NoodleFood

FAQ on Free Market Health Care

2008-05-14T00:05:00.003-06:00

I've received multiple e-mails in response to my recent letter to the editor in the May 11, 2008 New York Times advocating a free market in health insurance. I appreciate the fact that the correspondents all took the time to read my letter, see my affiliation with Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM), search for the FIRM website, find my e-mail address, and then write me with their comments and questions.

The various correspondents posed a number of good questions about the nature of a free market in health insurance, as well as some more fundamental issues on individual rights and the proper role of government in health care. I've had several stimulating rounds of e-mail discussion with folks from around the country. And even though we didn't always agree on some important issues, all of the e-mails I received were polite and articulate, and I appreciated the many thoughtful remarks from all of the writers.

One correspondent recommended that I post my responses online so that other interested parties would have a place to read a more fully developed and explicit explanation of the ideas related to a free market in health insurance. I thought that was an excellent suggestion. Hence, I've paraphrased and collated an essentialized set of questions (and my subsequent responses) in the form of this brief FAQ.

(This FAQ has also been posted on the FIRM blog here.)

===========

Q1) In a free market for health insurance, should insurers be able to exclude someone based on a pre-existing condition?

Q2) Why should whether I live or die depend on whether an insurance company finds it too costly to pay for my care? Should my fate be determined by whether a corporation finds it profitable?

Q3) How would a free market guarantee that all Americans will have necessary health coverage?

Q4) What if someone has a bad disease through no fault of his own, can't afford the treatment, and no insurance company will cover him? Who will pay for his care?

Q5) Isn't the purpose of a government to promote the common welfare of all citizens?

Q6) Your position is very harsh and Darwinian. If you were dying of cancer and could not afford treatment, would you really say to yourself, "Oh well, this is my random bad luck, no one has an obligation to treat me and so I must die"?

Q7) Isn't it my social obligation to subsidize the health care of those who can't afford it?

Q8) I agree that health care is not a "right", but isn't it moral for the US government to raise taxes to improve the overall welfare of the nation? Universal health care (ideally administered through a free-market mechanism to the greatest extent possible) would be a good use of that power.

= = = = = = = = = =

Q1) In a free market for health insurance, should insurers be able to exclude someone based on a pre-existing condition?

A1) Yes. In a free market, insurers (like any other businesses or individuals) are entitled to set whatever terms they wish for the products they wish to sell. Similarly, customers can choose to accept those terms, decline them, or negotiate with them for some other mutually agreed-upon alternative.

It's also important to note that our current system is far from a free -- at best it's semi-free. Insurance companies are under numerous government constraints about what sorts of services they must/must not offer, who they can/cannot exclude, what sorts of prices they can charge, when they must accept customers, etc. For instance, some states require that a healthy 22-year old man must pay the same premium as a 60-year old man with multiple chronic health problems. Some states require that insurance companies that offer small group policies must accept every group that applies and must accept every member of the group regardless of lifestyle choice or health condition. Constraints such as these make it difficult for customers to purchase insurance in the first place. These constraints are the cause of our current problems and it is those contraints that I wish to see repealed. (For more details, please refer to "Moral Health Care Vs. 'Universal Health Care'" by Lin Zinser and myself.)

Q2) Why should whether I live or die depend on whether an insurance company finds it too costly to pay for my care? Should my fate be determined by whether a corporation finds it profitable?

A2) One should reverse that question. Should an insurance company be obliged to run at a loss? For example, there are many people who wish to force insurers to cover expensive treatments that are of minimal (if any) proven efficacy, such as bone marrow transplant in patients with late-stage breast cancer. If or when such laws are passed, insurance companies don't survive for long or else they pull out of local markets where such laws are in force, thus depriving all the other residents of that locality the possibility of purchasing insurance from that company. If an insurance company cannot be profitable, then they can't provide coverage for anyone.

More fundamentally, should an insurance company be obliged to pay for your care purely because you need it, regardless of the cost to them? The fact that you have a need does not create an automatic obligation on others to fulfil that need.

Q3) How would a free market guarantee that all Americans will have necessary health coverage?

A3) There's a premise in your question that I must disagree with - namely that it's the government's responsibility to guarantee health coverage for all Americans. It is not, any more than it's the proper role of the government to guarantee that every American has a job or a car. Health care is a need, but that's not the same thing as a right.

A right is a freedom of action that an individual possesses, such as the right to free speech. Rights impose no positive obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. Rights are not automatic claims on the goods and services produced by others -- that is just state-sanctioned theft.

To further concretize the difference between a need and a right, consider an innocent child with a rare disease who will die unless he gets a bone marrow transplant from a matching donor. The only potential donor with the proper tissue match is someone who doesn't want to donate, for whatever reason (maybe he's scared of needles, maybe he's a Jehovah's Witness, maybe he's just an ornery old cuss). We'll also stipulate that the potential donor understands exactly what is at stake for the child, and that he correctly understands that donating bone marrow is a very safe procedure that would involve a few minutes of tolerable physical pain and a couple of hours of his time, but otherwise wouldn't impair his life afterwards. The fact that the child will die without that bone marrow does not mean that the child's family (or anyone else) has the right to strap that potential donor down and forcibly take a marrow sample from him against his will. The child's need does not constitute a right to that other man's bone marrow.

