One question Greta gave us was “does affirmative action work?”

I don’t think I started by saying it depends what we mean by “work” but I think I did indicate that that’s what I meant. Maybe I started with “Yes in the sense that” and went on from there. I think it does work in the (familiar) sense that if you always see X job or vocation or career full of all or mostly men (or white people or rich people and so on) then if you are not a man (or white etc) you will conclude, without deciding to conclude it, that you’re not supposed to be there.

This thought irritates the bejesus out of a lot of people. That’s sad for them but that doesn’t make it not true.

Ok, they perhaps think, but you can’t do anything about it without a lot of Professional Victimhood and Social Engineering and paying attention and all kinds of shit we don’t want to do. The hell with that. Don’t do anything, because.

I don't like to excerpt that much, but that was more complex than "Ophelia Benson thinks X" about affirmative action. I think there's truth there. It's a great basis for the discussion.

That’s called laissez faire, and it’s libertarian crap. The way things are right now isn’t just magically the best way they could be, so yes we do too so get to tinker with them. No we don’t want to draft everyone until all the numbers come out even, but we do want to get rid of obstacles, including subtle ones that take digging and research to discover. [emphasis in original]

That isn't an accurate representation of libertarian thought. Libertarians (small-l) don't think that the way things are right now is magically the best way they could be. Only a fool thinks we've reached something resembling a utopia. Problems exist. Many are significant and systemic. We need solutions to improve the world, premised for libertarians on the idea that solutions can and should aim for increased liberty and opportunity for all individuals. Sometimes, those solutions require government. The idea that libertarianism is about "anything goes" is a straw man. Libertarians (small-l) are not anarchists.

The challenge here isn't in recognizing that something needs to be done, that "yes we do too so get to tinker with [the way things are right now]". The challenge is that tinkering has consequences. Who tinkers? What goal do the tinkerers have? What is the scope of the tinkering? What powers will the tinkerers possess? What will the world look like during and after the tinkering? What are the standards of success for the tinkering? Does tinkering on issue X end if it meets those standards? What do we do if (i.e. when) the tinkering results in unexpected outcomes? And so on.

The danger with tinkering is that those questions are so rarely dealt with. When we use government to tinker, we most likely get permanent, unchangeable solutions to fluid problems that change or disappear. That is the libertarian concern with tinkering, not the idea that a free market would be perfect.

In the comments section to Ms. Benson's post, this, from Giliell, professional cynic:

It’s this fucking libertarian mindset wherein, as long as it is done by private people via their own biases it’s just OK but as soon as somebody spells it out and administratively does something about it it is the end of the world, peace and democracy are coming to an end and it is a burning injustice. [emphasis in original]

My libertarian mindset is that there are different standards for how we should respond with government to what people should do and what they may do. It isn't government's role to make sure that no one is ever an asshole to another person. There is danger in doing something administratively.

This isn't something simplistic like "libertarians think people are good and liberals think people are bad". The libertarian view, as I understand it, is that we are all the same flawed, imperfect people who have the capacity to engage in problematic, damaging behavior. We each overcome these ignorant tendencies and biases to different degrees. But the reality is that government includes these same flawed, imperfect people that the private sphere contains. Because government has powers that private actors do not, there must be some standard greater than "we need a solution, this is a solution".

The NHL has always been dangerous, and dangerously stupid in dealing with the issues related to player safety, and there's a lot of reasons for it.

The first is that players would rather be "comfortable" than more safe, like if NASCAR drivers came out in opposition to roll bars because they slow the cars down. That's why visors aren't omnipresent in this league, and why they'll never be mandated by the league until someone literally loses an eye on national TV (Staal was so close too!).

...

The percentage of players who wear visors is certainly up now from where it was even five years ago, but at some point you have to protect these dummies from themselves. This isn't libertarianism. You can't let the free market decide what constitutes a bad enough injury that it will scare NHLers into putting care ahead of comfort.

To the extent that it isn't in cahoots with governments (e.g. subsidies, so every team ever), the NHL is a free market. It can decide to require visors for all players without needing to ignore or violate libertarian principles.

I'm a libertarian and I favor mandatory visor use in the league. Teams and players require lots of forced behavior from each other to agree to contracts. Here, players can be forced to wear visors as a condition of employment, just like a player can be restricted from engaging in certain recreational activities during the term of his (standard) contract with an NHL team. With visors, it can be valuing a player's contribution to the team's revenue stream without concern for his short- or long-term health. It could also be protecting players from themselves. Both fit within libertarianism.

Small-l libertarianism is about consent and force. Governments force individuals to behave - or not behave - in certain ways. Some of that can be legitimate. Much of what we have is not. This is none of that because it's two private actors trying to reach mutually agreeable rules. The NHL can't force a player to sign a contract he doesn't like. (I'm ignoring antitrust issues like the draft because the point still stands.) It's well within libertarianism for the NHL to require its players to wear visors while playing professional hockey for any of its teams.

Male circumcision is one of the (possibly few) areas where the men's rights movement has truth¹ nailed down on its side. Male circumcision, as it's commonly practiced on healthy minors, violates the male's rights. Where anyone, including an MRA, shoe-horns it into a discussion of female genital mutilation, rather than discussing it if it evolves in a discussion, I understand and agree with the criticism. That's bad marketing, at least. I've probably done it, although I think I've learned where raising the comparison makes sense. I strive for better awareness. But the more common argument seems to be that the comparison is wrong, and men's rights activists shouldn't try to make it.

For example, Rational Alice started a series of posts on "the most common raisons d'être of the men's rights movement". The series starts with male circumcision:

This first topic should be quite an easy one. I'm taken to believe that it's not even very popular with the men's rights movement itself, though it is definitely present therein.

I'll argue here that male circumcision is "quite an easy one", but that Alice misunderstands the direction in which it is easy. My caveat is that I don't consider myself a men's rights activist. (Note: Links removed, unless necessary. Emphasis in original.)

Those MRAs who take circumcision as one of their issues of choice assert that "male" circumcision — that is, the removal of the foreskin of the penis — is on par with "female" circumcision, or "female" genital mutilation, and is not being adequately addressed as a problem by those who campaign against it. I.e., they decry the fact that male genital mutilation is not seen as a problem by the public, while female genital mutilation (or genital cutting, FGC) faces enormous opposition; i.e., society cares more for the treatment of women's genitalia than men's.

First, I'm going to acknowledge my ignorance. I have no idea why male and female are in quotes. I assume it involves cis- in some form. If so, it's odd to debate this from identity when it's better resolved through basic anatomy intersecting with human rights. The world is more complicated than "boys have a penis, girls have a vagina," but the principle incorporates women who have a penis, men who have a vagina, or men and women who have both.

