[Global Warming]

The government regulates nuclear energy to the point where it cannot be built on its own, so do they think of removing those regulations? No. They subsidize it.

Subsidies are always value-destructive. The best way for nuclear power plants to be built -- or plants using a superior competing technology -- is for the government to stay out of the way. Let the best technology win, and we all benefit from electricity produced in the best manner at the lowest cost.

[Global Warming]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but if we were to find a way to more efficiently harness solar power and we could use it to replace all coal/oil/nuclear power, wouldn't that result in massive cooling of the earth as a certain percentage of the sun's heat is converted into electricity, etc. instead of being absorbed into the earth?

Well, I will defer to the answer given on this issue, but there is another one that has been bothering lately.

What if all the wind turbines being built to generate electricity are being built largely in the same orientation to capture the direction of the jet stream? What if, being in the same orientation, the wind turbines begin to create a gyroscopic effect? What if that gyroscopic effect begins to tilt the earth off its orbital axis?

If that happened, imagine the horror. The equator could end up running along the two poles, melting them and flooding the earth's surface. Of course, one of the new poles could end up smack in the middle of the Amazon, and simply destroy that huge, fragile ecosystem composed of creatures and plants with unknown benefits to man. Imagine all the little creatures that would freeze to death! Ugh!

When I see a new wind turbine go up, I worry. When I see an entire wind farm go up that sweeps across the horizon, I positively begin to tremble!

Forget that wind power is uneconomical, and is only being deployed on a wide scale because of subsidies. Instead, worry about the great potential for harm that could occur if man were to mess with something so fundamental to life as the angle of the earth's rotational tilt.

The potential threat from wind turbines acting in concert to jeopardize our planet's orbital axis seems seems much more serious than the potential threat from global warming. We must act now to save the planet!

[Theory and practice: what to blame?]

usually, when you say "the facts", you mean "all of the facts".

I agree with your objection. I should have said, "A theory could take into account some of the facts of reality and still be a bad theory, because it does not take into account all of the facts of reality."

I agree with you also that when someone says, "the facts" in the above context, it does imply "all of the facts."

Of course, I still love it when the bailiff swears in a witness on Perry Mason and asks, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" It just doesn't sound as dramatic to say, "Do you swear to tell the truth?"

[Pinon Canyon]

But what if, for example, not enough donations could be garnered, and a world war was looming?

I answered your question here. That thread directly addresses your question.

[How to fund and orchestrate a major war.]

A continuation from this thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=136113.

But what if, for example, not enough donations could be garnered, and a world war was looming?

I think your question is an unrealistic, strawman argument. Out of self-interest, citizens would both volunteer themselves and their money to fight a just war. It is only for unjust wars that coercion is necessary, whether through the draft or taxation.

For example, consider the many thousands of Americans who volunteered to fight after Pearl Harbor or even, today, after 9/11. Also, consider the many tens of billions of dollars that was raised during World War II through the purchase of war bonds. War bonds were a form of voluntary lending to the government in order to pay for the war.

There is a huge benefit from a government that solely protects our rights. In terms of war, it acts as a check that prevents the government from fighting self-sacrificial or unjust wars. For example, the Vietnam War was made possible by the draft and taxation. If there were no draft, all of those protesters simply could have refused to volunteer for military service, thereby depriving the government of soldiers. If there was no taxation, citizens could have starved the government by withholding financing. (Of course, voting not to re-elect the bad government officials is the ultimate recourse, which happened.)

Another important point to consider is that it is highly unlikely that any major war would have to be fought in an age where freedom had advanced to the point where the United States had achieved laissez faire, the government was delimited to its true functions, and taxation had been abolished. For a culture of freedom to advance to that point in the United States, it is unlikely that there would be any gigantic, potent dictatorship out there threatening us. There would likely only be small dictatorships (of the scale, say, of today's Iran or less). A war with an enfeebled dictatorship like that would be very cheap to prosecute. A few nuclear bombs and the war is over, with probably close to no deaths on our side.

If we were so free as described above, our technology would also be astounding. It is highly unlikely that any enemy could really threaten us with technology as sophisticated as ours. The enemy would be lucky to have guns and battleships, while we had nuclear bombs, space lasers, electronic jamming equipment, etc.

