Fluoride Is Great for Teeth, But Is It the Government's Job to Fluoridate Water?

President Trump's second term has been shaped by controversial decisions, including making English an official language, imposing tariff rates we have not seen in over a century, deporting undocumented workers, and using price controls on prescription drugs. Out of his confirmations, I would contend that the most controversial of all of them is Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy has spoken out against vaccine safety, opined that vaccines cause autism, and he even said that COVID was "ethnically targeted" to spare Ashkenazi Jews and the Chinese, as if viruses are capable of targeting a specific ethnic group. 

Kennedy's vision for what he would like to do as HHS Secretary is detailed in his Make America Health Again (MAHA) report. One of the major controversies that Kennedy has managed to drudge up is his take on fluoride. Kennedy has long been against the practice of fluoridating water, calling it "industrial waste." He even tried urging Trump to advise U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from their water treatment. The topic caught my eye enough to blog on the topic because I noticed that the Food and Drug Administration is proceeding with its plan to ban prescription fluoride supplements. Opposition to fluoride is nothing new. This opposition dates back to the 1940s, which is when the practice of water fluoridation emerged. It also made an appearance in the 1964 film Dr. Strangelove. 

Analyzing the Health Implications

One of the main reasons for opposition to water fluoridation is for health concerns. The question is whether fluoride actually has unintended health consequences. The meta-analysis that recently made the news shows that, at worst, the decline in pediatric IQ from fluoridation is 1 to 2 points (Taylor et al., 2025). It is worth pointing out that the fluoride levels studied in that controversial meta-analysis were double the recommended amount in U.S. federal guidelines. There is also no link shown between fluoridation and cancer. The National Toxicology Program's 2020 review concluded that high levels of fluoride exposure were problematic, but found scant evidence of harm in the lower levels used in fluoridation.  

While there are some gaps in the research (particularly for larger doses of fluoride), what we know with the best available research is that fluoridation in small doses is shown to have benefits. My support is not mere opinion. It is supported by the American Dental Association, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), World Health Organization (WHO), and Royal Society for Public Health have all advocated for water fluoridation. There is no credible scientific body that currently advises against the practice of water fluoridation.

The strengthened tooth enamel with fluoridation reduces the rate of tooth decay (Nassar and Brizuela, 2023), which could be a reduction of tooth decay as much as 25 percent. This, in turn, reduces the needs for fillings, root canals, crowns, and other dental expenses. The primary reason that fluoridation of water became a practice is because it has been widely accepted as a cost-effective public health measure to mitigate cavities, tooth decay, and dental disparities. All else being equal, fluoridated communities have lower rates of dental decay.

Here is my "on the other hand" argument. There are certain countries that have fluoridated their water, such as the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Hong Kong, and Australia. However, the vast majority of countries on the planet have not done so. A study from the 20th century shows that countries that failed to adopt water fluoridation experienced comparable declines in dental decay to those that did fluoridate (Diesendorf, 1986). As you can see from the World Health Organization's report on oral health, there are countries without water fluoridation that enjoy comparable dental health to those that do. 

The maps above give me at least some pause because one could argue that diet, oral hygiene practices, and access to dental care also play a role in dental health. On the other hand, there is an argument to be made that water fluoridation is a helpful public health measure. For argument's sake, let us assume that fluoride unquestionably has positive health benefits. Should the government still be fluoridating water? 

Ethical Issues

My biggest issue with the government fluoridating water has to do with informed consent. As long as you are not hurting somebody else, you should be able to get to decide what substances you consume, regardless of what a healthcare provider might recommend. To give you a sense of how I take it seriously, I have advocated for consumption of marijuana and of psychedelic mushrooms, engaging in sex work, not being forced to take a COVID vaccine, selling one's organs for cash, adults having consensual sex with whichever adults they want, eating and drinking what you want (including raw milk and processed foods), and using birth control. In this respect, mandated water fluoridation violates the concept of bodily autonomy.  

People should be responsible for their own personal dental health, whether that is a healthy diet or proper brushing technique. Even if the decision to fluoridate water made sense in the mid-20th century, it does not make as much sense in 2025. Those who want to use fluoride for dental health have multiple ways to do so, including fluoride toothpaste, fluoride mouthwash, supplements, varnish, and fluoridated salt. The challenge with these alternatives is that they require consistent usage, access to resources, and dedication. Conversely, an advantage of water fluoridation is that it is a passive, population-wide baseline of protection that is more reliable. 

I would be more inclined to support water fluoridation if there were a robust opt-out system. Even as I supported the COVID vaccines in 2021, I still have believed that mandating the vaccines was unnecessary (see here, here, here, and here). Vaccines have a viable way to opt out of getting vaccines. One could argue that it is possible to opt out with fluoridation, whether through bottled water, purified water, or purchasing a water purifier. There are also the possibilities of implementing free access to non-fluoridated water, subsidized filters, or financial assistance for those who cannot afford bottled or purified water, although these options would all but inevitably involve at least some government intervention.Plus, keep in mind theCareQuest Institute for Oral Health released a survey last month showing that only 6 percent believe that water fluoridation should be banned. While it is cumbersome, you would think that those who are the most against water fluoridation would have already implemented these workarounds. Even with the default being fluoridated water, there is still autonomy for the individual to change it if so desired. 

I would also point out that a private company entering the market to provide a non-fluoridated option is impractical, at least in a U.S. context. Building parallel water delivery systems, e.g., pipes, pumps, treatment facilities, is prohibitively expensive. Zoning and utility regulations, along with public utility commissions, de facto block new entrants from entering the market. Plus, there is not much in the way of market demand for a private company to enter the market simply to provide non-fluoridated water. As such, water utilities is one of the notable exceptions in which a government monopoly makes the most sense. Since water utilities end up being a natural monopoly, someone has to decide how the water is treated, which brings us to the next section. 

Individual and Public Healthcare Costs Due to No Water Fluoridation

I think back to when I made a libertarian argument last March in favor of the government supporting the PEPFAR program for HIV/AIDS prevention. I could make a similar argument for water fluoridation. Fluoridating water is a minimal intervention and has a high return on investment. This would explain why the CDC estimates that $1 spent on fluoridation saves about $20 in dental costs, whereas the ADA estimates that it is high as $38 in savings per dollar spent. 

More to the point, this relatively small intervention can save us the headache of more government intervention down the road. If you remove water fluoridation, it could lead to an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid dental coverage, new health care regulations, a federal mandate for dental insurance coverage, dental care subsidies, or price controls similar to the ones that President Trump imposed on prescription drugs earlier this year. Fluoridation falls into a rare category of public policy intervention that paradoxically protects liberty by preventing greater government intrusion.

The reality is that the United States does not have a free-market healthcare system. Healthcare in the U.S. has major elements of socialization with such programs as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Affairs healthcare system. Since healthcare costs are socialized in this country, the aggregation of poor dental practice can add up quickly. This argument is significant since 35 percent of Americans do not brush twice daily, which is the amount recommended by the American Dental Association. If over a third cannot follow these basic protocols, what are the odds that they would make sure they are taking fluoride alternatives consistently enough to make a difference?

That behavioral failure is a problem in a healthcare system in which healthcare costs are socialized. The fact that about half of Americans cannot manage basic dental hygiene means that non-intervention also has hidden costs. One study estimated that water fluoridation saves the United States $6.5 billion annually [in 2013 dollars] (O'Connell et al., 2016), which would be $8.9 billion in current dollars. Removing water fluoridation would contribute to rising health care costs, much like we have seen take place with obesity raising healthcare costs for all. 

Should the Government Fluoridate Water?

