Fake this. Fake that. What’s real?

Richard W. Rahn: Crony capitalism against the real thing – “Collusion between government and business corrupts the free market.”

A government that spends trillions of dollars and controls the fate of tens of millions of businesses and individuals through regulation is nothing more than a gigantic honey pot for those who seek to gain without engaging in productive activity.

President Trump has been explicit about understanding at least part of the problem. Yet, he has given little indication that he understands the true depth of the problem. Even his limited attempts to rein in government have caused his opponents to fear that he will take away their honey pot, which, in part, explains their vicious attempts to get rid of him.

Eric Rozenman: The fake ‘health care’ debate – “The real battle is over entitlement to medical insurance.”

Confucius, who lived so long ago that famine, not obesity, menaced public health, supposedly observed that “the first step to wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” If so, then angry congressional town hall meetings and serial legislative impasses are not really about health care, let alone reform.

If “reform” implies improvement, then that’s not what we’re shouting about. Rather, the demand is for “entitled” medical insurance.
In affordable democracies, government at all levels — local, state and federal — can only be the agency of last resort. For reasons of liberty, equality and security we do not privatize functions such as justice and defense — police, courts and the military. But most other economic and social activity belongs in the private, not the public, sphere.
The long campaign for “universal health care” reflects in no small measure the statist compulsion, dating to the progressive era, for government by experts, dictating to the common people for their own good. That necessarily means an ever-contracting sphere of individual liberty and free choice leading to more rigid supply of goods and services, lower profits and less innovation.

Richard Berman: Peddlers of junk science – “Anti-chemical activists use flimsy cancer claims to tarnish industries.”

Most research organizations don’t find themselves needing to save face with highly publicized studies proving they align with the rest of the scientific community. But IARC has made a name for itself not through prestigious research, but by its controversial involvement pushing political agendas and bowing to activist researchers.
It’s curious how an agency that claims moral authority for weeding out conflicts of interest (read: private-sector scientists) would permit testimony from the employee of a green nongovernment organization that rakes in more than $130 million each year by promoting a global fear of chemicals.
Groups like IARC have the benefit of hiding their politics behind the clout of an international health organization. Unless industries want their products raked over the coals by an agency whose existence depends on the promotion of public fear, they need to join the ranks of leaders speaking out against IARC’s tactics.

Now what.

Comments are closed.