Socialism had three major failings. The first is what economists study most closely. It is the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism, because of the rejection of prices and money as a medium of exchange. Whether you support socialist ideals or not, it is literally impossible to achieve. Do away with prices and currency, and they will emerge in a different form. They are part of human society.

The second aspect of socialism intrigues philosophers: socialism genuinely sought to change human nature itself. People as they currently are are in no shape to realize Marx’s vision of communist society. So part of the communist program was to actively mold and change people so that vision could one day become a reality.

Before Marx came along, Plato’s Republic and Thomas More’s Utopia were also written about societies with a fundamentally changed human nature. More, knowing his ideal to be impossible, coined the word “utopia,” which literally means “no place.” His book is a pleasant dream (for a collectivist at least), but More knew it was one that could ever come true. We are they way we are. And we’re stuck that way, for better or worse.

This leads us to the third aspect of socialism, which most concerns Trotsky. This is, for me, the most remarkable part, and the most chilling. It is the sheer violence that accompanied Marxism-Leninism everywhere it was tried. And I mean everywhere. Every single country to adopt communism had a checkered human rights record. No exceptions. Not one had anything resembling freedom of speech or press, or due process, or property rights.

Most historians now estimate that communist governments killed around 100,000,000 people. Mostly their own citizens. At no other point in human history have governments been so murderous of their own people. No other ideology has had consequences so bloody as Marxism and its variants.

One reason for the violence is that it allowed the governments to maintain power; resistance is less likely when the prevailing climate is of fear. Another is that human nature is stubborn. If it is to be changed, force is required. But, of course, the basic tenets of humanity are immutable. We are who we are.

Communist leaders, including Trotsky, were simply chilling. Many of them come off as sadists. They seemed to actually enjoy bloodshed. Revel in it. Yet Trotsky still has his admirers today. They need to answer for why they look up to someone who would even have thoughts like the following, let alone give voice to such brutish impulses in public speeches:

“The strength of the French Revolution,” he shouted to a group of revolutionary sailors, “was in the machine that made the enemies of the people shorter by a head. This is a fine device. We must have it in every city.” And have it they did. Once in power, Trotsky advocated show trials and the execution of political prisoners; he suppressed other socialist parties and independent trade unions; he pushed for the censorship of art that did not support the revolution; and he created the institutions of repression that were later turned against him and his followers.

This means one of two things: either grandmothers with snow globes in their carry-ons are the biggest terrorist threat facing the country, or the TSA is doing something wrong.

The way to prevent terrorism is to make terrorism difficult. Banning snow globes doesn’t make terrorism any more difficult.

Yes, larger snow globes probably violate the TSA’s three-ounce limit for liquids. But they are not bombs. They are, in fact, snow globes.

The law, passed last year, is part of an effort to keep obesity rates low and avoid related health problems.

One problem with using wasitlines as the primary metric is that results can vary among measurers. According to one article, “Satoru Yamada, a doctor at Kitasato Institute Hospital in Tokyo, published a study two years ago in which several doctors measured the waist of the same person. Their results varied by as much as 7.8 centimeters.”

That’s almost ten percent of the average waistline. It is sad that Japanese regulators have a strong enough nanny-state streak to legislate allowable physical dimensions. But the lack of precision in enforcing their edict must be maddening for the people involved.

With much of the health care reform debate still focused on the wisdom of including a government-run, “public” health insurance “option,” too many opponents are neglecting a far more insidious feature of the Democratic proposals:  the mandatory purchase requirement.  Under each of the bills moving through Congress, every person living in the United States would be required by law to have health insurance.  And, if your employer doesn’t provide you with it, you’ve got to buy it yourself or pay a monetary penalty.

What’s more, the proposals would make it more difficult to get some of the options that are available now — particularly the low-cost insurance plans that cover only catastrophic health events and have substantial cost-sharing features.  And, depending on which bill would eventually be enacted into law, Congress, state insurance commissioners, and/or a federal Health Choices Commissioner would get to dictate what benefits have to be covered in every policy, and would be empowered to determine whether any given plan even qualifies as health insurance.  The end result will be considerably higher costs for almost every person living in the country.

