Part 2 - The Unintended Consequences of Prohibition
Part 3 - The Effect of the War on Drugs in Colombia
Part 4 - The Effect of the War on Drugs in Colombia
Part 5 - The Right to Choose & Legalization in Europe
Part 6 - Hard Drugs & Legalization in the US
The War on Drugs, A War on Ourselves?
In a 2002 special, John Stossel examines the effect of the War on Drugs on American Society.
He interviews Detroit's police chief Jerry Oliver who points out that since the dealing of drugs is between willing buyers and sellers, the War on Drugs forces cops to use deceit to catch those dealing drugs. Despite all the law enforcement resources put into fighting the drug war, availably of drugs is just as high as before the drug war began.
3 Unintended Consequences are examined including; it sucks children into the underworld, corrupts cops, and creates crime.
John Stossel travels to Colombia and examines the effect of the War on Drugs on the people living there.
Finally Stossel travels to Europe to see how drug legalization has affected society there.
Government planning and detailed control of economic activity lessens productive innovation, and consumer choice. Good, better, best, are replaced by "approved" or "authorized." Friedman shows how "established" industries or methods, seek government protection or subsidization in their attempts to stop or limit product improvements which they don't control. Friedman visits India, Japan and U.S.
Topic: What caused the Great Depression, and how future depressions can be avoided
The Great Depression has been popularly viewed as a failure of capitalism. The stock market crash, the failure of the Bank of the United States, loss of personal savings, were visible symbols supporting this belief. As Friedman explains, the real cause was the unseen failure of government policy and action. Yet this crisis resulting from government failure leads to decades of government expansion.
The welfare state arises from the attempt to do good with other people's money. Such attempts always fail because: Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as his own. Welfare is supply driven. Those spending the money use force to collect it and to insure those receiving it use it for "right" purposes. Good intentions are corrupted by bad means. Friedman visits U.S. and Britain.
Topic: Is equality attainable or even desirable for society?
The Declaration of Independence says, "all men are created equal." Friedman explains that this did not mean all persons should or will have equal talents or income. Equal opportunity to better one's self, and the right to personally benefit from the gains realized, are consistent with freedom. Equality of results requires force. Taking from some to give to others destroys freedom and removes the incentive for creating new wealth. Friedman visits India, U.S. and Britain.
Topic: Are Consumer Protection Agencies the best way to protect the consumer?
Various government agencies have been created on the claim that they will protect the consumer. These agencies restrict freedom, stifle beneficial innovation, and become agents for the industries or groups they are intended to regulate. Friedman explains how the apparent chaos of the market place, the competition of many suppliers for business, is the best protection of consumer interests.
Topic: How government protection, minimum wage, and unions affect workers
Unions sometimes protect some workers - their members - but usually at the expense of other workers. Government protects its employees and special groups of workers at the expense of other workers. Both unions and government restrict freedom. Friedman explains how the competition of employers for the talents of workers leads to the highest wages and best working conditions.
Topic: Why Politicians Favor Inflation and How to Prevent It
Inflation results when the amount of money printed or coined increases faster than the creation of new goods and services. Money is a "token" of the wealth of a nation. If more tokens are created than new wealth, it takes more tokens to buy the same goods. Friedman explains why politicians like inflation, and why wage and price controls are not solutions to the problem. Friedman visits Japan, U.S. and Britain.
Topic: Limiting Government Power to Preserve Democracy and a Free Society
Democracies have only recently been considered desirable. Historically, it was feared that democracies always self destruct when citizens, forgetting that you cannot remove want and misery through legislation, insist on government actions that physically and morally bankrupt their nation. Friedman explains why the United States has so far avoided this outcome and how we can continue to do so. This program includes an interview of Dr. Friedman by Lawrence E. Spivak.
Milton says "Everybody knows what needs to be done. The property that is now in the hands of the state, needs to be gotten into the hands of private people who can use it in accordance with their own interests and values." Eastern Europe has observed the history of free markets in the United States and wants to copy our success. Ironically, we seem unable to turn away from the temptations of socialism despite its long history of bankrupting economies. Introduced by Ronald Reagan. Discussion with Gary Becker, University of Chicago and Sam Bowles, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Topic: The Power of the Market to Promote Prosperity and Freedom
Dr. Friedman states, "There is not a single person in the world who can make this pencil." He explains that the creation of even a simple object - like the "lead" pencil - requires the knowledge of many people, lumberjacks, steel manufacturers, miners, etc. These people may not speak the same language, they may not know or like one another, yet the market enables them to combine knowledge and effort to produce wealth. Introduced by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Discussion with David Brooks, Wall Street Journal and James Galbraith, University of Texas.
"When anyone complains about unfair competition, consumers beware." Friedman tells us about the writings of Adam Smith who, 200 years ago, warned that businesses always try to sell for the highest price and will try to control the market to do so. But without government help businesses cannot force people to buy their goods. Consumers will always get the lowest possible prices when competition is free and robust. Introduced by George Schultz. Discussion with Michael Walker, Fraser Institute and Steve Cohen, UC Berkeley.
Milton Friedman takes a question on slavery and colonialization
Transcript:
Student: First you talk about the injustices which prevail in the so-called communist countries and in the free societies which exist in the capitalist countries and the wealth that has been created there. But you restrict your arguments to the Western European countries, the United States, and Japan. What you fail to point out is that most of the countries in the world are capitalist—that is, the means of production are owned privately or the accumulation of wealth is privately accumulated. Most of these countries have severely repressive governments, and most of them suffer from huge unemployment rates, hunger, and poverty. If we look at India as compared to China which has twice as many people and under its system—the Chinese system—has been able to achieve things for the masses of the people India could not even consider. The same thing goes—
Friedman: Ah, would you come to your question?
