This one is already the longest though, right? I think so.

How come female genital mutilation is so obviously wrong while male genital mutilation is the norm?

I thought one of the Katrina threads went to 5300-some. Didn't Szym or someone give us a rundown on the previous longest threats somewhere around post 2000?

How come female genital mutilation is so obviously wrong while male genital mutilation is the norm?

I'm not defending the practice of male circumcision, but it is minor compared to female circumcision.

ANDY: The country is at present divided on the question of gay marriage, and this is reflected in the conflicting state laws, constitutions and court decisions.

I guess it depends on how you define divided. I looked this up, because I was certain that a substantial percentage of Americans oppose lawful gay marriage. Here are the numbers from two 2006 Pew surveys on "allowing gays and Lesbians to marry legally":

Favor: 33-39%
Oppose: 51-55%

While I would vote in favor of allowing gay marriage -- that has never been on the ballot in California (as far as I remember), but the opposite has ("Should marriage be restricted to a male-female relationship only?") -- I doubt most California voters would support it in a referendum....

This is a total aside, but I have always doubted that (among males at least) homosexuality is as common as I had learned it was (10%) when I was in school. I suspect the true number is less than half of that, though it's just a guess. Save when I lived in San Francisco (in Noe Valley, which apparently has a lot of gays, but I never really noticed*), I've never encountered all that many gays, even though at 44 I am much more attuned to noticing these things. I suppose this could be self-selection, in that my interests don't intersect much with the interests of most gay dudes. I don't know. But if the real number is 10%, I would think I would have known far more gays than I have. I wonder if anyone has a better sense of what percentage of males (in a free society) are homosexuals?

* I once was having brunch with my girlfriend in a nice restaurant in Noe Valley. We'd been there for more than a half hour when she said, "you notice we're the only straight couple here?" I hadn't noticed at all. I looked around and saw that at every other table had two men. "Oh, wow. It never occurred to me."

Probably until I was 30 or more, unless some guy was flamboyantly effeminate or he hit on me, I never took him for gay. I had no gay-dar. I later learned I had a gay apartment-mate in college, though I had no idea at the time. Maybe because I was not raised to be prejudiced against gays -- the subject never came up one way or another -- and because being attracted to girls was always my biological inclination, homosexuality was something as a teen and young man I never gave any thought to. However, because I know that I never chose to be straight, it was just my biology, I've always assumed everyone is pretty much the same: you don't choose which gender you are attracted to; it just happnes. As such, no one could ever make me want to try out homosexuality: that's repulsive to me, as it is to every straight guy I've ever known. Thus for some man who is attracted to men, it's got to be as natural for him as being straight is for me. Guys will get tattoos to be different. They won't have carnal relations with a man "to be different." Unless a guy's biological drive pushes him to homosexuality, I cannot see how there is any choice involved in sexual orientation among men. (Among women, I think there is more bi-sexuality, though even there, that's a small minority.)

From the WSJ online, gotcha big tent conservatism here:

Four years ago, [Rod] Dreher coined the term "crunchy conservatism" (as in crunchy granola) to describe hybrids like himself: political right-wingers with countercultural sensibilities. Now, in a book based largely on interviews and his own experience, he explores the type in depth. But "Crunchy Cons" is not a pallid work of sociology. It is a rousing altar call to spiritual secession from an America that Mr. Dreher sees as awash in materialism, consumerism and "lifestyle-libertarian" thinking.

In Mr. Dreher's view, consumer-crazed capitalism makes a fetish of individual choice and, if left unchecked, "tends to pull families and communities apart." Thus consumerism and conservatism are, for him, incompatible, a fact that mainstream conservatives, he says, simply do not grasp. He warns that capitalism must be reined in by "the moral and spiritual energies of the people." It is not politics and economics that will save us, he declares. It is adherence to the "eternal moral norms" known as the Permanent Things.

How come female genital mutilation is so obviously wrong while male genital mutilation is the norm?

Obviously there are major differences between fgm and male circumcision, but Christopher Hitchens asks much the same question that you do.

From an interview (video link, about 4:30 in) with Lou Dobbs:

Rather as people go for genital mutilation -- not just of little girls but also of little boys. They say that God's plan is perfect, you know, he designed us wonderfully, except now we just want to hack away at your genitals to improve the picture. What exactly is this? Why are we so deferential to it?

I attended a briss a few years ago. At the time I was fairly ambivalent on the topic of male circumcision. After the briss, I'm firmly in the leave it alone camp. though, obviously, it isn't anything like fgm.

This one is already the longest though, right? I think so.

I think someone said the Katrina thread was 5108. So we're within 100.

If we - as libertarians - are against governmental provisions that require restaurants to build ramps, are we also against governmental health regulations, guys? I only ask because the diner I was at this morning was getting a regular Department of Health stop-by check and it made me think of the thread and what David and Dan would think.

Lassus, (small sample caveat) I've worked at two restaurants and both were paying off the health inspector. Make of it what you will.

If you care about the cleanliness of the kitchen in which your food is prepared, you've got to cook it yourself, after cleaning the kitchen yourself.

ANDY: The country is at present divided on the question of gay marriage, and this is reflected in the conflicting state laws, constitutions and court decisions.

I guess it depends on how you define divided. I looked this up, because I was certain that a substantial percentage of Americans oppose lawful gay marriage. Here are the numbers from two 2006 Pew surveys on "allowing gays and Lesbians to marry legally":

Favor: 33-39%
Oppose: 51-55%

When I say that the country is divided, I mean that it depends on where you live as to what the sentiment is. Beyond that, you have two sets of numbers you didn't mention: The fact that when you change the question to civil unions, the disapproval gap shrinks to 5%; and the fact that a majority of the country is against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages.

Put all that together, and tell me what you make of it it terms of describing "majority opinion." From what I can see, you've got one sizeable minority in favor of gay marriage, another sizeable minority (in this case 38%) in favor of a constitutional ban on them, and the rest of the country somewhere in between. I'm perfectly comfortable with describing that as "divided."

--------------------------------

How come female genital mutilation is so obviously wrong while male genital mutilation is the norm?

Obviously there are major differences between fgm and male circumcision, but Christopher Hitchens asks much the same question that you do.

From an interview (video link, about 4:30 in) with Lou Dobbs:

Rather as people go for genital mutilation -- not just of little girls but also of little boys. They say that God's plan is perfect, you know, he designed us wonderfully, except now we just want to hack away at your genitals to improve the picture. What exactly is this? Why are we so deferential to it?

It's hard to imagine a more perfect example of sophistry and half-truth than this statement. What a completely idiotic comment. And how totally appropriate that it came from Christopher Hitchens' mouth to Lou Dobbs' ear.

How many of you men here were circumcised?

I thought so.

And how many of you have ever suffered one second of pain as a result of that circumcision once the operation was over?

I thought so.

Now go find a group of adult women who've been the victim of FGM and ask them the same questions.

And then tell me that as is often the case, Christopher Hitchens' isn't just blowing it out of his butt. In this case all he's doing is using circumcison to hit us over the head with one of his typical screeds about religion, which is of some relevance as to the justification for the two acts themselves, but which is completely beside the point when it comes to comparing the aftereffects of male vs. female circumcision.

As I said in my initial post, there's a big split among both anthropologists and local people themselves on the question of FGM, but even among those who most strongly defend it on the grounds of cultural autonomy, there's no pretense that the act isn't traumatic, especially since it so often occurs well after infanthood, when the girl is completely conscious of what's being done to her. And since a substantial number of the procedures are done with unsterilized surgical equipment and performed by people with less than perfect skills, the result is often a lifetime of pain, which is intensified during every act of sexual intercourse. To compare this to male circumcision is simply obscene.