On the other side of the equation, the Democratic proposals would mandate that every insurance company has to issue a policy to anyone who wants to enroll, and would forbid premiums from being based on the enrollee’s health status.  The expectation is that healthy young people would subsidize the health care costs of those who are older or sicker.  But states that have enacted these guaranteed issue and community rating mandates see premiums rise and healthy individuals drop their coverage.  After all, if insurers must issue a policy to all comers, why not wait until after you get sick to sign up?

Early on in the health care debate, the insurance industry agreed to support guaranteed issue and community rating, but only if Democrats would implement the mandatory purchase requirement.  That made Democrats happy because the number of uninsured Americans would fall if being uninsured were made illegal.  And the insurance industry was happy because more people would be forced to buy their products, hyper-inflated prices or not.

Trouble is, in all of this back-door finagling, someone forgot about ordinary Americans.  It turns out that most people don’t like the idea of being fined for choosing not to buy health insurance.  In turn, Democrats were forced to lower the penalty on people who choose to go without it.  And that means there will be fewer healthy people in the system to subsidize the rest.  All of which leaves the insurance industry holding the bag.

Janet Trautwein, CEO of the National Association of Health Underwriters, has an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal whining that a weak individual purchase mandate is bad for everyone, and insisting that Congress give people less choice, not more.  It’s unfortunate, to be sure, that hundreds of millions of Americans will face higher health insurance premiums generated by ill-considered legislation.  But, no one should feel bad for those in the health insurance industry who tried to cut this lousy deal and came out losers.  The better solution is not to double-down on the individual purchase mandate, but to scrap the other regulations that will put health insurance and health care out of reach for millions of Americans.

Someone should tell Janet Trautwein that, if you lie down with dogs, you might get fleas.

On the 20^th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall (see CEI’s video celebrating that), it’s interesting to note that a pizza parlor in Shirlington, VA is promoting heroes of communism and Marxism.  And the source of that information is none other than the Washington Post’s Reliable Source today, which records an email exchange between a customer objecting to posters of Vladimir Lenin and Che Guevara on the walls of Busboys and Poets restaurant and the owner’s response praising those two icons.

The customer, Bradley Blakeman, should have known that his pizza would be served with a side dish of leftist politics.  After all, the owner of B&P, Andy Shallal, makes no bones about his commitment to leftist causes on his website.  And he emailed back to his disgruntled customer (and the Washington Post) that

Guevara and Lenin “represent the struggles of working people. . . . They fought against the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few.”

To be sure, that’s a fairly narrow way of looking at both of these figures. To some prominent scholars, Che is known for his “murderous collectivism,” while Lenin is widely regarded as one of history’s mass murderers.

It doesn’t sound like Blakeman will be a repeat customer at Shallal’s restaurant, but if comments on the Post article are any indication, Shallal will have no trouble finding fellow travelers.  Here’s one, for instance:

The lives of Che and Lenin are known and respected in every town of every country in the world in spite of the millions of words written and billions spent trying to rewrite history.

And that is because the struggle they dedicated themselves to is the same struggle working people all over the world today are still fighting.

If only that poster would read a bit of that history, including what the Berlin wall represented.

Many historians cite World War I as the twentieth century’s opening act. Sixteen million souls died in that war over nothing. Two of the nations it toppled became the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Communist and fascist governments would combine to kill more than one hundred million people over the next seven decades. Those needless deaths are the twentieth century’s legacy, every bit as much as the transistor or rock ‘n roll.

The fall of the Berlin Wall was that short, bloody century’s coda.

November 9, 1989 was also the start of something better. It was a nation’s way of saying that it was ready to move on to better times. To a new world defined not by oppression, ideology, and servitude, but by freedom. Sweet, precious, fragile freedom. Seeing the footage on the news was like witnessing something being born. The hope and potential that surround every birth were glimmering in people’s eyes. It was beautiful.

What Berlin’s people did on that day also inspired half a continent to send the same message to their leaders. What a noble achievement. How worthy of commemoration, now that twenty years have passed.

What a shame, then, that this milestone has been treated more like a millstone by the media. Reporters more concerned with today’s news cycle are giving at best perfunctory attention to a day that showed us all that is good about humanity.

To partially right that wrong, CEI has produced a short video commemorating what the Berlin Wall’s fall symbolizes. I hope you will watch it and enjoy it. Of course, it is hard to convey in a few short minutes what the people living in that Wall’s shadow went through for 29 long years.

