dianahsieh

PJ Media has just published my latest column, “Will Tomorrow’s Medical Innovations Be There When You Need Them?” My basic theme is that we must protect the freedoms necessary for the advancement of medical technology. I start with a pair of vignettes: How much has American medicine changed in the past 30 years? Let’s turn the clock back to 1983. A middle-aged man, Dan, is crossing the street on a busy midday Monday. An inattentive driver runs a red light and plows into Dan at 45 mph, sending him flying across the pavement. Bystanders immediately call for help. An ambulance rushes Dan to the nearest hospital. In the ER, the doctors can’t stabilize his falling blood pressure. They prep him for emergency surgery. The trauma surgeon tries desperately to stop the internal bleeding from his badly fractured pelvis but is unsuccessful. Dan dies on the operating table. The surgeon gives Dan’s wife the sad news: “I’m sorry, but your husband’s injuries were too severe. We did everything we could. But we weren’t able to save him.” Fast forward to 2013. Dan’s now-grown son Don suffers the same accident. But within minutes of his arrival in the ER, he’s sent for a rapid trauma body CT scan that shows the extent of the pelvic fractures — and more importantly, shows two badly torn blood vessels that can’t be easily reached with surgery. An interventional radiologist inserts a catheter into the femoral artery in Don’s right leg. Watching live on the fluoroscopy screen, the radiologist skillfully guides the catheter through the various twists and turns of the arterial system and positions it at the first of the two “bleeders.” From within the blood vessel, he injects specially designed “microcoils” into the torn artery and stops the bleeding. He then guides the catheter to the second bleeder and repeats the procedure. Don’s blood pressure recovers. The surgeons now have time to repair Don’s pelvic fractures and other internal injuries. The surgeons give Don’s wife the good news: “Your husband’s injuries were pretty bad. But we were able to fix everything. He’ll still have to go through recovery and physical therapy. But he should be back to normal in six months”… For more, read the full text of “Will Tomorrow’s Medical Innovations Be There When You Need Them?” (The material for the opening vignettes was drawn from two excellent presented last month at the 2013 annual meeting of the American Society of Emergency Radiology. ) Update #1: A great example of medical innovation coming from unexpected places was this 11/14/2013 New York Times article describing how an Argentinian car mechanic saw a Youtube video on how to extract a stuck cork from a wine bottle and realized it could also be used to help extract babies stuck in the birth canal. His idea will be manufactured by Becton, Dickinson and Company and has already undergone initial successful safety testing in humans. It could save the lives of many babies in Third World countries and also reduce the need for Caesarean section in industralized countries. (Via Gus Van Horn.) Update #2: For those interested in the real-life technology used in the fictional scenario I discussed, here’s a nice medical slideshow from UCLA interventional radiologist Dr. Justin McWilliams, “Life-saving Embolizations: Trauma and GI bleeding“. http://static.slideshare.net/swf/ssplayer2.swf?id=15447362&doc=life-savingembolizations-121201215534-phpapp01' width='695' height='570'>http://static.slideshare.net/swf/ssplayer2.swf?id=15447362&doc=life-savingembolizations-121201215534-phpapp01' /> Link to Original

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on free will and moral responsibility, values destroyed by statism, leaving an inmate boyfriend, privacy in marriage, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 17 November 2013, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page. This week's questions are: Question 1: Free Will and Moral Responsibility: What's the relationship between free will and moral responsibility? To me, the concept of free will found in debates about determinism seems different from the concept of free will relevant to questions of moral responsibility. The former is a metaphysical concept, and a person either has free will or not. The latter is a psychological concept, and it seems to be a matter of degree based on nature and nurture. However, psychological free will seems to presuppose metaphysical free will. Is that right? What is the relationship between free will and moral responsibility? Question 2: Values Destroyed by Statism: What are the most significant values destroyed by statism? In other words, what values would be available to us — or more available — in a laissez-faire, rational society that are limited or unavailable to us today? What are some of the major (and perhaps under-appreciated) values destroyed or precluded by government overreach? To put the question another way: How would a proper government improve our lives? Question 3: Leaving an Inmate Boyfriend: Should I leave my inmate boyfriend? I am in a dilemma. My current boyfriend is in prison serving a six year sentence. He has been away for a year and a half. It took over two years for the legal matters to be settled and for him to finally get a sentence. This is also my first ever boyfriend and I am already 26. Is it wrong for me to want to move on with my life? After he gets out (if no appeal is granted) he will be forced into a very limited lifestyle being on a sex offender list. I keep thinking about trying to make new friends and what I should and should not disclose to them. Right now, I live with his parents and work with his mother. I feel like I am cornered and am drowning in this huge mess. I want my own life, but with zero support and friends I am terrified of the risk. Do I stick it out? Or do I suck it up and leave him, my home, and my job? Question 4: Privacy in Marriage: Are spouses entitled to privacy with each other? My wife thinks that she should have access to all my online accounts, including my email. I don't have any secrets from her, and my email doesn't contain anything scandalous. Still, I don't want her prying into my conversations, and I don't see that she has any reason to do so. I've never given her any reason to distrust me. Aren't I entitled to some privacy in my marriage? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Moral Responsibility, Statism's Wreckage, Privacy in Marriage, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