Bunyon, aren't you simply saying that if you care about the cleanliness of the kitchen in which your food is prepared, don't eat out? Or eat anything at all not grown or prepared by yourself?

This is going to get me flamed but if someone is really going to EQUATE female genital circumcision with standard male circumcision as if there was no difference, that they're even remotely comparable, or even in the same universe of physical results and consequence, they sincerely deserve to have the head of their penis cut off. While conscious.

This is going to get me flamed but if someone is really going to EQUATE female genital circumcision with standard male circumcision as if there was no difference, that they're even remotely comparable, or even in the same universe of physical results and consequence, they sincerely deserve to have the head of their penis cut off. While conscious.

I'd settle for letting this happen to Christopher Hitchens, and then having him go back on the Lou Dobbs show to report his findings.

Aren't you simply saying that if you care about the cleanliness of the kitchen in which your food is prepared, don't eat out? Or eat anything at all not grown or prepared by yourself?

Yep. Well, sort of. There are good folks in the food prep industry and government regulation and inspection have brought that industry a long way from a bad, bad place (over a century or so). But, my point is, don't imagine for a minute that the inspection system keeps kitchens "clean."

As to your original question, how do we libs feel about it?, I don't know. I think a truly small government is so far removed from current American (or world) preference and experience that it really isn't worth discussing on a practical level. It would take a completely different mindset on behalf of the citizens to work. The big government enthusiast would say that people are selfish (or wicked) enough for it never to work. I disagree, but it is clear that if suddenly we removed all regulations and regulating authority, we'd have a complete mess on our hands. How to get from here to there, I have no idea.


To compare this to male circumcision is simply obscene.

Yep.

The big government enthusiast would say that people are selfish (or wicked) enough for it never to work. I disagree, but it is clear that if suddenly we removed all regulations and regulating authority, we'd have a complete mess on our hands. How to get from here to there, I have no idea.

I find this amazingly reasonable. I'm wondering if the harder-line libertarians agree. (Maybe you are a harder-line libertarian, Bunyon, I just don't remember.)

So Andy, looking back to your #4939, what are African women's arguments in favor of genital mutilation? I'm just guessing that the "pro" side on this issue involves a tradeoff of pain for status, much like footbinding in Chinese culture. Given the realities of the culture, you submit to something awful to gain status, and the something awful has strong positive symbolic meanings for you and those who surround you. The context in both cases is one of extreme coercion of women, plus a lack of a sense that women are separate individuals who have entirely private interests. But in such cultures women are third-class citizens anyway, and if mutilation makes them second-class citizens, maybe some figure it's defensible, given that they have to live in an existing world and not start the social contract from scratch. But I am just speculating; I am sure the reality is a lot more complicated.

(Maybe you are a harder-line libertarian, Bunyon, I just don't remember.)

Depends on my mood. :)

Like I said, I suppose, philosophically, I'm a hard-line libertarian. I just figure it would take complete collapse of the existing society and armed revolution to implement and (call it cowardice if you will) I'm not hoping for that. And, for all my complaints about our government, we're doing okay. Not great, but okay. I also find all the praise of American liberty a little absurd. We're all free to do anything that has met with the approval of the powerful or the majority. That's better than not free at all, but hardly the definition of free.

This is going to get me flamed but if someone is really going to EQUATE female genital circumcision with standard male circumcision as if there was no difference, that they're even remotely comparable, or even in the same universe of physical results and consequence, they sincerely deserve to have the head of their penis cut off. While conscious.

Hitchens didn't equate the two; his point was that we shouldn't do either or be so accepting of one. (I don't think male circumcision is an issue myself.) Andy's correct that Hitchens was off on one of his typical screeds about religion, but that doesn't mean that he was not serious about the narrow point.

Bunyon's opinion is pretty much mine. When discussing actual policies, I'm a pragmatist, not a revolutionary. Take Social Security, I'd be more interested, in office, about turning it something with more the characteristics of an insurance plan rather than a shitty retirement plan instead of simply axing it. I'm also against privatization for the simple practical reason that it provides a whole new chance for government to put a whole hand in the pie. Given the general clamoring for the government to get involved to subsidize people's shitty housing investments and "excess profits" taxes, I shudder to think what the government could do if people's private SS accounts had a downslide for a year or two because of a slow economy.

It has been a little while since I read anything on FGM (when I first read about it, it was still kosher to call it "female circumcision"), but a big part of the issue is that it's aimed at removing the female's capacity for sexual pleasure. And there has been a large anti-(male) circumcision movement, complete with guides to reclaiming your foreskin...

Lassus, Bunyon, ect, this was part of my original point (w/out dredging up the whole debate again)- we're talking about a set of practices that are already regulated- if you own a business, the government is already regulating your bathrooms, already regulating the pitch of your staircase. ADA changes those regulations, but it didn't invent them.

We're all free to do anything that has met with the approval of the powerful or the majority.

I think in general the majority has taken major steps WRT their attitudes toward personal freedoms (since the 1950s)- the powerful haven't caught up, for a lot of obvious reasons. When I think of how many people are sitting in jail right now for smoking pot, it really makes me upset, especially given that even many of the staunchest anti-drug people from the '80s have changed their thinking on it. Our approach has just been so obviously wrong yet there's been little policy change. In NYC, they even got more hard-line on this in the late 1990s and the trend continues today. And I'd venture to guess there are way more people sitting in jail for smoking weed than for refusing to build ramps :>

Bunyon's opinion is pretty much mine. When discussing actual policies, I'm a pragmatist, not a revolutionary. Take Social Security, I'd be more interested, in office, about turning it something with more the characteristics of an insurance plan rather than a shitty retirement plan instead of simply axing it. I'm also against privatization for the simple practical reason that it provides a whole new chance for government to put a whole hand in the pie. Given the general clamoring for the government to get involved to subsidize people's shitty housing investments and "excess profits" taxes, I shudder to think what the government could do if people's private SS accounts had a downslide for a year or two because of a slow economy.

Do folks really consider 'Social Security' a retirement plan?

Genuinely curious. Though I'm one of the Bolshevik legions here at BTF - and though I support Social Security without any privatization (and perhaps with a payroll tax bump) - I never really considered or even thought to consider Social Security a "retirement plan".

I'm not all that old - mid 30s, but even growing up - my FDR grandparents, my parents, aunts, uncles, rich elites none of them; never considered Social Security to be a 'retirement plan'.

Are there really folks that consider Social Security their sole retirement vehicle?

I think a hypothetical hard-line libertarian might say (re: restaurants):

Kitchen inspections are not part of the government's job, and the task could be undertaken as or more easily by an independent inspection business. The integrity of such a business would be its most valuable asset, so it would have a strong financial incentive to make sure that the inspections were competently done and that the resulting ratings were reliable.

I'm not sure whether, say, serious illness brought on by an inaccurate rating would be actionable under this theory.

On the other hand, maybe a libertarian case could be made that health inspections are the food equivalent of trademark protection, in that both are done in the interests of the customer getting what's advertised. I'm not sure -- I guess if David looks at this thread today he might share his opinion.

Are there really folks that consider Social Security their sole retirement vehicle?

Not many. I see a fair number of older people during tax season, and the overwhelming majority of them have not only Social Security income but also income from other sources (either company pension plans or private investment accounts).