Q4) What if someone has a bad disease through no fault of his own, can't afford the treatment, and no insurance company will cover him? Who will pay for his care?

A4) The short answer is, "Anyone who wishes to do so."

If someone incurs an unfortunate random hardship (even though it is no fault of his own), it does not create an automatic obligation for anyone else to pay for it. Depending on the exact circumstances, I might be willing to voluntarily donate my own time/money to help him out. For example, in my capacity as a physician, I have personally waived my own professional fee more times than I can count out of voluntary charity for patients whom I've thought were worthy recipients. The same is true for nearly every other physician I know. And in general, Americans have been extraordinarily benevolent about voluntarily donating their time and money for innocent victims of natural disasters, disease, and man-made harms (such as 9-11 or the Oklahoma City bombings).

So if someone developed a bad disease that would cost him $100k, and either didn't get insurance or couldn't get insurance, then he essentially has to rely on the voluntary charity of others. His need (genuine as it may be), does not create a right to someone else's property or time.

This isn't limited to health care. The same would be true if an unfortunate homeowner didn't or couldn't purchase flood insurance, then his house was completely destroyed by a freak 100-year flood. His hardship does not constitute any sort of automatic claim on others' assets. Again, I (and many others) might be willing to be offer voluntary charity to help him out. But if no one is voluntarily willing to help him out, then he loses his house.

Furthermore, the very fact that such examples tug at the sympathies of normal decent Americans also means that those Americans will be forthcoming with voluntary charity. And I fully support giving to charities that are consistent with my values and priorities.

Q5) Isn't the purpose of a government to promote the common welfare of all citizens?

A5) No, the purpose of government is to protect individual rights - specifically to protect individuals from the predations of others who would use force to deprive men of their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This includes protecting honest men from external enemies who would wage war on us as well as internal criminals who would use force to steal, murder, commit rape, etc. Hence the purpose of a government is to create and enforce conditions where men and women can freely and voluntarily exchange ideas, goods, and services to the mutual benefit according to their best rational judgment, without fear that someone else will try to forcibly rob them of those benefits. Man's essential nature requires that he uses his reasoning mind to create the values necessary for sustaining his life. Hence, protecting his right to the free use of his mind (and the right to voluntarily trade with others for the products of their thought and effort free from compulsion) is the basic function of a government.

When a government ceases to be the protector of individual rights and instead becomes one of the chief violators, then it undermines the very reason for its existence. It's akin to a government claiming that "we need to protect the freedoms of Americans from enemies abroad", and then imposing a military draft on young Americans to fight in a war (and violating those draftees' freedom and rights in the process).

Q6) Your position is very harsh and Darwinian. If you were dying of cancer and could not afford treatment, would you really say to yourself, "Oh well, this is my random bad luck, no one has an obligation to treat me and so I must die"?

A6) Yes. My life is my own responsibility. Others may choose to voluntarily help me if am in need, but they should not be legally required to do so (i.e., they should not be forced by the government to help me against their will or punished by the government for failing to help me.)

If I needed $100,000 for a life-saving cancer treatment but couldn't afford it, I would of course do everything legal and moral to try to live. I might borrow money from friends and family, I might ask for charitable contributions, I might sign up for clinical trials of experimental drugs, etc. But I wouldn't hack into my neighbor's bank account and steal that money from his kids' college fund. Or steal $100 each from a thousand of my neighbors. Or ask the government to take it from my neighbors by force.

Similarly, if my next-door neighbor was the only possible matching bone marrow donor to cure my rare disease but he didn't want to donate a sample to save my life, I wouldn't strap him down and take it from him by force. If I had a brain tumor that required a delicate operation in order for me to live, and the only neurosurgeon with the necessary skill was unwilling to do the procedure, I wouldn't force him to perform the surgery at gunpoint (or have the government force him).

That's not being Darwinian -- that's just being moral. Of course, I would prefer to live rather than die of a terrible disease. But I wouldn't want to live if it costs me my integrity and my self-respect. A man can't "save" his life at the price of sacrificing his morality, since morality is the very means that a man survives as a man.

Q7) Isn't it my social obligation to subsidize the health care of those who can't afford it?

A7) No, you have no positive binding obligation to help others although of course you have the voluntary choice. Nor is this limited to health care -- it's an application of a more general principle. If I saw a child drowning in the ocean, in all likelihood I would try to save him if I thought I had a reasonable chance of success. And nearly everyone I know would feel similarly. But if a different passerby chose not to make the attempt for whatever reason, then that's his choice to make and one which I have to respect. He has the right to decide whether he wishes to try or not. Conversely, the drowning child cannot demand that a random passerby must help him as a matter of right -- only out of voluntary charity. If it turned out that a passerby was a strong swimmer but refused to help because he was a total jerk, then I might hold him up to public moral censure -- maybe he'd lose his friends, his job, and the respect of his peers. But the government should not send him to jail for failing to take a positive action that could have saved the child's life (assuming that he wasn't the cause of the child's drowning in the first place).

