NYT: Charity Begins in Washington

January 22, 2008 11:39 PM by J.H. Huebert

Yes, that's an actual New York Times editorial headline: Charity Begins in Washington.

Ever-increasing private philanthropy is actually a bad thing, says the Times, because it crowds out government spending. Why, those private philanthropists can just give money to whatever they want! Better to tax us and let Washington decide where that money will go. I know, that sounds like an unfair caricature, it sounds like parody... but, well, read the piece.

Why politicians should be trusted to spend other people's money more than private individuals should be trusted to give away their own money, I cannot fathom. That private charity is less likely to entail gross waste and more likely to serve those in need effectively is so obvious that it would seem unnecessary to point it out -- and yet, there's the Times. We might also point out to the Times that private charity would surely give much more for "social services" if government weren't occupying so much of that field.

There are moments when I feel a bit sad over the decline and impending death of print newspapers; but not when I read evil nonsense like this.

Link post | Digg it | Other posts by J.H. Huebert | Comments (30)

Ethanol: Government vs. the Environment

December 18, 2007 6:02 AM by J.H. Huebert

This article from MSNBC shows how government-sponsored ethanol may seriously harm the environment, as fertilizer from the increased corn production makes its way to the Gulf of Mexico and kills sea life.

So not only does ethanol hit taxpayers twice -- first through subsidies and then through higher prices for corn and related products such as milk -- it also harms the environment. Plus it could not possibly achieve the silly goal of "energy independence."

Politicians who pander to Iowans and the likes of Archer Daniels Midland by supporting this destructive program (e.g., 1 2 3) should be ashamed of themselves.

Link post | Digg it | Other posts by J.H. Huebert | Comments (9)

Sicko: Politics is not the best prescription.

July 18, 2007 7:39 PM by J.H. Huebert

In a short op-ed article in today's Orange County Register, I discuss some of the problems in Michael Moore's movie, Sicko.

The film is a failure at every level. It's failing at the box office, it's failed to impress many critics, and best of all it has failed to create a mass movement for socialized health care.

Moore might have helped some of those poor people he purports to care so much about if he weren't so obsessed with achieving results through politics. Even for the best pitchman, it's hard to persuade masses of people to not only agree with you, but also to organize and take action -- action that will produce no tangible rewards for anyone in the group unless the whole group succeeds. Why should anyone, especially those most in need of help, invest their limited time and stake their future on that?

It would have been more helpful for Moore to show people how they can improve their own health regardless of what the supposedly evil insurance companies do.

As for what should be done at the political level, see Hans Hoppe's "Four-Step Health Care Solution."

Link post | Digg it | Other posts by J.H. Huebert | Comments (16)