That principle is easy to state. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is unethical. Or, to put it in narrower words for the comparison: removing the healthy prepuce of a non-consenting individual is unethical. There are more complex issues within this topic, but that gets to the direct anatomical comparison within a framework that views all people as possessing equal rights. Any view that veers from that to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable non-therapeutic genital cutting without consent is wrong.

As for the charge that opponents of female genital mutilation don't adequately address male circumcision, I don't expect anyone to expend energy on subsets of a topic that don't interest them. Focus on female genital mutilation. All I expect is that a person not defend contradictions. If someone is an activist against female genital mutilation, that's great. The world needs dedicated people to help end FGC/M. If that person also defends male circumcision as commonly practiced on minors, that person is a hypocrite. Don't be a hypocrite. That's my only demand.

After a paragraph on tradition:

The universal standard advocated by MRAs is not so different from what is advocated by a great number of progressives: that no infant's genitalia should be altered without their consent, which they obviously cannot give, except for immediate medical concerns (and the topic of intersex genital assignment is one for another post). What makes it MRA-specific, then? Well, simply the fact that they believe the activism surrounding FGC demonstrates social discrimination against men, and not, as many would have you believe, the facts about the actual procedures of FGC compared to that of "male" circumcision.

I disagree with this assessment. Perhaps men's rights activists perceive the problem as "the activism surrounding FGC demonstrates social discrimination against men". I doubt it, and Alice provides no example. (The reason is in the post's introduction.) I suspect men's rights activists do not like having their valid concerns over male circumcision dismissed, not what that dismissal symbolizes. Reality demonstrates how society, through law, treats genital cutting unequally based in gender. Disregard for the obvious similarities between female and male genital cutting is the problem that helps allow inequality to continue.

A campaign against (forced) female genital mutilation is not unfair or discriminatory if it doesn't address (forced) male circumcision (i.e. genital mutilation). A campaign against forced female genital mutilation is unfair and discriminatory where it addresses forced male circumcision and dismisses it or deems it acceptable, for whatever cultural, religious, or prophylactic reasons might be cited.

Again, the principle is universal. It isn't male versus female, or "male" versus "female". All human beings have the right to their own healthy, intact genitals, in whatever form that might take, until they may decide to alter them. If a basic human right does not apply to all humans equally from birth, then rights are a worthless concept that serve no purpose beyond being an ideological tool. No.

To that point, let's talk about FGC. There are four types: Type I involves removal of the clitoral hood and the clitoris; Type II involves removal of the clitoris and the inner labia; Type III involves removal of the inner labia, the outer labia and the clitoris, followed by fusion of the wound — which is only opened for intercourse and childbirth; and Type IV covers various less-severe practices like widening the vagina and piercing the clitoris. Think about all that for a while. ...

I agree with Alice's summary here, although I'll add that Type IV is generally considered to be "all other harmful procedures". That's broader and more useful. (The four types are described in the WHO fact sheet on female genital mutilation.)

The U.S. Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 (18 USCS § 116) criminalizes all non-therapeutic genital cutting on female minors without regard for parental justifications "as a matter of custom or ritual". That includes any genital cutting equal to or less harmful than male circumcision. There is no defense to be made for genital cutting on male minors if equal human rights are to matter, barring one's support for repealing 18 USCS § 116 and all similar laws. That would be inexcusable, but it would at least be consistent.

... What does the foreskin do for the penis? Homologous to the clitoral hood, the foreskin evolved to protect the end of the penis. Recent studies have revealed no significant difference in sexual sensation between circumcised and non-circumcised penises. ...

That study is from January 2004. This study, which "confirms the importance of the foreskin for penile sensitivity, overall sexual satisfaction, and penile functioning", is from February 2013. It's illogical to assume that removing part of the penis would have no effect on sexual sensation. But, if only the study Alice presents is correct, so what? Sensitivity is an issue, and I'd argue that changing the functioning (e.g. removing the foreskin's gliding motion) of the penis is enough to argue against forced circumcision. What does the individual want? The issue is self-ownership and bodily autonomy. Do we own our bodies (i.e. our genitals)? The accepted position here is that females too often don't but always should, while males don't and that isn't an issue. That distinction is absurd. Calling it out for criticism and change is appropriate.

... (As a matter of fact, circumcision is recommended by the WHO as part of its program on preventing HIV infections, as risk of acquiring HIV through heterosexual intercourse goes down significantly after circumcision.)

The studies found a reduced risk of female-to-male HIV transmission in high-risk populations from voluntary, adult circumcision. None of that describes the United States or Europe, and the key in that specific scenario — voluntary, adult — doesn't apply to infants in Africa. Male circumcision in the context of Alice's post is a different ethical issue than what's in the parenthetical. This is often the problem. Mixing it all into one simplistic idea leads to mistaken conclusions.

Removal of the foreskin is not so different from reduction or removal of the clitoral hood, which is a component of Type I FGC. But consider the homology of the labia majora and the scrotum, and of the clitoris and the penis. These are essential components of "male" sexual physiology. Not only is FGC exceptionally cruel, ...

... "male" circumcision cannot even come close to the cruelty inflicted by removal of the clitoris and/or the labia. ...

That's the "heads I win, tails you lose" approach to the comparison. The homology of the female and male prepuce is the consideration, the "not so different" Alice used to start the paragraph. Removing the former by force is illegal. Removing the latter by force is encouraged. That's the flawed disparity. Criticizing MRAs is often appropriate, but here the facts are on their side, if not always their methods.

In the larger argument, removal of the clitoris and/or the labia is worse than removal of the male prepuce. That isn't much of an insight. It's easy to acknowledge that FGM is evil, because it is. It's possible to accept that FGC/M is almost always worse than male genital cutting (dare I say, mutilation) in outcome, as commonly practiced. Neither of those excuse forced male circumcision. A knife to the gut is worse than a punch to the face. Should we permit the latter because it's less damaging? Are we indifferent to any assault worse than another? Will we establish a tournament to find the one form of assault that's bad because it's the worst? it's a preposterous argument. Real differences exist in the practices. That should inform criminal punishment, for example, without providing legal or cultural cover for lesser forms of forced genital cutting.

... It is a blatantly misogynist — and also, quite plainly, wrong — argument to say that the two are even remotely comparable, or that the campaign against female genital mutilation is unfair and discriminatory because it doesn't address male circumcision.

Comparing the two isn't misogyny. There is no hatred of females or belief that women are less than males. Someone's strategy could involve misogyny, or confuse silence with discrimination, but that's not the comparison, which is rooted in principle and facts. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on non-consenting females must end where it occurs. At the same time, non-therapeutic genital cutting on non-consenting males must end where it occurs. The comparison exists without lessening females or what is done to them. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is unethical. That's the core.