Student: All right. Just two more points. Because I—
(comment from audience)
Student: Excuse me, but I’d like a little bit of free speech myself.
(applause)
Friedman: That’s ok. We don’t want to deny you free speech, we just want to have as many people as possible. And I think we’ve gotten—
Student: Thank-you very much. I agree with you so let me finish. The problem which a lot of us feel is first you did not mention, in terms of the countries you are pinpointing, such barbarous countries such as South Africa and Zimbabwe. And in terms of giving your appraisal of the riches that have been accumulated in the western so-called capitalist democracies, I would like you to give us an honest evaluation of just how these countries got so rich so quick and that direct relationship of that to the fact that there were slaves that worked—free labor, and the wealth that was created and this society being a direct product of that relationship and also of the colonial relationships of the Western European countries and the wealth which they bled out of their colonial domain.
(applause)
Friedman: I would be glad to answer those questions. First of all, there’s a sense in which every country in the world is capitalist. The Soviet Union is capitalist. Every country in the world has large capital under control, and the real question is of course, the organization in which the capital is controlled. In the Soviet Union it is controlled by the state or of by officials of the state. In the second place, I have been talking for an hour, I would like to talk you for 10 hours, in a full discussion I would certainly agree with you; that capitalism is not a sufficient condition for freedom. It’s a necessary condition for freedom. I never said that wherever you had capitalism you had freedom. I never said that. I never made that statement. I made the opposite statement. Wherever you had freedom, you had capitalism. Capitalism is a necessary condition for freedom, but not a sufficient condition for freedom. In addition, you need relatively broad access to capital and a relatively free market. Again, relatively. You need competition. I usually refer to it as competitive capitalism to distinguish it from certain kinds of systems which have been capitalist and have all the bad qualities that you describe. In the second place—I don’t want to take much time—to go to your final point. In the second place, it simply is not true that the enormous increase in the wellbeing of the free countries in the west arose out of slavery. Slavery was a blot on our scutch and there is no question, and of course it was a disgrace to this country to have had slavery as long as it did, but if you take Britain which did not have slavery—
(Audience: They had colonies!)
Friedman: I’m going to go to the colonies, that’s the next point. I’m trying to take one point at a time. The gentleman made two separate points, one had to do with slavery, and one had to do with colonies. Britain did not have slaves. Japan did not have slaves in the 100 years since the Meiji Restoration. Hong Kong today does not have slaves. And you ask yourself if you want to know how people feel—ordinary people feel—about different systems, you ask how they vote with their feet. And you ask whether it’s Hong Kong that has to put up police to keep people from Hong Kong going into China, or it’s China that has to put up police to keep people China going into Hong Kong? So look at the way people vote with their feet before you judge which society gives em better conditions. But in any event—
(applause)
Friedman: In any event, let me go to the final point of colonies. In the first place, it’s not true that the wealth or the benefits of the west derive from exploiting the colonies. The facts are against you. The reason why you say that is because it is so hard for people to get out of the notion that life is a zero-sum game. They think that if one man benefits another must loose. But in a free market, both people can benefit. Now if you take the case of Africa, the wheel had not been invented in parts of Africa by the end of the 19th century. The number of people in Africa and their average conditions of life in Africa have grown enormously as a result of their contacts with the west.
(inaudible comment from the audience)
Friedman: Well, I would say you don’t know your facts sir. In the case of India, which is a very famous case, if you look again at the facts all of the studies have shown that it cost Britain more to maintain India—these are some famous studies by Jacob Viner which went into the details of it in great detail—colonialism has always cost the mother country more than it ever got in any direct or indirect economic benefit. Sofar as India was concerned, the history of India is divided into three periods. The period of British rule in the 19th and early 20th century, when there was very real progress in the standard of life of the people of India. The period of the 20’s and the 30’s when there was a great struggle against Britain and for independence when there was essential stagnation in India and there was no growth. The period since the creation of independence in 1948 when you have had a highly centralized government when unfortunately it was Harold Laski, and not Adam Smith, who was the most respected intellectual figure in India. When the Indian people have lost, not improved. When the average amount of food and so on has been going down, not up. The people of India have been worse off under independent, non-colonial government then they had been before. So colonialism, well first of all, where is it that you have colonialism today? You have the classic colonialism behind the Iron Curtain. You have Russia, which is a master country. I mean not the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, but Russia which is the master country with the great colony around it within the Soviet Union in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, in Hungary. That’s the great example today of your classic kind of colonialism. The United States, with trivial exception, has never been a colonial country. It had Philippines for awhile—
(audience comment)
Friedman: Cuba was not a colony of the United States. In any event, you need a sense of proportion. In the period between the revolution in 1776 an 1898 the US had no colonies. And yet that was the period of the greatest growth and the greatest economic development of the United States. Your question.
Milton Friedman on the morality of corporations seeking profits (Part 1of2)
Milton Friedman on the morality of corporations seeking profits (Part 2of2)
Transcript:
Student: I think you’ve done an excellent job tonight of defending capitalism. Capitalism has treated you well. In general it’s treated the people in this audience well, and as you say, people respond to things based on their self-interest. So I think they’ve responded well to you. What I’d like to get to now is the question of the relationship between morality and economic policy which you talked about before in terms of the quotes from Thoreau. You said the worst sort of person is the person who’s going to try to be charitable and who is going to try and be—
Friedman: No, that isn’t what Thoreau said.
Student: Well you said that it was unwise for a person to be charitable or to be sincere.
Friedman: No, no.
Student: What did you say then?
