Affirmative Action for College Males

People support affirmative action from a variety of perspectives. Some popular talking points:

• Affirmative action creates a “level playing field.”
• Affirmative action rights historical wrongs.
• Affirmative action attempts to engineer some sort of politically correct reality where equality of results is the only acceptable end-goal.

So for a while now a significantly higher number of women than men are graduating from college. Does it make sense then to discriminate in favor of men (which, because this is a zero-sum game, means discriminate against women) in order to balance out the gender-ratio in colleges? Ilya Somin comments on and quotes an Engage article discussing some of the current events related to the topic:

My wife Alison and University of San Diego law professor Gail Heriot have just published an article in Engage on the apparently growing practice of sex discrimination on behalf of men in college admissions. Heriot serves as a Commissioner at the US Commission on Civil Rights, where Alison is her special assistant/counsel. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

“While some news reports indicate that discrimination against women on the basis of sex in college admissions is increasingly common, there has been relatively little public discussion about it—especially compared to the much more heated public debate concerning race-based affirmative action. Not surprisingly, therefore, there have been few attempts to study the extent of the problem systematically….

Multiple news reports indicate that some colleges and universities, both public and private, have what they regard as “too many” women applicants and are therefore discriminating in favor of men—largely because more women than men apply to college and their academic credentials are in some ways better. Several colleges have more or less openly admitted to discriminating against women – including the University of Richmond (a private institution) and the College of William and Mary (a public institution). Others—including Southwestern University (Texas), Knox College (Illinois), Brandeis University (Massachusetts), Boston University (also Massachusetts), and Pomona College (California)—shy away from admitting directly that they are discriminating, but admit that maintaining an optimal gender balance by non-discriminatory means is difficult….

Sex discrimination in admissions at public universities is illegal under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. But under federal law, it is perfectly legal for private institutions to engage in sex discrimination in admissions—though once both sexes are admitted, neither may be discriminated against….

Perhaps the most attention-getting piece on this topic was a 2006 New York Times op-ed by Jennifer Delahunty Britz, an admissions officer at Kenyon College, in which she admitted that her office often gave preferential treatment to men. Some admissions insiders wrote in response to Delahunty Britz’s piece that these preferences were quite common—what was shocking was only Delahunty Britz’s candor in airing this information publicly. Inside Higher Ed noted that “[w]hile few admissions officers wanted to talk publicly about the column, the private reaction was a mix of ‘of course male applicants get some help’ along with ‘did she have to share that information with the world?’” Several years later, after the wave of chatter over Delahunty Britz’s piece had died down, Columbia University law professor Ted Shaw referred to such discrimination as an “open secret.”
[footnotes omitted].”

The article also discusses the interconnections between admissions preferences for men and Title IX rules for college sports teams (the latter may have the unintended effect of incentivizing the former by making it harder for colleges to entice male students through increasing the number of men’s sports teams). Alison previously wrote about Title IX and sports here.

This issue is actually one of the rare points of political disagreement in the Somin household. I am less hostile than Alison to gender-balancing admissions policies that seek to keep the sex ratio (very roughly) even for the purpose of improving the social environment on campus. The problem of gender imbalance may be more serious at some institutions than others, and I don’t think it can justify very large gender preferences anywhere. As Gail and Alison point out, it’s a bad idea for colleges to admit “mismatched” male students whose academic skills are vastly inferior to those of the other students at the same institution. But, in some situations, I think there is a case for modest admissions preferences for the less numerous gender on campus. Some women students themselves may be dissatisfied with life on a campus that is, say, 70% female, and the same goes for male students at an overwhelmingly male institution. Obviously, other students probably couldn’t care less about the sex ratio at their university. But I don’t advocate that all universities with a gender imbalance should resort to admissions preferences to deal with it. I merely want the option to be legally available, at least at private institutions. Be that as it may, I do agree with Alison that such policies at public institutions are legally dubious under Title IX.

 

What Makes a Setback of Interests Wrongful?

(Continued from here.)