¹ Consider something like conscription. Should women be forced into conscription to be equal with males, or is this an area where the rights of males are violated? (Or the requirement to register for possible conscription that also only applies to males?)

I don't know much about Ms. Borowski, but I can figure out that she is more socially conservative than most other libertarians. That's fine. I've written before (somewhere in here) about my personal disapproval of abortion that influences but can't overrule my understanding of both the philosophical foundation of competing rights and the practical implications of any hypothetical return to greater or complete prohibition. That type of conflict and resolving one's personal preferences with society-wide policies is where we need to focus. Libertarianism is correct because all personal tastes and preferences are unique.

That's the basic foundation that I think Ms. Borowski fails to explore for a better answer than declaring that women are more interested in shallow pop culture and are easily overwhelmed by liberal ideas within their sources for that fluff. Women aren't liberal. Individual women are liberal. And individual women are conservative or libertarian. As long as we pretend that all members of a group share the same beliefs, we'll miss the answers that might guide us to better education and marketing for our ideas to individual women (and girls and men and boys). We need to address how our set of principles and proposed rules provide room for individual preferences. That's as important as demanding that people not infringe on the freedoms we want them to respect for ourselves.

From Ms. Borowski's video, there is nothing wrong with a woman enjoying expensive makeup and handbags, or caring what happens to the latest celebrity obsession. My wife, for example, is interested in fashion and she enjoys the various Real Housewives shows. But why is this somehow related to her political leanings? She is capable of analyzing issues for herself through various political philosophies and drawing conclusions on what she believes. She generally arrives at libertarian answers. She's not as interested in libertarian ideas or debates as I am as a hobby, but she's no less libertarian because she spends some of her time on the televised antics of Reza.

For me the answer to the question of why there aren't more female libertarians probably rests on marketing and personalization for individuals. I get there because, when I wonder what women think on this, I conclude that I don't know. It's absurd to lump individuals into one group based on general characteristics. I know that there are individual females who are libertarian, and I can guess that each arrived at libertarianism based on her own personal preferences. They share a common outcome rather than a common starting point. We need to understand individual starting points.

I'm interested in liberty. I believe its appeal is universal, or can be universal. The path to greater support for liberty - among, but not limited to, females - probably rests in clarity on the related-but-distinct aspects of process and goals for those who conflate the two. From a recent contentious example, opposition to ObamaCare doesn't equate to a belief that poor people should suffer. Nor is opposition to government-mandated coverage for birth control support for limiting or prohibiting access to birth control. We need to separate "this is the goal" from "government force is the best/only way to achieve it".

I like the way Lucy Steigerwald analyzed the debate surrounding the video, especially her conclusion and its last sentence:

Why can’t freedom be fuzzy and emotional? Why can’t it appeal to all these soft, caring females? The drug war, crony capitalism, two million people in jail in the U.S., war its self, small businesses being crushed by bigger or more favored ones who have government help; taxi cartels, laws against treehouses and gardens in your homes, the racism of the justice system, the death penalty, etc. There are scores of libertarian issues that are more accessible to the average person than the quantitative scribbling on the dismal science or “letting the poor starve.” All of them could get right to the heart of people who, bless them, often do care about fellow humans and about injustices. Libertarian men and women should simply work on countering this idea that government-mandated fairness is kinder or gentler than freedom.

Note: The title of this post comes from her great response in the comments section.

1. Which presidential candidate are you voting for and why?

Gary Johnson, because he is the only candidate offering anything resembling a defense for the liberty and rights of individuals. I disagree with his support for a national consumption tax, but overall, he's interested in economics based on economics, not politics. Liberty has to start somewhere.

2a. Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding economic freedom, including things such as industrial policy, free trade, regulation, and taxes?

Romney, but only because I expect he would have a friendlier Congress to his political trading. Obama's policies will probably be worse, if not by much, without consideration for what he might get passed. If I thought a Romney administration would do anything on fixing or repealing Obamacare, my answer would change to Obama.

2b. Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding social freedom issues such as gay marriage, free speech, school choice, and reproductive rights?

Romney, even though I'm not convinced he'd get too much accomplished there because of what he could push through the Congress.

2c. Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding foreign policy, military interventions, and the global war on terror (including domestic restrictions on civil liberties)?

Romney, because he'd see the extra powers Obama has taken after the newly-assumed powers of the Bush years and add his perspective. Obama would likely extend what he's doing without the creativity of a fresh eye.

3. Who did you vote for in 2000, 2004, and 2008?

Gore (because I didn't understand my politics), Kerry (because Bush needed to go), and Barr (because I was a trusting moron). If the choice was Barr instead of Gary Johnson this year, I'd vote for myself.

4. Apart from the presidency, what do you think is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall?

The various marriage equality issues to cement cultural change before DOMA gets to the Supreme Court, although marijuana is critical to reveal popular support for this liberty issue. Perhaps further wins will force changes at the federal level, regardless of who wins the presidency. Since that is unlikely, I'm going with marriage equality.

5. Reason's libertarian motto is "Free Minds and Free Markets." In contemporary America, is that notion a real possibility or a pipe dream?

Pipe dream. The citizenry isn't getting any dumber, but the public perception that it is creates more entrenched support for government control everywhere, including the economy, speech, and personal choices in general.

The NHL is currently working to guarantee fewer people watch. It's engaged in a lockout of its players, its second lockout in eight years and third in eighteen. It was the second major professional sports league to cancel its championship, the first to do so as a result of its own actions¹. It's the only professional sports league to cancel an entire season (i.e. 2004-2005), which didn't even happen during World War II. This shameful fact is an indictment on the league's negotiating skills and tactics. We're again learning how putrid the league is at both. The former is probably defensible. The latter is not.

As we'd already lost the first two weeks of the 2012-2013 season, the NHL made a surprise proposal to the NHL Players Association on Tuesday. It offered an attempt to save the full 82 game schedule for all teams and what seemed to be an excellent start to resolve the core economic differences between the two sides. A few days have now passed. The league now says its offer was not its starting point, but its finish line. Its tactic is to require capitulation. Whether that happens now or in August 2013, the league provides no reason to believe it cares when. It appears quite ready to destroy another season if that means "winning". Past evidence suggests that wouldn't be fatal, or even significantly damaging. The past's applicability to the future is open for debate here. The league appears indifferent to fatigued diehards and the growing-but-fragile fan support it's gained in the last few years from a resurgence of big-market teams.