So put yourself in their shoes. Think what they thought. Look right in the eyes of those separated families as they try to catch glimpses of each other over that wall. And the people who risked their lives escaping. And the soldier carrying back the body of someone who didn’t make it. What was going through his mind as he carried out his grisly task? That might give you an idea of what the Berlin Wall meant.

We all need to remember the Berlin Wall. We need to say to each other, “Never again.” And we have to mean it.

Okay — it’s almost Halloween, so I should be forgiven for a non-policy posting on the Top Ten Scariest Movies.  I’ve picked a sample of top ten listings to check out any unanimity in the selections.  Not really, ‘though several films appear on almost every list - Psycho (1960), Night of the Living Dead (1968), Halloween (1978).  Most of the scariest are horror or sci-fi films, with lots of gore and special effects, but a significant number of the top ones are psychological thrillers.  Here are some links to the lists here, here, here and here.

There’s also a list of the 10 Top Terrifying Non-Horror movies here. Two of my own favorites in that category - but not listed - are Brazil (1985) and Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975).

Here’s my compilation of the 10 scariest:

Psycho (1960)

The Exorcist  (1973)

The Shining (1980)

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)

Halloween (1978)

Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Alien (1979)

Rosemary’s Baby (1979)

Silence of the Lambs (1991)

With truly scary things happening on Capitol Hill — government takeover of the health care system, attempts to suppress the use of energy through diabolical cap-and-trade schemes, more government controls on private markets together with expansion of government enterprises, and higher and higher taxes to finance the largess — maybe these films won’t seem so scary at all.

Now, Brand has written a new book, called Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto, in which he takes on these environmental shibboleths in a more concerted fashion.  On American Public Radio’s Marketplace program yesterday, host Kai Ryssdal discussed the new book with Brand.  Asked what prompted him to write the book, Brand said that,

“My fellow environmentalists have been wrong about a couple of issues and were getting in the way of important things we should be doing, both with biotechnology and with nuclear technology, and in terms of how we think about cities, and in terms of how I know we’re going to think about geoengineering–that is, direct intervention in the climate.”

Ryssdal contrasted Brand’s earlier support for the back to the land movement with his current belief that big cities are better for the environment.

“Not only big cities, but big slums … that’s how [poor people in the developing world] are getting out of poverty.  They’re emptying out a lot of the subsistence farms that have been tough on the landscape all over the world, moving into towns for opportunity, building jobs for each other.  They’re also moving up what’s called the energy ladder, toward more and better grid electricity.  By and large the cities are probably the greenest thing that humans do.”

On his support for biotech crops, Brand said,

“Already, the crops we have now, the herbicide-tolerant and the insect-resistant crops … [are] getting what amounts to higher yields. You can raise more food on less land, and all of that is good for ecology in general and the climate particularly.”

Challenged that critics call them Frankenfoods, Brand replied,

“The idea there was that Dr. Frankenstein was doing something against nature, and that somehow the genetically engineered food crops are against nature.  And as a biologist, I’m just baffled by that line of argument because agriculture has been in that sense against nature for 10,000 years. That we’re finally able to do more precise tuning of the crops is a huge gain, not a loss.”

As I explain in a new Competitive Enterprise Institute paper out today, “A Cure Worse than the Disease: Obama Care Won’t Cut Costs, But May Cut Quality,” most of the alleged cost-cutting measures in the Baucus bill merely shift costs from the federal government onto the states or private payers, without affecting long-term health care inflation.  The only measures that could reduce the annual rate of growth in health care costs would erect government barriers between patients and their doctors, while jeopardizing long-term medical innovation.

Skeptics have made hay arguing that the so-called Sustainable Growth Rate can’t be counted on to cut $245-billion in Medicare spending. But Senate Finance Committee negotiators have designed a Medicare Commission—what the White House previously called an Independent Medicare Advisory Commission—to make similar cuts in physician and hospital payment rates in a more opaque way.

In an April New York Times interview, President Obama suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost…the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives.”  That’s not exactly a death panel roving the country to pull the plug on innocent grandmas who’ve survived past their sell-by dates, but the effects could be equally pernicious.

What the Medicare Commission is likely to do is work with the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute also established by the Baucus bill to incorporate comparative clinical effectiveness recommendations into Medicare and Medicaid payment policies.

