pageok
pageok
pageok
Michael Kinsley on Libertarianism:

Washington Post columnist Michael Kinsley deserves credit for taking libertarianism seriously and trying to present a reasoned critique. It's often difficult to make a real effort to understand an ideology very different from one's own instead of just dismiss it.

However, the quality of his criticism is uneven. Here, I focus on two of the most important problems: Kinsley's use of public goods and externalities to attack libertarianism, and his rebuttal to the libertarian critique of paternalism.

I. Public Goods and Externalities.

The most important flaw in Kinsley's critique of libertarianism is that he implicitly assumes that libertarianism rests on claims that the market is virtually perfect in providing for our wants and needs. Thus, he thinks it's a sufficient refutation to point out that the market doesn't deal perfectly with public goods, externalities, and other problems:

So what is wrong with the libertarian case for extremely limited government? Economics 101 teaches some of the basic justifications for government interference in the economy. Some things, such as the cost of national defense, are "public goods." We can't each decide for ourselves how much defense we want. We have to decide that together. Then there are "externalities," which are costs (or, sometimes, benefits) that your decisions impose on me. Pollution is the classic example. Without government involvement of some sort to override our individual judgments, we will produce more pollution than most of us want.

In reality, the case for libertarianism is based on the flaws of government as well as the virtues of the market. To justify the modern activist state, it's not enough to show that the market has shortcomings; you must also prove that the government can A) solve those problems, and B) do so without introducing worse problems of its own. Libertarians contend that government is systematically inferior to the private sector despite the fact that latter has significant flaws. In my view, for example, there is good reason to believe that government is likely to fail more often than the market because the quality of government is greatly undermined by the widespread and rational ignorance of voters; by contrast, market participants have stronger incentives to become informed about the goods and services they purchase and are therefore less likely to make serious mistakes.

It's also unfortunate that Kinsley acts as if libertarians haven't given any thought to public goods and externalities (or have only done so in crackpot ways). In reality, there is a vast libertarian literature on both subjects, some by Nobel Prize-winning economists such as James Buchanan (who won in part because of his work on public goods) and R.H. Coase (who won it for his work showing that markets can effectively address many types of externalities).

Most libertarians (myself included) do concede that there are some public goods that can only be provided by the state. However, there is a lot of evidence suggesting that the market can provide a much wider range of public goods than traditionally assumed. For example, Elinor Ostrom has shown how a combination of property rights and social norms can conserve valuable resources and greatly reduce various environmental externalities. Robert Nelson has documented how private planned communities can provide a variety of local public goods traditionally viewed as the exclusive preserve of local government.

II. Libertarianism and Paternalism.

Kinsley tries to rebut the libertarian critique of paternalistic policies as follows:

Something similar goes on when the government forbids or requires people to do something for their own good. Why shouldn't people, at least adult people, have the right to decide for themselves? .....

The trouble here is that libertarians tend to analogize everything to a right to die. If you have the right to end your own life, you must have the right to do anything else you wish, short of that. If you're allowed to shoot yourself through the head, why aren't you allowed to drive without a seat belt?

The answer is that it's a bad analogy. When you drive without a seat belt, you are not motivated by a desire to die, or even a desire to take a small risk of dying. Why should your motive matter? Because your death — especially your death in a car crash — does impose externalities on others. I would pay good money not to have to see your bloody carcass lying beside the highway, or endure the traffic jam, or pay the emergency room costs. A serious right like the right to die may be worth the cost, while a right to be careless or irresponsible is not.

If Kinsley really accepts the idea that we have a right to die and that government shouldn't forbid you to "shoot yourself in the head," he has already gone a long way toward the libertarian position. I fail to see, however, why he concludes that people have a right to deliberately kill themselves but don't have a right to take a much smaller risk of death by not wearing a seatbelt. Yes, it's true that those who indulge in the latter activity are not motivated by the desire to die or take a risk of death. They may, however, be willing to take a small risk of death in order to achieve some other benefit, such as avoiding the discomfort of wearing a seatbelt. Similarly, many people eat large quantities of hamburgers and drink lots of beer even though they know very well that it's bad for their health and increases the risk of an early death. As I explained in greater detail here, a key flaw of paternalism is that it denies individuals the right to decide for themselves whether the benefits of taking a risk are worth the cost. The mere fact that an activity creates a risk to your health or even your life doesn't necessarily mean that only a "careless or irresponsible" person would do it.