Just as a passerby should not (and currently does not) have a legally binding positive obligation to help a drowning child even if he is capable of doing so at no cost to himself, he should not be obligated by law to pay for my cancer treatment. There's a crucially important difference between him having the negative obligations not to steal from me or not to deprive me of freedom of speech (i.e., to respect my rights), and any purported positive obligations to pay for my health care or save me from an accident. Again, my right to free speech implies only a negative obligation on his part not to violate it -- it does not require a positive action on his part. On the other hand, any alleged entitlement rights such as a "right" to health care is essentially a demand by me for some forced positive action from others.

Q8) I agree that health care is not a "right", but isn't it moral for the US government to raise taxes to improve the overall welfare of the nation? Universal health care (ideally administered through a free-market mechanism to the greatest extent possible) would be a good use of that power.

A8) If we agree that there is no "right" to health care, then by what right does a government force one citizen to pay for the care of another citizen? That's what any system of "universal care" essentially amounts to. What you consider a moral use of government power is something I consider deeply immoral. And the experience of other nations shows that any attempted system of universal care ends up destroying the free market that makes quality health care possible.

At a practical level, if I needed major medical care and couldn't afford it, I'd much rather rely on a pure free market plus voluntary charity from my fellow Americans, than a British-style system of government "universal care".

Although critics of the free market regularly claim that it would lead to "people dying in the streets", this would not actually happen unless Americans were far more impoverished and callous than they are today. The free market is our best protection from that scenario. And if Americans ever became that impoverished and callous, then no system of government-run universal care would be sustainable or even possible.

On the other hand, the nationalized health systems routinely deny care to people who have theoretical "universal coverage". Those patients *do* end up dying because of the allegedly "compassionate" government system.

Pat Corvini 2007 Course on Math Now Available

2008-05-13T00:01:00.002-06:00

In my 4/26/2008 blog post, "Are Mathematical Truths Discovered or Invented?", I referred to Dr. Pat Corvini's superb course at the 2007 OCON as an excellent example of applying the Objectivist epistemology to the concept of number. At the time, the course was not yet available for sale.

As an update - the course is now available for purchase from the Ayn Rand Bookstore. Here's a slightly modified description of the course, per Dr. Corvini:

Two, Three, Four and All That

Number, though ubiquitous, is widely misunderstood. Drawing on Objectivist epistemology, this course sheds new light on the subject by sketching a reduction of the key ideas behind the modern number system and by showing their connection to cognition in general. Recognizing the objectivity of number provides a new framework for resolving historical and modern debates, and yields a heightened appreciation for the science of mathematics as a whole.

This course uses a detailed examination of the ideas behind counting, negative numbers, and area-measurement as concretes on which to illustrate wider conclusions about the nature of number. While not strictly a prerequisite, this material provides context for Dr. Corvini's course on modern ideas of number and infinity ("The Sequel," to be delivered at Objectivist Summer Conference 2008), and is highly recommended for those planning to attend.

According to the Ayn Rand Bookstore, the course is a 6-CD set, selling for $61.95. Total run time is 4 hrs., 29 min., including Q & A.

Objectivism Seminar's OPAR Sessions Begin Sunday

2008-05-12T11:10:00.000-06:00

The Objectivism Seminar will begin going through Leonard Peikoff's book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand this coming Sunday. If you are new to Ayn Rand's ideas, I encourage you to join us!

From the original announcement:

Whether you are new to Rand or a veteran student of Objectivism, our sessions will be valuable to you: we'll go through the entire system, with the experienced folks refining their understanding and ability to articulate and apply the ideas, while the newer folks grapple with the ideas and ask all the right questions. So please don't be shy about jumping in -- the reading and meeting load is light, and you'll be working with a great group of people!

We'll begin the weekly sessions for OPAR on Sunday May 18, 7:30pm Mountain time, reviewing and discussing two or three sections per meeting. I'll almost always be moderating to keep us on track. And as we go, each section will have two volunteers at the helm of the discussion (maybe you!): one reviewing the material, and one playing Devil's Advocate to stimulate productive engagement. Everyone else can join in as desired to flesh out our picture of important elements and connections, explanations and applications, and to bring questions and concerns for us all to grapple with.

For more information, please visit the www.ObjectivismSeminar.com site!

My Health Care LTE in New York Times

2008-05-11T01:00:00.002-06:00

The May 11, 2008 New York Times printed my LTE in response to their earlier article from May 4, 2008, "Even the Insured Feel the Strain of Health Costs". My letter is the fourth one down on this page, and they included a mention of FIRM:

To the Editor:

The skyrocketing costs of health insurance are the result of onerous government regulations, such as mandatory benefits.

Many states require insurance plans to include benefits like chiropractor care or in vitro fertilization. Such mandatory benefits raise insurance costs by about 20 percent to 50 percent, according to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance.