I struggled writing this piece because both sides of the water fluoridation debate make compelling arguments. I genuinely respect individual autonomy and I am an advocate for limited government (emphasis on the word "limited"). Especially with alternatives such as fluoride toothpaste, I take issue with the violation of bodily autonomy. While I understand the ethical implications of mandating water fluoridation, they also become less persuasive given the size of the public benefit of water fluoridation and the existence of workarounds for water fluoridation. Plus, fluoridation has been implemented for over eight decades and it has not resulted in mass medication or erosion of medical autonomy on the whole, thereby negating the slippery slope argument. 

As difficult as it is for me to say, I have to say that water fluoridation is warranted given the circumstances, even from a libertarian lens. I remind myself that there have been other warranted interventions similar to water fluoridation, including water chlorination to prevent cholera and typhoid; iodized salt mandates to address iodine deficiency; traffic signals that lower accidents; and seatbelt laws to reduce fatalities and injuries from automobile accidents. I am not necessarily defending these examples on moral grounds per se, but rather showing that there is a long-established precedent of minor health-protective interventions with a significant return on investment (ROI).

In a country where dental costs are socialized through Medicare and Medicaid, the collective financial burden of preventable dental disease justifies this minimal, narrowly tailored, low-cost intervention tied to a shared resource. The intervention is tightly defined, the evidence base is solid, and the ROI is high. Water fluoridation is a pragmatic approach that recognizes real-world trade-offs while preventing the need for far more exorbitant, intrusive, and coercive government intervention in the future. Since some government action is inevitable, the least intrusive option that yields measurable benefits is preferable to a more coercive alternative. 

Much like I realized when arguing in favor of PEPFAR last March, this conclusion is not a perfect fit with libertarian ideals. In an ideal world, I would like for there to be no government intervention and for the healthcare market to be privatized. However, a world with more limited government is best achieved in practice when balancing principles with real-world application to find the "least worst intervention" in a deeply flawed healthcare system, especially when considering that water utilities are operated as a natural monopoly. Having the government fluoridate water is not a betrayal of liberty in this case because a modest, limited, and well-tailored intervention in an imperfect world beats the alternative. Given the realities of the water market and the science of fluoridation, the pragmatic libertarian in me would rather support a minimal, practical compromise that helps preserve liberty in the long-run than allow for an alternative that allows for government largesse to proliferate even further. 

How Much of a Mixed Bag Is It That States Are Eliminating Their Grocery Taxes?

Governments have a knack for taxing everything, from property, alcohol, and millionaires to carbon, soft drinks, and recycling. Yet there is an exception I recently came across: the grocery tax. Fewer and fewer states are enacting a consumption tax on their groceries. Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed off on abolishing Oklahoma's 4.5 percent grocery tax. Earlier this month, Illinois Governor J.J. Pritzker announced eliminating Illinois' 1 percent grocery tax in his budget. If Pritzker is successful, that would mean that there would be 11 states that have a state grocery tax. It makes me wonder why a majority of states no longer have grocery taxes and what the costs of grocery taxes are.

One aspect is related to the impact of taxes generally. Taxes on the whole have two main outcomes: to collect revenue for the government and to discourage the consumption or production of what is being taxed. Since groceries are an essential for people to survive, it could discourage eating. A study from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that a one percentage increase leads to 0.7 percent decrease of food-at-home spending for SNAP-eligible non-participants (Stewart and Dong, 2021). SNAP benefits were not found to be affected, although that might not say much considering SNAP participants have worse health outcomes than low-income non-participants. 

That segues us into the second issue of grocery taxes: it discourages healthy eating. One study from Health Economics Review (Wang and Zheng, 2021) showed that "a one percentage point increase in grocery taxes increases obesity and diabetes rates by 0.588 and 0.215 percentage points, respectively." 

To quote the Left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), "Reducing or eliminating grocery taxes offers states a way to help families put more food on the table and afford basic needs." In 2020, CBPP illustrated how households in the lowest quintile spend up to eight times their income on sales tax than the top one percent. The disparate impact makes sense given that lower-income households spend more of their income on food than high-income households (ibid.), which causes greater food insecurity (Zheng et al., 2021).

At first glance, you would think I would be thrilled to see a tax cut. A tax cut seems like a win-win because it means less tax revenue, which in theory should mean less government (although it could also mean more spending with a smaller tax base). This also would help households when inflation has caused such harm, especially to low-income households. As I brought up with a Kansas tax cut in 2017, tax policy is more than "tax cuts = good." 

The problem is assuming that exempting groceries from the sales tax helps low-income households. It actually does the opposite. According to the Tax Foundation and its research on the grocery tax, "the poorest decile of households experience 9 percent more sales tax liability with a grocery tax exemption than they would if groceries were taxed and the general rate were reduced commensurately." In part, this happens as a combination of the substitution effects of unprepared foods for prepared foods and the already-existing exemptions for SNAP and WIC beneficiaries. It also happens because to compensate for the exemption, the overall sales tax has to be increased elsewhere. 

Exempting groceries from the sales tax also makes tax revenue more volatile. Another appealing aspect of the grocery tax is that it provides a constant source of revenue. Why? Everyone has to eat. Relying on other forms of consumption, especially during an economic downturn, increases revenue volatility. Plus, it erodes the tax base because having a broad sales tax base minimizes economic distortions and administrative and compliance burdens. The burden on low-income households is less, given that groceries make up a smaller portion of overall revenue. They have decreased from 14 percent of disposable income in 1960 from approximately 5 percent in 2022 (U.S. Department of Agriculture), thereby diminishing an argument of burden on low-income households. 

The reality is that we are not going to live in a world without government. Yes, I would like for government to be significantly smaller than it is, but a government in either case needs a revenue base. I have asked these questions about which sorts of taxes are preferable, not whether taxes should exist. I have no love for the wealth tax. I find the corporate tax problematic enough that I would prefer a capital gains tax over a corporate tax. 

As for the consumption tax, I worry about how states could respond if they exempt groceries. In addition to raising the sales tax, I also have concerns that they could raise income taxes instead. The problem is that consumption taxes are more efficient than income taxes. To quote the Tax Foundation:

"Income taxes impose steeper economic costs, and often steeper administrative and compliance costs, than consumption taxes. They place a higher tax burden on saving and investment. They also impose significant administrative and compliance costs that undermine the large anti-poverty programs for families and children administered through the tax code."

I am not looking at this as a matter of a utopia with zero government or zero taxes. I am looking at whether having a grocery tax beats the alternative. Based on the data we have, the answer is "no." It is better to have a grocery tax with a lower overall sales tax rate than it is having a grocery tax exemption. It is not only preferable for tax revenue purposes, but also for the purpose of helping out lower-income households. As counterintuitive as it seems for a libertarian, I am against a grocery sales tax exemption.

A Libertarian Case for a Temporary, Partial Face Mask Mandate During the COVID-19 Pandemic

In a democratic society, crises are not only a stress test for our institutions, but they test how much freedom we truly have, even in a pandemic. Fear is one of the greatest enemies of freedom. In the middle of a pandemic and millions panicking, it becomes more difficult to discern which measures are legitimate precautions in which the inconvenience is justifiable and which measures encroach on our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Wearing a mask in public, although it is hardly the most inconvenient measure throughout this pandemic, has become symbolic of the political polarization in this country. The divide is similar to that we see in terms of who wants to keep the lockdowns going and who wants to lift them. Look at the poll results from an Ipsos poll showing the difference of 22 percentage points in mask usage between Republicans and Democrats. Those who are against the masks see those wearing masks partaking in virtue-signaling and overreacting. I heard one such individual recently ask, "If the masks are so effective, why do we need the lockdown?" Those who are for the masks see those choosing not to wear the masks as reckless individuals who are part of the problem. Below are two memes to illustrate the pro-mask side.

