It is clear, and has been for some time, that 3-D printers are going to destroy the entire “gun control” effort to disarm people. In order to assuage the fears of gun owners, gun prohibitionists have ensured that their laws only forbid the sale, purchase, gift, or inheritance of firearms, but not the ownership itself. How one is supposed to own a firearm without the ability to receive it is a mystery that is self-explanatory.
The 3-D printers therefore find the large loophole in the entire gun prohibitionist effort. People with a 3-D printer do not need to purchase or inherit a firearm. They can make the weapons themselves, and these firearms do not contain any traceable serial numbers that would enable the government to determine who had purchased firearms in the past.
While this is leaving most progressive hoplophobes confused, some are taking an interesting line to attack the 3-D printed firearms. They are deriding these firearms on the grounds that these firearms are fragile and of very low quality. If used seriously they would not last long.
This is a fascinating attack. It is analogous to saying that since Gutenberg’s press could only print twelve lines per page there is no way it would ever evolve into the modern newspaper and book publishing industry. Babbage’s difference engine is much too slow to handle millions of calculations per second.
The printing press and the difference engine did indeed improve after they were first invented by Gutenberg and Baggabe, which is why there is now the internet in which people can access phenomenal amounts of information instantly.
The same is true of the 3-D printer. It is in its earliest stages of development, which means that the current printer is much like a twenty line printing press. Those who deride the quality of the 3-D printed firearms are effectively saying that it is no use to develop the technology any farther much like it was not useful to develop the movable type printer.
Yes, the current printed firearm is not as of high quality as a manufactured firearm. That does not mean it will always be not as of high quality.
Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Let Them Eat Healthcare
It is not true that Marie Antoinette said "let them eat cake" when informed that the peasants had no bread. The point of that quote, however apocryphal, isn't to show her as callous though. The point is to show she had no comprehension of the plight of the poor. In the myth she was trying to be helpful by way of suggesting that since cake is like bread if someone is out of bread they can eat cake instead.
In the healthcare debate, with regards to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, the debate often centers about people who do not have healthcare. In fact, many of those so described do have healthcare, they do not have health insurance. Those described as lacking care can easily get care, and in many cases do not have to pay.
An unfortunate aspect of the whole Healthcare Reform debate is that advocates of increased government intervention routinely confuse care and coverage. Even after this obfuscation is pointed out, advocates of increased government intervention continue to make the same error. There seems to be no way to shame an advocate of increased government intervention to accurately describe the debate as over healthcare coverage and not over healthcare itself.
And yet, that is the point. Healthcare does become less available the more the government intervenes. "But everyone is covered" does little good if there is nothing the coverage can buy. Many dentists refuse to accept Medi-Medi patients, and more doctors are refusing to do so as well. Massachusetts had to pass a law stating that all Ob-Gyns had to accept the state sponsored insurance. There is a crisis in West Virginia as more and more doctors flee the state due to malpractice lawsuit abuse.
Coverage is expanding, yet what that coverage can buy is shrinking. It leads to the question of what that coverage is supposed to purchase. Is someone in need of a bandage supposed to wrap insurance forms around the injury? Once there is plenty of healthcare coverage and yet no healthcare, perhaps it will be reported that some senior government official will be heard to say "let them eat healthcare."
In the healthcare debate, with regards to the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, the debate often centers about people who do not have healthcare. In fact, many of those so described do have healthcare, they do not have health insurance. Those described as lacking care can easily get care, and in many cases do not have to pay.
An unfortunate aspect of the whole Healthcare Reform debate is that advocates of increased government intervention routinely confuse care and coverage. Even after this obfuscation is pointed out, advocates of increased government intervention continue to make the same error. There seems to be no way to shame an advocate of increased government intervention to accurately describe the debate as over healthcare coverage and not over healthcare itself.
And yet, that is the point. Healthcare does become less available the more the government intervenes. "But everyone is covered" does little good if there is nothing the coverage can buy. Many dentists refuse to accept Medi-Medi patients, and more doctors are refusing to do so as well. Massachusetts had to pass a law stating that all Ob-Gyns had to accept the state sponsored insurance. There is a crisis in West Virginia as more and more doctors flee the state due to malpractice lawsuit abuse.
Coverage is expanding, yet what that coverage can buy is shrinking. It leads to the question of what that coverage is supposed to purchase. Is someone in need of a bandage supposed to wrap insurance forms around the injury? Once there is plenty of healthcare coverage and yet no healthcare, perhaps it will be reported that some senior government official will be heard to say "let them eat healthcare."