Many people don't know this, by the way, but Social Security income isn't always tax-free. If your other income, plus 1/2 of your social security benefits, exceeds $25,000 ($32,000 if you are MFJ), some of your SS (up to a maximum of 85%) will be taxable.

-- MWE

Oh, you can get harder-line than that, Mike Hampton. How about

No rational restaurant owner would ever take a chance on communicating disease to patrons. If by any chance a less-than-diligent restaurant owner slipped up and lost a few customers to e. coli, the market would make sure that he swiftly lost competitive advantage. :)

Actually of course the real world is comprised of mostly diligent restaurateurs, with some unscrupulous ones; mostly cast-iron-stomached consumers, with a few susceptible ones; mostly honest inspectors, with several corrupt or arbitrary ones. I think Bunyon is right; the current system is a mess and would get messier without government inspection. Perhaps the reason that there's no market niche for the above-and-beyond private inspector of premises (aside from the risk factor you mention) is that people do by and large have cast-iron stomachs, and we take a little food poisoning now & then in stride. There's probably not much competitive advantage to getting privately certified as extra-clean; nor does extra-cleanliness obviate problems like dropping a peanut into the steak sauce and losing a customer to allergic reaction, or something like that.

my FDR grandparents, my parents, aunts, uncles, rich elites none of them; never considered Social Security to be a 'retirement plan'.

Same. And we're not talking about a family of stocktraders here either...

Many people don't know this, by the way, but Social Security income isn't always tax-free. If your other income, plus 1/2 of your social security benefits, exceeds $25,000 ($32,000 if you are MFJ), some of your SS (up to a maximum of 85%) will be taxable.

Those of us with SS age parents probably know about it. I get it Dad. :)

As policy, I'd prefer it if it was more of a welfare system, or a safety net. If your net worth is below a certain level, you get it. If not, you don't. Watching my FIL take expensive trips and build onto his house while drawing money out of my paycheck pisses me off. And, yes, I know that isn't "how it works" and that he paid in but it still pisses me off.

Maybe being pissed off isn't a good enough reason to make policy.

The big government enthusiast would say that people are selfish (or wicked) enough for it never to work. I disagree, but it is clear that if suddenly we removed all regulations and regulating authority, we'd have a complete mess on our hands. How to get from here to there, I have no idea.

I find this amazingly reasonable. I'm wondering if the harder-line libertarians agree. (Maybe you are a harder-line libertarian, Bunyon, I just don't remember.)

Well, most of us small-l libertarians, and even some capital-l Libertarians, recognize that it's going to be hard to get from here to there on lots of issues. Social Security is one of the hardest ones. Even once you get past the political feasibility of making people responsible for themselves, you've got all sorts of old people who didn't save anything for retirement on the theory that Social Security would be there for them. It's too late for them to save their own money for retirement now.

In contrast, though, health inspections are relatively easy, and the answer is the standard libertarian one: privatize them. I understand that many big government types simply don't trust businesses to behave, and so they want oversight over their operations. But there's no reason that this oversight need be public. This isn't a radical pie-in-the-sky proposal that has never been tried; there are oodles of private certification organizations out there for various industries and purposes. To get from here to there is simple: first make public certification optional rather than mandatory. Then gradually spin off the health department into a private organization that isn't taxpayer supported. (This too isn't radical; several regulatory agencies in the U.S. today are funded primarily with user fees rather than taxes.)

To get from here to there is simple: first make public certification optional rather than mandatory

I don't necessarily disagree overall, but wouldn't a better first step be to make private certification mandatory? Otherwise, who would bother to get certified?

If we - as libertarians - are against governmental provisions that require restaurants to build ramps, are we also against governmental health regulations, guys?

I suppose it depends how inclusive you consider "health regulations" to be. I'm opposed to anti-smoking legislation, but I'm in favor of products liability. I'm not sure if you'd consider the latter a governmental health regulation.

I only ask because the diner I was at this morning was getting a regular Department of Health stop-by check and it made me think of the thread and what David and Dan would think.


For pretty much any government regulation, my personal philosophy is to apply a test similar to the "strict scrutiny" standard of judicial review. All government regulations should be justified by a compelling interest, should be narrowly tailored to address that interest, and should be the least restrictive means to address that interest.

I don't necessarily disagree overall, but wouldn't a better first step be to make private certification mandatory? Otherwise, who would bother to get certified?

Businesses which feel that consumers are more likely to choose a business which has accepted private certification over one which has not.

This is a total aside, but I have always doubted that (among males at least) homosexuality is as common as I had learned it was (10%) when I was in school. I suspect the true number is less than half of that, though it's just a guess.

The 10% number comes from the long discredited Kinsey, who (believe it or not) gathered his data disproportionately from prison inmates, who (also believe it or not) have sexual practices which differ slightly from those of the majority population.

The actual figure, gathered from much more recent (Kinsey was in the late 40s/early 50s, I believe) seems to be about 1-3%, and disproportionately male.

Source for that actual figure, David? I don't really doubt or believe it in particular, but I would like to see where the figure comes from.

No rational restaurant owner

Yeah, part of the problem with this is the assumption that running a business requires some kind of minimum rational capacity, or that if they don't possess this capacity going in, the market will teach it to them. I've seen restaurants with completely hands-off owners, restaurants with crazy owners, and restaurants with owners who just have different ideas of what constitutes healthy and safe than I've got. The owner of this place was told about his rat problem several times before it came to a head and opted to ignore it...

(I ate at this establishment more than once during moments of totally irrational Taco Bell craving....urg)

The problem with what David's suggesting comes back to the assumption of rational and autonomous actors. You'd very quickly have the emergence of two classes of restaurants, one where the owners and patrons can afford to keep up to the standards set by the regulating agency, and another class patronized by the impoverished, who don't have the luxury of paying more to eat at a safe establishment. And you still haven't eliminated corruption in the "safe" class- there's nothing stopping some owners from paying off inspectors just to get the seal of approval. I'm sure the counterargument will be that the market will prevent the supervising organization from engaging in such practices, but that's a real leap of faith, and assumes that there's no corruption in private regulatory organizations. As to the lower class eating in dangerous restaurants, part of my claim is that both groups have a compelling interest in maintaining the safety of the other class, and as such, having all restaurants safe is in everyone's best interest. I'm not saying that this happens under the current system, that there's not corruption and people who game the inspection system, just that a bifurcated system is not the solution unless your only interest is in protecting the right of restaurant owners to absolute freedom regardless of its social cost.

I don't necessarily disagree overall, but wouldn't a better first step be to make private certification mandatory? Otherwise, who would bother to get certified?

Corporations seek private certifications all the time, typically because they believe having those certifications will make their products/services more marketable. Often companies (and governments) will refuse to do business with corporations that don't have certain certifications, even though those certifications are not legally required.

After having worked as a short order cook, I have no illusions about the efficacy of government health inspections. Since I'm a kindhearted fellow, I would usually thwack the toaster with a spatula before using it, to warn the roaches living inside to vacate the premises. Fortunately, most people have pretty strong digestive/immune systems. Personally, I didn't eat anything that didn't come out of the deep fat fryer.

So Andy, looking back to your #4939, what are African women's arguments in favor of genital mutilation? I'm just guessing that the "pro" side on this issue involves a tradeoff of pain for status, much like footbinding in Chinese culture. Given the realities of the culture, you submit to something awful to gain status, and the something awful has strong positive symbolic meanings for you and those who surround you. The context in both cases is one of extreme coercion of women, plus a lack of a sense that women are separate individuals who have entirely private interests. But in such cultures women are third-class citizens anyway, and if mutilation makes them second-class citizens, maybe some figure it's defensible, given that they have to live in an existing world and not start the social contract from scratch. But I am just speculating; I am sure the reality is a lot more complicated.