More fundamentally, mandated benefits violate an individual’s right to contract freely with insurers and providers according to his rational judgment for his best interest. Instead, a bureaucrat decides how the individual must spend his own money.

Eliminating these mandates would make health insurance available to millions of Americans who desperately want it but cannot now afford it.

The proper solution to the health insurance crisis is not more government, but a free market.

Paul Hsieh
Sedalia, Colo., May 4, 2008

The writer, a doctor, is co-founder, Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine.

Venn and Non-Venn Diagrams

2008-05-10T13:01:00.001-06:00

Who knew diagrams could be so darn fun?

Nine Years

2008-05-09T22:12:00.002-06:00

Paul and I celebrated our ninth wedding anniversary today. We were married on May 9th, 1999 in La Jolla, California.

Congratulations to us!

Changing the Wind: The Opposition's Perspective

2008-05-09T01:14:00.000-06:00

At FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine), we may or may not necessarily win the battle over any specific piece of legislation. But as Lin Zinser has pointed out, that's a secondary goal. Our main goal is the promote the idea of free market health care and to make it part of the mainstream discussion, so that policy makers and the general public regard it as a serious alternative to the status quo.

Or to borrow a point from Richard Ralston of AFCM (Americans for Free Choice in Medicine), "Don't worry about changing the politicians. The politicians will wear their fingers to the bone sticking them in the air to test which way the wind is blowing. Instead, work on changing the wind. If you change the wind, the politicians will follow."

One indication that we are having the desired effect comes from our ideological opposition. A few months ago, Michele Swenson, an advocate of Canadian-style "single payer" health care for Colorado posted the following on the weblog for ProgressNow.org, which is one of the "progressive" leftist advocacy organizations in Colorado. She was complaining about the horrible media bias towards free market health care, and the appalling lack of coverage for her beloved single-payer "solution". Here's an excerpt:

Open Letter to Denver Media: The information blackout by the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News regarding Single Payer health care reform - their bias toward 'free-market' solutions

Throughout the process of the Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform, the two large Denver newspapers have consistently failed to present factual information about the Colorado Health Services Single Payer Proposal -- the one that was most favorably evaluated by the Lewin Group.

Since March of 2007 both the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News have each printed a number of commentaries by 'free-market' health care advocates Brian T. Schwartz and Paul Hsieh, as well as commentaries by Sen. Andy McElhany and ex-Senator Mark Hillman. Only Rep. Claire Levy was granted a commentary in the Post that dissented from the predominant 'free market' view.

At least five commentaries since the Spring of 2007 have been submitted by myself and others about the advantages of the Single Payer proposal, as well as the broken system of third-party multi-payer commercial health insurances. The information has been ignored by the Post and the News. Only out-state papers like the Pueblo Chieftain and some northern Colorado papers, including the Fort Collins Coloradoan and the Northern Colorado Business Report, have consistently printed different perspectives of health care reform, including the Single Payer perspective...

Our opposition definitely knows that we are out there. And they are clearly feeling a bit on the defensive.

So we must be doing something right if the statists are demoralized over what they believe to be a media bias towards the "predominant 'free market' view"!

Of course we still have a long ways to go. And there will be inevitable ups and downs throughout the process. But I believe that we can take heart from our opponents' statements and recognize that we are changing the direction of the wind.

Fashion Predictions

2008-05-08T07:15:00.000-06:00

Fashion predictions for 2000 made in 1930:

I'm particularly entranced with the possibility of unzipping portions of my dress as I move through the day. How convenient that would be! (Not! It's yet another case of predicting bundling as some great benefit, when in fact it wouldn't be more convenient but only more limiting.)

However, the man-outfit toward the end of the clip is quite spectacular. It's spaceman-like qualities are quite ironic, given that men's clothing hasn't changed all that much since the 1930s.

(Via The Volokh Conspiracy)

The Post-American World

2008-05-07T00:05:00.001-06:00

Recently, there have been a couple of high-profile articles featuring excerpts from the forthcoming book by Fareed Zakaria, international editor for Newsweek, entitled The Post-American World.

One article can be found here at the Newsweek site: "The Rise of the Rest".

The second article from Foreign Affairs is mirrored here: "The Future of American Power".

The New York Times has just reviewed the book here: "A Challenge for the U.S.: Sun Rising on the East".

These articles have already gotten a lot of attention on the blogosphere, and I anticipate the book will also be widely discussed. The basic premise is that the current era of American dominance in the world will soon come to an end, yielding to other powers such as China and India, much as the British dominance in the 19th century ended in the early 20th century (fortunately yielding to the United States.)

Zakaria does recognize important differences between the two situations, and he makes a number of correct observations with respect to specific issues and challenges facing the US. For instance, in the Newsweek article, he correctly points out that the US benefits greatly from energy of hard-working immigrants seeking to better their lives. In the Foreign Affairs article, he correctly notes that onerous government regulations threaten to harm the vitality of our capital markets, to the detriment of Americans in a global economy.