Friedman: Let me repeat Thoreau’s words. Thoreau’s words were, “If I knew for certain that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.” Now that’s not the same thing as being charitable.
Student: Ok, fine I’ll accept that distinction. Take what Thoreau just said and you’ve echoed and apply it to American business. I think, what you’re basically saying is—
Friedman: Apply it to whom?
Student: American business, a corporation.
Friedman: A businessman?
Student: You are the head of a corporation.
Friedman: Oh, you’re applying it to me as the head of a corporation.
Student: Can I ask you the question please?
Friedman: Sure.
Student: Now it seems to me that the implication is that that corporation should not try to do anyone else good, because then the people would run away. What they should do is pursue their own self-interest, and that means profit. And what I’d like to talk about is the implications of that in terms of three concrete examples. I believe that a couple of years ago when there was a major flood in Pennsylvania you came out as opposed to aid for those disaster victims based on the rational that they had bought the land at lower prices because the risk was known and they shouldn’t be given any aid. I’d like people to consider the implications of that.
Friedman: That isn’t what I came out against. I came out against the government providing flood insurance at low cost in advance. I did not come out against private individuals giving charity to people.
Student: But what about disaster aid by the government?
(Audience: what should the government do about the nuclear power plant?)
Friedman: Well it’s the same thing. The nuclear power plant ought to be made to pay full insurance themselves and that ought to be incorporated into their charges. I’m not in favor of government subsidization of nuclear power plant insurance. Look—don’t attribute to me your conventional views about what “a conservative” believes, because I’m not a conservative. I’m a believer in freedom!
Student: Well then I’d like to talk about that using an example. Freedom. In Ohio an old man failed to pay his electric bill. You may be familiar with the case. And the electric company turned off the electricity and he died. The reason they turned it off is because it wouldn’t have been profitable for them to keep it on because he didn’t pay his bill. Do you believe that was right?
Friedman: I don’t know the details of that case at all. But I can well believe—
(interruption from the audience)
Friedman: But I’ll be glad to— No no, excuse me. In many of these cases you hear stories which when you find the details are very different from those that have been presented. But let’s suppose it were true. Which is what I was going to go onto say. You know why do you want to stop me? Why do you assume I’m always going to give the wrong answer?
(laughter)
Friedman: Let’s assume the facts were true. The result is a tragedy. Who is responsible? Is it really the responsibility—should I blame the people—let’s suppose for a moment. Let’s suppose the electric company were to follow the practice of never turning off anybody’s electricity. Let’s just for a moment take that other extreme. Then this wouldn’t have happened. Who would pay the cost?
Student: Are those the only alternatives?
Friedman: Well—for a moment—we can come to other alternatives, but I just want to show you the logic of it. Because I want to show you—
Student: You’re reducing it to absurdity.
Friedman: No no, it’s not an absurdity, because what I want to show you that what you have to ask about, is the costs imposed on different individuals. The electric company is neither. The electric company is a non-human institution. The electric company—what you must talk about are either the stockholders of the electric company, the employees of the electric company, or the customers of the electric company. Those are the people involved. As you go to the other extreme and adopt the policy that the electric company will never turn anything off, then you’ve effectively instituted a system under which the only people who pay for electricity will be those who pay for it voluntarily. Now the number of people who will do that—
Student: Mr. Friedman, are these the only 2 alternatives?
Friedman: No, but I’m just showing you—you’ve gone to one extreme, I’m going to the other extreme and show you that where the responsibility really lies for they kind of thing you’re describing. The responsibility really lies not on the electric company for turning it off, but on those of this mans neighbors, and friends, and associates who are not charitable enough to enable him as an individual to meet the electric bill. You’re blaming the wrong person for what happened.
Student: Ok, well I think people understand that example. I have just one more, this has to do with the Ford Pinto. I’m not sure if you’re aware of recent revelations that have come about the production of that car, Ford produced it knowing full well that in any rear end collision the gas tank would blow up because they had failed to install a $13 plastic block in front of the gas tank and Ford estimated in an internal memo that that would cost about 200 lives a year and estimated further that the cost of each life would be $200,000. They multiplied and found that the cost of installing those blocks in the cars would be more than the cost of saving those 200 lives. And over the past 7 years the car’s been produced and over 1,000 lives have been lost. It seems to me that Ford did what would be the right thing according to your policy and yet that seems to me to be very wrong.
Friedman: Well, let me ask you, let’s suppose it would cost a billion dollars per person. Should Ford have put them in none the less?
Student: It’s not a question of that. It’s a question—
Friedman: You’re only arguing about price. You’re not arguing about principle. Nobody can accept the principle that an infinite value should be put on an individual life. Because, in order to get the money involved—in order to get the resources involved, it’s not money—they have to come from somewhere. And you want the policy that maximizes the situation overall. You cannot accept the situation that a million people should starve in order to provide one person with a car that is completely safe.
Student: That’s absolutely right.
Friedman: Right, and therefore you’re not arguing anything about principle. You’re just arguing whether Ford using $200,000 was the right number or not.
Student: No I’m not arguing that.
Friedman: Suppose it was $200 million? What should Ford have done?
Student: $200 million for what?
Friedman: Suppose it would cost $200 million per life saved? Should Ford still have spent that $200 million?
Student: You mean per—that’s not really the question.