According to Feinberg, A harms B when “A acts… with the intention of producing the consequences for B that follow, or similarly adverse ones, or with negligence or recklessness in respect to those consequences; A’s acting in that manner is morally indefensible, that is, neither excusable nor justifiable; and A’s action is the cause of a setback to B’s interests, which is also a violation of B’s right” (106). Thus, for A to harm B, A satisfy four conditions in addition to setting back B’s interests (for five total necessary conditions). A must act, A’s act must be done with the intention of setting back B’s interests (or be negligent with respect to B’s interests), A’s act must be morally indefensible, and A’s act must violate B’s right. It is these four conditions that make a setback of interests wrongful, and it is the combination of wrongfulness and a setback of interests that establishes a harm.

An act is morally indefensible when there is no justification or excuse for it. An excuse involves denying responsibility for conduct that is, without considering the context in which it was performed, bad. Though the act was bad, the person who carried it out shouldn’t be blamed for it. A justification for an action involves an argument for why the action was right, or at least permissible, considering the circumstances in which it was performed. Thus, in order to qualify as a harm, an act must be neither excusable nor justifiable (108).

Feinberg defines a right as “a valid claim which an individual can make in either or both of two directions. On the one hand, some of a person’s rights are claims he can make against specific individuals for assistance, repayment of debts, compensation for losses, and so on, or against all other individuals… to noninterference in his private affairs.” Rights can on the other hand be claims an individual makes “against the state, not only for specific services and promised repayments, and noninterference in his private affairs, but also claims to the legal enforcement of the valid claims he has against other private citizens” (109). A rights violation occurs when one of these valid claims is not met.

Of course,  establishing what counts as a right and what does not is a philosophically formidable task. However, thanks to Feinberg, we at least have a framework which can guide us in establishing whether something counts as a harm.

 

 

Schools as a Silver Bullet Solution

A lot of factors can help make a student more “successfully” educated:

• They have parents that are supportive of their education.
• They have parents that have high expectations of their children and stress a hard work ethic.
• They have a solid home-life that leaves them relatively unscarred emotionally so that they are able to focus on education instead of using schools for attention they don’t get at home.
• They are fluent in the language that school is being taught in (English, in America).
• They have financial resources to buy supplies, get to school on time, have food in their stomachs, and participate in extra-curricular activities that allow them to get into colleges.
• They have financial resources to pay for tutoring or preparation materials for standardized tests that increase their likelihood of going to a good college.
• Their genetics make them more pre-disposed to like learning and be able to focus in school.
• The school that they can afford to go to has quality teachers, small-enough class sizes, etc. (They can go to a “good” school)

This list obviously isn’t exclusive. There are tons of things that factor into whether a child is well-educated by the time they become an adult. However, these aspects are often things that a lot of people, progressives especially, claim to be the reason for a gap in human capital today between the rich and the poor. Better-educated people that usually go on to make more money are only the way they are because they are able to fulfill the characteristics above. I don’t doubt that all of this is true. I don’t think I would have turned out like I have if it wasn’t for parents that had high expectations for me, could financially support my endeavors, and send me to high-quality schools.

So I’ve realized that a lot of the kids I teach at my middle school don’t have these things. And this fact seems to be (perhaps rightly so) a scapegoat for many of the kids’ educational shortcomings. How can you expect Kid A to do well when he can’t even understand the directions because Spanish is his first language? Or his parents don’t care enough to register him for a charter school or magnet school? Or he doesn’t have money to wear a coat in the cold? Or he’s beaten at home by an alcoholic father so he obviously finds it hard to concentrate? Or so many of his relatives are poor and/or in gangs that he finds it impossible to see a future at all?

But all of these problems seemed to have been dumped on schools. More than that, I think progressives are convinced the welfare state can successfully replace everything that Kid A is lacking compared to his more privileged peers. No food in his stomach? Dederally-provided free lunch. That makes sense. But English proficiency of a five year old, essentially? Should schools really be dumped with that burden? An alcoholic parent that beats them? Doesn’t really care about them (I have had more than one of my students tell me that they think no one cares about them – “my mom just cares about work and her boyfriend”)? Deep emotional issues related to family life?