“At some point in our lives, we all live in closets and they may feel safe, or at least safer than what lies on the other side of that door. But I am here to tell you, no matter what your walls are made of, a closet is no place for a person to live.” Hear, hear! There’s so much awesome in this TEDx talk by Ash Beckham. Don’t miss it! Link to Original

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on winning friends and influencing people, accepting government welfare, mercenary essay contest writing, government scientists in a free society, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 10 November 2013, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page. This week's questions are: Question 1: Winning Friends and Influencing People: Should a person try to "win friends and influence people"? In the classic book "How to Win Friends and Influence People," Dale Carnegie offers a wide range of advice on how to get what you want from other people. Some of this seems manipulative or second-handed, but is that right? Is the advice in the book of genuine value to a rational egoist seeking honest trade with others? Question 2: Accepting Government Welfare: Should a person without other options accept welfare from the government? I've had generalized anxiety disorder for as long as I can remember. I live in Sweden, and my government has so many labor regulations that no business can hire me, and charities don't exist to help me. Is it wrong, in such a case, to accept government assistance? I don't have any savings, and it seems like my only other options are criminal activity and suicide. Question 3: Mercenary Essay Contest Writing: Is it wrong to write essays I don't believe to win contest money? I am a current university student with severe financial limitations. I've found that one of my best assets is my knack for writing a solid, persuasive essay. Recently, I've come across a trove of very generous scholarship essay contests. I feel confident that I could write a solid essay for most of them. The problem is that the majority are funded by organizations whose values I don't support. Specifically, I'd have to write essays in favor of social and political policies with which I disagree. Would it be moral for me to enter these writing competitions? If I did, would I just be demonstrating my writing ability - or misleading the sponsor into thinking that I agree with what I've written? Question 4: Government Scientists in a Free Society: Would the government of a free society employ scientists? In a fully free society, would there be any scientists employed full-time by the government for police, legislative, or judicial services? If not, how would judges obtain the necessary scientific knowledge to make proper rulings in the court cases that would replace today's environmental and other regulations? Might scientists be hired by the government of a free society for the military or other purposes? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Social Influence, Accepting Welfare, Government Scientists, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

PJ Media has posted my snarky column, “Obamacare and the Wages of Spin“. The basic theme: Don’t piss on my back and tell me it’s raining. Here is the opening: Many years ago, the writer Ayn Rand noticed a curious kind of backpedalling from the political Left. First, they’d claim that socialism would provide enough shoes for the whole world. But when economic reality caught up with them, and they failed to deliver on their promises, they’d turn around and claim that going barefoot was superior to wearing shoes. In modern parlance, those broken promises weren’t a bug, but a feature! In the past few weeks, we’ve seen precisely this pattern coming from defenders of ObamaCare. For example… Read the full text at: “Obamacare and the Wages of Spin“. Link to Original

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine): 3 Nov: PJ Media on Math and Security by Paul Hsieh 3 Nov: Catron Reviews Sebelius Testimony by Paul Hsieh 30 Oct: Absurd Arithmetic by Paul Hsieh 29 Oct: Three From McArdle by Paul Hsieh 28 Oct: Allen Describes ObamaCare 2016 by Paul Hsieh Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard: 3 Nov: Rights-Violating Police Raids and the Drug War that Spawns Them by Ari Armstrong 1 Nov: Coloradans Should Kill Fracking Ban for Right Reason by David Biederman 31 Oct: New Jersey Court Rightly Overturns Ban on Gay Marriage by Michael A. LaFerrara 30 Oct: Monsters University and the Virtue of Perseverance by Ari Armstrong 29 Oct: Obama’s Audacity of Deceit by Ari Armstrong 28 Oct: $17 Trillion Debt a Consequence of Rights Violations by Ari Armstrong Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo: 2 Nov: Philosophy Weekend: News from Philosophy in Action by Diana Hsieh 1 Nov: The Paleo Rodeo #186 by Diana Hsieh Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter. Link to Original