Friedman: Yes it is the question. That’s the principle of the question. That’s the only principle involved. I don’t know whether Ford did the right thing. It’s a question of whether these numbers are valid numbers, for the relative cost of different things. You’re not arguing about a principle if you once agree with me that if it had been $200 million—the cost per life saved had been $200 million—you would not argue. Look, let me go back for a moment—
Student: Can I say something in response to that? If Ford had not been able to market those cars in the same kind of economic bracket because of the price of installing this one plastic block that would be a different question. Maybe Ford could have considered re-designing the whole car so as to make it cheaper. But what we’re talking about is balancing advantages and balancing disadvantages. I’m a supporter of abortion. Therefore I don’t believe that every single human life is sacred. I believe that principles have to be balanced. And yet I don’t see Ford spending $13 less on each car at the cost of 200 lives a year as being a principled position to take and yet I think your logic requires it.
Friedman: Suppose it had been one fewer life per year. So that the $13 per car, so that that one life, instead of being 200 times—$40 million—suppose that it had been one life a year so that it would have cost $40 million, would it then have been ok for Ford to not to have put in that block?
Student: You can’t predict that one life will be lost because of a physical defect in the car. This was a clear—
Friedman: I know, I know, but you’re evading the question of principle.
Student: No I’m not; I’m saying they knew before they put the car out—
Friedman: Look, look, excuse me. You know when you buy a car; you know that your chance of being killed in a Pinto is greater than being killed in a Mac truck.
Student: No I didn’t. I didn’t know that the gas tank would rupture.
Friedman: Every one of us separately in this room could at a cost, reduce his risk of dying tomorrow. You don’t have to walk across the street. The question is, is he willing to pay for it? The question he should be raising is—if he wants to raise the question of principle—the principle he should raise is whether Ford wasn’t required to attach to this car the statement: “we have made this car $13 cheaper and therefore it is one, whatever the percentage is, it is one percent more risky for you to buy. Now then he would be arguing a real question of principle—
Student: Why should they do that? Doesn’t that interfere with the free enterprise system that you’re touting?
Friedman: No! Not at all.
Student: Why not?
Friedman: The consumer should be free to decide what risk he wants to bear. If you want to pay $13 for that, you should be free to do it. If you don’t want to pay $13 for that—
Student: Then the government does have the right to require information of corporations.
Friedman: No, no. The government has the right to provide courts of law in which corporations that deliberately conceal material that is relevant can be sued for fraud and made to pay very heavy expenses. And that is a desirable part of the market. Of course. What I’m trying to say to you, is that these things are really a little bit more subtle and sophisticated than you are at first led to believe. You can’t get easy answers along this line. Because your way of putting it doesn’t really get at the fundamental principle. The real fundamental principle is that people individually should be free to decide how much they’re willing to pay for reducing the chances of their death. People mostly aren’t willing to pay very much. I personally regard this as very, very illogical. I see people on all sides of me smoking. Now there’s no doubt, nobody denies that increases their chance of death. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be free to smoke, don’t misunderstand me, I just think they’re fools to do it. And I know they’re fools, because I quit on the basis of the evidence 18 years ago. But that’s the real issue. And if you want to berate Ford, you ought to berate it on those terms. Not on the grounds that you don’t think they used the right number. Now look, I don’t think we can keep on going much longer. I’m afraid we’re gonna run out of tape and I’m afraid I’m gonna run out of voice. So I think I’ll call it there. Thank-you.
About Milton Friedman Speaks
The preceding clips are from a 15-part lecture series delivered by Milton Friedman from 1977 to 1978 entitled "Milton Friedman Speaks". The lectures were originally intended to serve as the core content of what later became the Free to Choose television programs and subsequently the best selling book of the same title.
From Free to Choose's producer Bob Chitester:
"When I first approached him about hosting a TV series, Milton was concerned about his ability to "talk to the camera," so he proposed giving a series of lectures, which would be used as the core of the TV programs. In an effort to convince him to undertake the venture, I agreed to try this approach, while explaining my reservations. After doing about six of the scheduled lectures, he realized my assessment was correct, but since he had already agreed to the other appearances, all 15 were completed.
The lectures will introduce you to Milton Friedman's brilliant analytical skills while demonstrating his ability to make economics understandable. "
Parental choice and parental responsibility in the education of children is the U.S. tradition and is consistent with a free society. Centralized government control has eroded freedom and adversely affected the quality of education. The poor help pay for education for the future rich. Friedman has long advocated using vouchers to solve the problem. In "Free to Choose 1980 Volume 6 - What's Wrong With Our Schools?" he explains why. Friedman visits U.S. and Britain and debates Albert Shanker; President of the American Federation of Teachers, John Coons; Initiative for Public Choice in California, Thomas Shannon; National School Boards Association, and Gregory Anrig; Department of Education.
Free To Choose was an award winning PBS television series featuring the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman. 10 films make up the series, each featuring a short documentary where Milton Friedman presents his views on a given topic followed by a discussion and debate with various participants including politicians, academics, business people, et al.
In general the views expressed are contrary to the status quo of government involvement in daily life. At the time the series first aired it was given poor time slots by station managers that did not want it broadcast, and the program was even banned in France. Despite this suppression, the series went on to become a smash success leading to the best selling non-fiction book of 1980 and a follow-up series in 1990.
Citing Thomas Jefferson from "Profanity and Free Speech"
Environmental Hysteria
Sweatshops from "Wal-Mart Hatred"
Norman Borlaug on Genetically Modified Food from "Eat This!"
Penn & Teller: Bullshit! is an Emmy-nominated American documentary television series that has been on the air since 2003 on the premium cable channel Showtime. It is hosted by professional magicians/comedians Penn & Teller. Many episodes aim to debunk what the hosts see as pseudoscientific ideas, supernatural beliefs, popular fads and misconceptions, and often from a libertarian point of view, the political philosophy espoused by both Penn and Teller. The show criticizes proponents of what they perceive as nonsense and dishonesty—bullshit—often citing ulterior political or financial motives. The stated aim of the show is to apply critical thinking to misconceptions, and as is indicated by the show's title, the program adheres to Penn & Teller's characteristically blunt, aggressive presentation.