Some of these things maybe can be solved by more funding. Lunch and breakfast. Perhaps better language training is possible, too. The language training is such a tremendous effort – I’m going to have to sympathize with anti-immigration folks here and say that it maybe really places an undue burden on the system if foreigners expect to come to America and have our public education system (which I see as a huge extension of the welfare state) be the ones to assimilate them and teach them English.

Moreso, I guess I was thinking of how family life affects a child’s education. By no means do all of the students I work with have terrible family lives. A significant number have very engaged parents that really are invested in their child’s future. However, kids in my school definitely disproportionately have a lacking home life. But should we be surprised then that these kids aren’t as successful? I’m not saying we should throw them into the wind and that’s all. But so much of education policy is focused on those kids who have negligent parents. Is the welfare state really in a position to replace hard-working, invested parents?

One common objection against charter schools is that only students with really interested parents will reap the benefits. Another against school competition is that only the kids who have invested parents will even apply for transportation vouchers that enable them to go across the city to a better school. I don’t doubt that these are true and, in fact, there is empirical evidence to support these ideas.

But what are we to do? When we talk about “equal opportunity” are we really hoping that the welfare state can, through essentially monetary funding, replace good parents? The parent who sets an example by waking up early every morning to get to work even if they don’t want to because that’s what adults have to do in the real world, the family who will go to the band concerts and basketball games. Do we really expect enough finagling in education policy to be able to replace these things? I sure don’t.

Again, I’m not saying to throw these kids into the wind. But the idea of “equal opportunity” and equalizing all of the factors that go into the quality of a child’s education seems to be a much too ambitious task to overcome. And unfortunately, almost all of this responsibility is being placed on our public education system. I sort of just thought about this on the bus ride home today so I’m willing to say that my opinion might change and/or that I’m open to any criticisms.

 

Mill’s Harm Principle

I’m working on a paper for a philosophy of law seminar which has focused on John Stuart Mill. Specifically, a central topic of discussion has been Mill’s harm principle. I’m starting to work on a paper on this (specific topic to be determined), and I figured I’d try writing a little bit here to clarify my thoughts and develop some ideas.

 

Back Into the Education World

After not finding a job in Austin for a few weeks, I got lucky and was recently hired by The Princeton Review to be a full-time math tutor at a middle school. When first interviewing for the job, I was under the impression that I’d be like the tutors I had run into during my life – I’d sit in some room and kids would come to me with math problems. Instead, I’m now in the middle of an ambitious educational experiment that very well could have national repercussions. A little bit about what is going on:

• The middle school I am tutoring at was given a huge grant by the Texas government and the Federal government because it is “Unacceptably Achieving.”
• This money is being used to hire 33 full-time math tutors for this middle school, purely in math classes and purely for the sixth grade level.
• What this means is that there will be seven tutors in each 6th grade math class at all times. Essentially, one tutor for every four or five students, ensuring that no kid can be ignored if they aren’t fully understanding the material.
• While I have zero previous teaching experience, many of my fellow tutors do, with some having taught for as many as 35 years.
• The school has a student population of 55% falling under the category of “English Language Learners” – my Spanish knowledge from working at an ice cream shop with Mexicans will truly be put to the test.
• The Texan government and Federal government are keeping a very close eye on this program. There have been press conferences and newspaper articles, many of them suggesting national replication of this program if it is deemed successful.

I hope that paints a picture of what I am getting into (first day is on Monday, training took all of the most recent week). Here are some thoughts I have as of right now:

• This is my first experience teaching, really at all. Although I am interested in education policy a lot, this will be a valuable experience to actually see how schools work, with an adult perspective (I got it from a child’s perspective 10 or so years ago).
• The school and The Princeton Review talk more about the standardized tests than I feel comfortable with. With every lesson, the instructors are actually supposed to state the STAAR or TEKS (Texan standardized tests) concepts that are bring taught.
• Paying 33 tutors full-time at 10-15 dollars an hour is expensive. If this works, how financially feasible is it to replicate this at other troubled schools around the country?
• The government and school are employing a private agency to tackle this problem. This last week alone has given me good insight on how effective the Princeton Review has been at helping students for things ranging from SAT scores to general writing skills.
• One of the women running the program hesitantly told me she’d like to have a corporate takeover of our education system because the people in the education bureaucracy are such idiots. She was relieved to hear me say that I don’t think that’d be such a bad idea.
• There are actually a lot of things that we can do as tutors in terms of instruction styles that the teachers can’t do because of rigid constraints imposed on them by administrations and school boards.
• Texas is truly 10 years behind the rest of the country in education. Their K-12 system is really near the bottom.
• As one fellow tutor put it, this program is analogous to “The Surge” in Afghanistan. We really are putting tons of resources and man power to make sure these kids’ math skills are fully up to snuff. As such, I think it will really demonstrate how much good can be done in education when funds are spent on instruction (believe it or not, the current system spends a ton of money on administration and union BS).
• It will also show the limitations of what schools can do in terms of education. I know that might sound weird. But I wonder how much schools can do if kids come from broken families, immense poverty, etc. Can the welfare state, via the school system, really replace something like committed parents? Obviously not all these kids have negligent parents, but it is often something people like to argue about when it comes to rich kids getting a better education.
• With all of the resources being spent towards kids who speak very poor English, I wonder whether I will leave this school year with a more hesitant view on immigration. After all, it is a huge pressure on school funding and time to teach these kids English. Will all of that make me less in favor of such open immigration? Who knows.

All I know is that it’ll be quite an adventurous and insightful year.

 

Occupy Wall Street

Those protesters all around the big cities aren’t going away. Whether they’re right or wrong, something motivated them to be there. A lot of conservative commentators are passing the protestors off as youths who don’t feel like paying back college loans or people that took out mortgages more ambitious than their finances allowed. I think this is very inaccurate and really, really dodges the issue at hand.

People have a right to be angry at banks. Unemployment is just hovering a bit above 9% due to a balance sheet recession that many bankers were made rich from. While the economy tanked, many got big bonuses (supposedly performance-based). Any reader of this blog knows that I am a market enthusiast, but it’s hard to explain bankers getting their compensation as any sort of productive incentivizing device. Furthermore, these banks got huge bailouts from the government.

However, the protestors are wrong in confusing corporatism for capitalism. It was government who gave the banks bailout money. It was the government supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that kept artificially low interest rates and spurred a disastrous bubble in the name of ‘fairness.’ The popular radical argument on both sides these days is that the Fed was the cause of all of this (though I personally think these arguments are overstated).

So what are those in the “#OccupyWallStreet” faction hoping to accomplish? It’s unclear. Right-wingers are taking this to mean a “protest for the sake of protesting.” If a group doesn’t have clear aims in terms of policy, they’re just complaining (or so people are saying). I think this is totally unfair. The Occupiers may be foolish in trying to be overly un-organized (because then they’d be just like THE MAN!) but there’s nothing wrong with coming together because of general disdain for current conditions. A lot of the Arab Spring protests were driven my general dissatisfaction with the status quo. I’m fairly certain that the millions of protestors had incredibly varied reasons for protesting. What they shared in common was that they wanted change.

The Occupiers are just like this. The current system in America has gotten high unemployment, high debt, and frankly, rewarded a lot of people who made the problem worse. So the Occupiers are protesting the status quo.

Where I do think they are foolish is directing all of their anger at Wall Street. Wall Street created wealth and is responsible for a lot of the prosperity in America (if “Wall Street” can really even qualify as a collective noun here). The government had a lot to do with the bad stuff too.

Some opponents are saying the Occupiers are complaining about all this nonsense, yet most of them voted for Obama. Yes, Obama. The same guy who bailed out the auto companies and spent foolish money all around the place. But this doesn’t weaken the justifiability of their angst, I believe. The Tea Party was very much the same. And here’s what I’ve been waiting to get to.