Part of what makes the face mask debate confusing is the inconsistent and contradictory guidance that is out there. In late February, the Surgeon General advised against face masks before changing his mind because of all of the pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic cases of COVID-19. The CDC subsequently recommended in early April that people wear masks when going out. If that were not enough, the World Health Organization (WHO) in early April said that "no evidence that wearing a mask (whether medical or other types) by healthy persons in the wider community setting, including universal community masking, can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19." The advice of the Belgian Federal Public Service of Health is that masks have value when in a hospital or laboratory, but generally wearing it in public provides no value. Professor Ben Cowling at the Hong Kong School of Public Policy opines that masking the healthy would unlikely help stop the spread of COVID-19. If the science were really that intuitive and straight-forward, I don't think there would be need for the debate. That is why trying to get past the confusion is helping in guiding public policy and best practices in these matters.

Given that COVID-19 is primarily spread through respiratory droplets, it would make sense that masks could stop the spread of COVID-19. Also, the number of asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic individuals could provide a basis for the masks. However, as McGill University points out, there is little evidence that non-medical cloth masks work. According to Professor Paul Hunter from Britain University, it is difficult to conduct a proper clinical trial because of the number of variables involved. Research on previous respiratory diseases does not provide us definitive answers, as we see below.

Research Supporting Masks

• A randomized trial from Berlin shows that household transmission of influenza can be reduced by face masks (Suess et al., 2012).
• A systematic review from Cambridge said that there is some evidence of the effectiveness of wearing masks to protect others, but fewer data to support the idea that it prevents becoming infected (Cowling et al., 2010).
• Another systematic review shows how N95 and surgical masks are the among the most consistently successful of physical interventions for preventing respiratory infections (Jefferson et al., 2011; also see Jefferson et al., 2008 and Leung et al., 2020).
• A couple of dozen laboratory simulations show that N95 and surgical masks can prevent viral particles from getting through (Smith et al., 2016). However, this study also showed the N95 masks do not fare better than surgical masks. 
• One study found that surgical masks are three times as effective as home-made cloth masks, but that cloth masks are still effective in preventing spread (Davies et al., 2013).
• Tangentially, I could cite an additional concern about moral hazard since a false sense of security could either incentivize abandoning other preventative measures or give people greater incentive to go to places where they could be more likely to contract COVID-19.  At the same time, no research suggests that moral hazard would play a strong enough role to argue against face masks.

Research Not Supporting Masks

• A randomized control trial goes as far as saying that there is no effect of N95 masks (MacIntyre et al., 2010). 
• One study shows that there a 97 percent penetration rate of cloth masks, as opposed to the 44 percent for surgical masks. (MacIntyre et al., 2015). This study also points out that cloth masks carry the extra risk of trapping virus-containing droplets. 
• Another study shows that a filtering face piece (FFP) mask is about 50 times more effective at protection than a cloth mask (van der Sande et al., 2008), which implies that cloth masks cannot be more than two percent effective.
• A randomized trial of mask use among college students from the 2006-07 influenza season. While there was a reduction in influenza, the authors could not contribute it to mask usage alone (Aiello et al., 2010). 
• A paper as recently as this April used 14 randomized trials. It found that there was no reduction in influenza-like cases for influenza in the general population, nor amongst healthcare workers (Jefferson et al, 2020). 
• It also depends on how often the masks are used and washed. If they are not laundered regularly, it could actually be worse to wear a mask (MacIntyre et al., 2020).
• A randomized open-label trial of pilgrims attending Mecca in Saudi Arabia found no difference in viral respiratory infection between mask wearers and those who weren't wearing masks (Alfelali et al., 2019).

At a time we need clarity, we have confusion and contradictory findings within the research for masks. Rather than say "a case could be made in either direction," let us not forget that poor evidence quality is not the same as no evidence. There is a stronger case to be made for N95 masks and surgical masks than there is for cloth face masks. Additionally, as Johns Hopkins infectious disease specialist Dr. Amesh Adalja brings up, COVID-19 is not airborne; you need droplets to transmit it from one person to another. Consequently, there is a stronger argument for face masks in closed spaces indoors (e.g., the grocery store, public transit) than is for the outdoors. As a matter of fact, the benefits of going outside without a mask outweigh the potential costs, especially since germs simultaneously dilute and decay with outdoor air.

Another point worth mentioning is that there is more evidence, especially for cloth face masks, that face masks slow the rate of transmission than there is evidence that they prevent catching the respiratory disease. Failing to meet one of those criteria does not disqualify the argument for masks. As a matter of fact, I made an argument about having a brief waiting period for purchasing a gun. Although there really isn't evidence that waiting periods lower the homicide rate, they do lower the suicide rate, which is why I was okay with a temporary inconvenience in that instance.

As someone who identifies as libertarian, I have argued on numerous occasions that one should be able to live their life as long as they are not harming others. Believe me when I understand the sentiment behind "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." At the same time, when there is an overriding public health concern in which your decisions could very well affect another, that is a different discussion. Back in 2013, I laid out the case for a partial smoking ban [in indoor public places] on the grounds that second-hand smoke is a negative externality that affects other people's health.

I can make a similar argument for face masks in the middle of this pandemic, and I am not the only libertarian to do so. Human beings have control over one's actions, but we do not have control over what pathogens do, whether we contract a certain pathogen, or whether we transmit a certain pathogen. Unlike the unnecessary lockdowns, there is not a clear economic cost. As a matter of fact, one study shows that face masks actually contribute to a net positive economic benefit (Tracht et al., 2012). As far as convenience goes, face masks are nowhere in the magnitude of the lockdowns causing people to stay at home and lose their livelihoods. There is a clear public health justification that justifies wearing masks: stop the pandemic from getting worse.

If an individual voluntarily decides to wear a face mask, I certainly don't take issue. If a business voluntarily decides to require a face mask for entry to its establishment, I don't mind. After all, "no shirt, no shoes, no service" has existed for quite some time. Where I struggle a bit is whether there should be a mandate.  

As the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) reminds us, "Good ideas generally don't require force." Normally, I would agree and say that voluntary wearing of masks would be adequate. At the same time, communications from public health officials has been unhelpful and confusing, so FEE's argument doesn't work so well in this case. I also have concerns about enforcement, not to mention the poor evidence quality for the face masks (particularly cloth face masks).

Even so, I think my bottom line is the following. As you can imagine, I am generally not a fan of government mandates. After all, look at all of the government regulations that existed prior to the pandemic that made our response to COVID-19 worse than it needed to be. The research quality on face masks is far from being as definitive as I would like. At the same time, the lack of economic cost and potential public health benefits outweigh the inconvenience of having to wear a mask. As such, I think there is an argument to be made for a partial face mask mandate for certain indoor spaces. I would also caveat it by saying that this temporary mandate should be in place as long as the rate of transmission [R0] is still high (we can argue about that, but I would say any R0 greater than 1.0, but maybe a bit lower to be sure).

Face masks are not a silver bullet. They are not going to make the pandemic go away, but they are part of the goal of flattening the curve in order to slow the rate of transmission and to not overwhelm hospitals. Masks should be accompanied with other such measures as washing your hands and social distancing. Under normal circumstances, I would sympathize with the anti-authoritarian sentiments and say "my body, my choice" or "don't tell me what to do with my life." However, these are far from normal times. We are in the middle of a pandemic, and pathogens do not play by the same rules as we do. There could end up being some disconcerting policy decisions that would make me leery, but wearing face masks is not a slippery slope into an Orwellian dystopia. Defiantly not wearing masks is not a sign of freedom. Freedom comes with choice, but it also comes with the responsibility for the consequences of your actions. In this case, we need to wear masks to make sure that we do not violate another's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Let's wear the masks and slow the transmission of COVID-19 so we can resume some semblance of normal living soon.

