Archive for Jim Fedako

Health Care and the Candy Store Called Socialism

6746Jim Fedako writes in today’s Mises Daily:

But the folks championing socialized medicine are always repeating tales of visits for simple cases of the flu or other travel-related illnesses. What is seen is the overflowing abundance of care at that level. This is the sugar, so to speak. Unseen are other types of care. The meat, eggs, etc. And this is where the failures of socialized medicine are as obvious as the lack of nutritious food in a Yugoslavian store.[1]

The stories from travelers paint a different picture from those told by people living in countries with socialized medicine. Many of these folks — those looking for meat — complain about either the unavailability of care or wait times that exceed the life expectancy of those suffering from the disease.

So we end up hearing contrasting stories: ones from visitors who are amazed by the candy, and others from residents who complain about no meat. And both are right.

The Logical Progression of “Public Accomodation”

6728Jim Fedako writes in today’s Mises Daily: 

One implication of a positive right to service from a business is the derivative positive right toquality service. So, it is not just that Elane Photography must take pictures of the commitment ceremony, it is that they must take quality pictures, as well.

Now, if I were to walk into a shop and discuss my desire for photography services, only to end up in a heated argument with the owner, I would not attempt to convince him to serve me. Instead, I would find someone who is interested in doing a good job, not someone simply going through the motions while holding a grudge.

Inherent in the demand for service is the demand for quality — quality commensurate with the price, of course. Now, if I had some claim to the labor of someone else, it is fair to assume he would not welcome that claim and its implication of servitude. So it is not unreasonable to assume his efforts would be less than that exerted in a free exchange.


If I Must Sell, You Must Buy

6690Jim Fedako writes in today’s Mises Daily:

According to the current view, once the farmer opens his stall, he is required to sell to whoever approaches and offers the market price. To even suggest this may be wrong is to invite the wrath and invectives from feigned intellectuals and their sycophants.

Regardless, let’s take a look.

Suppose a farmer from Pittsburgh despises folks from Cleveland — he is, in the vernacular of the day, a Cleveland hater. Yet, he must serve folks seemingly resplendent in their Browns attire, no exceptions. However, should the farmer billboard the Steelers logo on his chest, any Browns fan spiteful of his team’s losing record could opt for the next stall — he is not forced to buy from him who is forced to sell.

Seeing a little imbalance here?

In a bilateral exchange, even those where money sits on one side of the deal, there is no ethical difference between the two participants. To make a claim that the farmer must sell since, if he does not sell, the customer goes wanting for goods is no different from making the opposite claim: the customer must buy since, if he does not buy, the farmer goes wanting for cash, as well as all that cash provides (the ability to pay utility bills, the doctor, the dentist, etc.).