The Tea Party and the Occupiers are very, very similar. Both groups were protesting the status quo with vaguely defined policy goals. The Tea Partiers wanted less government spending (from where? military? social security? medicare? they were never too clear). A lot of them voted for George Bush, the guy who did those huge wars and presided over huge deficit spending. The Occupiers want better wealth distribution and less corporatism. A lot of them voted for Obama. So yes, there’s so inconsistencies and some may say hypocrisies on both sides. But I don’t think that means they’re wrong.

I think both the Tea Party and the Occupiers are right. In fact, I’ll be as bold to say that I agree with both of the groups. Wall Street has been getting special treatment for a long time, mostly because of corporatist practices. The government has been spending beyond its means. A lot of people like to dismiss the tea party because it’s easy to characterize them as religious whackos who think any sort of government is socialism. Indeed, some people in the movement are like that. But some people in the Occupy group are just as idiotic – smelly, lazy, hippies who just like many Tea Partiers have no actual knowledge or insight for what they’re fighting for/against.

But evaluating a group based on their most absurd characters is misguided. It’s the message that we should be attacking or defending. Most importantly, we need to figure out what the policy result of these protests will be.In the case of the Tea Party, politicians were elected who mostly favored borrow-and-spend government instead of tax-and-spend government. For the Occupiers: Will corporations be so villified that business will shrink significantly in America? Or will it mean that corporations stop getting bail outs and a true free market is realized? I hope the latter.

 

Three Cheers for Shumlin

There was a kerfluffle in my home state this past week when two undocumented migrant farm laborers were detained after a traffic stop (both were passengers in the car). The Vermont Migrant Farmworker Solidarity Project claimed that the two men were racially profiled in violation of Vermont State Police policy, which prohibits police from requesting immigration papers from people who are not suspected of a crime.

Governor Peter Shumlin’s reaffirmed the state’s commitment to a humane stance of immigration:

Shumlin said Vermont should “look the other way” when it comes to dealing with immigrants working illegally on Vermont farms. “We have always had a policy in Vermont where we kind of look the other way as much as we can,” Shumlin told WPTZ. “I just want to make sure that’s what’s we’re doing. [Vermont farms] can’t survive without workers from outside America. It’s just the way it is. “

[...]

Shumlin ordered an investigation of the incident on Tuesday to determine whether the traffic stop violated with the state police’s “bias-free policing policy.”

Unsurprisingly, Vermont ( republicans are trying to demagogue the issue:

“Rather than turning a blind eye to laws he doesn’t like, Gov. Shumlin should be working with our congressional delegation, as former Gov. Douglas and Sen. Leahy did, towards finding legal solutions that would make every foreign worker in Vermont compliant with federal law, and that wouldn’t result in a depression of wages for those foreign workers that are in Vermont legally,” [ GOP chairwoman Pat] McDonald’s statement read.

“The hardworking officers of the Vermont State Police took an oath to uphold the law,” the GOP statement went on. “The governor’s new policy of ‘look the other way’ may sound good to those that support illegal immigration, but it is not the appropriate guidance a sitting governor should be giving to Vermont’s law enforcement community.”

Of course Shumlin should work with Vermont’s congressional delegation to advocate for immigration reform at the national level. But that doesn’t mean that Shumlin shouldn’t do what is directly within his power as a governor to promote a sensible immigration policy at the state level. These two measures are not mutually exclusive, as McDonald implies.

Immigration restrictionists often make the kind of argument put forth by McDonald. The police have a responsibility to uphold the law, so any policy telling them to “look the other way” forces them to violate their oath of service. Using the words “look the other way” was perhaps a mistake on Shumlin’s part, since it gave McDonald and the republicans a concise soundbyte that seems to be anti-law enforcement. However, upon closer scrutiny, McDonald’s argument doesn’t hold up.

There are many more criminal acts that take place each day than the police could possibly respond to. If this isn’t obvious to you, note how many people are driving over the speed limit the next time you’re on the interstate. Inevitably, the police have to choose the best way to deploy limited resources. It’s just common sense that they should prioritize law enforcement against crimes that endanger other people and have a significant detrimental effect on society.