In theory, there’s nothing wrong with comparative effectiveness research, or what used to be called evidence-based medicine.  Good research comparing the clinical effectiveness, risks, and benefits of two or more medical treatments can help doctors better understand the likely benefits of the treatments they prescribe and improve the quality of care they deliver.  But patients vary substantially in their individual physiology, their response rates to drugs and surgical procedures, and their willingness to tolerate side effects.  Doctors know this, and they realize that one size definitely does not fit all. That’s why, in practice, evidence-based medicine in the U.S. and abroad has produced incrementally useful information, but has failed to systematically change the practice of medicine.

Generally, we should encourage efforts to eliminate waste and reduce the use of ineffective treatments, especially when we’re talking about public programs and taxpayer money.  But the only way these programs would result in significant savings is if legislation or subsequent implementation tries to force the square peg of comparative effectiveness research results into the round hole of clinical practice by requiring physicians to always pick the treatment deemed best for the average patient.

That’s not just bad for patients in the near term, it would also wreak havoc on long term medical innovation.  If every new medicine were required, immediately upon gaining regulatory approval, to be effective and cheap enough to get the support of bureaucratic bean counters, research on the next generation of treatments for cancer, heart disease, and countless other serious conditions would slow to a snail’s pace.

Get used to the innovative medical treatments that we already have today.  If these programs become part of our health care system, we’ll be seeing a lot fewer treatment innovations tomorrow.

It is true that a handful of states have highly concentrated markets.  In Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Alaska, for example, 95 percent or more of the health insurance market is served by just two insurers.  But, federal intervention would do nothing to address this problem.  After all, insurers are still governed by state competition law, which prohibits anticompetitive practices.

The main benefit insurers get from McCarran-Ferguson is antitrust immunity for sharing the actuarial data on which firms individually base their premiums.  Ordinarily, information sharing of that kind of  would be a big no no, since it suggests pricing collusion.  But, state insurance laws permit it because it helps small insurers gain access to a sufficiently large pool of information to set premiums at an appropriate level.

The only way federal antitrust enforcement could significantly reduce market concentration would be to break up the firms into smaller pieces—think of the dissolution of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil trust, or the break up of AT&T’s local service monopoly into seven regional Baby Bells.  But, as Boston University health economist Austin Frakt  notes:

“Taxpayers will be best served by insurers with sufficient market power to bargain down provider rates, but with not quite enough power to keep the savings (“rents”) for themselves.  … How to balance the power of insurers and providers is far from simple. Many have pointed to the alleged dominant market position of insurers as a substantial source of high health care costs. However, the health economics literature supports the notion that recent increased market power of insurers does not lead toward monopolistic pricing, but rather it provides a counter-balance to the power held by hospitals and provider groups.”  (Hat tip, Tyler Cowen.)

Democrats know this of course.  And, in the end, it’s not clear that they really do intend to repeal McCarran-Ferguson, or if they’re just sending a signal to health insurers and other dissenters that “this is how we deal with people who stand in our way.”  As my wife said yesterday, they’re playing Chicago hard ball now.  They’ll do whatever it takes to win.

The British Chiropractic Association was none too happy about these criticisms of themselves and their craft.  But, instead of accepting the Guardian’s offer to publish a 500-word response and a note in the “corrections” section of the newspaper, the BCA took advantage of Britain’s insane libel laws and sued Singh.  Singh, who of course has copious amounts of published scientific research to back up his claims, decided to fight the suit in court.  But, due to Britain’s insane libel laws, he lost.  Reasons include  the fact that, in the UK, any person or organization with almost any amount of national reputation may bring a libel action for even the slightest deprecation without having to show any actual damages.  Then, once in court, the normal burden of proof is switched, such that the defendant must prove his statements to be completely true, rather than the plaintiff proving them to be false. And UK judges tend to be very favorably inclined toward plaintiffs.

Although Singh’s article mentioned the BCA only once, the judge interpreted that key passage (”happily promotes bogus treatments”) as a direct allegation of purposeful dishonesty:

12. What the article conveys is that the BCA itself makes claims to the public as to the efficacy of chiropractic treatment for certain ailments even though there is not a jot of evidence to support those claims. That in itself would be an irresponsible way to behave and it is an allegation that is plainly defamatory of anyone identifiable as the culprit. In this case these claims are expressly attributed to the claimant. It goes further. It is said that despite its outward appearance of respectability, it is happy to promote bogus treatments. Everyone knows what bogus treatments are. They are not merely treatments which have proved less effective than they were at first thought to be, or which have been shown by the subsequent acquisition of more detailed scientific knowledge to be ineffective. Bogus treatments equate to quack remedies; that is to say they are dishonestly presented to a trusting and, in some respects perhaps, vulnerable public as having proven efficacy in the treatment of certain conditions or illnesses, when it is known that there is nothing to support such claims.