That's not a bad summary of the argument for FGM, except I'd add that its fiercest proponents are usually older women. I'd also note that the government of Burkina Faso (where my wife did her research) has waged a long (and partially successful) campaign to eradicate it.

And at the risk of sticking my neck out about something I really don't know all that much about, I'd say that the primary motivation for the practice among women is status and a sense of tradition; whereas for men it's tradition, but also, as formerly dp points out, a means of removing pleasure from women's sexual experiences. The 2006 African-made movie Scars of Womanhood, though nominally fictional, is about as graphic a presentation of FGM and its many facets as you'll ever be able to see without going to Africa yourself.

I think the point about "equating" FGM and circumcision is not that they're exactly the same (because they're not) but rather that they're both unnecessary* medical operations performed on a child who is incapable of giving consent. And as such both are unacceptable in a free society, and both are a major violation of medical ethics. Yeah FGM is much worse but that's hardly a defense of circumcision.

If adults want these operations performed, for social/cultural/religious/etc reasons, that's a matter of individual choice.

*Except in a very small number of cases.

Corporations seek private certifications all the time, typically because they believe having those certifications will make their products/services more marketable

Oh, absolutely; it's just that basic food safety is a little different than being able to say you have won the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for your new model of wine refrigerator.

And I certainly hear you about the rather lackluster record of the current system. It's just that moving to no system, with the possibility of a private system for the few who want its cachet, is not appealing either.

This is going to get me flamed but if someone is really going to EQUATE female genital circumcision with standard male circumcision as if there was no difference, that they're even remotely comparable, or even in the same universe of physical results and consequence, they sincerely deserve to have the head of their penis cut off. While conscious.

Well that's taking it a little bit too far. I wasn't trying to "equate" the two, I was simply making a point about language (and, more importantly, trying to keep the thread going)

I don't really see how circumcision can be seen as anything other than "genital mutilation," myself. But of course we don't use that word because it's such a standard practice in America. Language is lovely.

The 2006 African-made movie Scars of Womanhood, though nominally fictional, is about as graphic a presentation of FGM and its many facets as you'll ever be able to see without going to Africa yourself.

I'd like to watch this, and I usually have a pretty good tolerance for disturbing topics, but this might cross the line for me...I will mention it to my GF, who will hopefully watch it while I'm not around.

The removal of pleasure as a control technique to ensure fidelity is ruthless.

Alou, FGM is a lot more painful and (IIRC) performed a lot later in life. And again, the motivation for the operation is far more insidious; at least with circumcision, there's a logic, however outdated, that it helping to protect the health of the male, not making the male more easily controlled by a matriarchal power structure.

Counting this post, this thread is 760 posts from being the longest in BTF history.

The problem with what David's suggesting comes back to the assumption of rational and autonomous actors. You'd very quickly have the emergence of two classes of restaurants, one where the owners and patrons can afford to keep up to the standards set by the regulating agency, and another class patronized by the impoverished, who don't have the luxury of paying more to eat at a safe establishment.

If certification costs so much that it raises the price of food so much that the poor can't afford to eat at a certified restaurant -- and I don't believe this can possibly be the case (*) -- then that means they can't eat out at all now. So the voluntary certification approach would give them the option to eat out. So what this objection is saying is that one would rather take away the option of the poor to make a choice to eat out, because one declares them to be mentally incapable of making choices for themselves.


(*) Incidentally, this illustrates yet another weakness of the current government-oriented system: government regulations are almost always one-size-fits-all. Isn't it more likely that there would be different levels of certification -- from "not having insects running all over the food" to "so clean you could lick the floor" -- rather than simply a binary "pass/fail" as we have now?

And you still haven't eliminated corruption in the "safe" class- there's nothing stopping some owners from paying off inspectors just to get the seal of approval. I'm sure the counterargument will be that the market will prevent the supervising organization from engaging in such practices, but that's a real leap of faith, and assumes that there's no corruption in private regulatory organizations.

No, it doesn't; the counterargument is not that the market will "prevent" the supervising organization from engaging in such practices. The counterargument is that the market provides incentives for the supervising organization not to do so. Let's say that government inspectors are taking bribes. There are incentives for them individually not to do that -- they're breaking the law -- but none for the health department to prevent it from happening. But if private inspectors take bribes, there are individual incentives for them not to do so and incentives for their employers to take steps to prevent it from happening.

As to the lower class eating in dangerous restaurants, part of my claim is that both groups have a compelling interest in maintaining the safety of the other class, and as such, having all restaurants safe is in everyone's best interest. I'm not saying that this happens under the current system, that there's not corruption and people who game the inspection system, just that a bifurcated system is not the solution unless your only interest is in protecting the right of restaurant owners to absolute freedom regardless of its social cost.

And the right of restaurant patrons to that same freedom -- a freedom, I point out above, that you want to take away from them.

Musing on what Alou said, I have to say I never quite got the hand-wringing over male circumcision. The point about an unnecessary operation on a minor is certainly a good enough argument, and in such a case, if as a society we decided starting today, no more male circumcision until one is 18 I wouldn't bat an eye. But as far as horrendous harm or deleterious effects - which would cause an outcry in the aftermath - I'm not seeing them.

Noted that it doesn't mean that's a compelling reason TO perform circumcision.

I think the point about "equating" FGM and circumcision is not that they're exactly the same (because they're not) but rather that they're both unnecessary* medical operations performed on a child who is incapable of giving consent. And as such both are unacceptable in a free society, and both are a major violation of medical ethics. Yeah FGM is much worse but that's hardly a defense of circumcision.

Yes, but in this case the "much worse" is by a factor of about 10,000 to 1. There are serious movements all over the world to put a stop to FGM. I realize that there are people who take issue with male circumcision, and I'm not going to say that they don't have a point of sorts, but in terms of human rights violations FGM and male circumcision about as far apart as you can get. I don't think you could have made FGM into the centerpiece of a Seinfeld plot.

And if FGM had as insignificant a long-term effect on women as circumcision does on men, I doubt if anyone outside the affected regions of the world would even be aware of it. It would be seen as a curiosity and little else.

with circumcision, there's a logic, however outdated, that it helping to protect the health of the male

I found this on a website (noharmm.org) devoted to combating unnecessary circumcision:

The systematic removal of the foreskin owes its ubiquity in America to one man named Dr. Lewis Sayre, once known as the "Columbus of the prepuce" by his colleagues. In 1870, Sayre drew a correlation between the foreskin and an orthopedic malady in a young boy. Through a series of bizarre medical experiments, Sayre and his colleagues eventually determined that links existed between the foreskin and a vast range of ailments that included gout, asthma, hernias, epilepsy, rheumatism, curvature of the spine, tuberculosis and elephantiasis. But what drove circumcision deeper into the bedrock of pediatric medicine was the strident belief that masturbation, thought to be the root of everything from bed-wetting to intractable forms of insanity and mental retardation, could be "cured" with circumcision.

The other rationale I have heard floated factoidally is that circumcisions are good training for surgical residents: simple, low risk, patient doesn't complain, at least not verbally.

Trying to prevent a circumcision of a newborn in an American hospital can keep bleary-eyed new parents on their toes. "Hi, I'm here to check Mom's blood pressure, plump her pillows, and cut half of Junior's penis off."