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the speed of free market reforms, the role of empathy in morality, accepting government welfare, mercenary essay contest writing, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 3 November 2013, in our live studio. If you can't listen live, you'll find the podcast on the episode's archive page. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Speed of Free Market Reforms: Should free-market reforms be gradual or instantaneous? Many advocates of free markets concede that reforms toward capitalism should be gradual. For example, Yaron Brook said recently about abolishing Social Security, "There is no way to eliminate it tomorrow. There is no way to eliminate it... cold turkey." (See: ) But why not? What's wrong with the "cold turkey" approach? Is the concern simply that the only way to get people to accept reforms is to make them slowly? Or would it be somehow unjust to cut off people's entitlements suddenly, given that they've come to depend on them? Question 2: The Role of Empathy in Morality: What is the relationship between empathy and morality? Must a person possess a strong sense of empathy to be moral? Is empathy an important quality of character or moral emotion – or the most important? What's the role of empathy in a rational person's life? Question 3: Accepting Government Welfare: Should a person without other options accept welfare from the government? I've had generalized anxiety disorder for as long as I can remember. I live in Sweden, and my government has so many labor regulations that no business can hire me, and charities don't exist to help me. Is it wrong, in such a case, to accept government assistance? I don't have any savings, and it seems like my only other options are criminal activity and suicide. Question 4: Mercenary Essay Contest Writing: Is it wrong to write essays I don't believe to win contest money? I am a current university student with severe financial limitations. I've found that one of my best assets is my knack for writing a solid, persuasive essay. Recently, I've come across a trove of very generous scholarship essay contests. I feel confident that I could write a solid essay for most of them. The problem is that the majority are funded by organizations whose values I don't support. Specifically, I'd have to write essays in favor of social and political policies with which I disagree. Would it be moral for me to enter these writing competitions? If I did, would I just be demonstrating my writing ability - or misleading the sponsor into thinking that I agree with what I've written? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. The podcast of this episode will be available shortly after the live broadcast here: Radio Archive: Q&A: Free Market Reforms, Empathy, Accepting Welfare, and More. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us for the live show or enjoy the podcast later. Also, please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

On Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the speed of free market reforms, the role of empathy in morality, accepting government welfare, mercenary essay contest writing, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 3 November 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week’s questions are: Question 1: The Speed of Free Market Reforms: Should free-market reforms be gradual or instantaneous? Many advocates of free markets concede that reforms toward capitalism should be gradual. For example, Yaron Brook said recently about abolishing Social Security, “There is no way to eliminate it tomorrow. There is no way to eliminate it… cold turkey.” But why not? What’s wrong with the “cold turkey” approach? Is the concern simply that the only way to get people to accept reforms is to make them slowly? Or would it be somehow unjust to cut off people’s entitlements suddenly, given that they’ve come to depend on them? Question 2: The Role of Empathy in Morality: What is the relationship between empathy and morality? Must a person possess a strong sense of empathy to be moral? Is empathy an important quality of character or moral emotion – or the most important? What’s the role of empathy in a rational person’s life? Question 3: Accepting Government Welfare: Should a person without other options accept welfare from the government? I’ve had generalized anxiety disorder for as long as I can remember. I live in Sweden, and my government has so many labor regulations that no business can hire me, and charities don’t exist to help me. Is it wrong, in such a case, to accept government assistance? I don’t have any savings, and it seems like my only other options are criminal activity and suicide. Question 4: Mercenary Essay Contest Writing: Is it wrong to write essays I don’t believe to win contest money? I am a current university student with severe financial limitations. I’ve found that one of my best assets is my knack for writing a solid, persuasive essay. Recently, I’ve come across a trove of very generous scholarship essay contests. I feel confident that I could write a solid essay for most of them. The problem is that the majority are funded by organizations whose values I don’t support. Specifically, I’d have to write essays in favor of social and political policies with which I disagree. Would it be moral for me to enter these writing competitions? If I did, would I just be demonstrating my writing ability – or misleading the sponsor into thinking that I agree with what I’ve written? After that, we’ll tackle some impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.” To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you’ll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Free Market Reforms, Empathy, Accepting Welfare, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning… and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives. Link to Original