Reflecting on My 1,000th Blog Entry and Why I'm Still a Libertarian, Pandemic or Not

I can't believe it, but this is the 1,000th piece I have written for Libertarian Jew. Assuming that I spent an average of two hours on each blog entry, that would mean that I have spent over an entire month of my life blogging. I reflect back on why I started writing this blog in the first place. During my young adult years, I was staunchly conservative. What drew me close to conservatism in college were the ideas of individual freedom, limited government, lower taxes, personal responsibility, and fiscal discipline from the government. I found camaraderie amongst my conservative friends during college (although a lot of them turned out to be libertarian like me). I developed a love and appreciation for what conservatism was supposed to stand for.

That started to change in 2009 when I started to re-examine some of my firmly-held conservative beliefs. The first one was my stance on same-sex marriage. Certainly at that time, the standard right-wing belief was to be against same-sex marriage. I held that belief mostly because of influence from family and friends. I asked myself if conservatives believe in individual freedom, how can one deny a union between consenting adults or right to contract? It didn't make sense to me anymore.

Afterwards, I questioned my beliefs in criminalizing marijuana and restricting immigration to the U.S. I also scrutinized my views about the wars that the U.S. was fighting. Not only did those wars drive up the federal budget deficit, but the government limited individual freedom with the Patriot Act and the creation of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). During this stage of my life, I was reading a lot of Milton Friedman, Frederich Hayek, and Frédéric Bastiat, which is a reading list that heavily points towards classical liberalism. I realized that conservatism was not an accurate reflection of my values. Individual freedom, limited government, lower taxes, and personal responsibility are ideas much more consistently and better represented in libertarianism.

Once I abandoned conservatism for libertarianism, I started writing this blog. My earlier pieces were more political commentary than anything else, although I did occasionally blog on my recently founded religion of Judaism as a way to explore various practices and rituals of the Jewish religion. During my graduate school program in public policy, my blog shifted from commentary to analysis. It became a place to scrutinize and analyze my own views. Libertarian Jew was a way for me to develop and ultimately solidify why I am a libertarian. It also provided me a modest way to educate others about libertarianism, which is why I thank you, the reader, for taking the time over the years (or however long you have read my blog) for being part of my readership.

This leads to a question I have been giving a lot of thought lately. Why be libertarian at all? What do I find so appealing about libertarianism that I remain libertarian over a decade later? There are multiple types of libertarianism, and I am not going to speak for all libertarians. That being said, I would like to divide my personal reasoning for being libertarian into two categories: a values-based argument and an outcomes-based argument revolving around consequential libertarianism.

My Values-Based Reasons for Being Libertarian

1. I love liberty. "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is a good way to sum it up. On a personal level, I feel that as long as I am not harming anyone, I should have the freedom to spend my money how I want, practice whatever religion I would like, marry whatever consenting adult I choose, associate with whomever I would like, and consume what I want. That is the premise behind the non-aggression axiom. I feel that way not only on an individual level, but a societal one. Without free will, ethics become meaningless. We are responsible for our choices, both good and bad. Plus, the freedom to pursue your goals and live life on your own terms is exhilarating. 
2. Respect of other individuals, autonomy, and personal responsibility. Libertarians view the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. Libertarianism doesn't view things in terms of communal or group rights, but rather individual rights. It doesn't matter if you are straight, gay, bisexual, or have another sexual orientation. I don't care if you are Democrat, Republican, or independent. You could be Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, or identify with another religion. The point is that regardless of who you are, libertarianism cares about the dignity of the individual. That entails both individual rights and responsibilities. My rights end where your rights begin, and you take ownership of your decisions, good or bad. Being able to extend this respect and dignity beyond white males in power, whether we are talking about women, African-Americans, those of minority religions or sexual orientations, or other disenfranchised individuals, has been one of the greatest libertarian triumphs in history. 
3. Limited government and rule of law. Libertarianism is not hedonism. Per the non-agression axiom, individuals are able to pursue their interests and live their lives as long as they respect others. To protect an individual's rights, individuals formed governments. At the same time, government can be a dangerous institution because of the power it wields.  I, along with most libertarians, believe in limited government. This means that I believe that there are certain roles that the government ought to play. However, too much concentrated government power is the best way to strip one of individual rights. History books are replete of examples of where government is the worst abuser of individual rights, whether they be Mao Zedong, Adolph Hitler, Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, Benito Mussolini, Fidel Castro, or Augusto Pinochet. As Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
4. Tolerance and diversity. These are expected outcomes of a pluralistic, multicultural society that respects individual rights. Libertarianism demands that we mind our own business, even when we would rather not. It imposes a minimalist level of morality of "do not do unto others as you would want done unto you," also known as the non-agression axiom. It is about establishing a basic framework of rules so that people can pursue their lives as freely as possible. Tolerance is not acceptance. Some might live a religious lifestyle while others live a secular one. Some will be wicked, others virtuous. Most people are somewhere in between virtuous and righteous I don't have to agree with your beliefs or life choices to get along with you. As long as you live in peace and respect another's individuality and rights, that's what counts. As a side note, libertarianism has provided me with the openness to get along with people who are different than me, and as a result, makes for a richer life experience.  

My Outcomes-Based Reasons for Being Libertarian
As much I hold to the aforementioned values, I find they are an incomplete description as to why I am libertarian. I recognize that people can have wildly divergent views, values, and opinions. I also recognize that values are more subjective, although the more minimalist values of respect for others (e.g., don't murder, don't steal) are more universal in nature. I respect freedom, but others might not. That is why I ultimately define myself as a consequentialist libertarian. Essentially, I hold to consequential libertarianism because I find that limited government and a liberalized, market-based economy work best.

Obviously, what constitutes the "best" or metrics involved varies from topic to topic. If you are looking for topic-specific examples, my blog provides a myriad of examples. Both markets and governments have failures. A market-based system and a government-based system both have human actors, which makes the process definitionally fallible. However, when accounting for each and comparing market failures to government failures, I heavily favor markets over governments because in the vast majority of instances, a market-based policy outperforms a government-based one. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker points out, "On the whole, government failure is far more pervasive, damaging, and less self-correcting, than is market failure."

I advocate for capitalism because it works. One could counter me by saying that if communism worked well, I could become an advocate for communism. Holding a consequentialist view of public policy, that is theoretically possible. Here's the catch with that criticism: Anything can work in theory because you could manipulate the hypotheticals to say whatever you like. In practice, communism failed, plain and simple. Communism has not been around for that long, and yet it caused so much misery and the deaths of millions. Socialism has also failed, but the magnitude of the failure is not that of communism.

As I explain in my debunking about myths on capitalism, allowing for freer trade, greater foreign investment, and market liberalization has given us a quality of life that no government policy has. There is no political or economic system that can hold a candle to the amount of poverty alleviation or improvements in life that a market-based system has provided. On the other hand, government policy and regulation is by and large stifling; it does more harm than good.

The harm of government regulation has proven itself to be especially true during the COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier this month, I came up with a list of 15 major government regulations that made us more vulnerable as a result. If it were not for these regulations, we would have had a better handle on COVID-19, and more lives would have been spared. Much like they did in the Great Recession, lavish unemployment benefits are most likely going to create prolonged unemployment. Trump's ban on green cards is going to make economic recovery more difficult. This only covers the topics I have recently blogged about. I'm sure that by enacting rushed legislation in a middle of a crisis, the other provisions of COVID-related legislation are going to have unintended consequences that are going to reverberate well beyond the pandemic.