Friday, May 25, 2012
Lese Majesty
A farmer decides, in the wake of the Mad Cow outbreak to conduct tests above and beyond those required by the government in order to advertise that his beef is safer than the national standard. The USDA doesn’t allow him to do so, he cannot conduct his own tests with his own money.
Many consumers are worried, maybe rightly and maybe wrongly, about Genetically Modified Organisms in their food. Seeing that there is a demand, some food producers decided to label their food as "GMO free." The FDA would not allow it, not because the advertisement was false, but because the FDA has decided that GMO foods are safe and this label would cause some to think otherwise.
When the banks were bailed out, it is rumored that some of the banks didn’t need a bailout. They were told that they had to accept a bailout anyway lest the public come to the conclusion that said banks were safer. The government had determined that the bailout would make the unsafe banks as safe as the banks that did not need a bailout. A bank not receiving a bailout would be an indication it was more safe in spite of the government saying all the banks were now safe. Of course this is more of a rumor than a substantiated story.
When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, private efforts to assist people in New Orleans attempted to operate along side the government efforts. The private rescuers were turned aside prolonging the suffering of some in New Orleans.
When the TSA first launched the BXR and MMW body scanners, it was pointed out repeatedly that these scanners cannot scan inside a body cavity. A news story from Saudi Arabia was presented pointing out that a terrorist there had hidden a bomb in his rectum. Eventually the TSA announced that their searches would be intensified because of the possibility of surgically implanted device. Those who most vociferously criticize the TSA realized this was their response to realizing the presented threat was valid but not being able to acknowledge an idea coming from outside their own organization.
What these all have in common is an effort by the government to forbid doubt of the competence and effectiveness of the government and its actions. It is Lese Majesty in its modern form, where it is wrong to insult the image of the king. This isn’t Sedition, which also should not be considered wrong, but merely the crime of causing people to doubt the goodness of the government. It has died out in most monarchies. In the United States it has returned and is regulated out of existence rather than banned because that would be too obvious.
Many consumers are worried, maybe rightly and maybe wrongly, about Genetically Modified Organisms in their food. Seeing that there is a demand, some food producers decided to label their food as "GMO free." The FDA would not allow it, not because the advertisement was false, but because the FDA has decided that GMO foods are safe and this label would cause some to think otherwise.
When the banks were bailed out, it is rumored that some of the banks didn’t need a bailout. They were told that they had to accept a bailout anyway lest the public come to the conclusion that said banks were safer. The government had determined that the bailout would make the unsafe banks as safe as the banks that did not need a bailout. A bank not receiving a bailout would be an indication it was more safe in spite of the government saying all the banks were now safe. Of course this is more of a rumor than a substantiated story.
When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, private efforts to assist people in New Orleans attempted to operate along side the government efforts. The private rescuers were turned aside prolonging the suffering of some in New Orleans.
When the TSA first launched the BXR and MMW body scanners, it was pointed out repeatedly that these scanners cannot scan inside a body cavity. A news story from Saudi Arabia was presented pointing out that a terrorist there had hidden a bomb in his rectum. Eventually the TSA announced that their searches would be intensified because of the possibility of surgically implanted device. Those who most vociferously criticize the TSA realized this was their response to realizing the presented threat was valid but not being able to acknowledge an idea coming from outside their own organization.
What these all have in common is an effort by the government to forbid doubt of the competence and effectiveness of the government and its actions. It is Lese Majesty in its modern form, where it is wrong to insult the image of the king. This isn’t Sedition, which also should not be considered wrong, but merely the crime of causing people to doubt the goodness of the government. It has died out in most monarchies. In the United States it has returned and is regulated out of existence rather than banned because that would be too obvious.
Saturday, October 01, 2011
Phony Arguments
"If you removed EPA regulations on BP, does that mean they will suddenly become good citizens and not pollute anymore?" That is an example of an argument used against libertarians when the subject of regulation comes up. It contains many premises not shared by libertarians: under current law individual land owners were not able to file legal suits against BP, the state of Louisiana was not able to take independent action to protect coastal properties from the spill, and the owners of BP were not held liable for the damage caused by the company.
"If you change this one little point, and leave everything else exactly the same, doesn't that prove that libertarianism doesn't work?" Pointing out all the unshared premises, that "everything else exactly the same" is not something libertarians agree to, does nothing to those making the argument. The response, over and over, is to say that anyone who points out it is a loaded question is actually ducking the question.