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine): 27 Oct: KHN: I Don’t Have Children, So Why Do I Have To Buy Pediatric Dental Insurance? by Paul Hsieh 24 Oct: Hsieh Forbes OpEd: “Northwestern University Did Right In Offering A Peanut-Free Football Game” by Paul Hsieh 23 Oct: Electronic Medical Mess by Paul Hsieh 22 Oct: Quick Links: Amerling, Catron by Paul Hsieh 21 Oct: McArdle: Four Things We Think We Know About Obamacare by Paul Hsieh Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter. This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government: 24 Oct: Responsibility & Luck: Now Available by Diana Hsieh Follow the Coalition for Secular Government on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard: 27 Oct: Sheldon Adelson Admirably Calls for America to Drop a Nuclear Bomb on Iran by Craig Biddle 27 Oct: Canadian Anti-Fracking Activists “Peacefully” Hurl Firebombs at Police by David Biederman 26 Oct: Saudis Fight for Women’s Right to Drive by Natalie Ogle 25 Oct: Obama, Goose, and Gander by Michael A. LaFerrara 24 Oct: ObamaCare Surprises and Brother’s Keepers by Ari Armstrong 23 Oct: ObamaCare “Exchanges” Are Not Markets by Ari Armstrong 22 Oct: Surprise! Construction Slows as Government Violates Rights by Ari Armstrong 22 Oct: Lithuanian Government “Muzzles” Chevron, Opts for Teeth of Russia by David Biederman 21 Oct: Can You Tell the Difference Between Modern “Art” and Toddler Art? by Ari Armstrong Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo: 26 Oct: Responsibility & Luck by Diana Hsieh 26 Oct: Philosophy Weekend: News from Philosophy in Action by Diana Hsieh 25 Oct: The Paleo Rodeo #185 by Diana Hsieh 22 Oct: NPR piece on Honeybee Decline by Monica 21 Oct: Can Pastured Food Be Stopped? by Monica Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter. Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on revealing a checkered past, racist names of sports teams, property owners prohibiting firearms, explaining Facebook unfriendings, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 27 October 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: Revealing a Checkered Past: How forthcoming should I be with new people I meet about my checkered past? My past is not a source of pride for me. Over four years ago, I read "Atlas Shrugged." That book altered the radical change I was already bringing into my life for the better. I've recently begun meeting other fans of Ayn Rand in real life, and I dislike discussing my white-trash, moocher-esque history with these new acquaintances. (At the time, I was between 17 and 20 years old.) If I shared my past with these people, I think they might judge me harshly and cut ties with me, given that they don't know me well. However, given my past, I have a clearer understanding of the irrational, twisted, cruel, and nasty nature of people who choose to live like leeches off of other human beings. I think that sharing these experiences with others can be a source of strength to them. (I don't want others to stumble into these poor decisions when they could do better!) So how much of my past should I share with other people, and how should I share it? Question 2: Racist Names of Sports Teams: Should sports teams with racist names change them? Dan Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins has vowed never to the team's name, insisting that it stands for bravery. I've read conflicting reports about polls of Native Americans. Some are offended, and some don't care. It appears that D.C. area politicians and various academics looking to make names for themselves are leading the charge to change the name, and they seem to have much to gain thereby. Personally, I am not offended by the name, but I wouldn't go onto a reservation and address the people there as "redskins." While the name may be racist and offensive to some, is that a sufficient reason to change it? Question 3: Property Owners Prohibiting Firearms: Should a person respect signs prohibiting guns in certain areas? Some businesses and government offices announce that firearms are prohibited in the building, yet no screening is conducted to ensure that firearms are excluded. In such "pretend gun-free zones," law-abiding people will disarm, while criminals and other dangerous or careless people will not. Is this a violation of a person's right to self-defense? Should people refuse to disarm in face of such signs? Question 4: Explaining Facebook Unfriendings: Does a person owe others an explanation for unfriending them on Facebook? I'm "friends" with many people on Facebook who I can't stand and with whom I would never willingly spend time in real life. I've purged many Facebook friends I didn't really know and/or who've contributed nothing of value to my life, all for the better. Now I am considering whether to unfriend former lovers and one-time real life friends from my youth for a host of insurmountable reasons – for example, our politics don't jive, I'm annoyed by seeing endless photos of their pets, and so on. Odds are I will never have any dealings with these people again, mostly because I don't want to. Do I owe them an explanation for the unfriending? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Checkered Pasts, Racist Names, Gun Rights, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll talk with Dr. Paul Hsieh about "Highlights from the Personality Theory Workshop." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 23 October 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. In early October, I gathered a few close friends in Atlanta to discuss the ins and outs of personality theory. We focused on various theories of personality, as well as the effects of personality differences at work, in parenting, in personal relations, and in activism. In this episode, my husband Paul and I will share the highlights. Dr. Paul Hsieh is a physician in practice in South Denver. He is the co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). He has written scores of op-eds, mostly on health care policy, as well as articles forThe Objective Standard. He blogs offbeat tech news at GeekPress. To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Paul Hsieh on Highlights from the Personality Theory Workshop. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine): 19 Oct: Armstrong Times Two by Paul Hsieh 18 Oct: Hitler Learns About the Obamacare Exchanges by Paul Hsieh 17 Oct: Projections Vs. Reality by Paul Hsieh 15 Oct: Quick Links: Catron, Crovitz by Paul Hsieh Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard: 20 Oct: Pat Robertson and His Creed: Devourers in Need of Rebuke by Natalie Ogle 19 Oct: Morality Without God by TOS Admin 18 Oct: Designers Craft Innovative Gown Using 3D Printing by Earl Parson 18 Oct: ObamaCare: “What the Hell Kind of Reform Is This?” by Ari Armstrong 17 Oct: Government Shut Down and All I Got Was this Blog Post by Ari Armstrong 16 Oct: British Scientists Achieve Breakthrough in Alzheimer’s Research by Ari Armstrong 15 Oct: Egalitarian Call to Abolish Private Schools is Morally Obscene and Economically Absurd by Michael A. LaFerrara 14 Oct: Food Stampede Illustrates Depravity of “Welfare” by Ari Armstrong Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo: 19 Oct: Philosophy Weekend: News from Philosophy in Action by Diana Hsieh 18 Oct: The Paleo Rodeo #184 by Diana Hsieh 17 Oct: Jenn Casey on Living Safely with Food Allergies: Two Philosophy in Action Podcasts by Diana Hsieh Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter. Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the social effects of economic inequality, favoritism for the genetically engineered, the value of the Ten Commandments, property owners prohibiting firearms, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 20 October 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Social Effects of Economic Inequality: Is an egalitarian society a better society? The 2009 book "The Spirit Level" argues that income inequality has a broad range of negative effects on society. According to the summary on Wikipedia, "It claims that for each of eleven different health and social problems: physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries." Are these egalitarian arguments wrong? If so, what's the best approach to refuting them? Question 2: Favoritism for the Genetically Engineered: Once some children are genetically engineered, wouldn't discrimination against natural children be inevitable? Assume that humanity has advanced to the technological capacities of the movie "Gattaca," where the best possible genes for each child could be (and mostly would be) chosen before implantation of the embryo. In that case, how could society prevent discrimination against people who were conceived naturally? Those chosen genes would include genes for determination, the desire to learn, motivation, and more, such that engineered people would always win out based on merit. The movie "Gattaca" shows a natural child rising above his engineered counterparts because of his great determination and spirit. The movie's tagline is even "there is no gene for the human spirit." But if there is such a thing as a human spirit, then there surely must be a gene for it. So would discrimination against natural children be inevitable? If so, would it be unjust? Question 3: The Value of the Ten Commandments: Are the Ten Commandments of value to an atheist? Are the Ten Commandments a useful guide to living a good life, even for people who are not Jewish or Christian? Should a rational person look to religious scriptures for ethical guidance? Question 4: Property Owners Prohibiting Firearms: Should a person respect signs prohibiting guns in certain areas? Some businesses and government offices announce that firearms are prohibited in the building, yet no screening is conducted to ensure that firearms are excluded. In such "pretend gun-free zones," law-abiding people will disarm, while criminals and other dangerous or careless people will not. Is this a violation of a person's right to self-defense? Should people refuse to disarm in face of such signs? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Inequality, Genetic Engineering, Ten Commandments, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview peanut allergy mom Jenn Casey about "Living Safely with Food Allergies." This will be Part 2 of 2. Part 1 is here. This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 16 October 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. Many Americans have food allergies to common foods such as peanuts, dairy, and eggs. Some of those allergies are so serious as to be life-threatening. Jenn Casey's son has a life-threatening peanut allergy, diagnosed when he was a toddler. What must people diagnosed with such allergies do to protect themselves from accidental ingestion? How can parents keep their children with such allergies safe? How should other people in their lives – such as family, friends, and teachers – do to protect them from harm? What should schools, clubs, and other organizations do? This episode is part two of two. Jenn Casey is a homeschooling mom to three hilarious kids, wife, small business owner, CrossFit athlete and coach, Positive Discipline educator, sometime blogger, puppy trainer, reluctant 5K runner, urban-chicken-raising wannabe, amateur gardener, humor dabbler, serious Beatles enthusiast, longtime Objectivist, economics nerd, even bigger operations management nerd, Sauvignon Blanc lover, bourbon appreciator, and President of ATLOS. To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Jenn Casey on Living Safely with Food Allergies (Part 2). It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on all sorts of topics from the Rapid Fire Queue. This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Thursday, 10 October 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Rapid Fire Extravaganza. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Thursday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