When I say "let the private sector" fight the pandemic, what do I mean? The private sector is not some abstract or amorphous blob. It is a network of private actors (e.g., individuals, businesses) using spontaneous order to fix problems. It is doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals treating patients. It is grocery store staff working diligently to make sure that our store shelves are stacked with items we need. It is the researchers who are going at it day and night to find treatments and a possible vaccine. It is the truck drivers working overtime to transport goods. It is the manufacturers who, in spite of FDA regulations, will manufacture ventilators, masks, and hospital beds to deal with the influx in demand for medical goods and services. While the government has a role to play in mitigating the spread of COVID-19, its main role should be to get out of the way and remove the regulations that have made our response to fighting the pandemic all the more difficult.

All of this goes to why I remain libertarian. Not only is libertarianism a reflection of my values, but it is what brings the greatest amount of utility (life satisfaction) to people. Capitalism, justifiable skepticism of government intervention, deregulation, and respect for individuals are good values and mores to hold to, regardless of whether we are in a pandemic or not.

I Still Consider Myself a Pro-Life Libertarian, But It Comes with Some Major Caveats

Abortion has become a hot-button topic once more. Earlier this month, the state of Georgia passed a heartbeat bill, which restricts abortions to women after six weeks, which is the time when one can often detect a fetus' heartbeat. If that were not restrictive enough, Alabama made abortion a class-A felony. Missouri then signed a bill into law banning abortion beyond eight weeks. Needless to say, my social media feeds flared up with posts on abortion, particularly from those who view abortion as a fundamental right. At first, I tried ignoring the posts. But the more I saw them, the more I wanted to say something. Now I have decided to say something, and that response comes in the form of this piece.

You read the title of this piece, and you are probably asking yourself how I could call myself pro-life while maintaining my libertarianism. After all, libertarianism emphasizes individualism and using freedom to secure life, liberty, and property. Exercising one's free will is essential to libertarianism. Plus, telling someone what they should do with their body prima facie seems to violate an essential libertarian principle of autonomy over the self. How can I advocate for abortion restrictions when it violates what a woman wants to do with her body?

I want to answer that question, but I want to say this first. My experience has been those who self-identify as pro-choice tend not to be concerned with choice on a broader level, but use the label because it's expedient and sounds a lot better than "pro-abortion." If those who self-identify as pro-choice were truly pro-choice, they would be libertarian, or at the very least, they would apply that belief to a lot more than the topic of abortion.

I have advocated for many freedoms and "rights to choose" on this blog, including the freedom to own a firearm, earn a living as a prostitute, marry whatever consenting adult you want (or adults, if that's your thing), sell your kidneys or other organs for money, burn the U.S. flag, practice religion (or not), spend or invest your money as you see fit instead of being coerced into Social Security, say what you want (including freedom of the press and the right to spew hate speech), smoke marijuana, eat and drink whatever you want, or not being coerced to pay for health insurance because of Obamacare.

I believe freedom to choose how to live your life is very important. At the same time, I don't view freedom as an absolute. I view it as axiomatic, which is to say that it is crucial, but nevertheless has limits. With the exception of anarcho-capitalists, libertarians understand these limits, including murder, theft, fraud, rape, arson, and assault. As Cato Institute scholar David Boaz writes in his book Libertarianism, "No one has the right to initiate aggression against the person or property of anyone else (p. 74)." To frame it another way, "you can live your life however you want as long as you are not harming anyone else," or alternatively, "my rights end where yours begin." That is the non-aggression axiom in a nutshell, and it is central to libertarian philosophy.

This brings us to a few key questions. What is the fetus? How do we view the fetus? Is it merely a clump of cells? Is it a full-fledged human being that has or should have rights? Is it part of the mother or is it a separate entity? I don't think the answers to these questions would automatically result in a conclusive decision. Nevertheless, I find that answering these questions informs us and provides a better foundation for a moral or philosophical argument, especially given how morality and philosophy have evolved in the Western world. If it is more analogous to plastic surgery or removing a tumor, then the pro-abortion arguments become more compelling. If it is more analogous to murder or homicide, then the anti-abortion arguments become more compelling.

The Facts of Life: A Biological Look at the Gestational Development
I'm not going to cover the entirety of gestation here, but I will say that those who are against abortion use the line "life begins at conception." This much is biological fact, a fact that 95 percent of a group of 5,502 biologists agreed with (Jacobs, 2018). Biologically speaking, life begins when female and male gametes (sperm and egg) unite, i.e., fertilization or conception. The result of the union is a biologically living, single-cell entity known as a zygote. The zygote possesses DNA from both the father and mother, thereby diminishing the pro-abortion argument of "the fetus is part of the mother." The zygote undergoes miotic divisions and cellular differentiation to turn into an embryo, although one could argue that separate DNA or cellular differentiation does not automatically translate into personhood. During the embryonic stage, the embryo develops a central nervous system, a heart, and most of its organs. After the eighth week of fertilization, the embryo has become a fetus (Merck Manual), and thusly has developed enough of the parts of the body that make it more "distinctively human." These facts about gestation are also acknowledged by Planned Parenthood.

As previously alluded to, the question of "when life begins" is independent of ethical, moral, religious, or political consideration. Even so, the biology helps inform questions of personhood. I will get into where I draw the line momentarily, but what I will say up to now is that biology, more specifically that of embryology and fetology, provide a basis for a pro-life position.

I'm Pro-Life, But.....: Time for Some Nuance
One of the things that frustrates me about the abortion debate, like with so many debates, is that the extremes have a disproportionately loud voice. Based on these loud extremes, you either have to be for abortion in all cases or in no cases. It is easier to have snippy one-liners such as "Abortion is murder" or "My body, my choice" and paint the other side as morally inept while forgetting the multiple facets of the abortion debate. What is interesting is that when looking at Gallup polling on abortion, most Americans do not hold to these extremes, and neither do I. That being said, I would like to tackle some of the nuance I hold that doesn't make "Abortion is murder" my instinctive reaction every time abortion reaches my news feed.

Where to Draw the Line (Pt. 1)? A Word on Gestation: One of the most fundamental questions surrounding the abortion debate is when the entity in question, whether it be the zygote, embryo, or fetus, is granted personhood, and thus should be granted legal protections. For those who are staunchly anti-abortion, the answer is "at conception." For those staunchly pro-abortion, the answer is "at birth". These can be appealing because they are clear-cut stages within human development. In spite of clear-cut distinctions, what is interesting is that most Americans do not fall on either extreme. Sixty percent of Americans think abortion should be legal within the first three months. The support drops to 28 percent in the second trimester, and down to 13 percent percent for the third trimester (Gallup).

For me, my view on the issue is not too far off from most Americans. My view is that the line should be drawn in the first trimester. The trickier part is determining at which point in the gestation period to draw that line. There is some allure to drawing the line at the six-week mark, which is when these new "heartbeat bills" are drawing the line because a heartbeat can be detected by some recently developed technology. There is also some allure to drawing it at the eight-week mark. Why? It's not quite as clear-cut as conception or birth, but it's still based in embryology. One, it has the human organs and other features that make it discernibly human. Two, the embryo has become a fetus at that point, thereby providing a clear-cut stage in gestation.

Embryonic Viability and Miscarriages: I also draw the line towards the end of the first trimester because it addresses another issue that is not discussed often enough in the abortion debate: miscarriages. Miscarriage is another term for "spontaneous abortion," and about 80 percent of these happen in the first trimester. For women who know they are pregnant, about 10 to 15 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage (March of Dimes). Mayo Clinic recognizes the number is probably higher because most miscarriages happen before the woman knows she is even pregnant. To that point, research finds that anywhere from 40 percent up to 70 percent of embryos fail to develop into a person. The lower probability of viability diminishes the argument of potentiality, something that would not be the case once the embryo becomes a fetus.