Gigantic, extremely threatening world wars only happen when irrational ideas are rampant. Those ideas create the dictatorships and, perhaps more importantly, they create the moral doubt and weakness on the good side which results in inaction or even active collusion as the dictatorships gain power. For example, the foolish policy of appeasement that Britain and France adopted in World War II allowed Nazi Germany to gain sufficient strength to the point where a horribly bloody, messy global war was necessary to defeat that enemy. If the Brits or French had stood firm and not allowed Hitler's army to re-arm in the 1930s, and not re-occupy the Ruhr Valley, absorb Austria and occupy Czechoslovakia, Hitler could have been stopped at a much lower cost in terms of money and lives.

Today the West is displaying similar inaction in the face of North Korea arming itself with the nuclear bomb, Iran working hard to do the same, Hugo Chavez forming a mini "Axis of Evil" in Latin America, etc. We could still stop the Muslim fascists at very low cost, but while we wait, the cost of stopping them will only get larger. If we do nothing long enough, we could end up having to fight a world war. This type of passivity in the face of growing evil would not be tolerated in a country that had achieved such a level of rationality that it was laissez faire and had no taxation. Instead, it would have "nipped the bud" and prevented the enemy from getting so large. By doing so, the wars it has to fight are far cheaper than the global wars we have had to fight in the last century, and are shaping up to fight again in this century.

[Theory and practice: what to blame?]

Well, a theory that doesn't take into account the known facts of this world, is a bad theory and will not work in practice. Contradictions cannot exist.

Here's an idea: it would be cheaper to run a car on water than on gas. Surely it would. Water is plentiful and readily available. But water does not burn, that is it can't be made to release energy that an engine can use. If you ignore this fact, you can go on and design a car that will run in theory but be immovable in practice. Then would it be fair to say the theory was good and shouldn't be criticized?

Your example contradicts your own standard. The theory of your water car fails to "take into account the known facts of this world," specifically, the fact that water does not burn. Therefore, the theory that cars could run on water is a flawed theory.

A theory could take into account the facts of reality and still be a bad theory, because it does not take into account all of the relevant facts of reality. Or, the facts may be improperly construed. Or, as in your example, it could assume something as a fact which isn't.

One of my favorite examples of a flawed theory leading to disastrous results in reality is from economics. It is the theory of perfect competition. The theory supposedly describes how markets work, but it does so by assuming away some very important features of the market. In particular, it assumes that knowledge is costlessly and instantly acquired by all market participants. With this false view of reality as its base, the theory projects that no market participants would have "market power" because all information about all processes and all prices are instantly and simultaneously known to everyone in the economy. Of course, that is not true. Information is costly. Innovations in technology and business practices are costly to acquire. Because information is costly, everyone has "market power," i.e., they have the ability to influence the price and quantity at which they sell their product, whether it is their own labor, or something they are making and selling.

Even though the theory of perfect competition is a demonstrably bad theory because it makes false assumptions about reality, it serves as the intellectual justification for a host of destructive economic policies. The worst of these is antitrust, which attempts to force companies to behave in a "perfectly competitive" manner. In practice, all these laws end up doing is thwarting the accumulation of capital, blocking economically efficient mergers, outlawing many forms of competition involving quality instead of price, and generally punishing business success. The theory behind antitrust, perfect competition, is imperfect itself. Therefore, when attempting to develop policies based on that theory, those policies are destructive/impractical.

However, the theory of perfect competition and antitrust is a long topic for another thread, if it hasn't been discussed already.

There should be no gulf between theory and practice. A true theory is practical. A false theory is impractical.

*****

I can't help giving one more example. Imagine a rocket engineer who develops a grand theory for a new rocket. Everything is perfect, except he assumes away one messy fact of reality: air friction. His equations "work" better by assuming no air friction (just like the economists' equations "work" better by assuming away the messy fact that information is costly). Everything looks good on paper. However, when it comes to the day he launches his rocket, it only goes up so far in the atmosphere before running out of fuel and crashing back down to earth. It fails to reach orbit because there wasn't enough fuel in the rocket to overcome the drag from air friction as it passed through the atmosphere.

That was a bad theory, with bad consequences.

[Theory and practice: what to blame?]

Do you have some examples of such a theory as you describe where:

The ideas are still right it's just this world that lets them down and so we can't criticse the theory.

[THEISM vs. OBJECTIVISM]

But that the logic is flawed is not as obvious, neither to us nor to him, so it's what I focused on. For us, it's an interesting exercise in analysis, and for him, it's something to think on which he hasn't already rejected out of hand.

Enjoy the debate. I will be watching.

[Pinon Canyon]

I don't believe that the federal government owns "most of the land" of many states in the West. You might be right, but you'd have to prove it to me.

