Why I may throw my vote away: Part II

I wrote about why I may throw my vote away here.  On his blog, Zombiehero posted the video below of Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan, on CNBC’s Squawk Box agreeing with me.

In the video, Taleb explains why he supports Ron Paul. The key point is at the 6:40 mark when the host asks Taleb what kind of chances does he give Ron Paul?  Taleb responds:

I don’t think in terms of chances. I’m supporting him, regardless of the chances. Whether he has 1% or 99%, I’m supporting him, because we have no other solution…it’s my duty as a citizen, as a person who lives here, as a taxpayer who doesn’t want to be hoodwinked….in the long run, by bureaucrats.

Advertisements

We have high tolerance for disatrous gambles

In his column this week, Walter Williams discusses a Ron Paul/Wolf Blitzer debate moment and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman’s reaction to it.

He [Krugman] was referring to a GOP presidential debate in which Rep. Ron Paul was asked what should be done if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance found himself in need of six months of intensive care. Paul correctly, but politically incorrectly, replied, “That’s what freedom is all about — taking your own risks.” CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer pressed his question further, asking whether “society should just let him die.” The crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of “Yeah!”, which led Krugman to conclude that “American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.”

This is a good example of why I don’t care to watch election debates.  This topic deserves more in depth exploration, but the debate format only allows for sound bite responses.

I agree with Williams and Ron Paul.  But, I doubt those answers will do much for people who disagree with us. I’m not sure if my responses will either, but here are some other things to consider.

First, I’d like Wolf to clarify what he means by “society.”  Members of society are free to do what they like for this hypothetical 30-year-old.  Who’s stopping them?  Why do they need to be forced through government?

Medical practitioners could donate their time for his benefit.  Individuals can choose to donate their money to cover his costs.  People can form organizations that raise funds to help folks like him.

But, I think what Wolf really means by “society” is “government”.

It’s a pet peeve of mine when folks use “society” in place of “government”.  The underlying assumption is that there are only two options — either the 30-year-old buys insurance or the government comes to the rescue.  When you say “society” and really mean “government”, just say “government.”

Second, I’d ask why the 30-year-old decided to not buy insurance?  This is rarely discussed, but the answer is important.

Certainly, we could just say the 30-year-old made a bad gamble, but that doesn’t give the root cause.  It’s not only a bad gamble, it’s a disastrous gamble. Why he would make such a disastrous gamble?   Running red lights is a disastrous gamble also and very few people intentionally make this gamble.  Why not?

What if he made his health insurance gamble because he knew government would back him up?  That’s called a moral hazard and we find ourselves in a bad position when what is believed to be compassionate government policy actually causes more people to make disastrous gambles.  That also drives up the cost of insurance, medical care and government for everyone, as they are left paying for those disastrous gambles (which is exactly one of the key underlying problems driving medical costs in the U.S.).

Third, I’d ask for more information about this 30-year-old.  What’s his income?  What kind of car does he drive?  What phone plan does he have?  Where does he live?  How much did his TV cost?  Which TV service does he have?  How much would a catastrophic insurance policy cost him?  Enter your zip code on this website to find out.  In my zip code, a $5,000 deductible policy for a 30-year-old single male with Blue Cross Blue Shield is quoted at $53 per month.

I wonder, if “society” would have less compassion for him if it found out that he could afford the $50 / month insurance insurance policy, but chose not to buy it so he could have the best data plan for his smartphone.

Apparently, “society” didn’t think much of this woman’s efforts to raise money for her cancer treatments with yard sales, since the local government shut her down.  But, it appears that individuals in society have privately and voluntarily taken it upon themselves to help her out.  Good for them.

Third, I might ask why “society” should value the 30-year-old’s life more than he valued it himself, as demonstrated by his own unwillingness to insure himself?

I can’t imagine “society” having much sympathy for a driver who died in a car accident because he recklessly chose to run red lights.

This is just another example of where we let poor logic lead us to make bad decisions.

Poor logic: That guy made a disastrous gamble, let’s help him.

Better logic:  Let’s encourage that guy to not make disastrous gambles and let’s, through our private actions, help the truly needy.