However, he also makes some serious errors. For instance, in the first article, he argues that the key in the international arena is to work on stabilizing the "global system" and ensuring that "China, India, Russia, Brazil all feel that they have a stake in the existing global order", to lessen the dangers of "war, depression, panics, and breakdowns". In the second article, he blames our "dysfunctional" political system, and argues that politicians of both major political parties must "compromise" in order to address major issues such as "health care, Social Security, tax reform".

Overall, he doesn't quite manage to tie all his points into a single unifying theme. Hence, I think this is an excellent opportunity for interested Objectivists to set forth their own arguments on the source of American greatness, what happened to erode it, and how we can recover it.

For example, here is the LTE I sent to Newsweek in response to their article:

American decline is far from inevitable. America rose to greatness because it was founded on the principle of individual rights for all men (albeit imperfectly implemented). The resultant boom in American prosperity and power was the result of a capitalist system that allowed men and women to freely use their reason to better their lives. China and India are prospering because they are starting to allow partial capitalism into their economies as well.

If America wants to remain a vibrant, prosperous country, we need to abandon our current path towards European-style welfare statism and return to laissez-faire capitalism. The government should confine itself to protecting the individual's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and barring the initiation of force between men. If we reaffirm that basic principle, America can continue to remain a shining example of freedom and prosperity for the rest of the world.

Paul Hsieh, MD
Sedalia, CO

Obviously, much more could be written on this subject. And Objectivists have a number of important and unique ideas to contribute to this discussion.

Concealed Carry in National Parks

2008-05-06T07:10:00.000-06:00

Paul recently posted the following alert to my OActivists list:

Currently, the federal government does not allow people to carry concealed weapons in National Parks. The Dept of the Interior is considering changing that rule so that if you have a valid permit to carry in your state, then you can also carry in a National Park located within that state.

(Currently, one can do so in a National Forest but not a National Park.)

The Fed Gov is currently requesting public comments in support or opposition of this measure.

The proposed rule change can be found here: General Regulations for Areas Administered by the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

You can leave a comment in support of those rule changes.

Here's the comment I submitted:

As a concealed carry permit holder in Colorado, I strongly support this change in rules to allow the carrying of firearms in national parks as state law allows.

The ban on firearms in national parks disarms honest, law abiding citizens, thereby preventing them from protecting themselves if attacked. Meanwhile, the criminals know that park visitors are easy pickings, precisely because they are disarmed.

The standard claim that allowing concealed carry will result in more violence and crime is plainly false -- as empirical data from the 36 states with shall-issue concealed carry laws proves. Morally, the government ought to allow people to protect themselves from criminals in emergency situations when the police are not on hand.

Please do implement this change in rules.

After I wrote that, I saw that others noted that the rule should allow a concealed carry permit holder from any state to carry in any national park. That's right, and I wish I had thought of that!

Raising an Objectivist Puppy

2008-05-05T00:27:00.000-06:00

OK, are you sitting down? Then have a look at the cutest puppy ever . . .

This is Rubi-wan DooBeeDoo Kenobi, my 4 � month old Goldendoodle. I admit to feeling a bit self-conscious about owning a "designer dog," like it's just too precious. On the other hand, she's a little walking laboratory demonstrating the correctness of some Objectivist principles.

1. There's no such thing as animal rights. Rubi likes to sit on the floor next to my bench while I'm playing piano. When I take breaks from playing to flex my fingers we often fix our gazes adoringly at each other - as she chews the edge of my rug to bits. MY rug, not hers. Now, I know she's a puppy and I can train her out of this. Maybe. But it brought to mind a big reason I won't be respecting animal "rights" any time soon - because animals don't respect mine.

2. Man makes the world in his own image - including his dogs. Rubi also likes to pounce, even on things that aren't moving. Yesterday we gave her one of those snack bones that claims to be able to clean your dog's teeth (it gave her dog breath and diarrhea). Instead of just picking it up from the floor she pounced. My husband pointed out that wolves eat mice at least some of the time, which they catch by quietly stalking through tall grass and then pouncing on their prey. So pouncing is just the wolf coming out in Rubi - I guess we humans decided it wasn't something that needed to be bred out of them. It certainly is cute.

The point (I am getting to it), is that whatever dogs are, they were made that way by humans. Some object that dogs like Goldendoodles are bred as "accessories." But that's just a modern restatement of the reasons dogs exist at all-humans want them around. We began breeding them from wolves for their utility as well as their companionship. Now we breed more for companionship. But what's the diff? All dogs are designer dogs. Complaints about accessorizing are just a rehashed insult to the way humans operate.

So here I am, in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, happy owner of a politically-incorrect pet that has no rights. Anyone who doesn't like it can kiss my doodle.

