July 29, 2009
Megan McArdle Demolishes National Health Care
I love preaching-to-the-choir stuff and the wild rumpus technical, internecine philosophical arguments we get into around here make life worth living.
But I am always on the lookout for an article that might convince somebody "on the other side." And I think Megan McArdle's health care piece is awesome on stilts in platform shoes. It is a great, first principles, takedown that I think can be shared with anybody. Tell them she supported Obama. This is not some FOXNews piece that they can instantly discard.
I broke a longstanding rule and put this on Facebook today. I do my politics here and appreciate people's kids' pictures over there. But I hope for a lot of my left leaning friends to read this. I will be mailing it out as well.
Nope, not gonna excerpt. Read it. Send it to somebody.
Hat-tip: Instapundit
Superb. "Government monopoly on healthcare" was the money-line. Required reading.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 29, 2009 12:11 PMSuperb? No, it was utterly clueless. That moronic little girl never ceases to put pseudo-libertarian tripe after tripe.
"Basically, for me, it all boils down to public choice theory."
First, she shouldn't throw around terms like "public choice theory" that she doesn't understand.
Second, it's a matter of individual choice, aka freedom.
"Advocates of this policy have a number of rejoinders to this, notably that NIH funding is responsible for a lot of innovation. This is true, but..."
This was easy to debunk, and she missed it. Bastiat's parable of the broken window tells us that while the NIH does certain things with the money, imagine what more the private sector could have done with the same money.
She might have another point or two somewhere in there, but if she can't get the fundamental argument down, I'm not going to waste my time.
Remember, this is the idiot who thinks children are "a special libertarian case," and as such people should be taxed so all children have basic education and so forth. This is the goddamn imbecile who dares to call herself "Jane Galt" and doesn't know the first thing about Ayn Rand.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 29, 2009 1:49 PMYou'll have to be careful, Perry. I'll start linking to her just to get your pyrotechnics machine wound up!
I can find much to disagree with McArdle on, but nothing in this post. The people to whom I mail it will not know her position on children (I did not myself) or her old blog name.
But I will mail to many who would not read, understand, or be suaded by Monsieur Bastiat. Yet they will understand McArdle's reticence to further empower government. And they will appreciate the theft of medical innovation from those not yet born or sick. I try to tell people about that and their eyes glaze over. McArdle nails it
Posted by: jk at July 29, 2009 2:55 PMMmmm, I dunno, Perry. I'll concede the purity and basic truth of your argument and I'll accept your assessment of McArdle since I have not followed her. But as an argument that can be understood by and potentially sway Joe Public, this is pretty darn good - the best I've seen in that category.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 29, 2009 3:00 PM"who would not read, understand, or be suaded by Monsieur Bastiat."
Bastiat's arguments are as clear and incontestible today as when he first published his works. If people do not listen to him, it's their folly. If they listen to the likes of McArdle pseudo-libertarianism, that's even more to their folly.
My friend Billy Beck is right. People must be persuaded on the basis of principles, and that means arguing on the side of freedom. This utilitarianism crap doesn't cut it.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 29, 2009 3:57 PMLet me put it more bluntly: if someone cannot understand an argument based on freedom, then that person doesn't deserve it. That person deserves to remain a slave to the state.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 29, 2009 3:59 PMI'm with you on this PE but until the constitutional shackles are put back on our government we are, as Red Green says, "all in this together."
Posted by: johngalt at July 29, 2009 4:05 PMTo come to jk's defense-
Bastiat is a hard read. I would not call his arguments clear- they are lengthy, theoretical, and written some 150 years past. Much like the words of James Madison or James Wilson, they are brilliant, but they are not an easy read.
Mcardle provides a piece that is understandable to those not familiar with intricacies of economic theory, accessible to every average Joe who picks up the Atlantic, short enough to read on the subway home from work, and directly relevant to the lives of every American today.
Posted by: T. Greer at July 29, 2009 8:00 PMT, are you serious? Bastiat is some of the easiest economic reading I've ever encountered, and his insights transcend time. Well, a lot of people didn't and still don't fully understand Jesus' parables either.
Maybe it's a bad translation you've read. The Foundation for Economic Education has sponsored some excellent translations of "The Law" and "What Is Seen," which are enough to give anyone a firm grounding on liberty and government intervention. Bastiat's other works like "Economic Harmonies" are a bit more theoretical but still understandable, if you started with his two most famous works.
I've been a heavy critic of McCardle and won't stop. Like Larry Kudlow, she's watering down what we need to be arguing: liberty. Throwing in politico-economic phrases like "public choice" weaken her arguments, not strengthen them.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 30, 2009 10:38 PM | What do you think? [9]