Supernatural subjects of episodes include alien abduction, alternative medicine, and ESP; other episodes cover social issues such as the War on Drugs, animal rights, gun control, education, and environmentalism.
Showtime has not permitted full episodes of Bullshit to remain on Google Video and YouTube, however some excellent short clips such as the ones above are available and of course all episodes are downloadable through Bit Torrent.
Episode List
Season 1
101 Talking to the Dead (John Edwards) 102 Alternative Medicine 103 Alien Abductions 104 End of the World (Doomsday Prediction) 105 Second Hand Smoke / Baby Raising 106 Non-Surgical Sexual Enhancements 107 Feng Shui / Bottled Water 108 Creationism vs Evolution 109 Self-Helpless (Self-help Seminars) 110 ESP 111 Eat This! (Dieting, Genetically Modified Food) 112 Ouija Boards / Near Death Experiences 113 Environmental Hysteria
Season 2
201 P.E.T.A. 202 Safety Hysteria 203 The Business of Love 204 War on Drugs 206 Profanity and Free Speech 205 Recycling 207 Yoga / Tantric Sex 208 Fountain of Youth (Plastic Surgery) 209 Death, Inc. (Funerals) 210 12-Stepping 211 The Bible: Fact or Fiction? 212 Exercise vs. Genetics 213 Hypnosis
Season 3
301 Circumcision 302 Family Values (Traditional Family Structure & Marriage) 303 Conspiracy Theories 304 Life Coaching 305 Holier Than Thou (Mother Theresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Dali Lama) 306 College 307 Big Brother 308 Hair 309 Gun Control 310 Ghost Busters 311 Endangered Species 312 Signs From Heaven (Miracles and Religious Icons) 313 The Best
Season 4
401 Boy Scouts 402 Prostitution 403 The Death Penalty 404 Cryptozoology 405 Ground Zero (911 Rebuilding) 406 Pet Love 407 Reparations 408 Manners 409 Numbers 410 Abstinence
Most everyone agrees, America's health-care system is a mess.
Millions of Americans lack health insurance and still our annual health-care costs exceed $2 trillion — that's about the size of the entire economy of China. For the country with the world's "best" medical care, a lot of people seem unhappy.
Many hate the insurance industry.
Employers have seen insurance premiums rise 87 percent over the last seven years. General Motors now spends more on its employees' health insurance than on steel. Doctors are fed up, too; the average physician's office spends 14 percent of its income filling out paperwork.
No one seems angrier than the patients who have been denied care. Vicki Readling of North Carolina was diagnosed with breast cancer after she had quit her job and lost her employer's insurance. Readling purchased temporary insurance for herself, but when it expired she was told that because of her pre-existing condition — cancer — she would now have to pay $27,000 a year for a new policy. With an income of $60,000 and twin sons in college, she couldn't afford it.
Insurance industry spokeswoman Karen Ignani is eager to report that most people aren't like Readling. Polls show that while people dislike the insurance industry in general, 87 percent of people with health insurance are happy with their coverage. Only 3 percent of health insurance claims are denied, she says.
In his hit documentary "Sicko," Michael Moore focuses on tragic stories of people whose insurance claims have been denied. His prognosis? He calls for "the elimination of private profit-making health insurance companies" and suggests turning over all health-care spending to the government to provide "free" health care to everyone. He goes to countries like Canada and Britain and implies that their socialized systems are far better than that of the United States.
'What It Costs When It's Free'
There are many problems with health insurance, but that doesn't mean we should put the government in control. If it's decided that health care should be paid for with tax dollars, then it's up to the government to decide how that money should be spent. There's only so much money to go around, so the inevitable result is rationing.
It's just the law of supply and demand. Lowering prices increases demand. Lowering the price to nothing pushes demand through the roof. Author P.J. O'Rourke said it best: "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."
When health care is free, governments deal with all that increased demand by limiting what's available.
The reality of "free" health care is that people wait. In the United Kingdom, one in eight patients waits more than a year for hospital treatment and the British government recently set its goal to keep wait times to less than 18 weeks — that's more than four months! In Canada, almost a million citizens are waiting for necessary surgery and more than a million Canadians can't find a regular doctor. In the small town of Norwood, Ontario, a weekly drawing is held in which a townsperson wins the right to access the town's one family doctor.
Governments ratchet down health-care costs in different ways. Doctors went on strike last year in Germany because their government's system pays them less than they thought they deserved and forces them to work thousands of hours of unpaid overtime. In the United Kingdom, one hospital was inspired to save money money by not changing sheets daily. British papers report that instead of washing the linens, nurses were told to just turn the bedsheets over.
Government is less the answer to our health-care crisis than the problem. It was our government that helped to create the absurd system in which two out of three Americans get health insurance through their employer. In a country where four in 10 Americans change their job every year, this system makes little sense; it leaves people like Readling without coverage when they need it most. Related Stories
The government also makes insurance expensive by mandating the medical services that policies must cover. Required services vary state by state and include massage therapy, pastoral counseling, acupuncture, hair prosthesis and dentures. Such mandates are a reason why an individual policy in New Jersey costs around $4,000 a year while a policy in Iowa costs only a third of that. Yet insurance regulations make it illegal for someone in New Jersey to buy a policy from out of state.
The Way We Pay
Another problem that raises costs, and keeps individuals from controlling their own health care, is the way we pay for medical care. Out of every dollar that the United States spends on health care, only 12 cents comes out of the pocket of patients, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Most of us have our medical expenses covered by a third party, either an insurance company or the government.