The existence of miscarriages can be used for both sides. On the pro-abortion side, it shows that abortions naturally exist, and that conception does not translate into pregnancy. If those who are anti-abortion take the loss of life seriously, they should mourn the millions of lives lost by miscarriage, as well. It is all the more harrowing for an anti-abortion theist to realize that God created a universe in which abortion naturally occurs. An argument for the anti-abortion side is that there is still the reality that a loss and grieving process is felt after a miscarriage. I was reminded of that by an article from the Left-leaning Vox, of all places. This is important because it acts as a reminder that we are dealing with more than a mere clump of cells or "potentiality."

Additional Moral Issues with Certain Pro-Abortion Arguments: While we're discussing the status of the unborn, there are those on the pro-abortion side that argue for abortion based on the idea that the unborn are a "mere clump of cells." There are three arguments used to support that notion that I would like to highlight here. The first is viability, i.e., the fetus cannot live outside of the womb, ergo abortion is justifiable. The second is whether a fetus is wanted or unwanted, i.e., the lack of desire to carry the fetus to term justifies abortion. The third is the Sovereign Zone argument, which manifests itself in such sub-arguments as "My body, my choice," or "As long as it's within my private domain (e.g., my womb, my home), it doesn't matter."

My philosophical issue with using any of these arguments to justify abortion is that they could just as easily be applied to already-born individuals that are deemed unwanted or are as perceived as "not being able to make it on their own" (e.g., infants, the homeless, those who are physically handicapped). This is not to say that those who identify as pro-choice support such practices as infanticide, but rather to illustrate the logical conclusion of these arguments, and thus the moral quandary, when these arguments are applied consistently. To be fair to the pro-choice/pro-abortion side, there are better arguments to be made, as is illustrated below.

Where to Draw the Line (Pt. 2)? Segmentation of Abortions by Gestation Period: Drawing that line between a period after conception and before birth means that there is a period in which there is a certain percentage of abortions with which I would not have a problem. What is that percentage? I decided to find some data that breaks down the number of abortions by week of gestation. The CDC was able to provide me with its figures that it released in November 2018. Where I decide to draw that line makes a significant difference. If I draw it at the six-week mark, like the Georgia heartbeat bill does, it would mean I would be okay with 36.7 percent of abortions. If I go with eight weeks, like the Missouri bill does, it would mean being okay with 65.6 percent of abortions. Even when looking at the more restrictive of the options, it would mean that in practice, I would have to be okay with at least nearly two out of five abortions that are performed, and at most, about two out of three abortions.

Enforcement Concerns and Underground Markets: Especially when discussing bans, a quintessentially libertarian concern is the ability to enforce a ban. Libertarians have argued against the Prohibition [of alcohol], as well against making marijuana illegal, not only because enforcement is difficult, but because there are certain unintended consequences of bans (e.g., black markets, increased crime). The essential libertarian argument about legalization in these cases is "it's not perfect if you make it legal, but there are by far more issues forcing it into the black market and making it illegal." I don't argue that abortion is a victimless crime, but I also would be worried about the consequences of driving women to use abortionists in the black market. I would argue that technology has improved conditions since pre-Roe v. Wade, but I'm also not exactly confident of the conditions of abortions performed in the black market.

Second, I have a concern about the elasticity of demand for abortion. In layman's terms, elasticity is the economic term referring to the change of quantity consumed relative to a price change. I don't live in a world where you think you can get rid of abortion completely, especially if there is a demand for abortion services. If the demand largely holds during an abortion ban, it would mean that all that is being done is driving abortions to less safe conditions. This, of course, would be an economic question to see what the elasticity of abortion historically has been. I would be interested in doing it as a separate blog entry, but for now, let's say driving abortions underground is a legitimate cause for concern, and what I would view as the strongest argument for either keeping the status quo or not making as prohibitive as a full ban.

Then there is the question of what the law would look like if you were to give full personhood to zygotes, embryos, and/or fetuses. Mississippi tried passing a Personhood Amendment in 2011, which would have done exactly that. I had to ask myself what full personhood for zygotes would look like.  Detecting a zygote is much more difficult than detecting an infant. It would have been an enforcement nightmare because it would have affected everything from criminal enforcement and inheritance law to Social Security, welfare benefits, and tax law. Some of these issues could be curtailed by providing partial rights to the unborn, but there is a question of what granting partial or full rights to the unborn would look like in practice.

Exceptions to Allow for Abortion: When debating abortion, there are usually three exceptions that even self-identified pro-life individuals make: rape, incest, and when a fetus is threatening the mother's life. Going back to the Gallup polling, 83 percent are okay with abortion in the first trimester when it threatens the mother's life, and 77 percent for cases of rape and incest. The numbers decrease a bit for third trimester, but still stay above 50 percent.

I am fine with abortion when it threatens the mother's life both because an abortion in that scenario would be a justifiable act of self-defense, and because the loss of only one life is better relatively speaking than the loss of two lives. As for rape and incest, I understand both sides of the argument, but I would have significantly less of an issue with abortion in those instances. For rape, the choice to have a child was forced upon the woman (this scenario is another reason I support emergency contraception). As for incest, there would be a concern about birth defects. Speaking of birth defects, there is also a concern as to whether an abortion would be okay if there were some sort of birth defect. It would depend on the defect. I would have a bigger issue with abortion in the case of Downs' Syndrome (where the individual can lead a full, productive life) than I would with something like Tay Sachs' (where the individual leads an extremely painful life while dying at a young age).

That being said, the reality is that these exceptions are in the minority. Florida is unique in that it actually tracks reasons for having an abortion. When combining physical and emotional health reasons, only 3.4 percent of abortions in Florida were performed for these reasons. One percent were performed for genetic defects, and 0.2 percent for reasons of rape and incest. Yes, Florida is only one state. At the same time, 2004 survey data from the Guttmacher Institute (they unfortunately do not have more recent survey data), which is Planned Parenthood's research arm, helps confirm the notion that abortions performed for such exceptions as rape, incest, and threatening the mother's life are indeed exceptions to the norm.

Personal Responsibility and Birth Control: If it already wasn't made clear, I highly value freedom and the ability to have "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness." One of the arguments for abortion is that a woman has the right to do what she can and cannot do with her body, and as a result, has an absolute right as to whether to carry a child to term. While I can sympathize with that argument more strongly as a libertarian, here is where I still take issue with such an argument.

What is implicit in freedom is that while you are free to make your own choices, you also have to accept the consequences, both good and bad. The biological reality is when a man and women have vaginal intercourse (coitus), there is a real chance that the sexual act will result in pregnancy. As the aforementioned survey data suggest, most abortions are not because an unfortunate situation, such as rape or incest, was forced upon the woman, thereby taking away her choice. In most scenarios, the woman chose to engage in sexual behavior, knowing that there are risks to that behavior. This would mean that the woman knowingly chose to participate in such activity, and as such, should be held accountable for the choice she freely made. From a cultural standpoint, I have concerns about the respectability for life when most abortions are done for convenience's sake. On the other hand, violent crime has declined since Roe v. Wade (another topic for another blog entry), thereby diminishing that argument.

