In Defense Of Lindsay Lohan

Drug Policy, Pop Culture, Victimless Crimes
By / / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Wild child Lindsay Lohan is apparently not a fan of staying out of trouble — nothing but private and public battles with family members, lovers, the media and, lately, the state (see here, here, here, here, here and here). In my opinion, her life is a mess. Yet I must come to her rescue — if only ideologically. You see, LiLo is a victim.

If you thought prohibition was repealed, think again. From minimum drinking age laws to laws that prohibit even parents, in some states, from responsibly introducing alcohol to kids, the state still manages to control not just the alcohol industry but those consuming it. Indeed, if you consume alcohol in places and times that the state deems “illegal,” you will be treated like cattle — literally. Indeed, Lohan has been in the past required to wear an alcohol monitoring bracelet. She has also been required to forcibly attend rehab (let’s see: a chain, involuntary migration — yep, sounds like a form of slavery to me) and comply with various others threats by the state.

The support for the war on drugs is sickening. From what I can tell, almost everyone has been bashing Lohan and praising the judge and the almighty legislation that makes these atrocities happen. Sure, if Lohan committed a real crime against someone else’s property or body, then she’d be guilty. However, the government’s gauntlet was thrown because she had the audacity to say no. There is no obligation to show up in court. LiLo’s record ought to be expunged. Set her free at once.

Repeal the drinking age. Legalize drunk driving. Repeal the war on drugs. Abolish the prisons. Why not repeal the state while we are at it.

Oh, and regarding the judge who sentenced an innocent person? I agree with Lohan’s sentiments:

In Defense Of Lindsay Lohan Read Post »

…and this is bad because?

Education, Nanny Statism
By / / 2 Comments / 1 minute of reading
Share

Over 2,400 tax-feeders-in-training are threatening to go ‘on strike’ by skipping classes today in protest over the MTA’s plan to cut NYC students’ free usage of the subway & bus system, which is an annual subsidy of at least $214 million (assuming they only use it twice a day to travel between home and school.)

Students decry the hardship and indignity of having to actually pay for something which might cut into their costly cell phone, video game and designer-jeans budgets. The strange thing is that I can’t see the downside here — in fact I’d like to think of this as a ‘win-win’ situation.

…and this is bad because? Read Post »

The Coming Obamacare Healthcare Inequality: Concierge Medical Services

Health Care
By / / 3 minutes of reading
Share

My wife and I have a great doctor. She has a small clinic nearby with a few other doctors, who are also all very good. Our doctor has a waiting list for people who want to be her patient. We have over the years recommended several people, even some who live 20 miles away, to her. She is very nagging–in a good way. She makes you promise to get a physical, eye exam, etc., intervenes to get you an appointment with a specialist if you need one, etc. Follows up by phone, and so on. She is great.

She recently announced to us that she is moving to some kind of “concierge” service–she figures she basically provides that kind of above-average service already, and this is a way to reduce her patient load (from about 4000 to about 400), and escape some of the regulatory burden that Obamacare is going to impose. So she’s picking a select group of her current patients–about 10% of them–and they will be allowed to remain her patients–for $1600/year each. Now, we love our doctor, so will probably do this. And 3600 of her patients will now lose their favorite doctor. Thanks, in part, to Obamacare.

So, you can see what’s coming. The affluent will have to pay more–in our case, $3200 a year more–but for even better service than we already get. And others will have increasingly slim pickings. Case in point, I mentioned this to some friends, and my TLS co-blogger Brian Martinez noted: “This is what my wife’s doc did, too. Went to a concierge system. Unfortunately we couldn’t justify the extra expense and pay for health insurance for the rest of the family. So my wife had to leave her doctor of 10 years and find a new one, and she hates to switch doctors.”