As for Kinsley's laundry list of "externalities" of not wearing a seatbelt, some of them are not externalities at all and others are themselves caused by government intervention. Car accidents, for example, are not caused by not wearing seatbelts, though the latter does increase the danger that you will get hurt if you do get into an accident. The extra damage from not doing so, however, will fall almost entirely on the person who made the decision and is therefore not an externality. As for emergency room treatment, this "externality" is the result of government's decision to subsidize the treatment of injuries caused by motorists' decisions not to wear seatbelts. Eliminate the government intervention and this "externality" disappears.

UPDATE: It's strange that Kinsley thinks that "The Terry Shiavo [sic] case of 2005 was libertarianism's greatest moment so far." Libertarians played only a minor role in the Schiavo debate, which itself was a relatively minor event in American history. I could easily think of many far more important events on which libertarian ideas had a much greater influence. For example, deregulation and privatization policies first advocated by libertarian economists have been adopted in numerous nations around the world. Here in the US, ideas developed by libertarian thinkers have played a major role in the recent resurgence of interest in judicial and legislative protection of property rights.

Ari (www):
One thing I rarely see in discussions of this kind is an understanding that any action government takes must be done with "public" money, or, in other words, money taken from the public by force. Thus, even if the government can in fact ameliorate the effects of negative market externalities, it by no means follows that it should. The proper response to the first paragraph (I) should not be,


In reality, however, any reasonable case for libertarianism is based on the flaws of government as well as the virtues of the market. To justify the modern activist state, it's not enough to show that there are flaws in the market; you must also prove that the government can A) solve those problems, and B) do so without introducing worse problems of its own.


although this can serve as an ancillary argument. Even if both A and B are proved for any given case, the government is still using force to achieve its aim, and that's where the real moral force of the libertarian argument lies.
1.13.2008 7:15pm
byomtov (mail):
As for emergency room treatment, this "externality" is the result of government's decision to subsidize the treatment of injuries caused by motorists' decisions not to wear seatbelts. Eliminate the government intervention and this "externality" disappears.

This point is unclear to me. Is it a general government subsidy you are complaining about, or the requirement that emergency rooms provide treatment, so uncompensated treatment increases costs to other patients?

In any case, I don't see how the emergency room can sensibly refuse treatment of accident victims. Even leaving moral considerations aside, it would be wildly impractical. How exactly can the emergency room know whether an accident victim brought in has insurance, or is otherwise able to pay for treatment?
1.13.2008 7:18pm
AdamL:
I'm with byomtov. How does eliminating the government intervention of subsidizing emergency hospital treatment eiliminate the externality? It just shifts the cost to a different party.
1.13.2008 7:23pm
frankcross (mail):
Fine post, Ilya, but I'd take slight issue on two points.

First, the government failure argument is good, but the problem is that libertarians so often take an a priori argument against intervention and cannot be moved even if the evidence suggests that market failure is worse. And many are like Ari, who reject consequentialism for a more absolute rights position.

Second, on paternalism, you have to consider transaction costs associated with individualized private choice. And some psychological factors. The seat belts issue is a very tough one. No real strong reason for government intervention with mandatory seat belt laws. But they induced a substantial increase private compliance, even with a minimalist enforcement effort. And the world is pretty clearly better off. Theories are important, but real world effects can't be written off with theory
1.13.2008 7:28pm
Malvolio:
How does eliminating the government intervention of subsidizing emergency hospital treatment eiliminate the externality? It just shifts the cost to a different party.
The idea being that the different party is also the party who decided not wear his seat-belt.

The actual example of the emergency room is a weak one, but only because emergency rooms tend to be used in emergencies -- but the socialization of health-care tend to externalize the costs of many private decisions (eating, drug-use, etc.) even when no emergency is involved.
1.13.2008 7:32pm
Ignorance is Bliss:

I would pay good money not to have to see your bloody carcass lying beside the highway, or endure the traffic jam, or pay the emergency room costs.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere! Exactly how much are you willing to pay me to not see my bloody carcass, Michael? If we can negotiate a price that is agreeable to both of us then we have reached a market solution. If not, I guess you'll just have to take your chances.
1.13.2008 8:25pm
Algernon (mail):
Greatest recent libertarian victory: the end of military conscription.
1.13.2008 8:38pm
bittern (mail):
Ilya, if you're claiming to refute Kinsley, please follow the bouncing ball. On the seat-belt thing, he mentions 3 problems he'd face: (1) seeing gore; (2) getting stuck in traffic; and (3) hospital costs. You say "some of them are not externalities at all and others are themselves caused by government intervention," and go on to explain only #3 (which, Byomtov and AdamL, Ilya presumably would not think the hospital should treat). You didn't address #1 or #2. The maimed automobiles and their contents would be removed from the private roads depending on the policies of the roadway corporations. Drivers could pay to drive on roads with efficient gore-cleaners if they so chose.

Ignorance, how much must we collect for you to stop posting, and how would the rest of us split the total?

Very sorry, I'm off now. It's a hit and run.
1.13.2008 8:49pm
Doc W (mail):
Thought I read somewhere that increased use of seatbelts didn't cause lower fatality rates because the sense of security led irresponsible drivers to take more chances on the road. And if seatbelts should transform instant fatalities into severe but survivable injuries, the whole medical-cost argument goes the opposite way. Sort of like the smokers who die early and actually run up less in lifetime medical expenses. Anybody have the latest scoop on that, or am I just repeating myths?

How tiresome, explaining over and over again to left-liberals that the relevant comparison to draw with free markets is not nirvana but government control, with all its problems. Sheer drudgery after awhile, but we all need to pitch in.

By the way, Kinsley refers to libertarians as chipmunky. I'm sorry, but has he looked in the mirror?
1.13.2008 8:55pm
frankcross (mail):
Doc, it's called risk homeostasis, and it was a fascinating proposition advanced by Peltzman and others.

But it is pretty obviously false in its more absolutist version. If it were true, you wouldn't see the pattern of declining traffic fatalities or the correlations with seat belt usage that consistently show up. Once again, libertarians, don't put theory above reality.
1.13.2008 9:03pm
Waldensian (mail):

By the way, Kinsley refers to libertarians as chipmunky. I'm sorry, but has he looked in the mirror?

Solid point. But I see Kinsley as a bit more ferret- or rat-like.
1.13.2008 9:37pm
Alan Gunn (mail):

Sort of like the smokers who die early and actually run up less in lifetime medical expenses. Anybody have the latest scoop on that, or am I just repeating myths?

Kip Viscusi has studied this: his bottom line, last time I looked, was that the average smoker incurs $10,000 less in lifetime medical costs than the average non-smoker. It's not just non-smoking that's expensive, of course--any life-extending practice should increase medical costs because the longer one lives, the more opportunities one has to get sick, and all of us die in the end. The diseases of the very old tend to be pretty expensive, too: Altzheimers, especially.

On the seatbelt thing, though, while compensating behavior is real, the most-recent studies conclude that seatbelts do save lives (though the number is far smaller than the number of people who survive otherwise-fatal crashes because they were wearing seatbelts). It is very likely, though, that seatbelt use by a driver increases risks to people other than the wearer.
1.13.2008 10:06pm
Ilya Somin:
First, the government failure argument is good, but the problem is that libertarians so often take an a priori argument against intervention and cannot be moved even if the evidence suggests that market failure is worse. And many are like Ari, who reject consequentialism for a more absolute rights position.


Neither of these issues is unique to libertarianism. Adherents of virtually all ideologies are difficult to move by evidence that they may be wrong. And of course, there are many deontological ideologies other than libertarianism. So, yes, some libertarians are too dogmatic and others too ready to ignore consequentialist considerations. But the same can be said of liberals, conservatives, socialists, etc.
1.13.2008 10:19pm
Ilya Somin:
Ilya, if you're claiming to refute Kinsley, please follow the bouncing ball. On the seat-belt thing, he mentions 3 problems he'd face: (1) seeing gore; (2) getting stuck in traffic; and (3) hospital costs. You say "some of them are not externalities at all and others are themselves caused by government intervention," and go on to explain only #3

Actually, my point refutes #2 as well. 2 is a caused by accidents, not by not wearing seatbelts, which is not in and of itself caused by refusal to wear seatbelts. As for #1, it is a real externality. However, I don't think that a small risk of causing an unpleasant sight for onlookers is enough to justify restrictions on freedom. But I didn't want to argue that issue in detail in this post, which was already too long.
1.13.2008 10:21pm
luispedro (mail) (www):
The now popular cap&trade method of dealing with pollution is of libertarian origin.

It is, in fact, simply privatising air, or at least some of its uses---how much more libertarian can you get than the privatisation of air?
1.13.2008 10:53pm
Doc W (mail):
Thanks for the feedback.

Kinsley's piece isn't terribly unfriendly, but it is characteristic of the rhetorical approach of "mainstream" types to libertarianism, which is in stark categorical terms: "Libertarians are against government, but without government we'd have no national defense, pollution would run wild, and, you know, they don't even think people should have to buckle up." If you start your reply from that point, it's a long uphill climb. It should be possible to reply in categorical terms: "Government sucks up a third of all we produce, meddles in every aspect of our lives, and gets us into one murderous war after another." Do we want still more of that, like most mainstream politicians and pundits? Or less?

Bedtime for me.
1.13.2008 10:56pm
Mr. Liberal:

However, I don't think that a small risk of causing an unpleasant sight for onlookers is enough to justify restrictions on freedom.


Yes. We wouldn't want to restrict the "freedom" to bleed to death when you lack money to pay for care after a car accident.

Assuming that someone would prefer to live rather than bleed to death is just dirty paternalism.
1.13.2008 11:02pm
Ignorance is Bliss:

Ignorance, how much must we collect for you to stop posting, and how would the rest of us split the total?

For as little as $1000 I could quite happily keep my thoughts to myself. Really quite a small price to pay, if you split it up amongst all the Conspiracy readers.
1.13.2008 11:02pm
frankcross (mail):
Everything has externalities. Everything. Simply citing externalities does not justify government intervention, or it justifies limitless government intervention. And the best case for the mandatory seat belt laws is not the externalities, which are not that great. It's paternalism. They've saved a good number of lives by creating a cultural norm that was much better. Indeed, this shows the complexity of the issue. Enforcement of those laws is neither severe nor commonplace. But they caused much wiser individual free will decisionmaking.
1.13.2008 11:14pm
tvk:
Ilya, actually, I think Kinsley has an important point that you do not mention, which is that some form of economic equality is necessary to sustain political equality. I think it is fair to say that, without government intervention, economic liberty leads to greater inequality. Within limits, this is not usually a problem.

But if society had 50% of economic resources concentrated in, say, 1% of the population, long term political stability is virtually impossible. You will either see (1) a populist revolution (e.g. communist Soviet Union) or (2) brutal suppression to keep the status quo (e.g. name your favorite dictatorship), or (1) leading to (2) (again, communist Soviet Union). Enough to say that the end result will not be a libertarian paradise.

So if unchecked economic liberty leads to the type of inequality I describe above (and given unequal initial distribution of talents and wealth, this is entirely possible after several generations of accumulation), then unchecked libertarianism is kind of self-defeating. I am of course not advocating Marxism, but have doubts about the total lack of government intervention (and tax redistribution is one of the most important forms of government intervention).
1.13.2008 11:16pm
Brian K (mail):
Ilya,

Actually, my point refutes #2 as well.

Not entirely. The disruption to traffic is dependent on the severity of the traffic accident. The more severe the accident or the more severe the injuries to people in the cars, the longer the traffic jam. Seatbelts help protect the occupants which means ambulances have to be called out less often and the cars and debris can be cleaned up quicker. In this way, wearing seatbelts can decrease the length of time kinsley has to wait in traffic.
1.13.2008 11:41pm
BGates:
Brian K, I'm not sure seat belts work that way. If they tend to shift the result of an accident from severe injury to light or no injury, you're right. If they shift the result to severe injury from death, then wearing seat belts increases the need for ambulances and the traffic jam in the same manner that smoking decreases health care costs.

tvk - surely we're there now (50% wealth owned by 1% population), and have been for some time.
1.14.2008 12:38am
Brian K (mail):
If they shift the result to severe injury from death, then wearing seat belts increases the need for ambulances

If someone dies, then the coroner or someone else who takes the dead body away needs to be brought in. this is likely to take even longer. A dead body isn't an emergency situation and so lights and sirens will most likely not be used (either by law or company policy to limit liability).
1.14.2008 12:51am
newscaper (mail):
I think one positive effect of wearing is being overlooked:

At the margin of car accidents, being about to lose control of the vehicle - say after skidding off the road, a blowout at speed, or hitting an unexpected pothole or speedbump -- it is very likely that a seatbelt helps keep the driver behind the wheel and in [potential] control of the vehicle.

