I don't know why you consider that an uncharitable explanation. It's really, really important that we have people like that. Consensus needs to be challenged, And in cases where the consensus is enforced by the PC police, that's often the only kind of person who will challenge the consensus.
With no undue respect to NOM types, it's not actually hypocrisy if they don't consider gay couples and their children to be real families. I don't want to defend them, but arguments of the form "You're a hypocrite because you don't accept my premises" annoy me. See also: "If you're so pro-life, then how can you support the death penalty?"
There's a lot of discretion at the margin. Tests that have a low probability of turning up anything serious. Expensive procedures that probably won't work and won't make much of a difference even if they do work. Life support for the terminally ill.
What I'd like to see is an insurance model where an independent auditor publishes QALY estimates for different treatments, and insurance plans have different premiums based on cost per QALY. If a procedure has a better cost per QALY ratio than your plan's threshold, then it's covered, otherwise not. Government plans and discount private plans would have low thresholds, and as you paid more your ratio would go up. If you get insurance from the government, or from work or whatever, you can buy extra insurance on top to raise your threshold.
I think this makes a lot more sense than the buffet type plans which some free-market types propose ("I want coverage for heart disease and brain cancer, but not for lung cancer or liver cancer"). That sort of thing just shuffles costs around, and leaves you vulnerable to getting a disease you didn't plan on because you didn't have the risk factors.
Wow. I hadn't heard about the Russia thing. I'm used to stuff Romney says being taken out of context ("Corporations are people"), but that was indeed legitimately stupid.
Yeah, I agree on the topic of Koz's magical thinking. But the irony of defending a guy whose campaign platform is basically "Seed corn in every pot" by reference to the impossibility of imagining away basic principles was a bit much for me.
One obvious thing he could have done, if he hadn't been trying to imagine away basic economic principles, is cut employer side payroll taxes instead of cutting them on the employee side. Wages may be sticky, but that doesn't mean cost of employment has to be.
High IQ parents (such as high IQ Microsoft couples) have about a 1 in 20 chance of having a kid with autism.
If that's true, an increase in assortative mating could result in an uptick in autism cases. I mean, assuming that there's actual synergy and not just "One high-IQ parent means an x% chance of autism and two high-IQ parents means a 2x% chance."
Though I do call BS on the hate crimes thing. If you feel the need to tack on hate crimes on top of murder charges, then you're not punishing murder harshly enough.
To be clear, I'm not convinced of Zimmerman's side of the story. If I had to bet at even odds, I'm not sure which way I'd bet. But there really hasn't been any shortage of people laying out the case against Zimmerman.
Sure. I mean, the main reason I'd prefer that it turn out that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin is that I'd rather it turn out that it was a thug who was killed than that it was a decent young man. But it also irks me that the left is using this to bolster their narrative about how everything wrong in the lives of black people is due to white racism. That narrative is wrong, regardless of how this particular case turns out. The statistics don't lie. But I'd prefer that they not be handed a vivid anecdote that appears to support it.
Also, I've seen enough allegations of racism turn out to be bad statistics, bad reading or listening comprehension, or straight-up hoaxes that I've learned to be skeptical. The media are looking for sensational stories and the left is looking for anecdata to bolster their narrative, so there really isn't much of an incentive to get things right when the story first breaks, and the bias all goes in one direction, at least from the non-conservative media.
His claim is that Martin was slamming his head against the sidewalk. That sort of thing could lead to permanent brain damage or death. If Zimmerman is actually telling the truth, then I believe the shooting would be considered justified in any jurisdiction. Duty to retreat only applies when there's opportunity to retreat.
The Daily Caller has an enhanced still that may or may not show an injury on the back of his head.
Really, the resolution on that video isn't good enough to rule out the presence of a wound, especially if there were paramedics at the scene--which I would expect, with the shooting--who cleaned it up a bit.. That watermark at the bottom isn't helping much, either.
If he was in fact on the ground and being beaten, as he claims, then SYG isn't relevant. There can only be duty to retreat when there's opportunity to retreat.
On “Coverture and Liberty”
The contrarian streak in the libertarian movement is wider than necessary for either tactical purposes or even just libertarian purity.
This is arguably inevitable. Libertarianism attacks enough sacred cows that you essentially can't be a libertarian without being a contrarian.
"
To be clear, I think this is important even if such people are usually wrong.
"
I don't know why you consider that an uncharitable explanation. It's really, really important that we have people like that. Consensus needs to be challenged, And in cases where the consensus is enforced by the PC police, that's often the only kind of person who will challenge the consensus.
"
Honey badger doesn't understand why Bryan Caplan can't try harder to fit in.
On “A Bloggy Puttanesca”
Can we all agree that the real crime here is that grown men have been reduced to using the word "hoodie?"
"
With no undue respect to NOM types, it's not actually hypocrisy if they don't consider gay couples and their children to be real families. I don't want to defend them, but arguments of the form "You're a hypocrite because you don't accept my premises" annoy me. See also: "If you're so pro-life, then how can you support the death penalty?"
