani Rodrik, professor of international political economy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government; and Randall Holcombe, another distinguished Seminole economist and current president of the Public Choice Society. Benson is on deck to reply this Wednesday. Stay tuned!  

Update on the Anti-Universal Coverage Club

Joining the Anti-Universal Coverage Club this week is a list of organizations that have formed a new group called The Health Care Freedom Coalition.  Here are a few lines from their agenda:

Most Democratic presidential candidates, one Republican presidential candidate, many business trade associations, and unions have endorsed “universal health insurance” as the solution to our nation’s health care problems.

With 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, these politicians and special interest groups have concluded that covering everyone will magically make health care affordable.

“Universal health insurance” is a myth. The only way to make health care “affordable” under a “universal health insurance” scheme is through price controls and limiting access. Any proposal claiming to provide “universal coverage” is nothing more than a system that must rely on private and/or public entities to administer government-run health care. 

Emphasis added.  The Health Care Freedom Coalition includes:

  • 60 Plus
  • Alabama Policy Institute
  • American Conservative Union
  • American Shareholders Association
  • Americans for Prosperity and AFP Foundation
  • Americans for Tax Reform
  • Center for Freedom and Prosperity
  • Christus Medicus Foundation
  • Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives
  • Consumers for Health Care Choices
  • Council for Affordable Health Insurance
  • Fairness Foundation
  • FreedomWorks
  • Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
  • Illinois Policy Institute
  • Indiana Family Institute
  • Medical Savings Insurance Company
  • Mississippi Center for Public Policy
  • National Center for Policy Analysis
  • National Taxpayers Union
  • Pacific Research Institute
  • Public Interest Institute
  • Rio Grande Foundation
  • Small Business Entrepreneurship Council
  • The James Madison Institute
  • Washington Policy Institute

Not joining the Anti-Universal Coverage Club this week are the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, which approved legislation to expand government health insurance to people who don’t need government assistance, and the Galen Institute’s Grace-Marie Turner, who reiterated in her weekly newsletter:

The question isn’t whether children should or should not have health insurance. The question is how do we achieve that goal.

Illegal Manicure in the ‘Live Free or Die’ State

In response to to my post about a (possibly) illegal hairdresser in Massachusetts, Michael Hampton of Homeland Stupidity forwards a link to a priceless local New Hampshire news report. (It’s two years old, but it’s new to me and to this blog.)

Free State Project member Mike Fisher performed an illegal manicure right in front of the “Live Free or Die” state’s Board of Barbering, Cosmetology and Esthetics. (Motto: Yew Best Drop That Thar Em’ry Board, Son.)

When the police asked Fisher if he had a license to perform that thar manicure, Fisher said no. When the police issued him a summons and asked that he stop performing that thar manicure, Fisher refused. So the cops slapped handcuffs on this dangerous outlaw and put him in a squad car. Fisher reportedly received a 30-day suspended sentence, with a vow from the judge that if Fisher receives so much as a traffic ticket, it’s off to the pokey he goes.

I wonder what the Granite State wasn’t doing with the time and resources used to arrest and prosecute Fisher.

Still No Consensus

A headline in the Washington Post (the actual newspaper, not the online version) reads:

Montgomery Still Lacking Consensus on Growth Policy

The article explains that officials in Montgomery County, Maryland, are having trouble agreeing on rules for limiting economic growth while leaving room for development. “I don’t think there is consensus on much of anything at this point,” said County Council member Nancy Floreen.

One reason that there’s no consensus, of course, is that there’s no consensus. The county’s 900,000 residents don’t all agree on who should be allowed to build new homes and businesses, who should have their property rights limited, who should pay the bills, and so on. This is why Hayek said that planning was not compatible with liberal values. The only values we can agree on in a big diverse society, he wrote, are “common abstract rules of conduct that secured the constant maintenance of an equally abstract order which merely assured to the individual better prospects of achieving his individual ends but gave him no claims to particular things.” That is, you set up property rights and the rule of law, and you let people run their own lives without being allowed to run other people’s lives. Try to go beyond that, and you’re going to infringe on freedom.

As I wrote a few months ago, another newspaper story reported

“As a consensus builds that the Washington region needs to concentrate job growth, there are signs that the exact opposite is happening.

Over the past five years, the number of new jobs in the region’s outer suburbs exceeded those created in the District and inner suburbs such as Fairfax and Montgomery counties … contradicting planners’ ‘smart growth’ visions of communities where people live, work and play without having to drive long distances.”

Maybe if tens - hundreds - of thousands of people aren’t abiding by the “consensus,” there is no consensus: there is just a bunch of government-funded planners attending conferences and deciding where people ought to live. It’s like, “Our community doesn’t want Wal-Mart.” Hey, if the community really doesn’t Wal-Mart, then a Wal-Mart store will fail. What that sentence means is: “Some organised interests in our community don’t want Wal-Mart here because we know our neighbours will shop there (and so will we).”

In her book It Takes a Village, Hillary Clinton calls for “a consensus of values and a common vision of what we can do today, individually and collectively, to build strong families and communities.” But there can be no such collective consensus. In any free society, millions of people will have different ideas about how to form families, how to rear children, and how to associate voluntarily with others. Those differences are not just a result of a lack of understanding each other; no matter how many Harvard seminars and National Conversations funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities we have, we will never come to a national consensus on such intimate moral matters. Clinton implicitly recognizes that when she insists that there will be times when “the village itself [read: the federal government] must act in place of parents” and accept “those responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in government.”

Governments would do better to set a few rules of the game and let market enterprises respond to what people really rather than try to push people into conforming to planners’ visions and phony consensuses.