I have a quasi-counterargument against the personal responsibility argument, which is that of birth control. The truth is that birth control helps reduce the abortion rate. Not all places have great access to birth control. In some communities, there is a stigma attached to birth control, which I find so unfortunate that I made an argument in 2014 for subsidizing birth control. Yes, greater birth control creates a social good, including that of a lower abortion rate. From a libertarian viewpoint, I made another argument. There isn't a world in which you have lots or no government. It's a false dichotomy. A desirable and more realistic expectation is what shrinks the size of government. If birth control is readily available, then there would be fewer unintended pregnancies. Fewer unintended pregnancies would mean fewer government expenditures spent on the criminal justice system, means-tested welfare benefits, and a number of other government programs. In short, I would rather have a relatively non-intrusive form of government intervention as opposed to aggrandizing the government in multiple areas. Personally, I wish the staunchly pro-life would stop treating it as if every sperm were sacred, and support birth control so we can continue to lower the abortion rate.

A Word on Being Pro-Life versus Anti-Abortion: Some on the pro-abortion side could criticize me and other individuals that self-identify as pro-life because pro-life views only apply to the issue of abortion. Much like I scrutinized the usage of the "pro-choice" label, I have also scrutinized the "pro-life" label for consistency and fairness. Yes, there are some in the pro-life world that are anti-abortion only. The majority of self-identifying pro-life individuals I have met apply their pro-life values beyond the issue of abortion, myself included. I find myself against the death penalty because I value life. With the exception of self-defense or some other exigent circumstance, I find myself to be against fighting wars on moral grounds.

If we were to talk about being pro-life (instead of "pro-birther"), I think we should remove the red tape so it is easier for adoption to be an option. As previously mentioned, the evidence of birth control and emergency contraception is so strong that I have found an exception to "government shouldn't subsidize that" rule to support access of birth control and emergency contraception for women. I believe that communities and social networks should be more supportive when a woman exercises her choice to carry the child to term. There is also plenty of empirical research showing how more liberalized economies translate to greater economic welfare. As a result, women could have greater access to healthcare, and children can have greater access to education. This is my way of saying that a greater push capitalism has the ability to improve quality of life for all, from womb to tomb.

Postscript

When discussing the abortion issue from a libertarian standpoint, there are two major issues that are in play and in conflict: the importance of freedom and the respect for other individuals in which one does not violate the non-aggression axiom. I was somewhat surprised at survey data that showed a deeper divide in the libertarian world. The issue becomes murkier in the greater picture because there is no agreement in philosophy, religion, or medicine as to when the "right to life" begins. There are multiple points in gestation where one could choose to draw the line. To illustrate that phenomenon, let's look at two religious viewpoints.

The Catholic Church fervently advocates for and protects life at the moment of conception (Catechism, paragraph 2270). Traditional Judaism, on the other hand, has a more nuanced view. I would need an entire blog entry to cover the particulars, but if I had to summarize it succinctly, the unborn within the first forty days is considered "mere water" (Talmud, Yevamot 69b). After 40 days, the fetus is provided with some protections, although the mother's life takes precedence (Talmud, Sanhedrin 57b). Once the fetus has partially emerged from the womb, it is granted full protections under Jewish law (Mishnah, Oholot, 7:6).

I currently do not consider myself a religious Jew, but I would nevertheless like to point out that my view incidentally is not that far off from traditional Judaism: there is a period at the beginning of gestation (i.e., with zygotes and embryos) where I do not have a moral objection with abortion. After a certain period (somewhere around the sixth or eighth week), I have an issue with abortion unless it threatens the mother's life (physically, and to a lesser extent, psychologically) or some other exigent circumstance merits an abortion (e.g., the fetus has Tays-Sachs). In practice, I would be in favor for something more restrictive than Roe v. Wade, but something that would allow for exceptions based on gestation and reason for the abortion. Essentially, I have a view that upsets both extremes in the debate. While my view on abortion comes with nuance, I can state that I have an issue with depriving individuals of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." If I am to take my respect for the autonomy of the individual seriously, I would need to extend that belief to fetuses.

In addition to outlining my position about personhood with regards to gestation, I also have expressed my concerns about enforcement of an abortion ban, my views on personal responsibility with regards to life choices, the role of birth control, and how I view capitalism to be in alignment with being pro-life, all of which adds to my nuanced pro-life view.

Especially in an age of political polarization, it is difficult to sit down with those with whom we disagree and have a discussion, particularly on an issue as controversial as abortion. The controversy is compounded by the fact that there is a fundamental disagreement on the moral or philosophical status of the unborn. I find some solace in survey data showing that most Americans have a similarly nuanced view on the abortion issue, and that it is nowhere as simple as "100% for abortion" or "100% against abortion." I would like to think that most Americans not existing on either extreme would help, but I have more than a feeling that the "silent majority" (or at least the more moderate majority) will be overpowered by those who are loudest.

Debunking Five Myths Used Against Capitalism

Capitalism gets a bad reputation. Critics have blamed it from everything to exploiting workers to inequality, racism, global warming, and poverty. With all the accusations lobbed against capitalism, you would think that capitalism is the worst thing to have ever plagued the planet. Yet when you take a closer look at capitalism, it's quite the opposite. It's in that vein that I write this blog entry: to dispel some myths people use to discredit capitalism.

Before beginning, I would like to briefly cover what capitalism is because there is enough misunderstanding of what capitalism is. Capitalism is an economic system that is characterized by private ownership of the means of production. The production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is conducted by private individuals or enterprises. Although there are different gradations of a capitalist system, common features of a capitalist system include property rights, spontaneous order, voluntary exchange, consumer sovereignty, and willingness to adapt and change. Capitalism is also hallmarked by minimal government intervention, although in its purest form, it would be considered a free market system. I would like to start off with debunking five myths today in the hopes that I can debunk more in the future. With that out of the way, let's begin:

1. Capitalism causes poverty. Poverty predates capitalism. When looking back in history, poverty was the default. 99.999999% of people in premodern times lived in squalor. It was not some foreign aid or international development project that caused the decline of extreme poverty in the world. It was market capitalism. Allowing for freer trade, foreign investment, and market liberalization have done more for alleviating poverty than any government intervention. There is no political or economic system that holds a candle to capitalism.

2. The United States has a capitalist economy. One could apply a purity test to the term "capitalism," but it wouldn't be practical. Government has always played some economic role. The question is whether that role is extensive enough to no longer be considered capitalist as was outlined in the introduction. According to Heritage Foundation's Economic Freedom Index, the United States is only considered "Mostly Free." Its score has declined since former President Obama took office. The United States currently is ranked in 17th, and is tied with Denmark.

Looking at general government spending statistics from the OECD, the United States spends 39 percent of its GDP on government spending. There are a fair amount of taxes that have to be acquired to fund this largesse. And then there's the size of the public sector. In the United States, 17 percent of the labor market was public sector in 2013. This is smaller than the OECD average of 21 percent, but it's still a far cry from having a capitalist society. Why?

Capitalism is about maximizing the separation between the private and public sectors, as well as limiting the public sector's scope. In the United States, you have considerable government intervention, not just in terms of taxation but also regulation. The government interferes in the economy in a number of ways to achieve social aims, including, but not limited to, tariffs, occupational licensing, the child tax credit, land use regulations, federal student loan subsidies, and daylight savings time.  While there are certain elements of voluntary exchange in the U.S. economy, it cannot definitionally be considered capitalist. Yes, the United States has more elements of capitalism than most other countries, but it is, at best, a mixed economy.

3. Being pro-capitalist is the same as being pro-business. The premise behind consumer sovereignty is that businesses have to compete against one another to benefit the consumer. Since this means that businesses have to work harder than they would like, there are a fair number of businesses that actually despise capitalism for this reason. Businesses will use their political connections to get into bed with Big Government in order to protect themselves from competition in what is known as rent-seeking. Here are some examples. Walmart has supported minimum wage, not because it wants to provide people a living wage but because its competitors cannot afford to pay it. Netflix is for net neutrality not because it cares about its customers, but because it doesn't want to be charged a premium for being a bandwidth hog. Oil producer Exxon-Mobil supports a carbon tax not out of concern for the environment, but to tax coal companies and give itself an advantage in the market.