But what drove circumcision deeper into the bedrock of pediatric medicine was the strident belief that masturbation, thought to be the root of everything from bed-wetting to intractable forms of insanity and mental retardation, could be "cured" with circumcision.

Yeah, that worked.

Seriously, though, it sounds as if the the PURPOSE was the same as female circumcision. Frightful. Thankfully, they were just too stupid.

"Hi, I'm here to check Mom's blood pressure, plump her pillows, and cut half of Junior's penis off."

Yeah, this is the hysteria I never got. Circumcision isn't exactly cutting half a penis off.

Sayre and his colleagues eventually determined that links existed between the foreskin and a vast range of ailments that included gout, asthma, hernias, epilepsy, rheumatism, curvature of the spine, tuberculosis and elephantiasis.

Ah, so David Wells is intact.

Circumcision isn't exactly cutting half a penis off

Well, not crosswise, no.

Haven't there been shown to be certain health benefits associated with (male) circumcision, eg: reduced infections, reduction of some kinds of cancers, possible diminishment of the spread of AIDs, decreased UTIs, among others?

Not anywise. I realize it's personal, again, I don't see the big deal.

A female friend was asking advice on this for her new son, and as it has become standard practice and the choice seems (if I am correct) in stopping the procedure rather than actively deciding to ENACT the procedure, I did base some of my opinion to her on actual colloquial questioning of American women and men over the years what they would prefer in a partner. It was pretty well bell-curved in favor of. Shrug. All rather subjective, I suppose.

Of course, for some of us, it is religious.

I suppose this as good a place as any to admit that I was bitten by an ant (or some insect) on the nether regions this weekend while gardening. I wonder if a foreskin would have protected me.


There, that should either kill this thread or keep it going another 1000 posts.

there are individual incentives for them not to do so and incentives for their employers to take steps to prevent it from happening.

Yes, but you're assuming this will keep corruption from happening. Let's not pretend that government agencies invented corruption. It's a complete act of faith to set up a system as if corruption won't happen given a free market system...Free Market Jesus rises again....

So what this objection is saying is that one would rather take away the option of the poor to make a choice to eat out, because one declares them to be mentally incapable of making choices for themselves.

I'm not doing this with you again Free Market Jesus. It's not that they're mentally incapable, it's that their financial constraints can have the effect of compromising their autonomy. But you refuse to move beyond this very myopic concept of autonomy and choice. To pretend such constraints don't exist is just to ignore and deny reality. This is the same tactic you use in every discussion. And I'm not engaging it again. Life during the Industrial Revolution was great, the market would've eliminated unsafe working conditions on its own, governments are the only institutions that constrain people's freedom, ect, ect.

Haven't there been shown to be certain health benefits associated with (male) circumcision, eg: reduced infections, reduction of some kinds of cancers, possible diminishment of the spread of AIDs, decreased UTIs, among others?

Yes there are benefits, and there are also costs. The medical position is that there is no indication for or against the procedure*.

Of course, for some of us, it is religious.

Yes, but do you have any moral arguments to defend it? Just because something is a social/religious practice doesn't make it OK, does it? Otherwise we really are tolerating FGM.

*In routine cases. There are some occasions when it may be medically necessary but that's not what we're discussing here.

Of course, for some of us, it is religious.

Well, for some of us, this has never been a decent argument for anything.

Again, I'm really not looking to get anyone to DEFEND male circumcision. I'm more looking for someone to defend the position that it's a specifically awful and terrible thing. It seems rather meaningless one way or the other these days except cosmetically. Of course, where there are great possibilities of substandard medical care, that's a decent reason not to do so.

none for the health department to prevent it from happening.

The people that run the health dept and other government agencies can be fired. They get fired all the time. You keep insisting that there's only accountability in private companies- this is flat-out wrong. There are power networks in place both in private and public institutions that allow corruption to happen. The heads of these government agencies aren't immune to criminal prosecution, unless there's been some new law passed I'm not aware of. It's not that you're wrong, it's that you've constructed a fantasy world where one side is perfect and the other is in the grip of fatal flaws that the fee market possesses some sort of natural immunity to.

I suppose this as good a place as any to admit that I was bitten by an ant (or some insect) on the nether regions this weekend while gardening. I wonder if a foreskin would have protected me.

Bunyon, that sucks...if there's one thing we can all agree on here, I think this is it...

Otherwise we really are tolerating FGM.

Alou, read about FGM, come back here and explain to us what it is, then make your comparison. Cut males can still achieve orgasm normally. The procedure does not cause pain long after it has been performed. And though they're both performed on children, the difference in age when they're performed makes it a traumatic experience for females, not so much for males.

Yes there are benefits, and there are also costs. The medical position is that there is no indication for or against the procedure*.

Yes, but IIRC, there was a time (not too long ago) when the medical community was swinging heavily away from C, arguing that it conferred NO benefits and thus was merely an unwarranted religious ritual. It seems like lately, however, there has been a swing in the other direction based on studies showing that there are some benefits.

There's a bit of a red herring on children's consent in this conversation. Medically we do lots of things to children w/o their consent in part b/c we believe they are incapable of giving their consent. The mere absence of consent, then, doesn't argue against doing this.

Alou, read about FGM, come back here and explain to us what it is, then make your comparison.

You're misreading him.

But if private inspectors take bribes, there are individual incentives for them not to do so and incentives for their employers to take steps to prevent it from happening.

I am at least moderately indifferent on restaurant health inspections but the above directly implies that the buck stops at the level of the individual inspector.

The problem with what David's suggesting comes back to the assumption of rational and autonomous actors.

This sums up the fundamental error of libertarian social theory. (Note that David's response did not address this facet of the comment.) Libertarians seem to think that the market is "rational" and that human beings are "rational actors." Every iota of evidence we have from the hard social sciences counters this assumption, but as it is the primary article of faith of the ideology it is beyond question for true believers.

Yes, but IIRC, there was a time (not too long ago) when the medical community was swinging heavily away from C, arguing that it conferred NO benefits and thus was merely an unwarranted religious ritual. It seems like lately, however, there has been a swing in the other direction based on studies showing that there are some benefits.

Which ever way the medical opinion shifts on potential physical harm or benefit, my impression is that a whole bunch of parents these days choose it for their newborns not based on that, but based on psycho-social reasons: "I don't want him to get laughed at in the locker room for being 'different' when he's an adolescent" or "I don't want him to think there's something wrong with him because he's different from daddy."

That's interesting, Sam, because my lib views come from another direction. I assume people will often act irrationally. Some will usually act irrationally. And, finally, groups tend to act irrationally more than individuals (mob mentality). Thus, I don't really want large groups of like-minded folks telling me how to live my life. I don't want freedom because I think everyone will behave, I want freedom so I can get out from under idiocy. If my own idiocy kills me, so be it.

Which ever way the medical opinion shifts on potential physical harm or benefit, my impression is that a whole bunch of parents these days choose it for their newborns not based on that, but based on psycho-social reasons: "I don't want him to get laughed at in the locker room for being 'different' when he's an adolescent" or "I don't want him to think there's something wrong with him because he's different from daddy."

Well, I don't know how many parents think that way, but those are not bad reasons, especially if there's no (or little) pain and measurable health benefits.

If in fact it is true that the fundamental doctrinal error of libertarianism is to assume that individuals and markets are inherently rational, then it's equally true that the fundamental doctrinal error of liberalism is to assume that GOVERNMENTS are inherently rational.

And it doesn't take much more than a rudimentary study of recent world history to show that governments, and especially so-called "progressive" (socialist) governments, tend to cause more murder, mayhem, and carnage than individuals ever would on their own.