Paula Hall Joins NoodleFood

2008-05-04T19:28:00.000-06:00

I'm delighted to announce that Paula Hall will be joining the illustrious ranks of the NoodleFoodlers as a guest blogger for the next month or two, and perhaps more permanently after that. Some of you might remember her now-defunct blog, Ms. Think. More recently, she raised an excellent question on Nuisance and Pornography, then participated in the ensuing discussion in the comments. Here's how she describes herself:

I am non-practicing lawyer living in Brookline, Massachusetts with her husband, teenaged son, and Goldendoodle puppy. After living la vie bohème in NYC for a few years I finally went to school, where I majored in ethics and social and political philosophy at U.Mass/Boston and then got a J.D. from Harvard Law. To pay the bills I do market R & D at a high-tech firm that helps companies manage their legal compliance risks. For over 20 years I have been studying and thinking about Objectivism, with an emphasis on ethics, epistemology, economics, and lately, philosophy of law. I refuel by teaching myself piano -- right now, I'm tackling Chopin's Aeolian Harp Étude Op. 25, No. 1 in A-flat Major.

I'm hugely enthused to read her contributions to NoodleFood.

Welcome aboard, Paula!

Astrology in the Markets

2008-05-04T08:35:00.000-06:00

No comment: Britain's biggest banks use astrology to play the markets.

Upgrade Your Understanding of Objectivism!

2008-05-03T07:38:00.000-06:00

Ready to engage your brain and get serious about understanding Rand's philosophical system? The Objectivism Seminar is about to go through Leonard Peikoff's presentation of the entire philosophy in Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR)!

Whether you are new to Rand or a veteran student of Objectivism, our sessions will be valuable to you: we'll go through the entire system, with the experienced folks refining their understanding and ability to articulate and apply the ideas, while the newer folks grapple with the ideas and ask all the right questions. So please don't be shy about jumping in -- the reading and meeting load is light, and you'll be working with a great group of people!

We'll begin the weekly sessions for OPAR on Sunday May 18, 7:30pm Mountain time, reviewing and discussing about two sections per meeting. I'll almost always be moderating to keep us on track. And as we go, each section will have two volunteers at the helm of the discussion (maybe you!): one reviewing the material, and one playing Devil's Advocate to stimulate productive engagement. Everyone else can join in as desired to flesh out our picture of important elements and connections, explanations and applications, and to bring questions and concerns for us all to grapple with.

For more information you can read the original Invitation to The Objectivism Seminar, and you can visit the www.ObjectivismSeminar.com site to get geared up for the journey!

Gambling with the IRS

2008-05-02T00:11:00.000-06:00

I got this joke in my e-mail a few days after tax day:

The IRS decides to audit Ralph, and summons him to the IRS office. The IRS auditor is not surprised when Ralph shows up with his attorney.

The auditor says, "Well, sir, you have an extravagant lifestyle and no full-time employment, which you explain by saying that you win money gambling. I'm not sure the IRS finds that believable."

"I'm a great gambler, and I can prove it," says Ralph. "How about a demonstration?" The auditor thinks for a moment and said, "Okay. Go ahead."

Ralph says, "I'll bet you a thousand dollars that I can bite my own eye."

The auditor thinks a moment and says, "It's a bet."

Ralph removes his glass eye and bites it. The auditor's jaw drops.

Ralph says, "Now, I'll bet you two thousand dollars that I can bite my other eye." Now the auditor can tell Ralph isn't blind, so he takes the bet.

Ralph removes his dentures and bites his good eye. The stunned auditor now realizes he has wagered and lost three grand, with Ralph's attorney as a witnes s. He starts to get nervous.

"Want to go double or nothing?" Ralph asks "I'll bet you six thousand dollars that I can stand on one side of your desk, and pee into that wastebasket on the other side, and never get a drop anywhere in between."

The auditor, twice burned, is cautious now, but he looks carefully and decides there's no way this guy could possibly manage that stunt, so he agrees again.

Ralph stands beside the desk and unzips his pants, but although he strains mightily, he can't make the stream reach the wastebasket on the other side, so he pretty much urinates all over the auditor's desk.

The auditor leaps with joy, realizing that he has just turned a major loss into a huge win. But Ralph's attorney moans and puts his head in his hands. "Are you okay?" the auditor asks.

"Not really," says the attorney. "This morning, when Ralph told me he'd been summoned for an audit, he bet me twenty-five thousand dollars that he could come in here and piss all over your desk and that you'd be happy about it."

Heh.

May Day in Colorado

2008-05-01T09:14:00.004-06:00

Here in Colorado, Mother Nature likes to toy with us in the spring. Yesterday, it was 70 degrees. Today (and tomorrow), it's snow:

(That's looking out from the house to the barn.)

(That's Kate near the house.)

More NoodleFoodlers?

2008-05-01T08:09:00.000-06:00

I'm interested in adding another blogger or two to NoodleFood. I'm looking for someone with a solid grasp of Objectivism, careful habits of thought, thoroughgoing commitments to honesty and justice, and a good sense of fun. I'll probably need to know any potential NoodleFoodler already, at least from some internet writings. (Or, the person can be a "guest blogger" for a month or so.)

Any potential NoodleFoodler should be willing to write at least a few posts per month. The posts need not be deeply philosophical, but they should be informative, thought-provoking, and/or entertaining. In general, posts should be commentaries of less than 1000 words, not long essays. Even shorter posts are fine.