So, I can well imagine someone like Blitzer saying, “so what do we do when we have a 30-year-old male dying who didn’t buy insurance?”

First, “we” do like the people did for the lady having yard sales.  We take private actions to help him, because we are good people.

Then, if he recovers, we take him by the ear and let him know that he should be ashamed of himself for making such poor choices that others had to come to his aid and take away resources for the truly needy.

We let him know that he will be expected to make responsible choices, because next time there are no guarantees of help.  He played us for fools once.

Maybe he goes on a speaking tour or gets interviewed by the local news and sends the message to other able-bodied and able-minded folks to not take disastrous gambles because it’s selfish and not worth it.

And, maybe one day he will come across someone who took a disastrous gamble and lost and will do the same for her that others did for him.

Maybe, in the process, he picks up some dignity and reinforces it others.

Ron Paul is not an isolationist

Rarely do I defend politicians.  I’m not sure this is a defense.

It’s more of a correction, or maybe clarification on one distinction between conservative and libertarian thinking.

I’ve often heard Ron Paul’s “foreign policy” referred to by conservatives as “isolationist“.   My local conservative talk show hosts are guilty of this charge.  I’ve heard Dennis Miller do it repeatedly — even though he often interviews Ron and Rand Paul on his show and each time Miller calls Paul an isolationist, they correct him.

I’ve heard that exchange now three or four times in the past year, with the latest being Miller’s interview with Rand just before the Iowa debates (I believe it was around August 10, available on iTunes).  I listened to it today.

Miller said:

He’s a little isolationist for me, but on everything else he makes a lot of sense.

Rand Paul replied:

The foreign policy isn’t isolationism, it’s just that we should not go to war without declaring it formally, you know, like the Constitution intended.

I’ve also heard Ron tell Miller that he is not isolationist.  He said he support individuals trading with other individuals in other countries.  He just doesn’t think we ought to use our military beyond what it was meant to do — defend us.

I’m waiting for Miller to stop the flow of the show for a minute or two and ask one of them, Okay, maybe I have it wrong.  Can you explain to me how it is that you are not isolationist?  I’m not sure that has occurred to him to do that yet.  I’m also not sure it has occurred to Miller that perhaps he doesn’t know what isolationism is.

I’ve heard others do it. (Full disclosure: I might have done it a few years ago).

I think part of it is the conservative way to discount Paul and distance themselves from appearing to agree with a fringe candidate (we had this same struggle with identity when we went from liberal to conservative).

I think another part of it is, like Miller, conservatives don’t know what isolationism is and they haven’t thought much about when we should use our military and what the Constitution says about that.

Miller, and other conservatives, would do themselves a big favor if they read a blog post from George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux entitled, A Conflict of Visions Different than the one Sowell Identified, from March of this year.    The post is a copy of a letter Boudreaux sent to the Washington Post in response to George Will’s Column, Is it America’s duty to intervene wherever regime change is needed?

Here are Boudreaux’s key paragraphs:

Most modern “liberals” believe that domestic economic problems are caused chiefly by unsavory characters – “business people” – who impose their destructive rule on masses of innocent workers and consumers yearning for more prosperity, and that the best solution to these problems is government force deployed using armies of regulators to subdue these bad guys and to keep close watch over them and their successors.  Failure to intervene is immoral.  These same “liberals,” though, believe that foreign problems are typically the result of complex forces that can be understood only poorly by American-government officials; it is naïve to suppose that even well-intentioned foreign intervention by Uncle Sam will not have regrettable unintended consequences.

Most modern conservatives believe that domestic economic problems are typically the result of complex forces that can be understood only poorly by government officials; it is naïve to suppose that even well-intentioned economic intervention by Uncle Sam will not have regrettable unintended consequences.  These same conservatives, though, believe that problems in foreign countries are caused chiefly by unsavory characters – “dictators” or “tyrants” – who impose their destructive rule on masses of innocent people yearning for more democracy, and that the best solution to these problems is government force deployed with armies of soldiers to subdue these bad guys and to keep close watch over them and their successors.  Failure to intervene is immoral.