Given the choice, I'll side with the average randomly selected man on the street or the average business owner over the average government and bureaucratic apparatus just about every time.

...but based on psycho-social reasons: "I don't want him to get laughed at in the locker room for being 'different' when he's an adolescent."

Although I do think this is somewhat important based on how awfully kids treat one another, I'd be more concerned once he reaches young adulthold and the same reaction and the prevaling opinions of young women (or men, depending) on the same, sexually.

I should say that I am not a raving anti-circumcision activist. I completely respect religious motives for the operation, and I wouldn't disrespect any parent that chose it. It just seems odd that a completely unnecessary operation ("cosmetic" is a good way of describing it) became such common secular practice for Americans.

Edit: moved word "secular" for clarity

And it doesn't take much more than a rudimentary study of recent world history to show that governments, and especially so-called "progressive" (socialist) governments, tend to cause more murder, mayhem, and carnage than individuals ever would on their own.

Not really. You're confusing acclamations of power with "governments." Yes, the two are very often identical, but if you have an accretion of power in the "private sector" they will behave just as immorally as any "government." One need look no further into history than the so-called "Gilded Age" of America to see the practical results of libertarian ideology. As for your tangential sideswipe against "progressive" governments, no historian worth his salt would suggest that "leftist" regimes have been historically worse than their "right wing" counterparts.

a completely unnecessary operation

I don't mean to get semantic, but we're talking about an "operation" that can (and is often) done in one's home, in front of one's closest friends and family and a few feet from cream cheese and lox, coffee and tea. It's really just not that big a deal.

The people that run the health dept and other government agencies can be fired.

The most senior people can be. The middle management essentially can't, because they're civil service. When they are incompetent, they just get laterally transferred.

They get fired all the time. You keep insisting that there's only accountability in private companies- this is flat-out wrong. There are power networks in place both in private and public institutions that allow corruption to happen. The heads of these government agencies aren't immune to criminal prosecution, unless there's been some new law passed I'm not aware of.

The "new law" is called "mens rea." We're not talking about a situation where they engaged in wrongdoing; we're talking about a situation where lower level people did.

It's not that you're wrong, it's that you've constructed a fantasy world where one side is perfect and the other is in the grip of fatal flaws that the fee market possesses some sort of natural immunity to.

The "natural immunity" is called "incentives," the thing you stubbornly refuse to learn anything about. What's incredibly bizarre about the left is that they're always worried about "monopolies" in the private sector, even though in a free market those never survive, but when confronted with an actual monopoly -- the government -- they act as if there are no problems. Competition provides incentives. The free market has competition and the government doesn't. That's an inherent difference between the two situation.

Not really. You're confusing acclamations of power with "governments." Yes, the two are very often identical, but if you have an accretion of power in the "private sector" they will behave just as immorally as any "government." One need look no further into history than the so-called "Gilded Age" of America to see the practical results of libertarian ideology.

Sure, an improvement in life for millions of people.

As for your tangential sideswipe against "progressive" governments, no historian worth his salt would suggest that "leftist" regimes have been historically worse than their "right wing" counterparts.

All historians who can read -- or count -- would indeed suggest that.

I don't mean to get semantic, but we're talking about an "operation" that can (and is often) done in one's home, in front of one's closest friends and family and a few feet from cream cheese and lox, coffee and tea. It's really just not that big a deal.

I have a friend whose father was a non-religious Jew, mother was Presbyterian, and he was raised as the latter. Then married a WASP. He and his wife hired a moyel to do their son's circumcision. "When in doubt, go to the historic experts," was his explanation.

Sure, an improvement in life for millions of people.

You are not this stupid, David.

All historians who can read -- or count -- would indeed suggest that.

Or perhaps you are. Is your understanding of history truly this ignorant?

Obama: A little weak on U.S. geography

He seems to have trouble placing the 57 states.

Oh, you can get harder-line than that, Mike Hampton.

Absolutely. I did say it "could" be handled by private business, not that it "had to be". :)

Perhaps the reason that there's no market niche for the above-and-beyond private inspector of premises (aside from the risk factor you mention) is that people do by and large have cast-iron stomachs, and we take a little food poisoning now & then in stride.

Mrs. MH#1F has had something like half a dozen cases of food poisoning in the past year, including one that sent her to bed for about a day and a half and didn't stop bothering her entirely for most of a week. I know she's the exception, but the two of us would be very willing to pay slightly higher food prices for a non-fly-by-night private inspection sticker. It's not that I think private inspectors are incorruptible -- it's just that the more certifications, the better, if only because at some point it becomes less expensive to run a cleaner restaurant than bribe all the inspectors.

Curiously, the arguments against private inspection displayed here mostly make me wonder how it would pan out in the real world, as many of them seem to have a strong element of "private enterprise can be corrupted!" Which of course it can, but it's not like government exactly has a perfect record on that score either.

Even once you get past the political feasibility of making people responsible for themselves, you've got all sorts of old people who didn't save anything for retirement on the theory that Social Security would be there for them.

I think this is overstated. As I said earlier, almost everyone I've done taxes for in this age bracket has other income besides SS - whether it be company pension plans, IRAs, or private investment accounts (I have grown to hate consolidated 1099s). I think that the SS crisis of the late 70s convinced a lot of people that it was very, very dangerous to put all of their eggs in the SS basket.

-- MWE

Pretty much what JC says on C.

*In routine cases. There are some occasions when it may be medically necessary but that's not what we're discussing here.

I'd like to see the ratio of "medically necessary" vs "damage done due to an unnecessary one".

I don't want freedom because I think everyone will behave, I want freedom so I can get out from under idiocy.

It's less that I think other people are guaranteed to be irrational idiots than recognizing that other people are likely to have different values. I'm working to stop habitually replacing "your values are different than mine" with "you are an irrational idiot" as a life strategy with varying degrees of success.

Certainly, I won't ever completely escape the notion that my personal values are superior, but I recognize that practically every human being tends to think this way. I prefer a libertarian society to one in which I rule by whim, even though the latter is almost certainly a lot better for me.

I think this is overstated. As I said earlier, almost everyone I've done taxes for in this age bracket has other income besides SS - whether it be company pension plans, IRAs, or private investment accounts (I have grown to hate consolidated 1099s). I think that the SS crisis of the late 70s convinced a lot of people that it was very, very dangerous to put all of their eggs in the SS basket.

1/3 of beneficiaries over 65 get 90% or more of their income from Social Security, according to SSA.

Obama: A little weak on U.S. geography

OK, I read this, and boy is it reaching. Sure Illinois is closer. Is it appreciably and insanely closer? I'm looking at the map they provide. Not so much. Here's what he said:

"What it says is that I'm not very well known in that part of the country," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle."

Is Arkansas nearby Kentucky? Um, yes. Is it one of the states in the middle? Um, yes. Here's the hysterical blog quote after that:

"Can the man who wants to be President please tell us why Arkansas is somehow closer to Kentucky than Illinois??????"

Um, funny, you quoted him, where exactly did he say that? Nowhere? Got it. Also, they make fun of Obama's 5th-grade geometry and then use 6 question marks.

FAIL

Sure, an improvement in life for millions of people.

You are not this stupid, David.

No, but you're that ignorant. The problem is a complete lack of perspective; you compare life them to life today, note that we're much better off today, and then mistakenly conclude that things were bad then. But the appropriate comparison is to life before the Industrial Revolution. Subsistence farming sucked.

All historians who can read -- or count -- would indeed suggest that.