This point is not essential at all to my discussion. Even if the government had no land today, it can and should only buy what it needs, without resorting to taking it through eminent domain.

But, this is a map which shows the huge extent to which the federal government owns land. I have seen other maps, some of which show the actual land area owned by the federal government. In several states such as Nevada and Alaska, the percentage of land that is in private hands is actually quite small.

As for the issue of taxation, I would recommend reading Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand where there is a discussion of government financing in a free society. The key point to realize is that government expenditures in a free society would be a very small fraction of what they are today. The first step is to bring down government expenditures so that there is no spending on anything except that which is necessary to protect our right to life and property from the threat of force. This means only spending it on the police, the courts and the armed forces. Once this is accomplished, a non-coercive form of financing could be devised and implemented.

Governments do not have the right to use force for any purpose, except in retaliation against those who initiate its use. This also precludes taxation.

If government was confined to its very small legitimate role, its financial needs could be met through a non-coercive method. Ayn Rand (or one of her associates, I can't remember) suggests a lottery as a possibility. That is a good method that could provide significant funds. However, the simplest non-coercive way to finance government is for government to charge fees for its services, such as contract enforcement, resolution of disputes in the courts, etc. Although it may sound odd, I also would not dismiss voluntary donations to government. A completely free society would be far, far wealthier than our society of today. It would be easy and non-sacrificial to donate to support government, much in the same way people donate millions today to support the public library or the opera, etc. A combination of these means, and others that will be devised would take care of the expense of funding the government.

I only joined this forum recently, but I would be surprised if this issue has not already been discussed at length in another thread. That might be interesting to read, as well.

[Pinon Canyon]

Is the government justified in infringing upon property rights in order to exist? (Rhetorical question, but feel free to take a stab if you wish.)

No. The government exists to protect our rights, not to violate them. The power the government has is delegated to it. It exists as our agent, and has no rights of its own of any form. Just as no individual can violate another's rights, neither can the government.

There is no instance where violating rights is permissible. For the few legitimate functions of government that are necessary to protect our rights -- the police, the courts and the armed forces -- the government, as our agent, would buy whatever land, buildings, etc., it needs, using the money we provide it.

As for your specific example, with all due respect it is not a very good one. The federal government already is the largest landowner in the country, and owns most of the land of many states in the West. It doesn't need any more land for military bases. It has abundant land already that it could use. In any case, if it somehow did need more land, it would have to buy it. (In a free society, government landholdings would be far, far smaller than they are today. As a percentage of the land mass in the United States, it just doesn't take much land at all for the legitimate functions of government.)

[Pinon Canyon]

If it's not all right for the military to "steal", where do you propose they build bases?

The military can buy the land it needs for its bases.

[Global Warming]

There can be no appeasing [the environmentalists]. If you want to survive, you must oppose them and not appease them by calling for "alternatives."

I completely agree. The two quotes in your post really do capture the essence of environmentalism. The proof is in the countless instances where a technological "solution" to an alleged "problem" is attacked. Your example of bats getting killed by wind turbines is a good one. Wind turbines themselves were a "solution" to the problem of pollution caused by burning coal or natural gas. I put solution in quotes because wind power, in most applications, is uneconomical. The only reason it is deployed is because it is subsidized at the federal level and benefits from quotas in many states that force utilities to generate a minimum amount of electricity from wind.

The environmentalists' hatred for man and his technology is also revealed by the reluctance of most environmentalists to embrace nuclear energy as a solution to the alleged global warming problem. Nuclear plants emit no carbon dioxide. Yet, environmentalists will rant and rave against nuclear power for all of its alleged harms, despite the fact that in the West not a single person has died from an emission of radioacticity into the environment by a nuclear power plant.

If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were shut down, and all federal and state regulations were eliminated on nuclear power plants (and all other forms of electricity generation), I suspect that we would generate the majority of our electricity from nuclear power plants. Nuclear power has an inherent economy of scale because a very tiny amount of material can produce a huge amount of energy. Nuclear energy is very concentrated. This means that the cost of handling uranium and disposing of waste is very small in comparison to the amount of energy produced.

Contrast this with coal, where many 100-car-long trainloads of coal are needed to produce the amount of electricity that could be produced in a couple softballs' worth of uranium. Even with nuclear waste being radioactive, it is far easier and more environmentally "friendly" to disposes of nuclear waste than it is to dispose of coal waste, some of which inevitably gets disposed of in our lungs.