4. Capitalism was responsible for the financial crisis that caused the Great Recession. For one, the U.S. government was instrumental in causing the Financial Crisis. It heavily subsidized the risk and incentivized housing investment that created the conditions leading up to the housing bubble. Let's also recall that there was more financial regulation, not less, leading up to the Great Recession. Looking at the companies that benefited under the bailouts from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) were huge corporations, including banks, automobile companies, and government-backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This was not free enterprise. This was a collusion between Big Business and Big Government known as "corporatism" and "corporate capitalism," or what I prefer to call "crapitalism" (see points #2 and #3).

5. Capitalism is about greed and envy. As Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman points out in his succinct case for capitalism (see 1979 interview with Phil Donahue below), no political or economic system is immune from greed. I don't necessarily want to get into how self-interest is not the same as selfishness, but I would like to say this. Capitalism is not synonymous with greed, but rather functions primarily a description of voluntary exchange. Entrepreneurs want to maximize profit, and do so by pursuing their self-interest and creating a product or service that benefits consumers. Consumers want to maximize utility by purchasing said goods and services. Laborers want to maximize their wages.

The premise behind voluntary exchange is that actors engage in economic activities with minimal coercion. There is legitimate self-interest and then there is the illegitimate kind that involves deceit, coercion, and violence. When legitimate self-interest is pursued, then all parties benefit (see point #1). Capitalism is about an economic system in which legitimate self-interest is best channelled to maximize economic efficiency and the benefit of society as a whole. Legitimate interest is the foundation for real economic growth that not only spurs innovation and production, but has done so much to give us a quality of life that our ancestors could only dream of.

Is There a Such Thing as a Right to Health Care? If Not, Should We Still Treat It As Such?

Health care is one of those important facets of life. It is a vital determinant for physical and mental wellbeing. It is important enough where it is a debate in the United States as to whether it is a right. In other developed countries, the government de jure provides some form of universal health, whether in the form of single-payer, two-tier, or a health insurance mandate. For those who advocate for greater government involvement, the argument is that it is a right, and that the United States should catch up with the rest of the developed world. That sentiment is growing within the United States. According to Pew Research, a majority of Americans believe that the government should be involved in providing health care for all. The question I hope to answer today is whether or not health care is a right.

This is a question that gets us into the realm of political theory and political philosophy, which means that data or studies cannot inform us in a more empirical fashion per se. One way to distinguish rights is to look at the difference between natural and legal rights. Natural rights state that rights do not come from the law, but rather are derived from human nature or a deity. Under the framework of natural rights, they are universal and innate. Under natural-rights libertarianism, for example, the idea is that the individual possesses certain natural rights, mainly that of individual sovereignty. That means that fraud or coercion are a violation of said rights. Natural-rights libertarianism comes with two major flaws. One, these rights are guaranteed according to whom? To G-d? Not everyone believes in G-d. There is no objective authority or arbitrator to determine that rights are natural. There are enough political philosophies out there that could not care less about individual sovereignty, which leads to my second point: throughout history, government has been involved in the individual's decision-making process, for better or worse (usually worse). It is for those reasons I consider myself a consequentialist libertarian, as opposed to a deontological libertarian.

That would lead us to the idea of legal rights, which means that it is the societal, economic, and political contexts that determine whether or not an individual or group of individuals has access to a certain good or service. If rights only exist in a certain socio-political context, then that means that the government can take away rights just as quickly as it granted them. Under the idea of legal rights, it would mean that the right to health care is neither an absolute nor a guarantee. That being the case, this brings up a follow-up question: should the government treat health care as if it were a natural right? Another way to ask it: should the right to health care be a legal right?

Let's start with the assumption that under the law, we should treat health care as a right. To answer the question about treating health care as a right, let's start with a practical series of questions:

1. How do we define the scope of a right to health care? Does it only entail treatment or does it include preventative health care? If it is the latter, then a lot more will have to be covered than if that right solely entails curing people of already-existing ailments. Do we include experimental or unproven tests and procedures? Should this include such procedures as cosmetic surgery or infertility treatment? The ambiguity presented in this bullet point alone brings up a point: a minimum requirement of a right should be the ability to unequivocally define it. The fact that these questions cannot be answered with certainty tells us a lot about whether health care is really a right. This is also the reason why a positive right cannot be exercised in absolute or can be scalable like a negative right can, but let's continue a bit longer with the assumption that health care is a right....
2. Who is going to pay for the right to health care? Freedom of speech does not require that someone else pays for that right, nor does it infringe upon someone else's freedom of speech. With freedom of press, journalists don't force someone else to pay for producing their publications and media. Freedom of religion can be exercised in a pluralistic way and others practice their religions without infringing upon others' right to religion. With health care, someone would have to be forced to pay for that right. When looking at it through the lens of individual rights, a right should not be conditioned on an ability to pay. The extent of how distributive the tax system would be to pay for this would be contingent upon the scope of goods services rendered [per Point #1 above]. 
3. Who is responsible for providing this right? A right to possess something implies that someone has the corollary duty to provide health care to all individuals. With the right to a fair trial, that right is provided by the judicial system and a jury of twelve peers. Who delivers under a framework of health care being a right? Do we force private-sector doctors to perform all procedures? Do we socialize government and have every medical professional be an employee of the government? This also gets messy because if health care were a positive right, then it is an imperative that resources are channeled for that purpose. Those resources include doctors, nurses, physicians, and other health care professionals being conscripted to providing those services. It is unclear as to who holds the right to provide these services, which thereby creates more doubt as to whether health care is actually a right. 
4. What sort of incentives would a right to health care create? First, let's think of this in terms of consumption. For one, how much incentive would a consumer have to take care of their own health if health care were treated as a right? They could simply get treated if/when things got bad enough instead of taking personal responsibility for their own health. Also, if a consumer has full access to all treatments at little to no cost, what incentive is there for restraint in consumption? Single-payer systems in practice show that overconsumption is a concern. If overconsumption is a concern, then that also means that medical care professionals are overextended. This is not simply a matter of doctors not being where they are most needed. What sort of disincentive would this create for people to enter the medical profession? 

The truth is that health care is not a privilege or a de facto right: it is a commodity. Not only that, health care is a finite commodity, which makes it all the more impractical to define it as a right. Food, clothing, and shelter are vital as health care is, but you don't see universal "food care." As the Cato Institute points out, there are only so many hospitals, doctors, and health care-related goods that exist. Whether it is by bureaucratic fiat (e.g., United Kingdom), waiting lines (e.g., Canada), or by higher prices (e.g., the United States), there is going to be some sort of rationing mechanism, much like there is in other markets. We have the right to use our hard-earned money to seek medical treatment. We should use our rights to help our less fortunate neighbors seek treatment. However, whether we look at it through the lens of natural or legal rights, there is no guaranteed right to health care.

Even if there were a guaranteed right, do we really want government to guarantee that right? We see what happens when health care is treated as a right under a single-payer system: overconsumption of health care, fewer choices, a limit in supply, and most importantly, an inability to contain health care costs. As a side note, these countries with single-payer have as much innovation as they have in the first place because of the spillover effects from the United States' health care innovation.

It might be a more heavily regulated market, but health care is a market with goods, services, supply, and demand.  Having a mature and rational discussion about how to ration and allocate health care is a must, but advocating for health care as a right is nothing more than political grandstanding at a time when we need to find actual ways to make health care more accessible and affordable.