Or perhaps you are. Is your understanding of history truly this ignorant?

No; is yours? Should we compare death tolls? Can all "right wing" governments in history combined match China's alone in the 20th century?

The "natural immunity" is called "incentives," the thing you stubbornly refuse to learn anything about.

Enron?

The problem is that the incentives are to make money for the company, regardless of an adherence to any other directive. All other aims are subordinated to this. If that aim so happens to dovetail with the public good, fantastic. If not, we invoke the "go #### yourself" principle again...

"Incentive" is not a magical concept that eliminates corruption. It can create incentives for corruption. And for rigging the rules of the game, such as changing the meanings of words so that they can only possibly mean one specific thing.

Note that I'm not claiming governments don't have corruption.

Part of the function of bureaucracy is to remove subjectivity from the decision-making process as a control mechanism. this serves to remove/eliminate 1) corruption, and 2) "errors" in subjective judgment, which are errors b/c they're deviations from the decision-making formula. Once an organization grows beyond a certain size, it has to rely on a formalized set of rules executed by people who don't necessarily have a stake in the long-term health of the organization, or don't think they have a stake in it. When you have individuals executing these rules there's a chance they're going to game the system (public or private), even if it's not in their long-term self-interest. This speaks to the need to address "compromised autonomy" "nonrational actors" and "socialization" in all social systems...

The middle management essentially can't, because they're civil service. When they are incompetent, they just get laterally transferred.

Where is this? It's difficult to fire someone b/c of the unions, but it isn't impossible. Getting hired by a state agency is nothing like, say, tenure in academia. And within these (especially local) networks of government, word gets around quickly when someone does something so egregious that they get fired for it. Also, there's an accountability to the public that exists in the public sector that doesn't exist in the private sector, where every member of the public feels (rightly) compelled and entitled to look out for corruption in state institutions. Compare the behavior of US soldiers in Iraq and the disciplinary measures they're subject to to private security forces like Blackwater if you want an example of how different standards can be.

(Note that David's response did not address this facet of the comment.)

Sam, if you go back and read, he's been denying that anything other than government intervention can impinge upon someone's "rationality" and "autonomy" for about 2000 posts. I wasn't really expecting him to suddenly come up with an answer. He doesn't like the fact that many of these ideas about compromised autonomy and the cultural specificity of his concept of rationality come from French people who use big words and write long sentences. And their books are read by people in English faculty lounges. That's as much of a counter-argument as I've seen so far...

Curiously, the arguments against private inspection displayed here mostly make me wonder how it would pan out in the real world, as many of them seem to have a strong element of "private enterprise can be corrupted!" Which of course it can, but it's not like government exactly has a perfect record on that score either.

Of course government is corruptible. No one suggests otherwise. The point is not that either pole is pristine and without corruption but that BOTH poles are equally corruptible and the best way to manage against the corruption of one (the "free market") is to _balance_ it with the power of the other (regulation.) Government without a balance is tyranny. Private power - which is what the free market generates in terms of wealth - without a balance is equally so. Libertarians like to think that the so-called "invisible hand" of the free market will keep everything cushy and shiny if we'd just leave it all along and let the power of happy thinking take control, but even Adam Smith wasn't so naive as to believe that. Even he required a strong regulation by "moral authorities" for the free market to really work.

I suppose this as good a place as any to admit that I was bitten by an ant (or some insect) on the nether regions this weekend while gardening. I wonder if a foreskin would have protected me.


There, that should either kill this thread or keep it going another 1000 posts.

Larry: "I'm sorry Daliah, I can't see you on Thursday."

Daliah: "Why not?"

Larry: "A dog bit my penis."

*Click*

In contrast, though, health inspections are relatively easy, and the answer is the standard libertarian one: privatize them. I understand that many big government types simply don't trust businesses to behave, and so they want oversight over their operations. But there's no reason that this oversight need be public. This isn't a radical pie-in-the-sky proposal that has never been tried; there are oodles of private certification organizations out there for various industries and purposes. To get from here to there is simple: first make public certification optional rather than mandatory. Then gradually spin off the health department into a private organization that isn't taxpayer supported. (This too isn't radical; several regulatory agencies in the U.S. today are funded primarily with user fees rather than taxes.)

The way fish factory inspections work is not terribly different from what David is suggesting. If you own a fish cannery in the United States*, you have the choice as to whether or not you want your factory inspected by NOAA for process and sanitary purposes. The only difference (from David's model) is that NOAA is a government agency, not private. But you are in no way compelled to have NOAA inspect your procedures and ensure that you are following certain sanitary guidelines (designed to avoid things like botulism).

I don't know the percentages, but I think just about every cannery in Alaska -- where I used to work in summers as a deckhand on a Seiner -- chose to be inspected. The reason is simple: with inspection, you get a NOAA certification on your cans. And with that certification, you can get a premium price for your product. (Consumers prefer to know the fish they are eating is safe.) The inspections, which are paid for by the canneries, not the taxpayers, cost very little: the premium, multiplied by millions of pounds of canned fish, bring in far more money than the inspections cost.

I think this same formula could be used by restaurants: leave it up to them if they want to be certified as clean and safe and so on. Those which choose not to will pay a price for that, in that customers will feel less sure their meal is being prepared in a sanitary kitchen.

The question as to whether a private inspection company or the government is best to do this voluntary inspection service is an interesting one. I don't know that a private regime would be worse. But my inclination is, for two reasons, it's better to leave it up to a government agency:

First, certification sends a clearer message to consumers when the consumers have actually heard of the agency/company which does the inspection. If left to the free market, it's likely that you would have a proliferation of inspection companies, most of which you had no way to know whether or not they were trustworthy, largely because you had never heard of them. You could go to restaurant X, see it was certified, but you'd have no way to know if the certification company was honest or trustworthy. As such, most if not all of the benefit of certifcation is lost.

Thus, while inspection is not a natural monopoly, there is a widespead benefit to making it one. That, of course, could be done by granting the monopoly to a private company. But in doing so, understand that private companies which are granted unnatural monopolies by the government bring none of the advantages of a private company operating in a free market. It's less costly (in most cases) to simply allow the government to operate as the monopolist.

Second, if you go the private competitive route, you get the conflict of interest problem, such as with of real estate appraisers. Anyone who has ever worked in real estate (as a developer) knows that appraisers (always private concerns) have a serious conflict of interest. In order to get a bank loan, you need to get your project appraised by a certified appraiser. If the appraiser gives you a low appraisal, your project may not pencil out and you cannot get a loan. If you know a certain appraiser is tough (and honest) with his appraisals, you won't hire him. You will shop around for the appraiser who you know is liberal with his estimates. So all appraisers over time have an interest in favoring developers' pro formas; and this is just what happens (usually to the detriment of investors and bankers). The same conflict arrises with CPA firms: they make more money by over-estimating the worth of the companies they audit. In restaurant inspections, companies which want to be hired will have a natural incentive (in order to get and keep business) to err on the side of the restaurant which is hiring them. As such, the full benefit of the inspection certificate does not accrue to the customer. However, if a monopolist has the job of inspector, he does not need to dumb down his inspections to compete with rival inspection firms. And therefore, this conflict can be avoided by granting a monopoly (which, for economic reasons, is best to give to the government), as long as the inspections remain voluntary.

* I believe some foreign countries also use NOAA as their inspector of choice for canned fish certification. I think that is because of the benefit of having a known and putatively honest entity doing the inspection. If the Mexican government, which is known to be corrupt, inspected its fish factories and gave a certification, foreign buyers would be less apt to pay a premium price for that fish. But if NOAA comes in, even if the fish is canned in Mexico, those cans will fetch a premium.