Reports indicate that the league recently received pressure from its major sponsors and television partners in Canada and the United States. This, to me, is the most interesting aspect of the continuation of the lockout. Obviously everyone wants a healthy business going forward. And the league's sponsors want to be associated with a sport that is stable, exciting, and growing. They had a chance to continue getting that from the league until its proposal shifted from an opening offer to its final offer without announcement. The league is so determined to get its deal that it will accept an unnecessarily damaged, smaller revenue stream from its victory. This is idiotic. Its sponsors will attach their brands to a league that embraces upheaval, ruthlessness, and repeated disregard for its customers. We'll find out how willing and committed they are to supporting that combination in the post-lockout NHL, whenever that arrives.

I doubt sponsors will feel the same level of enthusiasm they've shown in recent years if a deal can't be reached by Thursday. That failure would likely mean a large chunk of the season being axed next Friday. (Missing the Thursday deadline would also mean the season will likely die.) The league is about to find out how much of its projections is hubris. As I wrote before, the diehards will be back whenever the league returns. That includes lifelong fans and more recent converts like me. The league is correct on that. I wonder how much revenue it expects from me if that happens. It will get my $170 or whatever it will charge for the Center Ice television package because I am out-of-market for the Blackhawks and I like watching other teams. But I bet the league thinks I will also still want t-shirts and jerseys and other branded merchandise. I will want them. I will not buy them. The League's revenue will not be zero. But its revenue will not be what it was before. It will get the smaller revenue base it deserves. I am foolish. I am not a complete fool without any respect for myself.

The league takes the support of its fans for granted. It thinks we're stupid. It's told us for several years that the league is growing and experiencing record revenues. It said so earlier in this now-extended off-season. Yet, now it also demands immediate givebacks from the players because teams can't survive without them. It wants us to ignore that more than half of the cumulative losses experienced by the weaker teams last season belonged to the Phoenix Coyotes, a team owned by the league itself. On average the teams losing money are losing just under $2 million each. (This is based on reported numbers. Possible accounting tricks are not considered for the validity of this loss.) If team owners can't absorb a $2 million loss for a few years as the league transitions to a more stable economic structure, they shouldn't be involved in this high risk, high dollar business. As a fan I want my team and the league to be healthy. I do not want to be treated as though my only involvement is to hand over my money as often as possible.

I'd resolved myself to the reality that this lockout would cost a significant chunk of the season. Then, the league worked to win back support by making an offer. I'm optimistic but I do not appreciate being used in what is now an obvious ruse to win an irrelevant PR war the NHL deserves to lose worse than it was losing it on Monday. I'm not interested in subjective notions of fairness. A 50/50 split is no more fair than a 57/43 or a 43/57 split. Context matters. Fairness here is negotiating honestly and striving to satisfy as many goals as possible. The owners want a 50/50 split. The players want their existing contracts honored. Great, there's a deal to be made. But the fans are lost in this equation. We are customers, not equal participants in the product. We want hockey. There are many ways for the owners and players to get - or get close to - what they want. Fans have no involvement to get we want. We have only the power of the dollar after the fight is over, whenever that might be. It should be by Thursday. It probably won't be. The clock is unforgiving against a battle of egos. If/when I lose, most of the dollars I've spent in the past will remain in my wallet.

In the end the owners will win this lockout. They have all the power. I don't much care where they end up. I care a lot how - and when - they get there. They should start asking themselves what they'll win if there is no deal by Thursday. They should ask this without first using their assumed answer to beg the question. Fifty percent of nothing is no better than fifty-seven percent of nothing. Without a deal that enables a full season, everyone loses.

¹ Major League Baseball lost its World Series in 1994 due to a players strike. Current NHLPA executive director Don Fehr was the players' union chief at the time.

wilwheaton:

geardrops:

fauxmosexualtranstrender:

sandandglass:

Total respect.

I love her.

She donates so much she went from “billionaire” to “millionaire.”

MAD respect for that.

Listen to J.K. Rowling, and put your money where your mouth is, 1%.

I think there really needs to be a cultural shift among the wealthy. It’s very inspiring to hear Jo telling it like it is.

I get the message. I disagree because it endorses a specific solution to a problem. Even if we pretend that the solution is effective, it's more concerned with enacting a specific solution. It's an effort to bludgeon opponents with a silly, nonsensical political narrative.

As Forbes wrote:

New information about Rowlings' estimated $160 million in charitable giving combined with Britain's high tax rates bumped the Harry Potter scribe from our list this year.

Hank Green's position above is a lot more subtle on this, although I think it fails to address whether the perceived necessity isn't a red herring. J.K. Rowlings donated $160 million to charity. Other wealthy individuals also donate to charity. Should these charitable donations be sent as taxes to governments to distribute as politicians deem appropriate? Would the charities that received Rowlings' $160 million donations receive donations from the government in the redistribution of taxes? And why should we assume that the government doesn't have the necessary tax revenue to fund such necessary expenditures if unnecessary (or unjustified) expenditures ceased?

The 1% narrative works to fit problems into a solution rather than addressing the problems with whichever solutions are effective for each problem.

Thankfully, in 2009, I discovered adult beer league hockey. I joined a team and finally grasped the rules and, more importantly, the beauty of the game. The strategy, the flow, even the simple sound of skates cutting through ice... All of it is amazing and fills me with joy. I can't drop hockey again.

That history makes the current NHL lockout frustrating. I love NHL hockey. I watch every Blackhawks game, and a significant number of games beyond that on the Center Ice television package. The league is betting on the fact that I'll return. And I will. There is no doubt on that. The league won't lose me. Although I'll likely buy less merchandise, if any, for a while to punish the league and the players, I'm not going to watch less.

At Backhand Shelf, Justin Bourne explores this in depth. I agree with it all. Here's the gist:

Friedman never directly says it in the piece, but I think the implication is exactly what I’ve been trying to put into words for awhile now: Gary Bettman is overestimating hockey fans passion for the NHL (my words, not his). Something about the current mess made me tag this post with both “final straw” and “camel’s back.”

Bettman has seen the fans come back time and time again during his tenure, and is unwisely taking the fans for granted once more.

What he doesn’t realize, is that hockey fans love hockey, not the NHL. The love the Stanley Cup, but it doesn’t belong to the league. The love pond hockey, which is why the league’s heart-string twanging nostalgic playoff commercials are so widely beloved. There is no loyalty to some “shield,” the way Roger Goodell refers to the NFL. There’s hockey, and goddamn is it a terrific game.

Even if the league does get it figured out and only a half-season is missed, I’ll call it now: the fans aren’t coming running back this time (unless it happens like, soon-soon). There’s only so many times you can abuse someone before they snap. Some people have shorter fuses than others, and I’ve talked to people who’ve gone from anger to apathy this time, which as Elliotte implies, should be petrifying for the NHL.