When we pay for health care with someone else's money, it creates nasty incentives. It's good to be covered in case of a medical catastrophe, like a heart attack or cancer, but when patients pay for almost everything from physicals to acupuncture using third-party money, they have no reason to care about cost. Because the buyers don't care about cost, neither do the health-care providers.
"It's gotten to the point where doctors don't even know how much it costs them to provide this service or that service or how much an office visit should cost. Try asking a doctor how much an office visit costs and watch their face go blank," said Michael Cannon, director of health policy at the Cato Institute.
Our health-care system has become totally removed from the competitive market forces that have improved every other area of the economy. If patients cared about cost, health-care providers would compete to attract patients. They'd do innovative things to keep costs low while increasing quality.
Harvard Business School professor Regina Herzlinger, author of "Who Killed Health Care?", reminds people that "when Henry Ford came around, cars cost more than houses." By competing for profit, Ford revolutionized the auto industry. In eight years, he cut the price of cars in half while improving quality immensely. In nearly every sector of the economy, prices drop over time as technology improves. Not so in health care.
Customer Service, Competition, Control
Can you e-mail or call your doctor to ask quick questions? In the 21st century, when even small children regularly use computers, many doctors and hospitals don't.
"Why would they?" said Dr. David Gratzer, author of "The Cure." E-mail and telephone consultations aren't things most doctors can get paid for. Dr. John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, said, "The federal government has a list of 7,500 procedures it will pay for — the telephone's not on the list [and] neither is e-mail."
But when patients are in control of their health-care spending, things get better. Lasik surgery isn't covered by most insurance policies, so patients pay for this high-tech procedure out of their own pocket. It's for this reason that laser surgeon Brian Bonanni gives out his cell phone number and e-mail address to all of his patients. He knows that he has to attract patients by making himself available.
Competition has also made Lasik cheaper: While in nearly every other field of medicine, prices have gone up faster than consumer prices in general, the price of Lasik has fallen by as much as 30 percent. The quality of the surgery has also improved. The difference is that people care about prices when they spend their own money, so providers compete to offer services that are faster, better and cheaper.
John Mackey, CEO of the supermarket chain Whole Foods, saw his insurance premiums rise through the roof so he changed the way his employees got health care. He proposed a health insurance plan with a high deductible. To help meet that deductible, the company puts money into a "personal wellness account" for each employee and employees use that money to pay for routine care. The money in the account belongs to the employees and puts them more in control of their health-care spending. Employees pay for the small stuff, like sore throats and sprained ankles, but their health insurance covers them in case of a catastrophe. Accounts like these are typically called HSAs, or Health Savings Accounts.
Mackey saw Whole Foods' health-care costs drop by 13 percent the first year the plan was in place. Some employees objected. They wanted the old "full-coverage" plan back. One wanted "pet bereavement services" covered. Whole Foods then held a vote and "77 percent of team members voted for the health plan that we have today," said Mackey. Today he says most of his employees love the plan because it allows them to spend the money how they want to spend it.
'You and Me'
Whole Foods' health-care costs have been creeping back up lately. Mackey says it's because there are so few people with health plans like his. Only 4.5 million people in America have Health Savings Accounts, according to a 2007 census conducted by America's Health Insurance Plans. That's a tiny fraction of the insurance market, but consumer-directed health plans are a step in the right direction toward placing individuals — not government or insurance companies — in charge of their health-care dollars.
The more people control the money they spend on their own health care, the more people shop around and the more providers compete to attract patients by lowering prices while improving quality. It's putting individuals in control that could turn our health-care sector into the vibrant, competitive marketplace that we see in nearly every other area of our economy.
After all, it's our body and our health. Shouldn't we be in control of how our health-care dollars are spent?
Harvard's Herzlinger said, "Who should decide whether you live or die? Do you want the government to decide? Do you want a health insurer to decide? Who's gonna make that decision? Is it gonna be a government? Is it gonna be an insurer? Or is it gonna be you and me?"
Putting individuals in control of our health — rather than our employers or the government — is a better way to cure what ails America's health system.
On July 7, 2007 FreedomFest concluded with a debate on U.S. foreign policy and the war in Iraq between:
Libertarian Ron Paul & Anarchist Doug Casey vs. Neo-conservatives Dinesh D'Souza & Larry Abraham
Each speaker was given 10 minutes for opening remarks, followed by a 4-5 minute rebuttal from each participant, and finally questions and answers were taken from the audience. A summary of the main points made by each debater are as follows:
Ron Paul, Obstetrician and Congressman from Texas, Libertarian
In general, in the past those who advocated non-intervention won elections.
The constitution did not give permission to the US government to initiate wars of aggression and that was for good reason.
The constitution notes that war should only be waged after a declaration of war from congress.
The founders' advice was to talk to people, trade with them, but not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.
There are many unintended consequences of intervention. As more intervention has taken place over the 20th century, people around the world have become resentful of U.S. foreign policy. This resentment has created blowback as extremist organizations have become motivated to attack the U.S. based on its interventionist foreign policy.
If a non-intervention policy is hard to accept, consider what intervention looks like from the other side. What would we think if the Chinese had troops within our borders and they were teaching us to live like the Chinese and teaching us their religion and their laws? We would be outraged and we would fight to remove their presence.
When Ronald Reagan sent troops to Lebanon and reversed his pledge to never turn tail and run. He explained the reversal due to his realizing the irrationality of the policies of that nation and the hatreds of the region. It was a lesson he had to learn, but we still haven't learned it.