Does the argument represent a misunderstanding about libertarianism? Or is it a deliberate distortion of what libertarians believe? Given the refusal to allow any discussion of unshared premises it seems like a shallow attempt to conflate the corporatism and capitalism, a conflation that can only benefit the progressive belief in a thoroughly regulated economy.
People who make that argument forget that libertarianism is indeed comprehensive. Changing just one point, the endpoint regulation that appears to be necessary because of all the prior interventions, does not negate the theory that would deny all the previous interventions as well.
That leads to another, even worse argument used against libertarianism: the Somalia argument. Given all the times libertarians object to government interventions that make the situation worse, both in economic and civil matters, those who favor an activist government argue that libertarians should move to Somalia where they would be more comfortable. The argument also implies that the chaos that takes place in Somalia is exactly what libertarians advocate.
History clearly and easily shows the truth about Somalia, in which it was the fallen government of Somalia that brought the country to the lowest point a country could possibly reach. Those in the government forgot that a parasite is not supposed to kill the host, and proved that it takes a government to create the degree of chaos normally thought of as anarchy. Once the government fell, the people started to rebuild. Occasionally some government sends in a peace-keeping force to break everything again and install a temporary government that will fall once the foreign troops leave. The resulting destruction is considered further proof of how lack of a government is unworkable.
Given those facts, then why is that argument made? Like the loaded question, it is not made for the purpose of genuine discussion. The thing to do is, as always, to point out the facts, but there is no reason to suppose that doing so will actually work. Those making the two arguments are not interested in facts, they are merely hoping that others witnessing the argument will be more impressed with the argument than the facts.
"If you change this one little point, and leave everything else exactly the same, doesn't that prove that libertarianism doesn't work?" Pointing out all the unshared premises, that "everything else exactly the same" is not something libertarians agree to, does nothing to those making the argument. The response, over and over, is to say that anyone who points out it is a loaded question is actually ducking the question.
Does the argument represent a misunderstanding about libertarianism? Or is it a deliberate distortion of what libertarians believe? Given the refusal to allow any discussion of unshared premises it seems like a shallow attempt to conflate the corporatism and capitalism, a conflation that can only benefit the progressive belief in a thoroughly regulated economy.
People who make that argument forget that libertarianism is indeed comprehensive. Changing just one point, the endpoint regulation that appears to be necessary because of all the prior interventions, does not negate the theory that would deny all the previous interventions as well.
That leads to another, even worse argument used against libertarianism: the Somalia argument. Given all the times libertarians object to government interventions that make the situation worse, both in economic and civil matters, those who favor an activist government argue that libertarians should move to Somalia where they would be more comfortable. The argument also implies that the chaos that takes place in Somalia is exactly what libertarians advocate.
History clearly and easily shows the truth about Somalia, in which it was the fallen government of Somalia that brought the country to the lowest point a country could possibly reach. Those in the government forgot that a parasite is not supposed to kill the host, and proved that it takes a government to create the degree of chaos normally thought of as anarchy. Once the government fell, the people started to rebuild. Occasionally some government sends in a peace-keeping force to break everything again and install a temporary government that will fall once the foreign troops leave. The resulting destruction is considered further proof of how lack of a government is unworkable.
Given those facts, then why is that argument made? Like the loaded question, it is not made for the purpose of genuine discussion. The thing to do is, as always, to point out the facts, but there is no reason to suppose that doing so will actually work. Those making the two arguments are not interested in facts, they are merely hoping that others witnessing the argument will be more impressed with the argument than the facts.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Why Monetarism?
Although Monetarism, as an interventionist economic policy, clearly isn’t libertarian, people continue to consider it as such. The basic difference between Keynesian Economics and Monetarist Economics is that one favors fiscal policy while the other favors monetary policy as a way for the government to manage the economy through the manipulation of aggregate demand.
And yet many people do consider Monetarism to be more libertarian, to the point where if a spectrum is arranged Monetarism is listed as basically a midpoint between Keynesian and Capitalism.
Considering Keynesian Economics, a reason to consider it as such is because all Keynesians are both Monetarists and Progressives, they believe in both monetary policy and in regulation as ways to manage the economy. A textbook Keynesian is no closer and no farther from libertarian than any Monetarist.
So there is reason to make a spectrum. But why go so far as to insist that instead of being a midpoint between real Keynesian and libertarian Capitalism, Monetarism is so often wrongly lumped with Monetarism?
It would best be described by Rothbard’s Law. "people tend to specialize in what they are worst at. Henry George, for example, is great on everything but land, so therefore he writes about land 90% of the time. Friedman is great except on money, so he concentrates on money." Rothbard went farther to describe Friedman in even harsher terms, saying "And so, as we examine Milton Friedman’s credentials to be the leader of free-market economics, we arrive at the chilling conclusion that it is difficult to consider him a free-market economist at all."