No, but you're that ignorant. The problem is a complete lack of perspective; you compare life them to life today, note that we're much better off today, and then mistakenly conclude that things were bad then. But the appropriate comparison is to life before the Industrial Revolution. Subsistence farming sucked.

Do you even know when the Gilded Age was? WTF are you babbling about subsistenance farming for?

No; is yours? Should we compare death tolls? Can all "right wing" governments in history combined match China's alone in the 20th century?

Confuse the mechanization of slaughter with the evil of the government much? I hear some Germans did some pretty bad things mid-century last. Are you going to go all Doughy Pantsload and pretend they were "leftist" now? I'm pretty sure the Khans were "right wing" if such a dichotomy even makes sense that far back. Reighn of Terror pretty much defined the term. I'm sure you'll incorrectly want to attribute the authoritarianism of Stalin to the left too, but that's a symptom of your ignorance more than anything else.

Why do I even bother with you?

Get real , Lassus. BO uses Arkansas' proximity to Kentucky as an excuse for losing in KY, what is obviously implied is that he believes her superior name recognition derives from being closer.

Is it appreciably and insanely closer?

Illinois borders KY, Arkansas doesn't. It's not a big deal but if it were GWB or McCain the media would be a lot more interested. It also illustrates that many BO supporters can never see him as being wrong.

You're misreading him.

JC, I understood the thrust of Alou's point. I'm just not convinced that he knows what's involved in FGM vs male circumcision to make the comparison. Maybe he is, but I haven't seen anything in what he's written that suggest this. No one here, thankfully, has given a graphic description of what's involved, or how many people die from the procedure, whereas I think we all know the basics of circumcision b/c a lot of the posters here have firsthand (ahem) experience with it.

Edit- I'm not saying he's wrong to make the comparison- there's a whole group of reclaim the foreskin people out there who agree with his terminology. I disagree with the comparison, but I wouldn't say it's baseless...

I don't want to post a graphic description here. If people think it would be appropriate, I'm going to leave it to someone else to do it.

Sam, if you go back and read, he's been denying that anything other than government intervention can impinge upon someone's "rationality" and "autonomy" for about 2000 posts. I wasn't really expecting him to suddenly come up with an answer. He doesn't like the fact that many of these ideas about compromised autonomy and the cultural specificity of his concept of rationality come from French people who use big words and write long sentences. And their books are read by people in English faculty lounges. That's as much of a counter-argument as I've seen so far...

2000 posts? I was trying to pry David out of his analytic eggshell back in the mid-90s. He's made progress approximating zero as far as I can tell. I blame Princeton.

I think this is overstated. As I said earlier, almost everyone I've done taxes for in this age bracket has other income besides SS

Who can identify the selective sampling issue in this statement??

C'mon Mike......

Illinois borders KY, Arkansas doesn't.

Arkansas and KY are deep Appalachia. Illinois isn't. "Closer" is not always used to speak in terms of geograpic proximity. I'd certainly say Arkansas was closer to KY than Illinois, borders be damned.

It's not a big deal but if it were GWB or McCain the media would be a lot more interested.

Confirmation bias. You think the so-called "liberal media" gives Obama breaks they wouldn't give a "conservative" and then invent examples to shore up your assumption. If the media won't call McCain on no knowing the difference between al Quaeda and Shite Iran they're not going to call him on something like this either. They might call Bush on either because that fits with the existing narrative, neither liberal nor conservative, that Bush is a moron who has no idea what he's talking about.

It also illustrates that many BO supporters can never see him as being wrong.

Find an example that has some meaning outside of a pre-screened attempt at "gotcha" and get back to me. This is as irrelevant as the "57 states" silliness.

2000 posts?. I was trying to pry David out of his analytic eggshell back in the mid-90s.

Just in this thread, Sam. I foolishly keep asking for an answer knowing it will never come...

I've watched you fight this battle for many years...

Illinois indeed borders Kentucky, but in terms of culture and politics, Little Rock is a lot closer to Paducah than Chicago is. (For that matter, Little Rock is closer to Paducah than Chicago is, period.) But then, Hillary is actually from Chicago, and Obama is from Hawaii, which is pretty far from anywhere. And if you fly south from downtown Detroit, the first foreign country you pass over is Canada, and Reno is west of San Diego.

The middle management essentially can't, because they're civil service. When they are incompetent, they just get laterally transferred.

Foul.
This is a functional argument rather than a philosophical one. The above - while I will assume true - is no more a given in a socialist society than a given that all business owners want to destroy the environment.

As for evilness ratings of "progressive" governments - there are some fundamental differences here. How many of the so-called progressive governments had freedom of the press? freedom of speech? Fair and regular elections? Secret police apparatus? I would say these items contribute far more to the black ledger of a government than where it falls on the % taxation scale.

If you want to argue that social safety nets, govmt' health inspections and anti-discrimination laws lead to totalitarianism, you just go right ahead.

Finally - about the Tyranny of the Majority. I utterly agree that this is a real issues (and I am the crypto-marxist) and frankly, it sucks. But on the other side, I think formerly_dp's point about more property/liquidity = more rights (and that this is where Libertarians leads) is correct.

He seems to have trouble placing the 57 states.

I think you have to forgive his lack of knowledge; the guy didn't even really make it to the mainland until college. And U.S. geography probably wasn't a major focus in Jakarta or at the Punahou School.

Libertarians like to think that the so-called "invisible hand" of the free market will keep everything cushy and shiny if we'd just leave it all along and let the power of happy thinking take control, but even Adam Smith wasn't so naive as to believe that. Even he required a strong regulation by "moral authorities" for the free market to really work.

Sam, you're reading way too much libertarianism into my statement. I'm not advocating wholesale disassembly of government health inspection -- I'm expressing curiousity over what the result would be, and I haven't really seen any compelling argument so far that the result would be "absolute disaster". (Though Rich's argument vis-a-vis the value of monopoly in that situation is an interesting one.) Has there been any attempt at a certification scheme like this in the modern world, and if so, what were the results?

Are there really folks that consider Social Security their sole retirement vehicle?

Not many. I see a fair number of older people during tax season, and the overwhelming majority of them have not only Social Security income but also income from other sources (either company pension plans or private investment accounts).

The fact theat they come to you for tax advice and prep tends to rule them out as being of the tens of millions of folks who never had much (and often don't file, or can use the short form themselves) and, when they retired, depended largely or wholly on social security.

In other words, what Chip wrote in 5078.

I would say these items contribute far more to the black ledger of a government than where it falls on the % taxation scale.

I think issues like this just point out the essential difficulty of trying to use a classification scheme used in modern American politics to try to classify historical governments. There are probably very few that fit neatly into the "right-wing" or "left-wing" model, which is not surprising, considering the disagreements we have over the meaning of those terms relative to today's politics.

(and I am the crypto-marxist)

Crypto means you're supposed to be trying to hide it, man. :)

If you want to argue that social safety nets, govmt' health inspections and anti-discrimination laws lead to totalitarianism, you just go right ahead.

It's been done.

pre-screened attempt at "gotcha"

You think that whoever asked BO this question about why he's losing in KY was attempting to illicit the fact Barry is a geographical idiot?

It's a cult. You guys must've loved the Obama with the cross ad.

Crypto means you're supposed to be trying to hide it, man. :)

Lol.

Have any of all y'all libertarians played Bioshock yet?

Wicked game on many levels...