Only a wealthy, technologically advanced society can cheaply deploy a technology as advanced and beneficial as nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is clean and would be very cheap if it were not regulated. Yet all of the regulations on power generation -- including the pollution rules on fossil power -- just make our economy that much poorer, and less able to afford something as magnificent as nuclear power. So, ironically, by attempting to regulate in order to prevent pollution, such regulations have the opposite effect of making us more poor and therefore more likely to use polluting technologies, such as fossil fuels.

This point may not seem obvious, but observe that the worst polluting societies are the emerging Third World countries that are far poorer than ours. China, the former Soviet Union, developing parts of Africa and Asia, all have far more polluted air than we have in the West. Poverty and pollution go hand-in-hand.

As a final tidbit on nuclear power, I remember reading about an Alaskan village that wanted to install a tiny underground nuclear reactor for electricity. They believed it would be far cheaper to generate electricity through nuclear fission than it was to burn fuel oil that had to be arduously transported at great expense to their small village. I spoke to a nuclear engineer who told me that it was feasible to make such small nuclear reactors, but you would have to wait for "hell to freeze over" before the regulators would permit it. Given how much those Alaskan villagers have to pay for electricity, and how low they probably set their thermostats to save money, I imagine that they are already living in their frozen little hell.

[THEISM vs. OBJECTIVISM]

Okay, I am no longer an "Advocate" for God or the Devil. I'll just be an atheist.

Heretic says:

Is the philosophical theist absolutely certain, like the Christian philosopher, without the benefit of divine revelation, and by relying merely on human reason only that God exists? No! But neither is the philosophical theist absolutely certain also... by relying merely on human reason that God does not exist. Absolute certainty could only be provided by divine revelation.

He also says:

On the other hand, if it could be scientifically proven with absolute certainty that the universe is completely and actually infinite in duration (time) and extension (space), or is eternal and boundless, and is necessary, then there would be no room for God.

It seems pretty clear to me from the above two quotes that Heretic is trying to put the onus of proof on atheism. He is trying to inject doubt about a metaphysical axiom of the universe, that "Existence exists." He is saying that axiom is not good enough. Heretic is taking the position that one also has to prove that the universe is "infinite in duration (time) and extension (space)" in order for their to be no room for God.

Heretic is after God here. His is a religious argument. He is just constructing it as a philosophical argument about metaphysics.

He is also making an important epistemological assertion, "Absolute certainty could only be provided by divine relevation." That is the "argument" from faith. At that point, argument ceases.

[THEISM vs. OBJECTIVISM]

And that's what makes a debate so difficult. God can do anything he wants. He could have planted dinosaur bones and Australopithecus remains just to test our faith. He could have created the stars 6,000 years ago with light already billions of years on its journey to earth. And who are we to question God and His "mysterious ways?"

Well, of course He planted those dinosaur bones, and placed the starlight in motion so it would appear that the stars are older than 6,000 years, which they are not.

Damn right (oops, sorry God for cursing), we don't question His mysterious ways. God just is, and He is perfect, even in all His contradictions. Have Faith, brother! Amen!

[THEISM vs. OBJECTIVISM]

The cosmological argument from contingency falls for a fallacy of logic similar to the fallacy of composition, and is thereby rejected.

Well, the only side I think can gain from this debate is the religious one. So, I will play Devil's Advocate. Oops, I mean God's Advocate. Here's my argument:

God created all things. God makes the rules. God can be contradictory, if He so wishes. So, don't be telling me no arguments about fallacies!

Amen!

[THEISM vs. OBJECTIVISM]

A debate of faith versus reason is not possible. Faith is belief without regard for evidence. One cannot use the method of reason -- logic and evidence -- to reject it.

I decline the debate invitation.

[Brain Transplant]

That is a scary thought for me. I don't think I could ever allow anybody or anything to alter my brain (well except coffee and I even limit that!).

Well, Sophia. It looks like you may not have to have a neural implant, even if it is a "neural extension cord" as described in the link in GreedyCapitalist's post. His article led to another article which describes the "neural helmet" (my words):

Now, that's a cool hat!

[Brain Transplant]

If we could re-build our brains piece by piece, who manufactures those pieces? If we bought those pieces on credit and defaulted on our debt, would the debt collector own our brain?

Also, imagine if those brain-pieces were made by Intel or Microsoft, and then all of us needed an upgrade at the same time. That could be messy.