NoodleFood is wholly my blog, to which some other fine folks contribute. I definitely value the input of my fellow bloggers, but I am the final authority in all Noodle-ish matters. So I act as the editor of the blog: posts are published by me only after I review them. In case of serious disagreement, I retain the right to refuse to publish a post. However, that's never happened. Usually, disagreements are minor. In such cases, I discuss the problem with the author before posting, in the hope of making some mutually satisfactory changes. If no such agreement can be reached, I might express my own views in a note at the bottom of the post or in the comments.

Any new blogger must be approved by all existing NoodleFoodlers.

If you're interested, please drop me an e-mail with a link to some relevant writings and/or a sample post or two, plus any other relevant information.

Thanks!

Homing from Work

2008-04-30T00:15:00.000-06:00

Paul sent me his "urban word of the day" for April 25th. It's too perfect not to post:

Homing from Work

Using work time and resources for personal tasks.

See reverse telecommuting

Busey: Steve, did you download those episodes of Entourage I told you about?

Myers: I told you Gary, my home Internet connection sucks ass. I am going to download and burn them at the office while I am homing from work.

Ha!

Another NetFlix Free Trial

2008-04-29T22:20:00.003-06:00

If you're interested in trying out the fabulous NetFlix DVD rental service, you can get a free trial while throwing a bonus rental to Paul and me. The offer expires on June 15th. (Last time I posted this kind of offer from NetFlix, Paul and I enjoyed a few extra movies.)

Indian Superheroes

2008-04-29T08:40:00.000-06:00

"Look! Up in the Sky! It's a Bird... It's a Plane... It's the Indian version of Superman with the Indian version of Spiderwoman!"

I must complain that I find this depiction of the two superheroes to be grossly unrealistic: everyone knows that Superman comes from the DC Comics world, whereas Spiderwoman comes from the Marvel Comics universe. (Via MeFi.)

Self-Defense on Campus

2008-04-28T00:01:00.000-06:00

On April 15th, the Colorado Springs Gazette published my letter to the editor in response to its excellent editorial advocating concealed carry at CU in Colorado Springs. Here's my letter:

I want to thank The Gazette for its editorial advocating concealed carry on campus ("UCCS students want their guns," Our View, April 13).

I'm a graduate student instructor at CU Boulder. Since 2001 I've been licensed to carry a concealed firearm in Colorado. Every time I hear of a new school shooting, I worry that some psychopath might unleash his rage on my campus. University policy forbids any firearms on campus. I obey that policy but it won't stop a killer from waltzing onto campus armed to the teeth. So if my students and I were in his path, we could only cower in fear in a corner of the classroom, helplessly waiting for him to kill us.

If the university respected my concealed carry permit, my good aim could protect my students from such an unthinkable end. Since I'm a law-abiding citizen trained in the proper use of firearms, my gun poses no danger whatsoever to other peaceful people.

CU's anti-gun policy is wrong. It ought to be changed, not just in Colorado Springs, but in Boulder, too.

I applaud the efforts of the UCCS chapter of Concealed Carry on Campus.

Such efforts are just starting at Boulder, too. Students and parents wanting to advocate concealed carry at CU Boulder should contact Jim Manley at james.m.manley@colorado.edu.

Diana Hsieh, Sedalia

On April 22nd, I participated in the "Empty Holster Protest" at CU Boulder. It was sponsored by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. As for the importance of concealed carry on campus, John Lott recently published an op-ed on the dangers posed by gun-free zones like college campuses.

Many Objectivists are lukewarm on gun rights, particularly on concealed carry. If you're one of them, you might wish to read these essays:

Jeff Snyder: A Nation of Cowards
Eric Raymond: Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun: What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life
Heartland Institute: Taking Aim at Gun Control

Thanks to political activism by gun rights advocates over past 25 years, 36 states in the US now have laws mandating "shall issue" concealed carry permits -- meaning that any law-abiding citizen with appropriate training can obtain a permit, without any further permission from local law enforcement. (I've had a concealed carry permit since 2001.) Contrary to the frantic cries of anti-gun liberals, the streets have not run with blood -- precisely because concealed carry permit holders are not criminals but rather responsible, law-abiding citizens who use their weapons in emergency situations to defend themselves from criminals.

Update on North Korea

2008-04-27T00:12:00.003-06:00

StrategyPage has a very interesting update on the ever-declining state of affairs in North Korea. It's definitely worth reading, if you're interested in that horrid corner of the globe.

Are Mathematical Truths Discovered or Invented?

2008-04-26T11:23:00.010-06:00

This question is one of the topics in the upcoming June 2008 issue of the European Mathematical Society Newsletter. As Science News reports, this subject "has provided fodder for arguments among mathematicians and philosophers" for thousands of years, with no seeming resolution.

On one hand, there are Platonists who believe this:

...[A] mathematician discovers timeless truths independent of human observation and free of the transient nature of physical reality. "The abstract realm in which a mathematician works is by dint of prolonged intimacy more concrete to him than the chair he happens to sit on," says Ulf Persson of Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, a self-described Platonist.

