I never get tired of these.
March 8, 2010 27 Comments
Bad Matt Taibbi impersonators make for bad book reviews
October 29, 2009 6 Comments
A Conservative Cult?
October 2, 2009 7 Comments
Hayek on Health Insurance
I don’t know how, during the long months of this health insurance debate, this quote from Road To Serfdom slipped my mind, but it certainly bears re-emphasis:
“Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong… Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken,” – The Road To Serfdom (Chapter 9).
This is why, for all the bluster about “death panels,” and health care reform being an irreversible step on the road to socialism, it is the Randian vision of the world that animating the Right’s position on reform at the expense of the far more rigorous, thoughtful, and classically liberal vision of Hayek. Were the influence of these visions reversed, we would have a situation where the Right would actually make a good-faith negotiating partner on the issue of health care reform rather than leaving it up to liberals to negotiate reform with spineless and philosophically unmoored centrists.
The above-referenced quote does not in the least imply that any system of social insurance is acceptable or will work. An individual-based system supported by tax credits or vouchers? Sure. A system of nationalized re-insurance? Quite possibly. Single-payer insurance? Maybe. But a byzantine system of employer and individual mandates, public options, increased regulation, etc.? Absolutely not.
Yet because the Right is so much more infatuated with the Randian vision rather than the Hayekian vision (even as it so often claims devotion to Hayek), leaving unmoored centrists as the gatekeepers, the reform we will get will be the latter. This, I would submit, is the worst of all worlds from the supposedly free market perspective held by the movement Right – the reinforcement of existing flaws and regulatory regimes; increased opportunities for regulatory capture; large increases in overall government expenditures and an ever-larger national debt; and only marginal improvements in the delivery of health care to the currently uninsured (at a cost that many of them may be unable to afford).
October 1, 2009 107 Comments
It usually begins with Ayn Rand
If I was to summarize my own comprehensive case against redistribution (which is far from an absolutist one, by the way), I would probably emphasize three things:
1) The empirical case against redistribution. Regardless of the moral or philosophical merits of wealth transfers, people tend to work less when they’re heavily taxed. Redistributive policies are also frequently inefficient.
2) The prudential case against redistribution. Rectifying structural inequities through redistribution is an inexact science. Moreover, fiddling with an economic system that has acquired (and retains) substantial reservoirs of cultural and institutional legitimacy may have unintended consequences.
3.) Finally, the moral case against redistribution. Unlike Rand, I do not think people are entitled to keep every cent of their earnings. But – given the importance of individual achievement – I do think you should keep quite a lot of what you make.
Obviously, none of this is very original. But it’s worth remembering in light of the clownish antics of Rick Santelli and the more extreme tea party activists.
September 14, 2009 77 Comments