13. It is alleged that the claimant promotes the bogus treatments “happily”. What that means is not that they do it naively or innocently believing in their efficacy, but rather that they are quite content and, so to speak, with their eyes open to present what are known to be bogus treatments as useful and effective. That is in my judgment the plainest allegation of dishonesty and indeed it accuses them of thoroughly disreputable conduct.

Singh claims he merely intended to suggest that the BCA and other chiropractic supporters were “deluded and reckless,” not dishonest, and he notes that several other passages in the article support that interpretation.  But, even if that were not the case, since there is plenty of scientific evidence that chiropractic manipulation is bogus, you’d think that would be sufficient defense.  But, it is often said that, under UK libel law, the truth is no defense. Did I mention that the UK has insane lible laws?

This case would be bad enough if it were unique.  Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens all too often.  In a world of global print and Internet publishing, the UK has become a venue for so-called libel tourism, in which slighted plaintiffs from all over the world bring suit in British courts against defendants located outside the UK merely because their comments have been published or re-posted in magazines, books, or websites that happen to appear in Britain.  There is no doubt that British libel law exerts a chilling effect on free speech generally, and on criticism of quack science and bad governance more specifically.  Fortunately, the indispensible UK non-profit Sense About Science has begun a campaign to Keep Libel Laws Out of Science.  I encourage readers interested in defending the right of honest criticism to click the link and learn more.

As I wrote two weeks ago, however, Snowe may be getting more (or less) than she bargained for.  Once a bill is reported out of committee, it gets to be amended after debate by the entire Senate, and again when the final Senate compromise goes to conference and has to be reconciled with the House bill.  You may think you’re playing nice with your Senate Finance Committee colleagues and getting as good a deal as can be expected from that nice old Max Baucus.  But, trust me, Henry Waxman is ruthless.

Indeed, the House bill contains a government-run, or ”public,” health insurance option and a number of other key features that were steadfastly opposed by moderate Democrats and liberal Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee.  As the National Journal’s Marilyn Werber Serafini wrote earlier today:

House Democrats have ruled out an excise tax on high-end insurance plans as a way to pay for health reform, although that is a primary revenue raiser in Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus’s plan. House Democrats are considering limiting their proposed health care surtax to individuals earning above $500,000 a year, and that leaves about a $100 billion funding shortfall for reform …

In the end, all of Sen. Snowe’s efforts to produce a compromise that the CBO now says will reduce the federal budget deficit during the ten-year budget window (which was laughable in the first place) are at risk of being for naught, since liberal Democrats remain committed to the public option and have even taken to demonizing Baucus for his willingness to compromise.

One of the best pieces of work on public choice was done by Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University, Governing the Commons. She’s looked at a huge number of commons problems in fisheries, grazing, water, fishing water rights, and stuff like that. She finds that the commons problem is solved by many of these institutions, but not all of them. Some of them cannot make it work. She’s interested in why some of them work and some of them don’t.

One example is the Swiss alpine cheese makers. They had a commons problem. They live very high, and they have a grazing commons for their cattle. They solved that problem in the year 1200 A.D. For about 800 years, these guys have had that problem solved. They have a simple rule: If you’ve got three cows, you can pasture those three cows in the commons if you carried them over from last winter. But you can’t bring new cows in just for the summer. It’s very costly to carry cows over to the winter—they need to be in barns and be heated, they have to be fed. [The cheese makers] tie the right to the commons to a private property right with the cows.

The entire interview is available in two parts. (Turn to page six of each issue; the Ostrom discussion is on page nine of part two.)

UPDATE: Vernon Smith comments on Elinor Ostrom’s Nobel Prize in Forbes today:

Previous Nobel laureates such as Ronald Coase (1991), William Vickrey (1996) and Leonid Hurwicz (2007) have also made significant contributions to investigating these big questions, but Ostrom brings a distinct style in applying her skill in different methodologies. She blends field and laboratory empirical methods, economic and game theory, the really important ingredient of scientific common sense, and she constantly challenges her own understanding by looking at new potentially contrary evidence and designing new experiments to challenge her understanding of the emergent historical rules and the theory used to explicate them.