Exactly. However, I disagree with the generally-accepted underlying theory that the NHL lockout is evidence that the league takes for granted that a floor exists where the league will always have certain fans and their money. I think it's something worse. Despite record revenue growth and reason for optimism, the league believes it is near its ceiling. Instead of viewing this as greed, the stupidity of a second lockout in eight years makes sense if the league's owners believe they are fighting for a larger piece of a revenue stream that has neared its maximum.

The most telling fact for my theory, I think, is the recent television deal with NBC Sports Network. It's a ten-year deal. I can understand why the league would want stability. And they reached a new high in annual value for that deal, at $200 million per season. The deals for other leagues make that look like pocket change, but for the NHL, it's progress. But if they believed that the league will continue to grow at approximately 7%, give or take minor currency fluctuations between the U.S. and Canadian dollars, why lock at that rate for a decade? And why lockout now when a missed season would merely tack on a free season in year 11 for NBC Sports Network? I'm certain the owners know that the free 11th year could instead bring them far more in present value than the $200 million they'll get this year if they don't play hockey. I think they don't believe the NHL can grow enough to generate a significant jump in 2022. We're near the maximum the sport can produce as a permanent niche for entertainment dollars.

Or I could be wrong and the NHL, Commissioner Gary Bettman, and NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr are egotistical lunatics indifferently destroying the league for their own short-term need to win at all costs.

He writes:

1. Atlas Shrugged is a novel of ideas. The plot exists only so that Ayn Rand can lay out her set of philosophical beliefs. So it’s the kind of book that makes you feel smart because you “get it,” but the story itself is paper-thin and is carefully constructed to explain and celebrate Rand’s objectivism. I have an inherent problem with novels of ideas, because I think they fail to do most of what is interesting and useful about fiction, but I particularly dislike them when the ideas are bad ideas.

I am not an Objectivist. I recognize common ground with it but am not particularly fascinated by the label. I also agree with his assessment of Atlas Shrugged, to a small degree. Rand was hardly a perfect novelist. And I don't like novels of ideas that are about bad ideas. But Atlas Shrugged is not about the idea Mr. Green thinks it is.

2. The philosophy of objectivism is absolutely repugnant to me (and also does not hold up to scrutiny). The philosophy of selfishness is all built around the idea that the person ingesting the philosophy feels special (i.e., that we all identify with John Galt), and of course we do all identify with John Galt, because we all feel that the world is against us and we are secretly a unique flower that could bloom brilliantly if only we did not have to carry the weight of other, lesser people.

The "philosophy of selfishness" is accurate enough as a descriptive term, but not when we use the word selfish as the pejorative in common meaning. The novel doesn't push the idea it's so often accused of endorsing. It isn't an ode to "Fuck you, I've got mine". Selfishness in a Randian view is compatible with all sorts of actions associated with altruism. The difference is force. The unrequited correct form of altruism inspires force to achieve this correct form on the odd belief that humans would devolve to "Fuck you, I've got mine" if not for this push of force.

Or, as Timothy Sandefur explains more eloquently in his response to a straw-man attack on Ayn Rand in Slate:

Slate proclaims that evolutionary psychology shows that Objectivism is wrong because evolution favors “altruism,” which the article question-beggingly defines as “helping others.” Of course, Rand never claimed that helping others is wrong. What Rand said was that you do not live for the purpose of making other people happy. There is a big difference. Objectivism has always held that there are often perfectly good reasons to help others who are of value to you. And what evolutionary psychology actually shows is that Rand was on solid ground making that claim. What the evidence shows is that humans (and other animals) often help those who are close kin to them or are in a position to help them—so-called “reciprocal altruism.” The confusion arises because the term “reciprocal altruism” is a contradiction: if it’s reciprocal, it’s not altruism. I defy anyone to show me where Rand said that “lending a helping hand” is a bad thing.

(The rest of Mr. Sandefur's post is worth reading.)

Personally, I donate money and a considerable amount of my time for a cause from which I will never personally achieve the benefit I advocate. My efforts can benefit others. I do it because it's the right thing to do. But here's the thing that separates this from the mistaken idea presented in Mr. Green's analysis. I put my money and time into this specific cause because it's what I care about. My efforts help people, but at the core, I am being selfish. Should I therefore stop?

I have also been told many times that there are "more important" issues to deal with. Perhaps. How effective do you think I'd be toiling away on a task that matters only in the abstract nature of altruistic sacrifice? I'd punch the clock for my obligation, and not for very long, rather than think and write at all hours and travel the country and stand in cold rain during protests. I value what I'm doing and why I'm doing it more than the costs.

I don't feel the world is against me, either. Badly mistaken in critical ways, yes, but there is no conspiracy. We don't live in a perfect world.

But the fact that when we read Atlas Shrugged we all identify with the elite is itself evidence of the book’s crappiness, because either A. only extraordinary people happen to read Ayn Rand, or B. we all feel extraordinary, because we are so busy being our multitudinous and complex and extraordinary selves that we do not imagine other people as being as complex or interesting or extraordinary as we are.

I suspect everyone who reads Atlas Shrugged identifies with the heroes. (Or misunderstands which characters are the heroes?) But this isn't the fault of the book. The people who identify with the heroes who are like the villains are wrong in their self-awareness and understanding. This is not a critique of the book's underlying idea. When Dustin Brown tried to drink from the wrong end of his water bottle, did that indicate a mistake in the design of the water bottle?

We all act selfishly. This is not bad. The world would not devolve into chaos if we recognized this. "Good" will still occur. It is human-nature, and should be celebrated.

If I could find my copy, John Green's The Fault in Our Stars contains this correct notion of selfishness in its characters' actions. Regardless, I recommend the novel. It's a fantastic story.

The AAP has released its revised statement on non-therapeutic male circumcision, which provides the contradictory conclusions that the possible benefits outweigh the risks (without mention of the costs) and that not everyone will conclude that the possible benefits outweigh the risks for their family. Another prominent libertarian has chimed in on non-therapeutic infant male circumcision, this time with a different take than Doug Mataconis' flawed non-libertarian advocacy from last week. Today, George Mason University Law Professor David Bernstein posted on the revision at The Volokh Conspiracy. He engages in a better approach, but his conclusion is also wrong.

At the risk of provoking the ire of anti-circumcision zealots (you know who are), I thought I’d mention that the American Academy of Pediatrics, reversing a previous neutral stance, is now endorsing male circumcision based on a review of recent scientific evidence.

Zealots. If that's the word choice, then describe the opposition correctly. I oppose non-therapeutic genital cutting (i.e. circumcision) on non-consenting individuals. That is different than being merely anti-circumcision. I don't care if someone has himself circumcised. I care very much if someone is circumcised without medical need and without his consent. This is based on the same principle and understanding of facts that forms my opposition to an individual having her genitals cut without medical need and without her consent.