Then perhaps there is one reason left why people would consider Monetarism to be libertarian in any respect. It is because the current center of United States politics is so far devolved towards the regulatory state, with the government enmeshed in so many aspects of the American economy that to embrace textbook Monetarism is to embrace a reduction in the government's role in the economy.
Unfortunately there is a lot of room between slightly decreasing the role of government and actual libertarianism. Being in favor of slightly less regulation, slightly less control, slightly less taxing and spending, does not make one a libertarian.
And yet many people do consider Monetarism to be more libertarian, to the point where if a spectrum is arranged Monetarism is listed as basically a midpoint between Keynesian and Capitalism.
Considering Keynesian Economics, a reason to consider it as such is because all Keynesians are both Monetarists and Progressives, they believe in both monetary policy and in regulation as ways to manage the economy. A textbook Keynesian is no closer and no farther from libertarian than any Monetarist.
So there is reason to make a spectrum. But why go so far as to insist that instead of being a midpoint between real Keynesian and libertarian Capitalism, Monetarism is so often wrongly lumped with Monetarism?
It would best be described by Rothbard’s Law. "people tend to specialize in what they are worst at. Henry George, for example, is great on everything but land, so therefore he writes about land 90% of the time. Friedman is great except on money, so he concentrates on money." Rothbard went farther to describe Friedman in even harsher terms, saying "And so, as we examine Milton Friedman’s credentials to be the leader of free-market economics, we arrive at the chilling conclusion that it is difficult to consider him a free-market economist at all."
Then perhaps there is one reason left why people would consider Monetarism to be libertarian in any respect. It is because the current center of United States politics is so far devolved towards the regulatory state, with the government enmeshed in so many aspects of the American economy that to embrace textbook Monetarism is to embrace a reduction in the government's role in the economy.
Unfortunately there is a lot of room between slightly decreasing the role of government and actual libertarianism. Being in favor of slightly less regulation, slightly less control, slightly less taxing and spending, does not make one a libertarian.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Keynesian Economics and Regulation
It may seem rather odd to say this, but it is actually true that Keynesian Economists are not automatically advocates of the regulatory state. By definition, Keynesian economics is concerned with fiscal policy, using federal budgetary policy to moderate the economy. There is nothing about that which would indicate that a Keynesian must embrace regulation - it is theoretically possible to encounter a Keynesian who is only concerned about fiscal policy.
The reason it appears that Keynesians must be in favor of regulation and the attendant bureaucracy is because all Keynesians are. There is no economic activity they are content to leave alone.
The right-Keynesians and the left-Keynesians differ on who should be the beneficiary of the demand pushing government spending. Right-Keynesians would prefer to benefit the upper classes, leading to supply side economics as the outgrowth. Left-Keynesians prefer to benefit the lower classes, leading to demand side economics as the outgrowth.
The unnecessary (from a textbook point of view) embrace of the regulatory state has a similar division. Right-Keynesians prefer regulations that benefit the upper classes, leading to Mercantilism or Corporatism as the outgrowth. Left-Keynesians prefer to benefit the lower classes, leading to Progressivism as the outgrowth.
When cornered in a debate, it does happen occasionally that Keynesians will admit that regulation is not part of Keynes’ General Theory. Perhaps it would be more interesting to corner the Keynesian on that and try to force an admission about how far from Keynes’ writing they have gone in their embrace of regulation.
The reason it appears that Keynesians must be in favor of regulation and the attendant bureaucracy is because all Keynesians are. There is no economic activity they are content to leave alone.
The right-Keynesians and the left-Keynesians differ on who should be the beneficiary of the demand pushing government spending. Right-Keynesians would prefer to benefit the upper classes, leading to supply side economics as the outgrowth. Left-Keynesians prefer to benefit the lower classes, leading to demand side economics as the outgrowth.
The unnecessary (from a textbook point of view) embrace of the regulatory state has a similar division. Right-Keynesians prefer regulations that benefit the upper classes, leading to Mercantilism or Corporatism as the outgrowth. Left-Keynesians prefer to benefit the lower classes, leading to Progressivism as the outgrowth.
When cornered in a debate, it does happen occasionally that Keynesians will admit that regulation is not part of Keynes’ General Theory. Perhaps it would be more interesting to corner the Keynesian on that and try to force an admission about how far from Keynes’ writing they have gone in their embrace of regulation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)