Immigration involves human beings coming into the country in order to engage in peaceful,  mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange of labor for wages. They do jobs that Americans cannot or will not do, and they strengthen our economy. The fact that the United States has laws on the books that place such draconian restrictions on this activity is deeply unjust. But given that, for now at least, we are stuck with these laws, it makes perfect sense, and is completely legitimate, for the police to focus on fighting crime that actually hurts people.

 

The Deficit Stuff (Belated)

A bit late, but I figure it’s better now than never…

The United States has huge debt. Surrounded by news of European countries needing bailouts and stimulus spending appearing to not do much good, the general public seems to be wanting austerity measures. So about about a month and a half ago Congress was presented with the issue of whether or not to raise the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is theoretically in place to stop out of control spending. When Federal debt approaches the ceiling, Congress has a debate on the merits of whether or not to raise the ceiling, ideally based on the quality of the increased spending. Throughout most of history, this increase goes by without much debate. However, in a climate of growing popular support for fiscal austerity, it didn’t go by as easily this time.

Most Democrats in Congress think now is not the time to cut spending. We need more spending to stimulate the economy. Worry about jobs now, deficit later. Republicans, mostly from the urging of tea partiers, think austerity is important to prevent us from approaching default or spending irresponsibly. At the time, austerity measures were also thought to have prevented a downgrading from Moody’s (the budget deal that was eventually reached and raised the debt ceiling did not accomplish this goal).

But throughout all of that, I noticed all of the bickering was essentially useless. Partisan argument for the sake of giving an appearance of taking a stand for the unemployed (Democrats) or spending (Republicans). The two sides seemed on totally opposite sides of the spectrum. But how much were they really fighting over? Were the Republicans really trying to cut the government that dramatically? No, they weren’t. The deal that was reached featured insanely trivial cuts. Despite cries from Democrats that the budget deal reached compromised so much, the Illinois Policy Institute produced a very interesting analogy to show how small the cuts actually were.

Here’s a look at the projected numbers for fiscal year 2011.

• US Tax Revenue: $2,228,000,000,000
• Federal Budget: $3,708,000,000,000
• New Debt: $1,480,000,000,000
• National Debt: $14,584,000,000,000
• Recent Budget Cuts: $352,000,000

These numbers might be a little difficult to comprehend so understanding them from the lens of an everyday household might be a bit easier. By eliminating 8 zeroes just see how different the picture looks.

• Annual Family Income: $22,280
• Money the Family Spent: $37,080
• New Debt on the Credit Card: $14,800
• Outstanding Balance on Credit Card: $145,840
• Total Budget Cuts: $3.52

That’s right. They were fighting over the equivalent of $3.52 in a household’s income. The idea that Republicans in Congress want to slash government spending is something Democrats use to scare voters and Republicans use to claim that they actually stand for limited government.

Take a look at this graph showing Federal government spending in 2010:

If we really wanted to tackle spending problems, we need to worry about big things. Concerning ourselves with earmarks, agricultural subsidies distracts from the real issues. Social security and medicare aren’t likely to go anywhere soon (though I suppose medicare costs could be decreased through reforms in health care), so we can’t approach fiscal solvency unless we do something about cutting defense. Discretionary spending accounts for 19% of the annual budget. To me, it’s obvious that we are fooling ourselves into thinking we’re pretending to be responsible by focusing on small spending instead of the things that will actually make a difference.

 

Anti-Poverty Programs Affect the Poverty Rate

New statistics on poverty in the United States were released a couple of days ago. Like most news about the economy for the past few years, it’s not good:

.  46-million Americans, roughly one in six, live in poverty

. 49.9-million Americans lack health insurance, up 13.3 million since 2000. 

. The U.S. can boast the highest overall poverty rate of any major industrialized nation; not surprisingly, it also has the highest childhood poverty rate.

. 21.6 percent of American children (that’s more than one-in-five) live in poverty.  Compare that to Denmark, where the number is 3.7 percent.

Depressing. A crucial point about how the Census Bureau calculates poverty statistics, however, is that a lot of anti-poverty programs aren’t taken into account. Only pure cash transfers, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, can affect the official poverty rate statistics. Programs like Medicaid and food stamps are ignored.