As I blogged last week, nominations for the Podcast Awards are currently open. So please nominate Philosophy in Action for the “General” category if you’ve not already done so. We didn’t win last year, but we were nominated. As a result, we acquired quite a bit of traffic and new listeners. Category: General Podcast Name: Philosophy in Action Podcast URL: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/dates.html You can submit nominations only once, although if we’re nominated, you’ll be able to vote more often. Nominations close on October 15th. To everyone who takes a moment to nominate us… Link to Original

Back in early September, I answered a question about keeping secrets for competitive advantage on the 8 September 2013 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio. Here’s the question: Is it wrong to protect my competitive advantage in a sport by refusing to share information? I am an aspiring MMA fighter. I’ve done a lot of work studying personal fitness, how to prevent and fix personal injuries, and how to maximize force output. I recently signed up for an MMA gym to prepare for some amateur fights. I’m concerned that when I do non-conventional “stretches” before or after a workout I’ll get questions from curious people. Then I’m in a dilemma. I would like to make friends, but I really don’t want to give away for free my knowledge that I have worked hard to achieve – knowledge which gives me an edge over many competitors. I don’t want to tell them where I got this information either. Perhaps if they ask what I’m doing, I could say “trade secret” or something else. Ultimately though, I don’t want to give potential competitors the tools that will help them beat me. Is this legitimate? Is it immoral or unwise? In answering, I was helped by the following comments from amateur fighter Anthony Kluska. I liked them so much that I read them on the air, and I wanted to blog them for y’all too. Anthony wrote: I am also an amateur fighter training at Daddis fight camps in Philadelphia. I work along with former UFC fighters, current Belator fighter and former WEC fighters. To answer his question simply, yes it is very unwise especially at his novice level. To be blunt he really needs to get over himself. The professional fighters at his gym will be light years ahead of him when it comes to “how to prevent and fix personal injuries, and how to maximize force output.” This is a sense of ignorance a lot of people have before joining these gyms. I know. I had it. Then the during Brazilian Jiu Jitsu class I got smashed by a blue belt half my size and my pretentiousness left it about two seconds. Chances are no one will care about his stretches or his ability to maximize force output. Most MMA gyms foster a sense of team spirit and encourage good training partners. What he really needs to focus on is becoming a good training partner learning everything he can while not being cocky. Furthermore he should not try to gain a competitive advantage against those in his gym. He won’t be fighting his own teammates during bouts. What he should do is give all his “secrets” away so that he can develop new skills against people competent in his specialties. For instance I am a pressure fighter so I work a lot with guys who know how to pressure me back. This forces me to learn how to stick and move. Now my outside boxing is almost as good and my inside boxing. Lastly there are no secrets any more in the information age. There are internet videos, MMA forums analysts who publish free seminars books magazines and a plethora of gyms associated with other gyms. There are no “secret martial arts skills”. It’s all in the open for anyone to know. A quick Google search will provide you with so much information it’s unbelievable. The question is, “is he the 3% who will utilize the information or is he just a gym class hero.” To understand the 3% mentality, watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7zhUpX-D5Y. Thank you, Anthony! If you’ve not heard that podcast segment, you can listen to or download it here: Duration: 15:27 Download: MP3 Segment For more details, check out the question’s archive page. The full episode – where I answered questions on the value of a central purpose, self-confidence at work, keeping secrets for competitive advantage, hate crime laws, and more – is available as a podcast too. Link to Original

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine): 7 Oct: Benjamin Rush Institute Calendar by Paul Hsieh 4 Oct: Crashing The Health Care System by Paul Hsieh 2 Oct: McArdle On Faulty Obamacare Conventional Wisdom by Paul Hsieh 1 Oct: Physician Summit 2013: Speaker Profiles by Paul Hsieh 30 Sep: Hsieh Forbes OpEd: “Why The Federal Government Wants To Redefine The Word ‘Cancer’” by Paul Hsieh Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard: 7 Oct: Feds Intentionally Inflict Pain in Park Shutdowns; Solution is to Privatize Parks by Ari Armstrong 6 Oct: Kenneth Buck Admirably Protects Rights Despite Colorado Law by Ari Armstrong 5 Oct: Colorado “Personhood” Measure Would Outlaw All Abortions and More by Ari Armstrong 4 Oct: Institute for Justice Wins Battles for Free Speech by Ari Armstrong 4 Oct: Planned Parenthood and Others Admirably Fight Texas Anti-Abortion Bill by Ross England 3 Oct: U.S. Government Assaults a Supermarket, Institute for Justice Defends It by Kevin Douglas 2 Oct: Interview with Jeff Britting on Ayn Rand’s Anthem Off-Broadway by Robert Begley 1 Oct: Toward a Shutdown to Celebrate by Ari Armstrong 30 Sep: Under ObamaCare, “The Doctor Can’t See You Now” by Ari Armstrong Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo: 5 Oct: Philosophy Weekend: News from Philosophy in Action by Diana Hsieh 4 Oct: The Paleo Rodeo #182 by Diana Hsieh 1 Oct: Link-O-Rama by Diana Hsieh Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter. Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the rights of corporations, psychological egoism, objecting to a professor's views, deduction from axioms, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 6 October 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Rights of Corporations: Do corporations have free speech rights? Many leftists (including left-libertarians) are vehemently opposed to the "Citizens United" Supreme Court decision, which recognized that corporations have the right to speak in elections. Do corporations have rights? What would it mean for corporations not to have rights? Should corporations be considered "persons" under the law? Question 2: Psychological Egoism: Isn't every action selfish, ultimately? Unless coerced, people act however they deem best at that moment. Even if that action is harmful to themselves, aren't they acting selfishly, so as to satisfy their own desires? Even paragons of altruism act because they want to help people, please God, or save the environment: that's what makes them happy. So isn't true, deep-down altruism impossible? Question 3: Objecting to a Professor's Views: How strongly should a student object to a professor's objectionable views? I am a senior undergraduate in a liberal arts major at a public university. I'm currently taking a class with the bleak subject matter of genocide. My blatantly socialist teacher presents her views in discussions of the Armenian genocide, the "genocide" in Soviet Russia, and the Holocaust. Often, she ignores the role of religion and flawed socialist policies. Also, she blames greed and capitalism to an unreasonable degree for the woes of the aforementioned countries. How should I respond to these objectionable claims of hers? How much should I try to undermine her wrongheaded views? Question 4: Deduction from Axioms: Is philosophy deduced from axioms? Often, I hear people claim that philosophy – particularly Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism – is deduced from axioms. Is that right? Personally, I don't see how that can be: How can anything be deduced from "existence exists"? But in that case, what's the purpose of the axioms? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Rights of Corporations, Psychological Egoism, Socialist Professors, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