"
Given that a man is dead, you really can't hope for a better scenario than one in which he deserved it. Because the alternative is that he didn't.
On “If The Supreme Court Kills Obamacare, You Can Keep Your Silver Lining”
There's a lot of discretion at the margin. Tests that have a low probability of turning up anything serious. Expensive procedures that probably won't work and won't make much of a difference even if they do work. Life support for the terminally ill.
What I'd like to see is an insurance model where an independent auditor publishes QALY estimates for different treatments, and insurance plans have different premiums based on cost per QALY. If a procedure has a better cost per QALY ratio than your plan's threshold, then it's covered, otherwise not. Government plans and discount private plans would have low thresholds, and as you paid more your ratio would go up. If you get insurance from the government, or from work or whatever, you can buy extra insurance on top to raise your threshold.
I think this makes a lot more sense than the buffet type plans which some free-market types propose ("I want coverage for heart disease and brain cancer, but not for lung cancer or liver cancer"). That sort of thing just shuffles costs around, and leaves you vulnerable to getting a disease you didn't plan on because you didn't have the risk factors.
On “Who do you like in the second?”
Wow. I hadn't heard about the Russia thing. I'm used to stuff Romney says being taken out of context ("Corporations are people"), but that was indeed legitimately stupid.
"
Yeah, I agree on the topic of Koz's magical thinking. But the irony of defending a guy whose campaign platform is basically "Seed corn in every pot" by reference to the impossibility of imagining away basic principles was a bit much for me.
"
One obvious thing he could have done, if he hadn't been trying to imagine away basic economic principles, is cut employer side payroll taxes instead of cutting them on the employee side. Wages may be sticky, but that doesn't mean cost of employment has to be.
On “A very cautious guess about the spike in autism”
High IQ parents (such as high IQ Microsoft couples) have about a 1 in 20 chance of having a kid with autism.
If that's true, an increase in assortative mating could result in an uptick in autism cases. I mean, assuming that there's actual synergy and not just "One high-IQ parent means an x% chance of autism and two high-IQ parents means a 2x% chance."
On “My Quick Take on The Martin-Zimmerman Incident”
Also, I'm not suggesting that the conservative media are necessarily unbiased, only that whatever bias they have goes in the other direction.
"
Though I do call BS on the hate crimes thing. If you feel the need to tack on hate crimes on top of murder charges, then you're not punishing murder harshly enough.
"
To be clear, I'm not convinced of Zimmerman's side of the story. If I had to bet at even odds, I'm not sure which way I'd bet. But there really hasn't been any shortage of people laying out the case against Zimmerman.
"
Sure. If they're guilty, hang 'em high. I'm fairly certain that we can all agree that murdering black people is a bad thing.
"
Sure. I mean, the main reason I'd prefer that it turn out that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin is that I'd rather it turn out that it was a thug who was killed than that it was a decent young man. But it also irks me that the left is using this to bolster their narrative about how everything wrong in the lives of black people is due to white racism. That narrative is wrong, regardless of how this particular case turns out. The statistics don't lie. But I'd prefer that they not be handed a vivid anecdote that appears to support it.
Also, I've seen enough allegations of racism turn out to be bad statistics, bad reading or listening comprehension, or straight-up hoaxes that I've learned to be skeptical. The media are looking for sensational stories and the left is looking for anecdata to bolster their narrative, so there really isn't much of an incentive to get things right when the story first breaks, and the bias all goes in one direction, at least from the non-conservative media.
"
His claim is that Martin was slamming his head against the sidewalk. That sort of thing could lead to permanent brain damage or death. If Zimmerman is actually telling the truth, then I believe the shooting would be considered justified in any jurisdiction. Duty to retreat only applies when there's opportunity to retreat.
On “Jay Nordlinger Doesn’t Care About Black People”
Lose the "we." If you didn't do it, it's not your fault.
On “I don’t know what your healthcare costs”
You really spend $2.50 a day on food?
On “My Quick Take on The Martin-Zimmerman Incident”
Neither have I, but apparently everyone else hates it.
"
The Daily Caller has an enhanced still that may or may not show an injury on the back of his head.
Really, the resolution on that video isn't good enough to rule out the presence of a wound, especially if there were paramedics at the scene--which I would expect, with the shooting--who cleaned it up a bit.. That watermark at the bottom isn't helping much, either.
"
This may be the first time that anyone has ever said "I wish your comment system was more like Disqus."
On “Jay Nordlinger Doesn’t Care About Black People”
If he was in fact on the ground and being beaten, as he claims, then SYG isn't relevant. There can only be duty to retreat when there's opportunity to retreat.
On “Looking for Small Comforts in the Suburbs”
I cut myself pretty badly with a straight razor once. The worst part was that it didn't even leave a tough-guy scar.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.