In all seriousness, I look forward to the days of mechanical brain implants. I would love a direct neural link to the web, bypassing something as inefficient as a keyboard. Is that possible?

[To anyone in NY]

Romantic? I'd take her to the top of Rockefeller Center's GE Building. It offers, in my opinion, the best skyscraper view of the city. It is better than the Empire State Building because it is a little less crowded. Also, Rockefeller Center stands amidst a forest of tall buildings, unlike the Empire State, which is located a little bit outside of the main business district.

A stroll down the Promenade at Rockefeller Center is a must, where I would stop for some chocolate truffles at Teuscher's (north side of the Promenade, near the 5th Avenue entrance) before watching the ice skaters at the foot of the GE Building.

Rock Center is my favorite point on the city, but there are many others. After Rock Center, I would stroll up Fifth Avenue where the world's best shops line the street. Walk through Tiffany's at 59th and 5th to look at the exquisite jewelry.

I have lived in the City for over 20 years. It is much safer, cleaner and more prosperous than it has ever been. You can go almost anywhere (generally, south of 96th Street unless you are with an experienced New Yorker). All of it is interesting. Each part of the city is completely different from the next one. I have never gotten tired of just wandering Manhattan's streets.

For some other areas, I would check out Soho and the West Village. Of course, Times Square at night is very exciting. I would generally skip the downtown financial district, unless you have time and want to visit Wall Street, where you can see the New York Stock Exchange. Check beforehand whether you can get in or not. Security rules since 9/11 may preclude that. If you go there, walk down Broad Street and some of the side "canyons of commerce". As an Objectivist, you will appreciate the history of what was once the headquarters district of the great business titans of the 19th century.

These are just a few thoughts. I could go on and on!!

[Primacy of Consumption / Production]

I am picking up this old thread where there is confusion over two definitions of the economic concept of "demand", and how it relates to Say's Law: "Supply constitutes its own demand."

But are these two definitions for "demand" merely an optional gramatical choice, or do they arise from some type of conflicting premises? The point about Say being inductive and von Mises being a rationalist was interesting, but I'm not sure if that's the source of their different use of this word or not. Maybe it's because von Mises was German-- Felix is German, too. Maybe it's more clear in German that the word which translates to "demand" stands for a "problem in need of solution" rather than a "willingness to purshase a specific product." It seems like economists should have two words for these, because they both seem like legitimate concepts-- but "demand" seems to cover both of them usually, which is confusing.

A "problem in need of a solution" is not the definition of demand. It more closely refers to the economic concept of "wants" or the synonym "desires". Everyone has unlimited wants. That includes wants they are aware of and wants that they become aware of because of advertising, changing preferences, etc.

Demand is a subset of wants. "Demand" is an economic concept that means (roughly) "wants backed up by the ability to pay." For any particular product, the demand is a function of price. At different price levels, the quantity demanded will vary. If the price is high, the consumer demands fewer units; if it is cheap he demands more units.

So, "demand" in the economic sense is a concept that unites the concept "wants", and the concept "price". Also, note that demand is different from quantity demanded. Demand refers to the entire range of quantities demanded at different prices. That is why it is called a demand function. It can actually be mathematically described or charted on a graph.

Now, when demand is understood this way, Say's Law makes more sense. Supply constitutes demand, because one's supply is one's ability to pay for the goods he wants. Since demand must be backed up by the ability to pay, one's demand can be no larger than one's supply.

To make this concrete, if I were a shoemaker, my demand could be no larger than the value in the marketplace of the shoes I have made. My shoes are the supply of goods demanded by other people, and simultaneously, they are the products that allow me to demand goods in the marketplace through trade.

[Universal Health Care]

President Bush intends to use the State of the Union address on Tuesday to tackle the rising cost of health care with a one-two punch: tax breaks to help low-income people buy health insurance and tax increases for workers whose health plans cost more than the national average.

Republicans are especially effective and deadly at increasing government power, when they decide to do it. They decide to do it when they see it as the "pragmatic" thing to do to forestall Democratic gains... Unfortunately, when a Republican proposes an expansion of government power, he usually gets away with it, because Republican opposition is silenced.

I'm reading Bush's lips again, and my own!

Actually, it saddens me to see Bush move so quickly to "me-too" with yet another expansion of government power.

This is my summary of political parties today in the United States: Republicans = Democrats + religion = statism. There is no room in that equation for capitalism. No party advocates limited government. In economic matters, they are identical, except that in non-economic matters, Republicans are more bold about injecting religion into government policy.