On Wednesday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I interviewed Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur about “Occupational Licensing Versus the Right to Earn a Living.” The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You’ll find it on the episode’s archive page, as well as below. Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Podcast: Timothy Sandefur about “Occupational Licensing Versus the Right to Earn a Living” Many states require licenses to practice certain professions – from medicine to styling hair. What are the practical effects of such licensing requirements? Do they protect the public from quacks, as their defenders claim? Or do they violate a person’s right to earn a living, discourage entrepreneurs, promote poverty? How have the courts ruled on cases challenging licensing requirements? Timothy Sandefur is a Principal Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. As the lead attorney in the Foundation’s Economic Liberty Project, he works to protect businesses against abusive government regulation, and has won important victories for free enterprise in California, Oregon, Missouri, and other states. He is the author of three books, Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America (2006), The Right to Earn A Living: Economic Freedom And The Law (2010), and The Conscience of The Constitution: The Declaration of Independence And The Right to Liberty, which will appear in 2014. He has also published more than 45 scholarly articles on subjects ranging from property rights and economic freedom to intellectual property, evolution and creationism, slavery and the Civil War, and the political philosophy of Shakespeare and ancient Greek literature. He blogs at Freespace. Listen or Download: Duration: 1:07:34 Download: Standard MP3 File (23.2 MB) Topics: Occupational licensing Litigating cases of occupational licensing The source of licensing regulations The history of licensing regulations, particularly in California The casket industry and economic protectionism The bias against the underdog Burdens on rights Conservatives on occupational licensing Judicial restraint versus activism The rationale for occupational licensing The alternative of private market licenses Its actual effects of occupational licensing, particularly on the poor and entrepreneurs The right to earn a living The history of medical licensing Certificates of Need The work of the Pacific Legal Foundation Forthcoming book: “The Conscience of the Constitution” Article: “Love and Solipsism” Links: Timothy’s Blog: Freepsace Timothy’s Papers: SSRN Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America by Timothy Sandefur (Kindle editon) The Right to Earn A Living: Economic Freedom And The Law by Timothy Sandefur (Kindle edition) The Conscience of The Constitution: The Declaration of Independence And The Right to Liberty by Timothy Sandefur CON Job: State “certificate of necessity” laws protect firms, not consumers by Timothy Sandefur Love and Solipsism: Law and Arbitrary Rule in Aeschylus, Shakespeare, Sophocles, and Anouilh by Timothy Sandefur Tags: Business, Constitution, History, Law, Politics, Regulations, Work Episode Sponsor This episode is sponsored the incomparable Audible.com. I’ve subscribed to Audible since 2005. With my “Platinum Annual Membership,” I enjoy 24 books per year for just under $10 per book. I read more books, thanks to Audible. I listen to books while in my car, as well as while cooking, cleaning, gardening, and more. I enjoy books more too, particularly fiction: a good reader adds a rich layer of color to the text. If you want to try the delights of listening to books, be sure to take advantage of our special podcast-only offer of free 30-day trial subscription. You’ll get a great deal, and you’ll support Philosophy in Action in the process. It’s a win-win – and I love that! About Philosophy in Action Radio Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives. Remember, Philosophy in Action Radio is available to anyone, free of charge. That’s because our goal is to spread rational principles for real life far and wide, as we do every week to thousands of listeners. We love doing that, but each episode requires our time, effort, and money. So if you enjoy and value our work, please contribute to our tip jar. We suggest $5 per episode or $20 per month, but any amount is appreciated. You can send your contribution via Dwolla, PayPal, or US Mail. Link to Original

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur about "Occupational Licensing Versus the Right to Earn a Living." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 2 October 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. Many states require licenses to practice certain professions – from medicine to styling hair. What are the practical effects of such licensing requirements? Do they protect the public from quacks, as their defenders claim? Or do they violate a person's right to earn a living and promote poverty? How have the courts ruled on cases challenging licensing requirements? Timothy Sandefur is a Principal Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. As the lead attorney in the Foundation's Economic Liberty Project, he works to protect businesses against abusive government regulation, and has won important victories for free enterprise in California, Oregon, Missouri, and other states. He is the author of three books, Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America (2006), The Right to Earn A Living: Economic Freedom And The Law (2010), and The Conscience of The Constitution: The Declaration of Independence And The Right to Liberty, which will appear in 2014. He has also published more than 45 scholarly articles on subjects ranging from property rights and economic freedom to intellectual property, evolution and creationism, slavery and the Civil War, and the political philosophy of Shakespeare and ancient Greek literature. To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Timothy Sandefur on Occupational Licensing Versus the Right to Earn a Living. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