As I’ve written previously, the public option is not the worst aspect of the various health reform proposals, the purchase mandate is.  Still, these votes should be viewed as a strong positive, signalling broad concern about the extent of the Democratic position.

Of course, Liberal Democrats are fuming.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) and House Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Cal.) remain committed to a public option.  President Obama signalled his enduring support for it in his September 9 address to Congress, despite White House back-tracking from the public option during the August congressional recess.  And, now, two left-wing advocacy groups, the Progressive Campaign Change Committee and Democracy for America, have launched a television ad campaign condemning Baucus for his decision to move forward without a government-run health insurance option for the non-elderly middle class.

This should serve as a warning to conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans (Yes. I mean you, Olympia Snowe (RINO-Me.).  You may spend months negotiating a compromise with your Senate colleagues.  But, please remember that all that will be torn asunder once a bill is reported out of committee and gets to be amended after debate by the entire Senate, and again when the final Senate compromise goes to conference and has to be reconciled with the House bill.  You may think you’re playing nice with your Senate Finance Committee colleagues and getting as good a deal as can be expected from that nice old Max Baucus.  But, trust me, Henry Waxman is ruthless.

7-Eleven has fine stores that offer many conveniences to their customers, but in this case, they are trying to force down the throats of American consumers a “big gulp” of big government. If Congress acts on 7-Eleven’s misleading petition to put price controls on interchange fees, consumers will pay the price through the reduction of reward programs such as frequent flier miles, and the possible return of annual fees. Credit unions and community banks will pay the price too in higher costs that will make it more difficult to offer cards to their customers, forcing savers to go to big banks if they want the convenience of credit and debit cards.

Contrary to the spin of the 7-Eleven and other big retailers, interchange fees, also called “swipe fees,” are only levied on merchants, and none of major legislation before the U.S. Congress would require that retailers pass on one penny of their resulting savings on interchange fees to consumers. And Australia’s recent experience with interchange price controls resulted in no tangible benefits and plenty of added costs for consumers down under.

John Simon, a top regulator at the Reserve Bank of Australia, recently told a conference of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, that there was no evidence of retailer savings being passed on to Australian consumers, according to the Credit Union Times. Yet the Australian credit card holders faced plenty of costs to “make up for” the retailer costs in terms of higher fees and fewer rewards such as frequent flier miles, according to a study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Community banks and credit unions, which have lower profit margins on their credit and debit card offerings, would also lose out. In Australia, the Credit Union Times reports, “a cap on card interchange similar to one promoted by some U.S. retailers has turned Australian CU card programs from being contributors to their bottom lines to net money losers.” Similarly, Mike Clayton, head of Champion Credit Union in the small town Canton, North Carolina, says price controls on interchange fees could “put us into a deficit on that card program.”

There are a variety of options for retailers in credit card payment services, such as new online methods of payment, to ensure competitive pricing. CEI also supports expanding the ability of retailers to form their own affiliated banks, or industrial lending companies, to do their own card processing if they so choose.

But lawmakers should also realize that credit and debit card processing is not free, and retailers would not be accepting cards if they did not lead to more purchases in stores and reduce the costs of alternatives such as carrying cash. Before credit cards were so prevalent, expensive armored cars hauling cash from retail stores were a common fixture.

In short, there is no such thing a free lunch, and lawmakers should not enable 7-Eleven and other retailers to soak consumers with more lunch fees.

Reform advocates have chalked up the under-30 set’s indifference about health care reform to an “information gap”.  But, with the White House’s extensive outreach on Twitter and other social networks, a full-court press by the DNC’s Organizing for America to reach young adults, and even an ad campaign by Rock the Vote featuring celebrities like Zach Braff and Perez Hilton, it’s hard to believe anyone in America has too little information.  More likely, we can chalk this indifference up to … well, youthful indifference to almost every sort of public policy debate.  No matter what the topic, when it comes to policy–as opposed to politics–young adults as a general rule just tend not to get involved.

Indeed, if they did learn more about the health care proposals being debated on Capitol Hill, one might imagine young adults would be pretty upset to learn that the Democrats want to force everyone in America to purchase an expensive health insurance policy that covers not just the benefits they most want, but the benefits a bunch of Washington bureaucrats decide they should have.  And, if they or their employers don’t buy such a health insurance policy, they’ll get hit with monetary penalties as high as $950 under the Senate Finance Committee plan or 2.5 percent of their income under the House proposal.

But one reason why so many young adults are uninsured is that they have chosen to forgo very expensive existing health insurance policies that have prices inflated by too many state and federal benefit, coverage, and premium regulations.  Those prices won’t come down under the Democrats’ proposals either.  Instead, they’ll climb even higher as the young and healthy get stuck in insurance risk pools with older and sicker Americans whose costs they’ll have to subsidize.  Indeed, to the extent that a mere 34 percent of those age 19 to 34 actively oppose the reform proposals (with another 34 percent in favor and 31 percent not sure), this probably CAN be attributed to an information gap–one in which America’s youth don’t fully understand what a raw deal this would be for them.

He’s been called a bully and a monopolist. Al Gore once labeled him “Darth Vader.” The Wall Street Journal described him as “ruthless” and alleged “self-dealing” in a maze of complicated business transactions. He is a master of the tax-free deal, completely disdains government and most federal regulations, and has expressed a fondness for Rush Limbaugh. This summer he was slapped with a $1.4-million fine by the Justice Department for illegal stock purchases.

Sounds like the perfect target for a hard-hitting Michael Moore documentary, no? But no, we’re talking about Moore’s latest sugar daddy: cable mogul John Malone.

That’s right, Moore’s “Capitalism: A Love Story” is being co-financed and distributed domestically by Overture Films, which is a unit of Malone’s Liberty Media. Moore, who has been railing against Big Media during press junkets promoting the movie, is in bed with the Goldman Sachs of the media world.

Unsurprisingly, Moore tries to excuse this incongruity by appealing to some corporatist state ideal.

Moore, through a spokesman, isn’t making any apologies for having one of Malone’s companies as a backer of his film. “The movie is about HOW people make their money, and specifically criticizes the beast, our out-of-control economic system. …  And for those folks who make their money in ways that don’t exploit or hurt others, then they should be giving a lot more back in tax dollars to help support a more just and fair society. People like John Malone, myself and others who have been blessed, we all ought to be in a 70% tax bracket with the money being used to provide such important services as a real universal and affordable single-payer healthcare system.”

Of course, there is nothing preventing Michael Moore from writing a check to the IRS surrendering the 70 percent of his enormous income, which, by his own view, he does not deserve. As for Malone, the question of “how” posed by Moore’s spokesman should be asked of him. And I’d love to hear his reaction to his business partner’s 70-percent tax proposal.

This isn’t meant to single out Malone, though. As a story published by the Business Journal chain notes, this is part of a wider phenomenon:

Such relationships aren’t unusual in Hollywood, where populist rabble rousers, dreamers and captains of finance long have been united in pursuit of art and profit.

“That’s more the norm than not,” said Michael Taylor, a movie producer, and chairman of film and television production at the School of Cinematic Arts at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

Moore’s films have been indictments of broad aspects of American culture: the auto industry in “Roger and Me,” U.S. gun culture in “Bowling for Columbine,” the Bush presidency in “Farenheit 9/11” and the health care system in “Sicko.” The latter three are among the six highest-grossing documentary features in history.

His ability to draw large audiences is why a large media company founded by someone like Malone — who battled regulation to make TCI into a cable TV empire, and whose Libery Media recently started a $50,000 annual prize for journalism covering economic freedom — embraces entertainment without regard to its political viewpoint.

“One of the features, I suppose, of being a titan of industry on that scale is to not micromanage these things and get in the way,” Taylor said.

Yet there is a very big difference between getting in the way and not knowing — or caring — what it is you’re backing.

Fittingly, this week The Economist launched a new business column named “Schumpeter,” after the great economist of entrepreneurship, Joseph Schumpeter. This is timely, because Schumpeter’s dire warning about the future of the free market is one we should always keep in mind. As the column notes:

The prophet of capitalism’s creative powers also understood the precariousness of the capitalist achievement. He pointed out that successful firms depend upon a complex ecology that has been created over centuries. He wrote extensively about the development of the joint-stock company and the rise of stockmarkets. He also understood that capitalism might be destroyed by its own success. He worried that a “new class” of bureaucrats and intellectuals were determined to tame capitalism’s animal spirits.