[Question about Endurance]

Can one person go on strike? I think that's just called quitting. It's only a strike, I believe, if a group of people withhold their services, as a demonstration of the necessity of their efforts.

I don't think a student can technically go on strike either.. That's just called dropping out.

I completely agree. Not only is it dropping out to "go on strike" in the context described above, it is also self-sacrificial. Unless it is part of an organized attempt to re-cast society, as it was in Atlas Shrugged, or if you live in a dictatorship, I cannot see how it would be in one's self-interest to quit or drop out. As I said in my earlier post, one still has a very high degree of freedom to achieve one's values in today's society. And our society, despite all its taxes and regulations, still offers abundant opportunity to make lots of money, or even a moderate amount of money, and live very well. Relatively poor people today buy flat-screen TVs, cell phones, and computers, devices that were virtually unheard of 25 years ago.

I am not trying to minimize the awfulness of encroaching government power, or the threat it poses to our future, but one must realistically acknowledge that we have it good today. Certainly in comparison to other historical epochs, our standard of living and life-span are unparalleled.

[Universal Health Care]

The layman can say, "well, they do a pretty good job of running it, so it must not be that bad".

And didn't Mussolini make the trains run on time? Actually, I understand that they didn't run on time, but assuming they did, isn't that efficiency a sign of the success of socialism?

A socialist can always try to make some economic activity look like it is being performed well. For example, Stalin put chandeliers in the subways, the Nazis had massive public works projects to employ the unemployed, etc.

I agree that efficiency is not a primary. The only primary is the result that ensues from a free market. We can talk about that result a priori, but the only way to see what it would look like is to live it. The creativity of entrepreneurs always means that the result is different (and usually better) than one's expectations going in. On this last point, imagine if Wal-Mart's plan to put fast, low-cost clinics in its stores was completely unconstrained by licensing laws, Medicare regulations, etc. I would love to see a "McDonald's of medicine" either as stand-alone clinics or as convenient centers where I could stop in for a check-up in between buying my milk and eggs.

[Universal Health Care]

Do you think other states will follow?

I think it is likely. Massachusetts was first, proposed by a Republican Governor, Mitt Romney. Now we have California, Pennsylvania and New York. Republicans are especially effective and deadly at increasing government power, when they decide to do it. They decide to do it when they see it as the "pragmatic" thing to do to forestall Democratic gains (for example, when Bush enacted the prescription drug plan in order to silence Democratic criticism over "high" drug prices). Unfortunately, when a Republican proposes an expansion of government power, he usually gets away with it, because Republican opposition is silenced. I do not think it is a coincidence that the first two states to propose socialized medicine have Republican governors.

Oddly enough, I think the only way the spread of socialized medicine state-by-state will be slowed is after the Democrats have gained more power. That may sound paradoxical, but when that happens the Republicans will once again become the party of opposition. Republicans find it a lot easier to be principled when they are opposing Democratic plans than when they are the party of power.

I know PA has suffered from a shortage of doctors for quite a while...one of Rendell's ideas is to relegate some of the physicians' responsibilities to other health care workers, like "properly trained nurses, advanced nurse practitioners, midwives, physician assistants, pharmacists, dental hygienists." I obviously don't think the government should be interfering in this..

On the face of it, I think this is a good idea, if it means simply allowing more people to practice medicine. Occupational licensing laws that limit most medical practices to extremely highly trained M.D.'s have the effect of "gold-plating" medicine and pricing it out of reach of many people. If anyone could practice medicine (I mean this, there should be no occupational licensing laws of any kind), medical entrepreneurs would emerge who would offer medicine more cheaply. Cheaper medicine = more widely utilized medical services such as vaccinations.

An example of the type of entrepreneurial approach to medicine I am talking about is being slowly rolled out by Wal-Mart. They are setting up quick in-and-out medical clinics in their stores. For flat, cash fees you can quickly get vaccinations, receive antibiotics for simple infections, etc. Of course, that is a truly free market answer to all of the problems the socialized medicine advocates allege about our current system.

[Tracinski: What Went Right]

An excellent critique of Part V of Tracinski's "What Went Right?" series has been published here. It is by Objectivist philosophy professor Robert Mayhew. I found Tracinski's description of the historical relationship between human achievements and philosophy to be quite interesting. Unfortunately, it also appears to be wrong. Mayhew's piece addresses his area of expertise, ancient Greece. It is that portion of Tracinski's essay that he is addressing. I highly recommend this essay.