But the Platonists are forced to deal with some tricky implications of their views:

Those who espouse discovery note that mathematical statements are true or false regardless of personal beliefs, suggesting that they have some external reality. But this leads to some odd notions. Where, exactly, do these mathematical truths exist? Can a mathematical truth really exist before anyone has ever imagined it?

In contrast, there are those who believe that such talk of an abstract realm is just mystical hogwash:

Brian Davies, a mathematician at King's College London, writes that Platonism "has more in common with mystical religions than with modern science." And modern science, he believes, provides evidence to show that the Platonic view is just plain wrong. He titled his article "Let Platonism Die."

...Reuben Hersh of the University of New Mexico ...rejects the Platonic view, arguing instead that mathematics is a product of human culture, not fundamentally different from other human creations like music or law or money.

But the latter school is faced with a different set of intractable questions:

On the other hand, if math is invented, then why can't a mathematician legitimately invent that 2 + 2 = 5?

...The challenge, [Hersh] admits, is to explain why it is that mathematical statements can be definitively true or false, not subject to taste or whim.

The solution to this millenia-old argument is to abandon both the intrisicist approach of the Platonists and the subjectivist approach of their opponents. Instead, mathematical concepts (like all concepts) are neither intrinsic nor subjective but objective. It is in debates like this where the Objectivist approach to epistemology and concept formation prove their value -- in being able to cut through the errors made over the centuries by struggling philosophers and mathematicians.

Of course, properly applying Rand's theory of concept formation to the philosophy of mathematics is a non-trivial task. Concepts of number are both seemingly self-evident, but also represent feats of tremendous abstraction. But scholars such as Dr. Pat Corvini have made a good start. Her course at the 2007 OCON, "Two, Three, Four and All That", was on precisely that topic -- namely how to apply the Objectivist theory of concept formation to concepts of number:

The concept of number as used in science today is one of man's greatest achievements: a grand-scale integration capping centuries of effort and enabling a vastly expanded efficacy in all areas of life. But the growth in complexity of the number system has rendered the meaning of number ever more mysterious; number is seen both as a touchstone of certainty and as an arbitrary human construct whose applicability to the real world is a deep mystery. This is because the nature of number has not been properly identified; and as Ayn Rand pointed out, that imprecision is dangerous.

This course clarifies the meaning of "number" by examining it in the light of Miss Rand's theory of concepts. Recognizing the objectivity of number provides a new framework for resolving both historical and modern debates, and yields a heightened appreciation for the science of mathematics as a whole—further reinforcing the value of Objectivist epistemology.

She is also offering a follow-up course at this year's 2008 OCON, "Two, Three, Four and All That: The Sequel":

Science shelves of bookstores are today awash in accounts of modern extensions of the idea of number, including infinity and the continuum, set theory, transfinite numbers, and the like. Many of these ideas, and the "mysteries" that proceed from them, figure prominently in modern philosophy and in popular discussion of the nature and limits of reason.

In this course, Dr. Corvini explains and evaluates some of the most influential of these ideas, using as a frame of reference both their historical context and the view of number as objective developed in her earlier courses. By identifying the fundamental nature of the ideas and of the errors involved, we see again the importance of a proper theory of concepts, and clarify the differences between an objective approach to mathematics and the more traditional views.

I have long had an interest in those topics such as foundations of set theory, the nature of the concept "infinity", etc. Hence, if her 2008 course is as good as her 2007 course, then it promises to be a real treat. Diana and I have already signed up for it.

Although I have a degree in mathematics (B.S., MIT, 1984), her courses do not require any advanced math background. Dr. Corvini is a very clear and engaging lecturer, and she is excellent at explaining the relevant mathematical concepts to a general audience. If you can count to 10 and you are a normal intelligent adult, then you can follow her lectures.

So if you want to see how the power of the Objectivist theory of concepts can resolve questions that have stumped some of history's greatest minds for thousands of years, check out her courses!

(I don't believe that her 2007 course is available yet through the Ayn Rand Bookstore, but I expect that it will be eventually. It was available for purchase by 2007 conference attendees as part of the usual post-conference package, and hence I think it will eventually make it to the main bookstore listing.)

Tore Boeckmann on Ayn Rand

2008-04-25T07:00:00.005-06:00

Tore Boeckmann was recently interviewed for EdNews on the creativity of Ayn Rand. The interview is short, but worth a read.

I should also mention that Tore Boeckmann's essay "Anthem as a Psychological Fantasy" in Robert Mayhew's anthology Essays on Ayn Rand's Anthem was one of the very bright highlights of that book. The essays in that volume are of consistently high quality, but the essays by Tore Boeckmann, Onkar Ghate ("Breaking the Metaphysical Chains of Dictatorship: Free Will and Determinism in Anthem"), and Greg Salmieri ("Prometheus' Discovery: Individualism and the Meaning of the Concept 'I' in Anthem") were way beyond stellar. I highly recommend reading them, if you haven't already.

Synchonized Kittens

2008-04-25T06:33:00.001-06:00

And now for something completely and delightfully different: