Monday, July 26, 2010

Richard Jewell says hello

And Jim Valvano. And the Duke Lacrosse Players.

Should there be a "gatekeeper" regulating internet bloggers? In the aftermath of the Shirley Sherrod incident, that's what CNN promoted on July 23.

Those folks I mentioned know that it doesn't take blogs or anonymity to drag someone's name through the mud. They had their lives turned upside down by the traditional media. In fact, in the Lacrosse Players' case, they were happy for blogs like Durham in Wonderland, who acted as a check on the crusade by the media.

As for anonymity generally: many of the political broadsides and pamphlets and books that voiced the ideals of American independence and liberty were published anonymously or under pseudonyms. Writing anonymously has always been a way to put forth controversial ideas. They discussants on the program acknowledge the need for such a thing, but not in places as free and open as America. I think that's taking an awful lot for granted. Especially given the amount that free speech has been under attack around the 'free' world.

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Man builds, lives In 89 square foot house

Interesting story. Not for me, but I'm glad this guy can do something different like this that makes him happy. And also that he can connect with others who feel similarly and provide a service to them.

Monday, July 12, 2010

Hayek agrees with me!

Ok, that's putting it a bit generously.

Back during the debate... well, back when the debate over Obamacare was just getting revved up, I made the point to all who would listen that the legislative effort was not about universal health care. In fact, if that was the goal, there was a much cheaper, healthier, more freedom respecting way to go about doing it:

Step 1: Let markets work! Both in the provision of health care services directly and in how they are financed. Competitive markets, more than any other power on this planet, drive efficiency. The outcomes would be lower real costs in service, along with higher quality.

Step 2: Give direct assistance to those who can't afford health care services. Look, if you're going to declare access to health care services an affirmative right, to be provided by the government, then you should go about implementing it in the otherwise most efficient way possible. Let the markets work. It's just about the exact same argument as the school choice argument, though perhaps with or without the same Establishment Clause issues that would lead me to support education tax credits over vouchers. I don't know, I haven't given that bit a lot of thought.

Anyway, any form of relief will have it drawbacks, but surely this would be far and away a better system than either the one that existed before Obamacare, or the one that will replace it. It leaves the markets intact (or as intact as possible), and actually achieves universal coverage, which one of the most leftist presidents in recent history couldn't even pull off with a sympathetic Congress.

Oh yeah, the title. Hayek said more-or-less the same thing:

nod to Angus at KPC for pointing that link out