This is a problem because poverty rate statistics are used to inform policy debates about anti-poverty programs. But if the effects of many anti-poverty programs are ignored when these statistics are calculated, it significantly limits their usefulness. The numbers quoted above are not directly from the press release about the new poverty statistics. Rather, they were gleaned from a report by Sen. Bernie Sanders. Unsurprisingly, Bernie argues in the report that we are failing the nation’s poor and that we need to protect and improve anti-poverty programs. From the report’s conclusion:

As we look for solutions to reduce our nation’s debt, we must be cognizant of the effects of cutting social safety net programs. Choosing a path that impoverishes hundreds of thousands of people will result in unexpected yet largely predictable expenses in other parts of the budget. Knowing the potential impact of budgetary choices on the lives of individual Americans should help guide us to make not only the morally correct decisions, but also the financially responsible ones.

It would be much easier to be “cognizent of the effects of cutting social safety net programs” and know “the potential impact of budgetary choices on the lives of individual Americans” if these concerns were reflected in the official poverty statistics. But they’re not. We could double the food stamps program between now and the next time poverty statistics are released, and it would change nothing.

Given the state of the economy (especially high unemployment), you don’t really need statistics to tell you that people are struggling and that anti-poverty programs are needed even more now than they were a few years ago. But sound decision making relies on sound information, and in that respect, official poverty statistics as they are currently calculated fall short.

 

A Defence of Ron Paul’s Position on Health Care

One of the uglier moments during last night’s Republican primary debate came when, in response to Ron Paul’s claim that the government should not be in the business of providing health insurance, Wolf Blitzer asked, “are you saying that society should just let [a sick person without insurance] die?” and some knuckle-dragging spectators enthusiastically whooped, “Yeah!” Ron Paul responded, more reasonably, that private charities should support people who fall through the cracks.

Jacob Weisberg, writing in Slate, responds,

This was indeed an appalling, mob-mentality moment—more medieval, even, than the crowd applauding Gov. Rick Perry for winning the death-penalty derby at the previous debate. What it clarified, however, was less the cruelty of the Tea Party crowd than the absurdity of the health-care positions of all of the Republican candidates. The GOP contenders relentlessly attack “Obamacare” as “socialized medicine.” But they won’t speak up for either of the other two choices available to them: the arguably more socialized system we have hitherto lived with or the Blitzer option of letting the uninsured die in the streets.

What about private charity?

“[W]e no longer have an extensive system of charity hospitals. If emergency rooms treat the uninsured, whether because of a legal requirement or because they are good Samaritans, they will be passing the bulk of the cost along to the rest of us—and we’re back to our current system of socializing the costs of treatments for the uninsured.”

I just can’t help but feel frustrated when “the government shouldn’t provide x” is conflated with “society shouldn’t provide x”. Idiot spectators notwithstanding, saying that society should not provide health care to people who can’t afford it and will die without it is plainly absurd and immoral. Saying that the government shouldn’t provide health care because health care is better provided by institutions other than the government is an empirical claim.

Now, although Weisberg conflates these two positions throughout the article (for example, that our two health care policy options are the  “socialized system we have hitherto lived with or the Blitzer option of letting the uninsured die in the streets”), he clearly understands this, because he spends a couple of sentences arguing that the empirical claim is false. I’m skeptical myself that private charities would necessarily be better health care providers of last resort than the government, and clearly we couldn’t just take the government out of health care overnight without some pretty disastrous humanitarian consequences. But there is some evidence that private mutual aid societies did a decent job of providing basic necessities in the past. At the least, Weisberg and many other progressives are giving short shrift to what is actually a fascinating and difficult empirical question.

Empirical issues aside, I think that it’s usually harmful to the cause of constructive political discourse when empirical disagreements are misconcieved as disagreements over principle. Two people who disagree about whether health care would be better without government involvement at least have a chance of having a productive discussion. Dialogue isn’t really possible, on the other hand, when an entire ideology is understood to be arguing that society should let uninsured sick people rot in their gurneys.