In 1953 we used the CIA to overthrow democratically elected Prime Minister Mohamed Mosedec because we didn't like him defending the interests of the Iranians against the interests of the British and American oil companies. And we wonder why they get angry.
We remember nothing, they forget nothing.
In the 1980's we subsidized the radical madrassa schools and Osama bin Laden to create "freedom fighters" against the communists
We were partners with Saddam Hussein because he was attacking Iran. When he used gas, we looked the other way and actually sold him the gas.
These policies have to stop, and a better managed war in Iraq will not solve America's fundamentally broken foreign policy
For libertarianism to be consistent it should defend the principle of liberty.
Non-intervention can be useful, but it is subordinate to the primary principle of liberty
If you can intervene abroad to secure liberty should you do it? Or should you abstain in the name of non-intervention which would undermine liberty?
It could seem paradoxical to libertarians to use force to secure freedom. However, we have imposed freedom at the point on a bayonet in the past on Japan and Germany. The results have been very positive.
Freedom often comes through force. For example through a revolution. Revolutions are rarely peaceful and never legal. It took a civil war to secure freedom for African Americans. Hence freedom sometimes comes through force.
In retrospect, should we have gone into Iraq? In retrospect, I wish we had focused a little more on Iran. They're clearly the ones seeking WMD's. Unfortunately we can't act in retrospect, we have to act based on the best information available at the time.
Today Muslims have only two choices, Islamic tyranny (like Iran's rule of the Mullahs) or secular tyranny (like everyone else; Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc). From a Muslim point of view there is no freedom in the middle east. The war in Iraq is trying to create a 3rd choice; call it Muslim democracy.
We're not the worlds policeman promoting democracy everywhere. In Iraq we're not trying to impose democracy everywhere, we're simply trying to impose it somewhere to give Muslims an alternative to the forms of tyranny that engulf their world.
The Islamists already control Iran and have been trying for a generation to export the Khomeini revolution to other countries. They are desperate to get another major state, and they've said it should be Iraq. They've announced if they get Iraq they'll then target Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Is the libertarian position that we should sit back and watch this happen? Realistically we have interests in the Middle East and we should defend them.
Why did Islamists attack the US on 9-11? Bin Laden believes that the U.S. is outwardly tough, but inwardly a bunch of cowards. When the fighting get's tough, they'll turn tail and run. They did it in Vietnam and they'll do it again. All they have to do is wait it out in Iraq until the great impatience and weariness of the American people to arise when stoked by the political left and some libertarians that say we should leave. Iraq then falls into their hands.
If we believe in freedom, we should stay and fight for it.
Larry Abraham, Chairman and Founder of Pan-American Capital Group, Neo-conservative
93 years of idiotic, schizophrenia, and insane foreign policy is not the point.
Who really set the stage for Reagan's cut and run in Lebanon? The same people who are setting the stage for the cut and run from Iraq, the editorial board of the New York Times
I'm opposed to helter-skelter intervention, but 911 is different
Hypothetically, if Musharraf in Pakistan goes down, Islamists will gain possession of a nuclear weapon. If Mubarak in Egypt goes down they would they close down the Suez canal. The reality is that's the hand we've been dealt right now.
Very bad things could soon occur so we should act offensively now while we still can to defensively prevent them from taking place in the future.
Doug Casey, founder of Casey Research, Anarchist
The US attacked a backward, primitive country that did nothing to it and which used to be a bosom ally of the corrupt U.S. government.
If a Muslim army had attacked the US, I would hope every American would be out there every night trying to kill a Muslim soldier just like they're out there trying to kill an American soldier
The arguments of the neo-conservatives are complete rhetoric and sophistry.
The war is counter-productive. It can have no benefits. It will destroy American freedom.
When the next 911 occurs, the US government will lock down the country into a police state. That will destroy American freedom and bankrupt the US government.
Should we invade Iraq to defend America? No, continuing now by taking the war to Iran will start WW3
Who's the enemy? We brought freedom to Germany and Japan? Ridiculous! Those were modern industrialized nations which had a government to fight. In this case it's a guerilla war.
The real enemy is not backward Muslims, it's the US government. The Muslims are just misguided human beings who are attacking us because we attacked them.
Should we give them democracy? No. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule dressed up in a sport coat.
What should we have done about 9-11? Should we have attacked Beijing because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor (which is exactly what attacking Iraq is)? No. It was a criminal act not a cause for war.
We can't win a guerilla war. If we go into Iran, the average Iranian who currently is very sympathetic to the U.S. and anti his government will turn anti-American. And then we'll really whack the hornets nest.
Three actions to take to solve this problem: Withdraw all U.S. troops from the 100+ countries they are stationed in. Stop meddling in foreign governments and stop giving foreign aid to Israel and Egypt, etc. Apologize for doing these awful things.
If we take these actions, the Muslim people will stand down and go back to their natural evolution and development.
Rebuttal by Larry Abraham
Who started this conflict? Perhaps it was at the Battle of Tours, a hangover from the Battle of La Ponto, or the British and the French screwing up the Arabs at the end of WWI. Who knows, but 911 was much more than a criminal act.
We didn't start it.
Have you ever been hated and wanted dead just for who you are? Every Jew in Israel knows that feeling. Everyday there's someone over there thinking, "how can we kill those people, they deserve to die, they're worse than pigs." That hatred is not only directed at Israel but also the American people.
Doug has a lot of contempt for this country, but the U.S. is not deserving of contempt. We've made mistakes, sure. But it's not conservatives who are responsible for those mistakes.
I have a son in the Marine Corp. Does that make me a fool? Does that make my sons just worthless battle cannon fodder? I don't think so.
If Doug is right and this country is as contemptuous as he says it is, then this debate is a prelude to chaos, confusion, and genocide.