I undertook a reasonably thorough review of the existing evidence myself, frankly with a bias toward finding that circumcision was overall harmful. I was aware that circumcision, like several other medical procedures (think episiotomy during childbirth) was encouraged for decades by an unthinking medical establishment that didn’t undertake the research needed to support its recommendations. I was perfectly willing to believe that circumcision had few if any health benefits, had significant costs, and should be done only for religious reasons if at all.

I believe that. However, it implies a validity for the decision to circumcise a healthy child that is illegitimate. Proxy consent for surgery must start with medical need, not the possibility of positive benefits. The subjective value of the pursued speculative benefits rests with the decision-maker, not the individual who will live with the surgical alteration to his body. The only objective outcome he receives is the unavoidable physical harm from the surgical intervention.

I couldn’t find such evidence. Instead, I found that it has small but real health benefits, and that there is no sound evidence of reduced sexual function (I know, tons of nerve endings, blah blah blah, but where is the evidence that on average it makes sex less enjoyable? Studies on men circumcised as adults don’t provide such evidence). I’m not sure that would be enough to lead me to circumcise my own son (mostly because of squeamishness) [if I weren't Jewish, and had a son], but I think it’s an easy call if you plan to raise your son Jewish; the last thing you want is for your kid to decide at age 20 or whatever that his religion demands circumcision, and to have to undergo it then, when the risks and pain are much worse. (If there was sound evidence of harm from circumcision, that would be a different story).

I recognize those possible health benefits. I agree they're small, which I'm glad is stated in Prof. Bernstein's post. But there are possible flaws, even outside potential methodological flaws. The obvious ethical flaw is declaring results found with adult volunteers should then be applied at parental request to healthy infants who do not consent.

The non-obvious physical flaw is that infant and adult circumcision are not quite the same procedure. In infancy, the foreskin is fused to the glans. To circumcise a child, his foreskin must be separated from the rest of his penis. The bond formed by the synechia must be broken, which may inflict additional scarring on the glans of the infant. The circumciser must estimate how much skin to remove and work with an obviously much smaller penis. Too little or too much may be removed, assuming the circumcised is even pleased with his parents making his decision. The circumciser also does not know whether to leave or remove the frenulum. (It is usually removed.) These concerns are minimized or non-applicable when waiting until adulthood. There are trade-offs in both directions, not just the alleged preferablity of infant circumcision.

The obvious physical flaw is more apparent. Circumcision inflicts objective harm in every case. The normal, healthy foreskin is removed. Nerve endings are severed. (The absence of evidence on how that affects sexual pleasure is not an argument in favor of infant circumcision. Prof. Bernstein's position incorrectly assumes it favors his analysis.) The frenulum may be removed. Scarring remains. And the risk of further complications exists in every circumcision. Some males will experience complications, including possibly severe complications. That is all sound evidence of harm from every circumcision.

The “right to bodily integrity” argument so popular in Europe these days doesn’t sway me. What if your kid is born with six fingers, or with an ugly mole on his face, neither of which are causing harm beyond the aesthetic, and removal of either of which will cause some pain? Does his “right to bodily integrity” mean that you have to wait until he’s sixteen to let him decide whether to remove the appendage? Those strike me as harder cases than circumcision, given that circumcision actually provides some medical benefits. But I think it would be absurd to ban, or even discourage, removal.

This compares either abnormalities or subjective cosmetic opinions to the normal foreskin. I think it would be less compelling to ban intervention on children in those non-therapeutic cases, as opposed to the clear need to prohibit non-therapeutic child circumcision, but I don't think it's automatically absurd to intervene in those other cases. Still, different opinions are possible. Is Cindy Crawford's mole a cosmetic problem for her? Gattaca has a thought-provoking take on extra digits with "Impromptu for 12 Fingers". There can be unexpected benefits from doing nothing, from leaving the individual his choice.

The crux is to what extent should we value the right to physical integrity more than the possible medical benefits. It's shouldn't be a debate when considering that the harm is objective and the benefits are not. It is more than an unprovable moral notion. Most males will never need the possible benefits cited for non-therapeutic circumcision. And we already recognize the legal harm to females for comparable and lesser forms of harm from non-therapeutic genital cutting. (Yes, there are disparities in the two. They are the same in principle and other important aspects.)

If there was sound evidence that circumcision was affirmatively harmful, I think governments (and busybodies) would have every right to discourage it, including by law for minors, regardless of religious sensitivities. Given that the evidence points in the opposite direction, the movement in Germany and elsewhere to ban circumcision is unconscionable.

That evidence exists. Every circumcision involves objective harm. The science upon which the AAP relies is essentially the subset that supports circumcision, and which is often barely applicable to the United States (e.g. possibly reduced female-to-male HIV transmission in high-risk populations with low circumcision rates). The lack of need - the health of the child - is also science. Less invasive, more effective preventions and treatments for the ailments circumcision may reduce also constitute science. Condoms, antibiotics, Gardasil, soap, and water are science. To suggest a conclusion can be objective on this net evaluation is absurd because that question for each individual is subjective, as evidenced by the AAP's own contradictory statement.

The decision to circumcise healthy children because doing so might help them is not libertarian. As I wrote in Friday's post, let's temporarily assume what is not true, that the foreskin has no purpose. "It's mine" is sufficient. Even within a limited view of the right to physical integrity where objective harm is not viewed as harm, one's body is clearly one's own property. The onus is not properly on the person who may not want his property taken to accept his loss because his property was taken with good intentions for an exchange in value he may not want.

There’s also been a bizarre movement growing against circumcision itself here in the United States and in Europe. Just last year, for example, a referendum that would’ve banned circumcision in the City of San Francisco was scheduled to appear on the November 2011 ballot before being removed. The motivations for this version of the anti-circumcision movement seems to be something similar to what the Judges in Cologne stated, that it was some kind of assault about a party who is unable to grant consent. ...

Surgically removing a normal, healthy, functioning body part from an individual who does not consent should be recognized as battery, yes. That is not bizarre. It's merely extending the usual rational standard for non-therapeutic surgical intervention on healthy children to male genitals.

... Andrew Sullivan, for example, contends that infant circumcision is an assault on infant boys. Left out of the argument, though, is the fact that parents have been long assumed to be able to competently make medical decisions for their minor children. ...

