Doug-at-large

In the debate about health care and free markets vs socialism and all that, I have some thoughts to add.

I always think of complete free-market libertarianism with no regulations the same way I think of Newton’s 1st law.

Sure, an object will continue in motion at the same speed and in a straight line so long as there are no external forces applied to it. That is true in theory, just like a perfect free market might be true in theory.

But in physics, in day-to-day life there is friction acting on the object so it does slow down and stop.

I think that’s the same thing about the economy. As a society, we’ve decided to add all sorts of “friction,” in the form of rules and regulations, to the economy. Some for bureaucratic reasons I don’t understand. Others because as a society we deem the rule for the public good.

But all these rules inhibit free enterprise and have a negative effect on economic opportunity.

Some examples:

* Requiring a business license.
* Zoning laws.
* Safety regulations at the workplace.
* Requiring extra licenses and standards to run day care centers or nursing homes.
* Requiring licenses to practice medicine.
* Forbidding the running of a friendly neighborhood numbers racket.
* Outlawing the sale of some drugs and requiring doctors prescriptions for others.

The list goes on and on ad infinitum.

Some of those things we might even all agree are good rules, and a civil society depends on them.

But they all have a “friction” effect on the ideal “free economy.” That’s my theory anyway.

So in compensation for following these rules, we expect certain things in return, as part of our social contract. These include roads, police, a military and maybe yes, a post office and national health care running at a financial loss.

It seems it’s all on the table. And can all be decided on a case-by-case basis, just like the rules are. I don’t think we need to apply one overarching philosophical rule to deciding everything. I think the society we have created is all case-by-base. And everything else is just “in theory.”

doug

A 2nd Amendment question – since this is coming up again before the Supreme Court.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-02-26-gun-control-laws_N.htm

First the text of the amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

1. Even though the amendment is just 1 sentence long, the meaning has never seemed obvious or clear to me.

2. I am not sure where I stand on this. On the one hand, it seems to make sense to control obviously dangerous weapons in crowded urban areas and public settings. On the other hand, people should have the right to defend themselves and there is some truth to the saying that if guns are criminalized only criminals will have guns.

3. But what do pro-gun advocates actually believe? That all weapons should be allowed? Rifles? Handguns? Machine guns? Shoulder launched missiles? Personal nuclear weapons? The amendment doesn’t specify that.

doug

It’s today all over the world… Auckland 10:40 pm, here in Tokyo 7:40 pm, Mumbai 4:10 pm (they are strangely off by a 1/2 hour), London 11:40 am, Boston 6:40 am, St. Louis 5:40 am, San Francisco 3:40 am, Honolulu 12:40 am… I think everybody’s on the same day only for 2 hours each day…

We should have a name for this time of day…

doug

KABUL (Reuters) – A new Afghan law that has drawn Western condemnation for restricting women’s rights does not allow marital rape as its critics claim, but lets men refuse to feed wives who deny them sex, the cleric behind it says.

Ayatollah Mohammed Asef Mohseni’s Shiite personal status law sparked controversy abroad because of a provision that “a wife is obliged to fulfill the sexual desires of her husband.”

A man and wife can negotiate how often it is reasonable to sleep together, based on his sex drive, and a woman has a right to refuse if she has a good reason, said the bearded cleric.

“It should not be compulsory for the wife to say yes all the time, because some men have more sexual desires than others,” he said, adding that husbands should never force themselves on their wives and the law does not sanction that.

But women do have a duty to meet their husband’s needs.

“If a woman says no, the man has the right not to feed her,” Mohseni said.

Michael Steele, the newly elected chairman of the Republican Party said this:

“It’s time for something completely different and we’re going to bring it to them,” Mr. Steele said. “We’re going to bring this party to every corner, to every boardroom, to every neighborhood, to every community. And we’re going to say to friend and foe alike, ‘we want you to be a part of us, we want you to be with us and for those of you who are going to obstruct, get ready to be knocked over.’ “

What on earth kind of a statement is that? It sounds like a statement the Gestapo would issue.

doug

Well, I’m not going to stay awake while they all have lunch, so I guess I’ll have to see a recap of the parade on the news tomorrow. Maybe I’ll be up in time for the inaugural balls.

I can’t believe Chief Justice Roberts messed up the oath of office!

I thought Obama’s speech was “ok”. Typical Obama rhetoric. A little disjointed. If *I* were the speechwriter I would have book-ended his statement at the beginning about there being a nagging doubt that America is in decline with a declaration that he has no doubts that America is on the rise. But nobody asked me.

I watched some MSNBC live streaming before going into the next room to watch the main event live on CNN on a regular TV. I really haven’t watched MSNBC much before and was surprised to see how it is true what people say about them being “in the tank” for Obama. They don’t even pretend to be unbiased.

For example, one person commented that, “it must be a bittersweet moment for Bush considering all the calls for change” and the anchor said, “Bittersweet? The Bushes must feel like the Romanoffs today. ”

After he repeated the Romanoff comment the other co-anchors tried to get him to back off of that. Apparently that was a bit much even for MSNBC.

But they were basically completely in the tank for Obama. The anchor was even saying Bush probably would not be revisited in history as an interesting president. I don’t think history will treat Bush well, but I doubt he will be ignored. He made so many disastrous decisions it would be hard to ignore him.

Andrea Mitchell was trying to get NY Governor Paterson to say who he selected to replace Clinton. He was saying he didn’t want to distract from today to say who he decided on and Mitchell basically ignored him and asked, “so do you think Caroline Kennedy will be a good senator for NY?”

MSNBC did pause from demonizing Bush and promoting Caroline Kennedy to say the park department doesn’t make crowd estimates anymore because of controversies about them.

The only good commentator on MSNBC was the historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin, who always is a reservoir of presidential information and comparisons between Lincoln and Obama.

I switched to CNN a bit after that to get a better view on a regular TV, but also it seemed CNN at least tried to be balanced in describing what was going on.

doug

Congressional Committee Debates Merits Of Proposed Inauguration Dance

I’m against war and don’t think it is acceptable for Hamas to launch missiles at civilian centers in Israel or for Israel to bomb areas where civilians are sure to be hit in Gaza. 

Hamas is a terrorist group and has no moral justification for targeting civilians. Israel isn’t targeting civilians, but its disproportionate response ends up killing even more civilian as “collateral damage”. 

I am in favor of blockades and embargoes. People say this is also “collective punishment”, but under a blockade I would also be in favor of allowing affected civilians to leave for protected areas – either in Israel or Egypt. And then starve Hamas out. 

Obviously letting Hamas continue to lob missiles into Israel is also an intolerable situation, so something must be done. A blockade seems the most peaceful thing to try. 
doug

“Prosecutors said Tuesday there is no evidence that Barack Obama was involved in the Blagojevich scandal. Or, as Fox News reported it, ‘Is Barack Obama involved in the Blagojevich scandal?’”

–Amy Poehler