Rebuttal by Doug Casey
I've got no problem with Israel or the Jews, I just don't want a dog in that fight.
The state of Israel stole the land that now makes up it's borders from the residents that previously lived there.
Before the creation of the state of Israel the Muslims and Christians living in the middle east didn't hate the Jews and they all got along fine.
It's the creation of a state that's the problem where the people who are not controlling the state are disenfranchised.
It's a big problem, but it's not our problem to solve, they have to work it out for themselves.
Larry said I have contempt for the country. No! I said I have contempt for the government.
If you want to kill someone badly enough, you should do it yourself, not get control of a government to do it for you and force others to pay for that action.
Rebuttal by Dinesh D'Souza
The issue here is not just "the government", it's also what the founders stood for. Libertarians believe the founders stood for liberty. Is liberty only good for us? The principled libertarian, like the founders, believes that liberty is a universal aspiration.
The idea of 911 as a police action: Memo to our opponents; the guys that did 911 are all dead. If that's the war on terror then you might as well declare it over. What about all the new terrorists coming out of the madrassas committing bombings all over the world?
The idea that we should pull all of our troops home everywhere and get involved nowhere; if you took this idiotic principle and applied it over the past 100 years...is it the idea that if FDR didn't like Hitler he should go choke him himself?
Blowback; foreign policy is sometimes about the principle of the lesser evil. Sometimes you ally with the bad guy to get rid of the worse guy. In WW2 we allied with the really bad guy--Stalin--because Hitler posed a greater threat at the time.
We sold those weapons to Saddam? Non-sense. The U.S. diplomatically tilted towards Iraq in the 80's because Khomeini then posed a greater threat than Saddam.
It is true we're seeing a blowback. Is the average Muslim in the Sudan or Somalia or Islamabad willing to go to his death because the Palestinians don't have a state? Give me a break. Is the ordinary Muslim willing to kill himself because there are troops in Mecca? There are no troops in Mecca. They're 500 miles away in the Saudi desert. The average Muslim is not saying that in the street.
What they're saying is: the US is the global head of the unbelievers or the pagans. The US is exporting thorough globalization and free trade values that are undermining Islam, destroying the Muslim family, and corrupting the innocence of Muslim children. Pulling home the troops will not stop that. Their argument is the fundamental values of Islam are being attacked.
It is American ideas and values that are at the root of this. Either we stand up and fight for them, or we go down with them.
Rebuttal by Ron Paul
If we had respected private property and not used regulation to take away the responsibility to protect passengers from the airlines themselves, it's likely that the pilots of the planes that were used on 911 would have had guns in the cockpit and been able to defend themselves and prevent the event from occurring.
Now 911 is the excuse for perpetual war. Iraq had nothing to do with 911, yet 911 is the excuse for the initiation of the Iraq invasion.
Our foreign policy creates conditions for terrorism
Christian non-intervention means you don't go to war carelessly and you do not preemptively strike a nation that has not threatened you.
Michael Scheuer is the world expert on Bin Laden who says Ron Paul is the enemy of Al Qaeda because if we take Paul's advice it will remove the primary source of new recruits for Al Qaeda. They like us in their backyard (Iraq) where they can pick us off one by one and wear us down.
Suicide terrorism's root cause is not radical Islam. Robert Pape's book, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism notes the top suicide bombing nation is not Islamic -- it happens to be Sri lanka. I was unconvinced he was right, but he convinced me. The top motivation to get someone to commit suicide terrorism is foreign occupation.
It's the Arabian peninsula that is considered holy land by the terrorists, not just Mecca.
The fundamental principle of the constitution is non-intervention and minding our own business. If we had embraced that principle all along and apply it in the future we will be much safer.
Question and Answer Period
Moderator George Gilder asked what Israel's response should be to Iran's threat of using nuclear weapons. Larry Abraham noted that they do not have the capability now, but we should make it clear that if they do develop the capability that [the US] should take them out. He asked, if we're going to be a world power, shouldn't we act like a world power?
A questioner from the audience asked: why should we be a world power? The point of being a world power is so that we can DEFEND ourselves not so that we can go around beating up on others, he went on to ask D'Souza, why do you think the constitution is for the entire world?
D'Souza responded by saying the founders didn't make the constitution for the world, our civil rights are ours. But the constitution arose from universal principles, everyone is entitled to liberty. Another 911 will destroy freedom in America, if it occurs the US will have to become like Israel, a police state. Since there's been no attack since, everyone has been able to relax and rest easy.
Ron Paul responded to D'Souza by saying that he too fears more 911's as a threat to our freedom. But the threat is not from a foreign power, it's from more Patriot Acts, more National ID Acts, more loss of habeas corpus -- and that's coming from our government. If we want to spread our goodness it should be without force by setting a good example, having a vibrant economy, and minding our own business where people will want to emulate us. You can't do it through use of force!
FreedomFest is an annual festival where "free minds meet" to celebrate "great books, great ideas, and great thinkers" in a liberal, open-minded society. It is independent, non-partisan, and not affiliated with any organization or think tank.
Founded and produced by Mark Skousen since 2002, FreedomFest invites the "best and the brightest" from around the world to talk, strategize, socialize, and celebrate liberty. FreedomFest is open to all and is purely egalitarian, where speakers, attendees, and exhibitors are treated as equals.
Who should attend FreedomFest? It’s open to anyone who enjoys a wide interest in books, art, music, film, and drama in all topics, including science, philosophy, economics, health, sports, technology, business, religion, law, and politics. FreedomFest attracts people of all walks of life and across the political spectrum to learn, debate and honor great books, great ideas, and great thinkers.
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
