All it takes is one mad (evil or crazy) scientist to destroy the human race, according to Michio Kaku. So does government have a role in ensuring these technologies are not used for nefarious -- even catastrophic ends?
Most people just assume that occupational licensing protects consumers. The truth is, most licensing is a veneer. But it's really designed to create barriers to entry. What's clever about IJ's comparative analysis is that it holds up states with licensing to states without. If you can't find any trouble in the states without them, it's probably not doing any good for the states that have them. In those states, it's probably time to scrap them. But wouldn't that anger cronies?
The U.S. healthcare system is not a free market. Not even close. There are five major things wrong with the system that make it less free and, therefore, more expensive -- both in terms of insurance and in terms of care. Most are mentioned in this video. But here's my list:
The above video has officially gone viral. For those in the business of producing free market media, we need to speculate as to why. We should also ask whether this is an echo-chamber piece or might actually be affecting the way some people think. Below is my assessment, for what it's worth. But before giving it, understand that 'video killed the think-tank star' -- in a manner of speaking. Let's discuss the communications strategy.
Milton Friedman once quipped: "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." Well, we put state and local governments in charge of water and guess what happens?
It's an amazing time to be alive. (If you're dead, I apologize. I don't mean to offend.) We aren't yet living the Jetsons yet, but we've got cars that drive themselves. (Wait, no, we do have flying cars.) Anyway, I'm still excited about what I see in the video above. Just wait: in ten years, we may see the flying car technology integrated with the driverless technology. So what are the impediments to implimentation?
Turns out that when it comes to education, the slumdogs are the millionaires. This TEDx Glasgow talk will reward you for the time spent. And Pauline Dixon has done a great job communicating a research program undertaken with James Tooley whose work you may have heard of watching Free To Choose Network's The Ultimate Resource.
Before we get into the evidence, we should mention that Frances Fox Piven seems to be conflating colonialism with capitalism. If, for example, property rights institutions provide a basis for any free enterprise system, it's difficult to see how commerce could have amounted to peasants losing their farms (unless, of course, by lose she means sold). When peasants have their land taken, it's always by governments or cronies colluding with governments to undermine property rights.
But back to the question--relatively speaking (because there is no perfectly free system on earth): Do the most economically free countries tend to produce more freedom and equality?
"Living wage" is common parlance these days. And yet if Antony Davies is right, the supply and demand for labor is no different from that self-same law applied in other areas of the economy. You can't legislate away an economic law without distortions. As we've shown here many times, minimum wages actually hurt poor people.
Even if we agreed with Karl Marx that an "unemployed army" of immigrants and other poor people keep the price of low-skill labor low, can't we agree that 4 productive people making $5 per hour (labor market rate) is better for the social order than 2 productive people making $7.50 and 2 people drawing government benefits while doing nothing of value?