Expect to see more of this. I had never heard of it before and am still waiting to hear the details from our doctor (some information will be mailed later), but a google search revealed that this is indeed a growing trend; see Health care reform laws prompt surge in ‘concierge medicine’, Are Concierge Medical Services on the Upswing?, and Royal Pains: Can Concierge Medicine Coexist With Obama’s Healthcare Plan?

So, Obamacare will only exacerbate healthcare “inequalities,” and diminish the quality of care of many people. The government will then use this as an excuse to bash “greed” and “inequality,” and clamp down further, driving us closer to outright socialized medicine. As one of the articles above noted, “Critics say boutique medicine will only exaggerate the health insurance crisis. Many doctors may leave traditional family practices — widening the gap between the affluent and the poor.” As Martinez noted to me, “You know all the good doctors with wealthy patients will follow this route and as you say it will prompt the regime to crack down on this ‘greedy’ practice. [expletive deleted] Obama.”

The Coming Obamacare Healthcare Inequality: Concierge Medical Services Read Post »

Article: What’s Really Wrong with the Healthcare Industry

(Austrian) Economics, Articles, Health Care
By / / 2 Comments / 1 minute of reading
Share

The real problem with the American healthcare system is that prices are continually rising, making healthcare unaffordable to an ever-increasing fraction of the population. And recent healthcare legislation has addressed none of the causes of high prices.

Read the Full Article by Vijay Boyapati

Afterwards, discuss the article below.

[The article is also available at Mises.org]

Article: What’s Really Wrong with the Healthcare Industry Read Post »

Since When Does the Livestock Ask the Farmer to Improve the Fence?

Immigration, Nanny Statism, Police Statism, Protectionism, Taxation
By / / 8 Comments / 5 minutes of reading
Share

“It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn.” ~ Albert Jay Nock

My recent post on the GM-loan-gate has, thus far, generated some interesting feedback and at least one or more epic discussions on various social networking sites.  Aside from enjoying my joke, several people commented on the paragraphs which highlighted several talking points which have troubled me over the last few years.  This one in particular, on immigration, seemed to generate the most feedback:

“Illegal immigration represents a danger to the future of the U.S.”  (The U.S. didn’t even have a comprehensive set of regulations on immigration until 1952.  The Constitution doesn’t even mention immigration in those terms.  Hell, damned-near everyone in the U.S. except for the people who were already here when America was “discovered” is an immigrant or descended from one anyway.  Here’s my question:  When does an immigrant become a visitor or a guest?)

It might be that since Arizona—and Arizona’s governor is currently in the news—that the issue is particularly hot, which therefore made the discussions far-ranging.  Immigration policy generally seems to be a hot-button.  Having written several pieces on immigration, I admit that the subject fascinates me, but something about these recent debates, particularly among libertarians, has intrigued me even more.

One is often tempted to attack the objections to open borders directly, as did I and a number of guests on a recent radio show.  And certainly many of these objections seem ripe for attacking.  By the way, are bumper stickers with “every Mexican who comes to the U.S. illegally is only 15 minutes from welfare” being passed out?  I would hate to miss out on my chances to get one.  Just as popular, but new to me is this one:  “In Los Angeles, 98% of convicted murderers are illegal aliens.”  Uh-oh!  Better raise the fence!  It strikes me that anyone who thinks welfare is an enticement for immigration must have never visited their local department of social services.  Take the worst parts of the DMV and add in ample portions of emasculation and denigration and you’re starting to get close, but it’s still worse than that, on good days.

It occurs to me—finally—that one needs to take a step back to even begin to understand this issue.  For example, of what value is a border?  Specifically, why does the United States have a border and why is it so necessary to maintain it?  Hopefully examining this more general issue will yield insight into the specific issue—and current political hot-button—illegal immigration of Mexicans.  Let us explore a couple of examples, one simple and one a little more complex.

…

Since When Does the Livestock Ask the Farmer to Improve the Fence?Read More »

Since When Does the Livestock Ask the Farmer to Improve the Fence? Read Post »

Scroll to Top