Today, we can look back and see the rise of that “new class” happening alongside the rise of the state over the last century. Entrepreneurs — Business Journal describes Malone as “libertarian” — should know better than to support the kind of intellecutal poison that seeks to do them in. (Thanks to Margaret Griffis for the LA Times link.)

First, and most importantly, Carafano seems to imply that there is some direct correlation between food production levels and the number of people working in agriculture:

A report prepared for the G8 in April concluded that global food production would need to double by 2050 to keep the world fed. U.S. agriculture will have to be an important part of that increase. Likewise, strong, vibrant rural communities are needed to build sustainable agriculture and protect water, wildlife and other natural resources.

America’s vanishing middle should be of concern to all Americans. Though agricultural workers comprise only about 2 percent of the work force and account for less than 1 percent of GDP, they are at the start of a vast and vital assembly line. American farms are part of a complex industry that processes and distributes food, energy (biofuels) and other products — by some estimates about 20 percent of the economy.

This is a non-sequitur in regard to agricultural production. Fewer people work on farms today because increases in productivity allow fewer workers to produce more. As the Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service notes:

American agriculture and rural life underwent a tremendous transformation in the 20th century. Early 20th century agriculture was labor intensive, and it took place on a large number of small, diversified farms in rural areas where more than half of the U.S. population lived. These farms employed close to half of the U.S. workforce, along with 22 million work animals, and produced an average of five different commodities. The agricultural sector of the 21st century, on the other hand, is concentrated on a small number of large, specialized farms in rural areas where less than a fourth of the U.S. population lives. These highly productive and mechanized farms employ a tiny share of U.S. workers and use 5 million tractors in place of the horses and mules of earlier days.

Second, Carafano’s definition of “frontier” seems to rely entirely on population density:

Today, hundreds of counties in the Plains states house fewer than six people per square mile. By 19th-century standards, that was frontier territory.

But Frederick Jackson Turner, whose famous 1893 essay, “The Significance of the Frontier in American History,” Carafano cites at the beginning of his column, didn’t settle on population density alone as a definition:

What is the frontier? It is not the European frontier — a fortified boundary line running through dense populations. The most significant thing about it is that it lies at the hither edge of free land. In the census reports it is treated as the margin of that settlement which has a density of two or more to the square mile. The term is an elastic one, and for our purposes does not need sharp definition. We shall consider the whole frontier belt, including the Indian country and the outer margin of the “settled area” of the census reports.

Much of that “free land” was available in previously unsettled areas, where legal and political institutions were weak, when they were present at all. I would propose such a lack of strong central authority as part of  any sensible definition of “frontier” — a criterion that no part of the U.S. meets today.

Still, the public option is not the worst aspect of the various Democratic health reform proposals, the mandatory purchase requirement is.  Under each of the three bills moving through Congress, every person living in the United States would be required by law to have insurance.  And, if your employer doesn’t provide you with it, you’ve got to buy it yourself or pay a fairly stiff monetary penalty.  What’s more, each of the proposals would eliminate some of the options that are available now — particularly the low-cost insurance plans that cover only catastrophic health events and have substantial cost-sharing features.  And, depending on which bill would eventually be enacted into law, Congress, state insurance commissioners, and/or a federal Health Choices Commissioner would be empowered to determine whether any given plan even “qualifies” as health insurance.  The end result will be higher, not lower costs, for almost every person living in the country.

President Obama knows this, of course.  During the presidential campaign, he roundly criticized Hillary Clinton for proposing essentially the same thing.  As today’s Wall Street Journal points out:

“The political irony here is rich. If liberal health-care reform is going to make people better off, why does it require “a very harsh, stiff penalty” to make everyone buy it? That’s what Senator Obama called it in his Presidential campaign when he opposed the individual mandate supported by Hillary Clinton. He correctly argued then that many people were uninsured not because they didn’t want coverage but because it was too expensive. The nearby mailer to Ohio primary voters gives the flavor of Mr. Obama’s attacks.

And the Baucus-Obama plan will only make insurance even more expensive. Employers will be required to offer “qualified coverage” to their workers (or pay another “free rider” penalty) and workers will be required to accept it, paying for it in lower wages. The vast majority of households already confront the same tradeoff today, except Congress will now declare that there’s only one right answer.”