Except there are limits, including a specific limit on the option for parents to make "medical" (i.e. non-therapeutic) surgical decisions for the genitals of their minor children. USC § 116 - Female genital mutilation clearly establishes conditions upon which we ignore this alleged competence. If non-therapeutic genital cutting falls within the realm of making "medical" decisions for a child as a parental right, then 18 USC § 116 infringes on this supposed parental right. If this is about parental rights rather than individual rights, the child, whether male or female, would be irrelevant to the law. It isn't. It's about the harm to the child. Section (b) makes it clear that all non-therapeutic genital cutting on female minors is illegal, including any cutting analogous to or less harmful than male circumcision. Section (c) demonstrates that no parental justification will be accepted for this intervention on their daughter(s). The primary consideration becomes whether or not male circumcision is harmful, not this:

... Leaving that argument aside, I would think that any ban on circumcision in the United States would, because of the First Amendment, have to include an exemption for Jews and Muslims who consider the procedure a requirement of their religion.

Because boys don't have the same basic human rights as everyone else, at least for the physical integrity of their normal, healthy genitals? Eugene Volokh's parental and religious rights posts during last year's San Francisco ballot initiative identifies a plausible response to this. Again, the correct question is whether or not male circumcision is harmful, not why parents might choose it for non-therapeutic reasons.

On the question of harm, the evidence is quite clear. Circumcision inflicts harm every time. The individual loses his foreskin. He has nerve endings within his penis severed. He may lose his frenulum. He will have a scar. There is also the risk of complications. Some males will suffer those, and some subset will suffer horrible outcomes. The mortality rate from non-therapeutic child circumcision is very low, thankfully, but it isn't zero. Treating individuals as statistics is hardly a libertarian position.

Next, he quotes an ad hominem attack by Jonathan Tobin:

Circumcision opponents may claim they are not anti-Semitic, especially since their campaign also targets Muslims. But there is little doubt that the driving force behind this movement is resentment toward Jews and a willingness to go public with sentiments that long simmered beneath the surface in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.

Just last week, French scholar Michel Gurfinkiel wrote on his blog that anti-Semitism has increased in France since the Toulouse massacre in March. Since then violence has grown, fed by what he calls a rejection of Jews and Judaism. In France, these sentiments are fed by the Jew hatred openly expressed by the expanding Muslim population. Throughout Europe, the demonization of Israel hasn’t just increased hostility to the Jewish state; it has served as an excuse for anti-Semitism to go mainstream for the first time since World War Two. Just as some claim circumcision critics aren’t intrinsically anti-Semitic, there are those who blame anti-Semitism on Israeli policies. But when you add all these factors together what you get is an undeniable upsurge in Jew-hatred.

There is significant doubt that resentment is the driving force. I won't speak for Germany, although I think the court's ruling was not based in religious animosity. The ethical human rights-based case against non-therapeutic circumcision exists on its own. It's clear, based in the basic rights to physical bodily integrity and self-determination. The ability to find instances of anti-Semitism does not discredit that case or the general movement to restrict non-therapeutic circumcision to those who choose it for themselves. Where anti-Semitism occurs, and it unfortunately does, it discredits the individual purveyor, not the movement as a whole. And such instances should be denounced without ad hominem against anyone who shares only an opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision on non-consenting individuals.

Mataconis' response to Tobin's charge:

If that’s true, then it is a quite troublesome development. Even leaving this element out of it, though, there’s something troublesome about this entire affair. Circumcision has been an accepted practice in Western societies for centuries ...

That's interesting but proves nothing. History provides plenty of examples of rights being violated for a long time. The rights are no less violated. Non-therapeutic circumcision constitutes guaranteed physical harm to the child in pursuit of his parents' preference(s). It's the objective versus the subjective.

... and, in the case of two religions, it isn’t just an elective medical procedure, it is a requirement of their faith. ...

Being a requirement of Judaism and a recommendation in Islam are relevant, but they are not the first question in this context. The circumcision is being imposed on someone. It's an odd conception of freedom that says imposing surgery on someone else is an individual right within religious freedom. Under the proposed public policy stance, religion would have to adapt. That expectation is no different from the numerous declarations in religious texts that we do not permit in civil law. Religion deserves no special exemption. The protection required is for individuals to choose circumcision for their own bodies, not for others.

... The arguments of the circumcision opponents strike me as being little more than ridiculous nonsense that, for some, has turned into some kind of weird cult of the foreskin. As far as I’m concerned, parents are perfectly capable of making this decision for their sons and the state really has no business getting involved in at all. When you bring the element of religion into it, state interference becomes even more problematic. One would hope that the government in Berlin will intervene and put an end to the nonsense that the judges in Cologne started.

Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual violates basic human rights. That isn't ridiculous nonsense. We apply it completely to females. We don't apply it to males. Instead, it's easier to smear with words like cult and fetish. Fine, if that's the standard, we should start telling activists against female genital cutting/mutilation that they're spouting ridiculous nonsense that is some kind of weird cult of the clitoris? We wouldn't because there we recognize the facts. With circumcision we forget to apply the same standard that protects the property interest of the individual. For reasons. That makes no sense.

It's certainly not within a reasonable understanding of libertarianism. For anarchists, sure, opposition to the state becomes the overriding goal. But if one assumes a state to be legitimate with a specific interest in protecting the rights of its citizens, then it's legitimate for the state to prohibit this form of possibly unwanted harm. That is the approach that recognizes humans rather than statistics. (To hope that politicians will step in to reverse a judge is a foolish action to endorse.) Parents don't just circumcise their sons. They effectively circumcise the autonomous adult he will become. Proxy consent based on anything other than clear medical need is insufficient to permit that.

Post Script: In the comments to his post, Mataconis responded with a standard trope:

Fine. Then if you have a son, don’t get him circumcised, that’s your choice.

Treating children as property is not libertarian. The correct formulation is "If you don't want to be circumcised, don't have yourself circumcised". That's the method to protect individual preferences, not the illegitimate force of individual preferences on another. Shared DNA is not a defense.

That flows into a later comment:

What is the medical benefit the foreskin provides?

To the silly question, it protects the glans and provides sexual sensitivity. But let's assume neither is true. "It's mine" is sufficient. The onus is not properly on the person who doesn't want his property taken to explain why his property shouldn't be taken. Or, at least, that's what I thought libertarians believed.

Of course we should forget about Mitt Romney. That shouldn't default as an endorsement of Barack Obama. I created the image below:

See how easy that is? Should I thus assume that those against Romney think any (or all) of the factual marks against Obama indicate the same "don't vote for him" decision that facts about Romney indicate?

They're both liars. All politicians are liars. Why would I vote for either of these liars, when both will only take away the rights of citizens and steal more power for government?