October 2013 is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Hence, it’s apropos that Forbes has just published my latest OpEd on this topic, “Why The Federal Government Wants To Redefine The Word ‘Cancer’“. Here is the opening: The federal government wants to reduce the number of Americans diagnosed each year with cancer. But not by better preventive care or healthier living. Instead, the government wants to redefine the term “cancer” so that fewer conditions qualify as a true cancer. What does this mean for ordinary Americans — and should we be concerned?… I discuss the reasons behind the proposed redefinition, why it could matter from a political (as well as medical) standpoint, and implications for patients and doctors. I’d like to thank Dr. Milton Wolf for providing the quote at the end! (Read the full text of”Why The Federal Government Wants To Redefine The Word ‘Cancer’“.) Link to Original

On Wednesday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I’ll interview Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur about “Occupational Licensing Versus the Right to Earn a Living.” This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 2 October 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. Many states require licenses to practice certain professions – from medicine to styling hair. What are the practical effects of such licensing requirements? Do they protect the public from quacks, as their defenders claim? Or do they violate a person’s right to earn a living and promote poverty? How have the courts ruled on cases challenging licensing requirements? Timothy Sandefur is a Principal Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation. As the lead attorney in the Foundation’s Economic Liberty Project, he works to protect businesses against abusive government regulation, and has won important victories for free enterprise in California, Oregon, Missouri, and other states. He is the author of three books, Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America (2006), The Right to Earn A Living: Economic Freedom And The Law (2010), and The Conscience of The Constitution: The Declaration of Independence And The Right to Liberty, which will appear in 2014. He has also published more than 45 scholarly articles on subjects ranging from property rights and economic freedom to intellectual property, evolution and creationism, slavery and the Civil War, and the political philosophy of Shakespeare and ancient Greek literature. To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you’ll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Timothy Sandefur on Occupational Licensing Versus the Right to Earn a Living. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Wednesday evening… and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives. Link to Original

PJ Media has published the final segment of my 4-part series on the changing face of American medicine under ObamaCare, “How Patients Can Protect Themselves Against Big Medicine“. Earlier segments include: Part 1: “Your Future Under Obamacare: Big Medicine Getting Bigger” Part 2: “How Big Medicine Will Affect Patient Care” Part 3: “The Eyes of Big Medicine: Electronic Medical Records” [Crossposted from the FIRM blog.] Link to Original

As September draws to a close today, I wanted to share some of the kind words sent to me about Philosophy in Action Radio lately… as a tiny reminder to you to contribute to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar if you enjoy the show too. Here we go: Your radio show is awesome, by the way. You pack such impeccable logic and reason into an easily digestible philosophy and I applaud you for tackling real issues… Ah, thank you! I just wanted to send you a general “thank you!” and “keep up the good work!” I’ve been enjoying all of your radio shows, and especially liked your interview with Jonathan Hoenig on the workings of financial markets. The school year will be starting soon for me, and it will be nice to have your radio show on Sunday to relax to. Yay! Here’s that interview: Jonathan Hoenig on The Workings of Financial Markets. I just wanted to thank you for the all the efforts that go into producing Philosophy in Action. I am something of a podcast junkie, but I do make your show a priority. You’ve succeeded in making philosophy fun, interesting, and even humorous. … I appreciate you answering my question about non-financial incentives for showing how much a person values your show. To that end, I’m making it a point to share upcoming events as often as I see them. In reference to that last sentence, even if you can’t afford to contribute to Philosoph in Action’s Tip Jar, I really appreciate when people share upcoming events, posted podcasts, and blog posts on social media. That helps spread the word about the show, and I appreciate that hugely! Thank you for providing the podcasts. My husband and I are both programmers who work from home. Since we don’t have commutes, we don’t often set aside time to listen to radio or podcasts otherwise. But we recently started a big painting project in our house, and a friend recommended your show. We’ve been looking forward to listening in on Sundays & catching up on your back catalog for the past month of weekends as we slowly finish painting my husband’s office. Your discussions have provided us with plenty of food for thought and topics for conversation. I really enjoyed your answers to the problem of dealing with panhandlers (a sadly common occurrence where we live) and social contract theory. Please keep up the great work. You’ve gained two loyal listeners & I’ll be setting up a recurring payment soon. I love that! Here are the discussions mentioned: Responding to Panhandlers and Social Contract Theory. I’ve been reading NoodleFood for many years, and it has been a huge boon to my life. I started reading it just after I read Atlas Shrugged, back when I was an Objectivist infant. You’ve helped clarify my thinking on so many issues. And the work you’re doing now in your podcasts is better equipping me to pursue my own life and happiness. I’m thrilled to support your work in whatever small way I can. Thank you so much. Hooray! Thank you for providing the same support that I used to get from the Ayn Rand newsletters which also provided rational views of topical situations. I enjoy the broadcasts and will send more tips. Wow, that’s really lovely to hear. Really! Today is the last day to support my work this month via Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar. I want to give a big shout of appreciation to everyone who has contributed so far in 2013, particularly to the amazing people who contribute every week or month. That’s so important to me, both spiritually and materially. Link to Original