 |
Search this site |
 All Rights Reserved World Copyright supporting advertisers helps to provide an income for this website this page last updated August 7, 2008 |
This website is being renovated throughout 2008. Pages and the content of pages will continue to change until the end of the year and there may be some inconsistencies and missing links. Please do not quote from or link to specific pages (apart from the home page) without contacting the webmaster first. John Stossel owes me $100 The hole in the heart of Economic Libertarianism By © Martin Foreman Word Count: 800 words Publication date: June 11, 2006 Earlier this month I was in Pasadena, at the annual conference of the Skeptics Society. The question at hand: is anthropogenic (human created) global warming real or a myth? No-one disputes that human use of fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) has significantly raised the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And in the last two hundred years there has been a significant increase in average temperatures across the globe. But because the planet’s temperature has fluctuated considerably over hundreds of thousands (and more) years, not everyone agrees that the rising thermometers we see today are a result of human activity. And among those who accept that global warming is a direct consequence of our addiction to SUVs, air-conditioning and cheap airfares there is uncertainty as to how will it impact the world's weather systems The daytime speakers, all men of science, unanimously concluded that yup, the human race was guilty, and if we didn't get our act together pretty quick, we would be in deep something. What that something is – rapidly rising sea levels, more extreme weather or other severe climate changes – is not yet known. Our two evening speakers, who lack formal training in the relevant sciences, had a different perspective. One was John Stossel, the ABC newscaster; the other was Michael Crichton, best-selling novelist. Both acknowledge that temperatures are rising and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, but neither accepts that the two facts are necessarily related or that our climate is taking a long-term turn for the worse. Their views came up after they had given competent and thoughtful speeches on other topics. Crichton regretted that self-styled skeptics had not opposed the sterilization of thousands of Americans in the first half of the twentieth century in the name of eugenics. Stossel covered disproportionality in media coverage of deaths in America. So far so good, but both were afflicted by something that affects almost all star turns at national and international conferences – Celebrity Speaker Syndrome CSS has two components. Firstly Celebrity Speakers tend to attend only sessions in which they are scheduled to speak. Secondly, post-speech there are usually many people asking questions and little time for lengthy answers. CSS prevents any meaningful dialogue between Celebrity and audience. The Celebrity cannot respond to remarks made or evidence presented in sessions they did not attend. And their answer to questions often raises more points than it resolves. Some audience members tried and failed to engage the speakers on global warming. I tried another topic. Stossel, an affirmed Libertarian, had offered a hundred dollars to anyone in the audience who could identify anything that government does better than the free market. When I reached the microphone, I pointed out that the US spends considerably more per capita on health care than many European nations with nationalized medical systems, yet its citizens are on average less healthy and lead shorter lives. I would accept my hundred bucks in cash or a check. Stossel did not open his pocketbook. Instead, he claimed that health care in the US was dominated by cartels of insurance agencies. A real market, where you negotiated the cost of care directly with your physician, would be both cheaper and more effective than the European system. With a dozen other people waiting to ask questions, I could not challenge Stossel’s response. Whatever its faults, health care in America is much closer to a free market than in countries where the government has a monopoly or privileged position – yet the free market consistently provides a worse service for the majority of its citizens. And even if the market were totally free, direct negotiation with the service provider, is only an option for those who, like Stossel, are intelligent, articulate and assertive. Millions of Americans are handicapped by physical or mental disability, or other social, psychological or economic circumstances from meaningfully participating in any health care market. In Stossel’s world, these people would either be charged high rates because they could not negotiate good rates or would be unable to access any health care. In a totally free market, their higher health costs and lower life expectancies would result in the average American paying too much and get too little for their health care. Stossel’s Economic Libertarianism is an option for the intellectual and economic elite. It is, however, a flawed system that fails to understand the social, psychological and economic obstacles that face so many Americans. There is a hole in its heart. In the end, I’m not surprised that John Stossel owes me $100; I will be very surprised if I collect... [No God this week. For the rest of June this column will focus on more serious matters than superstition and myth. God-junkies who require a fix can catch up on previous columns.]
Custom Search
Email us, pasting the URL into your letter with the comment This account is protected by Spamarrest. You will receive a one-off request to verify your email before it is delivered. |
If God existed, he would... admire the beauty of a universe that he did not create recognize that eternity is meaningless deny both heaven and hell disown all men and women who speak in his name denounce the harm caused by religious "morality" help the human race to thrive without him If God existed, he would be an atheist.
|