The following thought occurred to me recently. Suppose we look at writing on issues where people tend to hold strong opinions that fit with their ideology. Such writing can

(a) attempt to open the minds of people on the opposite side as the author

(b) attempt to open minds of people on the same side as the author

(c) attempt to close minds of people on the same side as the author

So, think about it. Wouldn't you classify most op-eds and blog posts as (c)? Isn't that sort of pathetic? ...

I think that's right, and worth remembering when writing to persuade. More importantly, he wrote about Tyler Cowen:

Tyler is good at paying attention to the strongest arguments of those with whom he disagrees. Focusing on weaker arguments instead is a classic (c) move. ...

That is exactly right, and it's the antithesis of partisan politics. It's the primary reason I despise partisanship.

With the new perpetual election season, but specifically the imminent 2012 election, we're stuck with this. The current example is Rush Limbaugh pretending that the villain in the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises, is a liberal swipe at Mitt Romney because the character's name is Bane, which is similar to Bain, the venture capital firm Romney ran. So, Limbaugh is a radio DJ who said something obviously ridiculous. Therefore, we get to indict Republicans for believing this.

For example:

To believe that Bane is a Hollywood conspiracy to elect Barack Obama, you'd have to believe that Bane co-creators Chuck Dixon, Doug Moench, and Graham Nolan* (COINCIDENCE?!?!?!) anticipated prior to Romney even announcing a run for public office that Romney would eventually win the GOP primary in 2012, or that Christopher Nolan, anticipating all of this, chose to pick a villain whose name sounds like the company Romney used to work for. On the other hand, if you're the kind of Republican who believes Barack Obama's parents placed a fraudulent birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper in order to shore up his claim to American citizenship in the event he might someday run for president, this probably doesn't sound like the dumbest thing ever.

Rush Limbaugh is estimated to have around 15 million listeners. Fifteen million.

If you're that kind of Republican, of course you're that gullible. But if you're that kind of person, you'll believe anything your partisan friends spew. You want to believe. That's powerful in hiding the truth.

Even if we assume all 15 million listeners of Limbaugh's program believe every stupid thing he says, we're left with 294 million Americans who don't listen to him. Are they all Democrats? If so, President Obama has nothing to worry about. If not, then presumably the goal is to convince the non-Democrats that President Obama is the best choice. Using this as a tool for anything other than mocking Rush Limbaugh is focusing on the weaker arguments.

It's also worth asking whether or not it's possible to find 15 million Democrats who believe stupid, irrational nonsense about Republicans.

P.S. The Limbaugh transcript should get this treatment.

And libertarians who object to a draft could opt out. Those who declined to help Uncle Sam would in return pledge to ask nothing from him — no Medicare, no subsidized college loans and no mortgage guarantees. Those who want minimal government can have it.

Great, can we implement this now? That means no taxes, as well, right? I know, hahahaha, of course not. A straw man dipped in gasoline is easily burned.

But most of all, having a draft might, as General McChrystal said, make Americans think more carefully before going to war. Imagine the savings — in blood, tears and national treasure — if we had thought twice about whether we really wanted to invade Iraq.

Three words: starve the beast. With the national debt standing at $15,883,106,924,772.24 and counting, when can we put that to rest? Politicians do not operate on logic. And the majority of voters would still not be participants whenever our government waged war. The cannon fodder would still be a minority to be wielded by the majority. They just wouldn't be volunteers any more. That's not an improvement.

There are still other problems. Eugene Robinson highlights them, although not intentionally.

The political impact of Thursday’s stunning Supreme Court decision on health-care reform is clear — good for President Obama and the Democrats, bad for Mitt Romney and the Republicans — but fleeting, and thus secondary. Much more important is what the ruling means in the long term for the physical and moral health of the nation.

I find the idea that this is an improvement to our nation's "moral health" ridiculous and offensive. It's the simplistic view that opposition to the ACA is opposition to the claimed goals. It's the pretense that opposition is founded on an "I got mine, so screw you" idea. It's hackish. Opposition guarantees no such intention, and maybe I'm foolish, but granting the government more power to use force against individuals is hardly an improvement in our moral health.

All but lost in the commentary about the court’s 5 to 4 ruling, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. unexpectedly joining the majority, is that the Affordable Care Act was intended as just a beginning. We have far to go, but at least we’re on our way.

Obama’s great achievement is not any one element of the health-care reform law — not even the now-upheld “individual mandate,” which compels individuals to have health insurance or pay a fine. The important thing is the law’s underlying assumption that every American, rich or poor, should have access to adequate health care.

But that's not the issue. The important thing is how well the law will achieve its aims. Will it? Which unintended consequences will result? What will it cost in trade-offs? Early evidence suggests a strong "no" for the first question, which should raise further concerns about questions two and three.

Here, we don't even get to the first question. Mr. Robinson is endorsing the Do Something theory of government. This is Something, so it must be good. It's untethered from outcome. We've merely expressed the right feelings that every American should have access to adequate health care. That isn't a solution to a problem that exists in large part because of previous feelings-premised public policy solutions. The ACA is not the only way to try to achieve the real goal of reform and improving health care access and outcomes. The ACA merely doubles down on the existing structural problems. When government is failing, ordering more government is hardly a credible solution.

As I wrote in my prediction, tying insurance to employment is inefficient and stupid. Our current unemployment rate is an excellent indicator of a flaw in the policy. Mr. Robinson gets at this:

Most working-age Americans who have health insurance obtained it through their employers. But this is a haphazard and inefficient delivery route that puts U.S. businesses at a disadvantage against foreign competitors, most of which shoulder no such burden. Tying health insurance to the workplace also distorts the labor market and discourages entrepreneurship by forcing some employees to stay where they are — even in dead-end jobs — rather than give up health insurance.

With this acknowledged, it appears the only way to endorse the ACA is to focus on the important thing, the good feelings. The ACA will work to untie insurance from employment, but only because it makes the burden of employer-provided insurance so onerous. It pushes people into public options. That's aiming for single-payer without having the political courage to admit the aim. Such lack of courage does not suggest good outcomes when the inevitable financial crisis from the ACA results. And now, because this reform was so ham-fisted and clueless, no one will have the political capital necessary to reform the reform.

Rather than seek a radical reshaping of the health-care system, Obama pushed through a set of relatively modest reforms that will expand insurance coverage to a large number of the uninsured — about 30 million — but still not all. He also tried to use free-market forces to “bend the curve” of rising costs, slowing but not halting their rise.

The ACA doesn't try to use free-market forces. It attempts to manipulate them, at best, and pretend they don't exist, at worst. It's the idea that prices can be mandated, that supply and demand are fully malleable with political will. It's neither an honest nor an intelligent attempt by the Congress and President Obama. It will fail. The only questions are how soon, who will be harmed, and what will we do in response.