If you can remain in the driving position -- hands &feet on the controls, then its possible to avoid a worse accident, one which might harm others outside your vehicle.

So I think requiring seatbelt use is much less "meddling" in a supposedly victimless situation than, say, requiring motorcycle hemlets.
1.14.2008 9:23am
DLM (mail):

But if society had 50% of economic resources concentrated in, say, 1% of the population, long term political stability is virtually impossible. You will either see (1) a populist revolution (e.g. communist Soviet Union) or (2) brutal suppression to keep the status quo (e.g. name your favorite dictatorship),


Aside from the wild speculation, this is flawed because it assumes the top 1% has control over 50% of a static pie. That's not reality. The top 1% already control a very sizeable portion of the country's wealth, but everyone is constantly getting richer because the economy grows. If I am getting richer why should I care that Bill Gates is getting richer at a faster rate? Moreover, the top 1% is not static. People move up and down the economic ladder.

I did not like Kinsley's piece because it presented a caricatured view of libertarians. Perhaps I am wrong, but I can't recall any prominent libertarian calling for the privatization of national defense.

The discussion of seat belts and ambulances is interesting precisely because, in my view, it illustrates the blind spot of so many liberals -- i.e., that even the most well-intended government programs systematically decrease freedom. Roadside emergency care begets laws requiring seatbelts, because we've got to keep costs down. Liberals brush the issue of personal choice aside as trifling and meaningless, but it creates a mindset where far more important liberties get the same short shrift. We've already moved on to lawless government attempts to "recoup" medical costs by shaking down the tobacco companies, and to calls for all sorts of regulations on what we eat. If we let the Democrats impose a state-run healthcare system, it will get worse in a big hurry.
1.14.2008 10:26am
Kent G. Budge (mail) (www):

Robert Nelson has documented how private planned communities can provide a variety of local public goods traditionally viewed as the exclusive preserve of local government.


How does a private planned community differ significantly from a new, very local level of government? This is an argument for federalism, not for libertarianism.
1.14.2008 10:50am
AK (mail):
I don't recall the Terri Schaivo affair having much to do with libertarianism. The debate wasn't over whether Terri had a right to die; it was over whether her husband Michael controlled the decision to withhold care, what constituted evidence that Terri would not want to continue living in her state, and whether there should be a presumption of life when the patient's wishes are unknown.

Certainly the most vocal libertarians tended to line up on Michael's side, but I attribute that to the libertine bent of the Reasontards. My understanding of libertarianism makes me doub thtat it necessarily leads to any particular conclusion in Terri's case.
1.14.2008 12:30pm
AK (mail):
How does a private planned community differ significantly from a new, very local level of government? This is an argument for federalism, not for libertarianism.

Private planned communities can eliminate free rider problems in ways that governments cannot. If you don't pay your association fee, the community can kick you out. If you pay less than the mean in taxes (or no taxes at all), that's because you have a low income (or no income at all). Those people without incomes still get the snow plowed in front of their houses.
1.14.2008 12:40pm
AK (mail):
No discussion of libertarianism and emergency services would be complete without a link to this article:

Libertarian Reluctantly Calls Fire Department
1.14.2008 12:46pm
Mike Z (mail) (www):
The emergency room argument is worse than weak, it's flawed. Not everyone who ends up in an ER is a motorcyclist who thinks helmets are for sissies, or drivers too careless to buckle up. There are people just walking down the street who get hit by a car. People who get heart attacks.

One problem with Libertarianism is that it's a fine economic/political theory with only a few contacts with the real world. Friedman gave us the idea of school vouchers (with a short list of conditions), but in the one state where I thought they would go over big (Utah), the teachers unions fought a life-or-death battle to defeat them. And maybe it was life-or-death, for the unions.

I think it's reasonable to ask whether Libertarianism can work today. We've come so far down a twisted trail that it's practically apparent that neither true liberalism nor true conservatism (let alone the economic theories) can work. (All we know for certain that Socialism, Marxism, and Communism are doomed to failure - even though some liberal groups seem determined to give Socialism one more good old college try. I would invite them to go somewhere else and give it a go.)
1.14.2008 12:56pm
dossier:
".....but I can't recall any prominent libertarian calling for the privatization of national defense.

And I can't recall any prominent libertarian saying exactly what they would privatize and what they wouldn't. Until libertarians are willing to go through the federal budget, for example, and say what they would cut and what they would keep, calls for "limited government" are meaningless. Kinsley is wrong to suggest that libertarians would privatize national defense; libertarians are wrong to fail to tell the rest of us exactly what their limited government would look like. Arguing for or against limited government is a waste of time unless we know what will be limited and what won't.
1.14.2008 1:07pm
Mr. Liberal:

If you pay less than the mean in taxes (or no taxes at all), that's because you have a low income (or no income at all). Those people without incomes still get the snow plowed in front of their houses.


Oh, I see. We should radically alter society so that poor people do not enjoy the benefits of snow plows. The horror! The horror! How dare they!

That sounds like a compelling argument for libertarianism.
1.14.2008 1:22pm
stan:
You really have to stretch it hard to think Schiavo had anything to do with Libertarian principles. So hard, it breaks
1.14.2008 1:51pm
Kent G. Budge (mail) (www):

Private planned communities can eliminate free rider problems in ways that governments cannot. If you don't pay your association fee, the community can kick you out.


And how is this different from a local government exiling a citizen for failing to pay his taxes?

I like the fact that a small community can do this. Part of the reason is that one can vote with one's feet, which is a pretty big check on a very small government. But the fact remains that it is a government in all but name.

I also like the fact that a small community can make its social contract explicit, and you are either signed on or not. But the fact remains that this is a social contract in all but name.

I like federalism because I believe that a small polity is less dangerous than a large polity. Note "less dangerous", not "safe": I know how to pronounce "Jim Crow." I note that, during the worst years of Jim Crow, southern blacks were still free to move north, and a great many did. This reduced the evils of Jim Crow, not as much as we would like, but some.
1.14.2008 2:00pm
AK (mail):
And how is this different from a local government exiling a citizen for failing to pay his taxes?

Surely you appreciate the difference between not paying your taxes and having a tax bill of $0.
1.14.2008 2:12pm
Fraidy (mail):
My dog has views on the Counsil of Trent.

Mr. Bowser is at least as informed and doesn't have a grr-udge against the protestants.
1.14.2008 2:26pm
Stevethepatentguy (mail) (www):
Ilya, as probably your only reader who has extricated a dead body from a car, I have a few points.

1) It takes longer to extricate a dead body than a live one. We are in a much bigger hurry to get live people out, so we can save their lives. We will put ourselves at risk in order to speed the process, on a live body.

2) We go to all accidents with lights and sirens, not many calls come in as "fatal accident at Fourth and Main." If we are on the side of the road we will have lights flashing and traffic stopped or diverted. Those lights and the slow speeds are for our protection as much as the patient or the other drivers.

3) Costs are substantially lower for fatal accidents. If we show up and the patient is dead we call the coroner or a private ambulance. No Medevac helicopter ($5000), No Trauma center ($1000 per hour), No long term hospitalization ($800 per day).

4) We try to cover the "bloody carcass" as soon as possible, more out of respect for the dead than to save Kinsley's innocence.
1.14.2008 2:52pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
The actual example of the emergency room is a weak one, but only because emergency rooms tend to be used in emergencies -- but the socialization of health-care tend to externalize the costs of many private decisions (eating, drug-use, etc.) even when no emergency is involved.

That's right, but seat belt laws and helmet laws tend to disproportionally bother committed libertarians, because of their nanny-state overtones. So Kinsley is right to point to them to show that yes, libertarianism is sometimes so attached to personal freedom (not a bad principle to be attached to, by the way) that its advocates sometimes do not pay sufficient attention to externalities.
1.14.2008 3:03pm
LM (mail):
Ilya said,

So, yes, some libertarians are too dogmatic and others too ready to ignore consequentialist considerations. But the same can be said of liberals, conservatives, socialists, etc.

Aren't you letting yourself off too easy? Of course every ideology has a rug under which its true believers sweep the dirt, and isn't that the piece of all of them that requires more, not less attention?

Surely you're not justifying libertarians staying willfully blind just because everyone else does?
1.14.2008 6:26pm
byomtov (mail):
Ilya presumably would not think the hospital should treat

I give him more credit than to imagine he could think such an idiotic thing.
1.14.2008 11:22pm