Daily Archives: 1 May 2010

Why we slide toward socialism

. . . . But I don’t think the US is consciously choosing socialism per se, even though we are sliding toward socialism one step at a time, with the electorate ratifying each and every step. Furthermore, I doubt that many of our representatives who voted for the healthcare bill, the bailouts, and all the rest would agree that it is fair to call them socialists. They are simply giving Americans what they think we want. If they did otherwise, they would be voted out of office.

The slide toward socialism in America is not a conscious act. Rather it is the inevitable consequence of abandoning the fetters placed upon the federal government by the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find authorization for funding ninety percent of the federal government’s current operations or regulating America’s private businesses.

Rather, the electorate understands that to refrain from lobbying for a government handout of some kind is to become a victim…the government robs you and returns nothing to you or it handicaps you in dealing cooperatively with others. Therefore, the electorate wants “middle class” entitlements similar to the ones the government has granted to the poor, the unions, and big business for decades…with no appreciable beneficial result, by the way.

Economists call this phenomenon a “Tragedy of the Commons”, where all scramble to grab as much of the commonly owned resources as they can before others grab them. Eventually these commonly owned resources are plundered to extinction; thus the name, “Tragedy of the Commons”.

The underlying fact of modern American life is that more and more resources are considered to be “commonly held” or at least subject to confiscation and/or regulation by the government for the benefit of government’s constituencies. It is clear that if you desire to live a life of personal responsibility, asking nothing of anyone, you will become the victim of all the rest—you will contribute more and more to the “common” and get nothing in return. (Read more from patrickbarron.blogspot.com)

Journal editor given ultimatum over peer review

THE editor of a journal which publishes controversial medical ideas claims he has been told that he will be fired unless he agrees to make the journal peer-reviewed.

“Medical Hypotheses is the last of the non-peer-reviewed journals in the mainstream scientific literature,” says Bruce Charlton, the editor facing the ultimatum. “They are going to sack me on 11 May unless I unconditionally accept the changes to the journal.”

Elsevier, which also publishes New Scientist, is demanding the changes after it withdrew two controversial papers that Medical Hypotheses published last year, one of them questioning whether HIV causes AIDS. Following an internal review, Elsevier ordered Charlton to introduce peer review and to devote extra attention to potentially controversial articles.

Charlton says that peer review would undermine the spirit of the journal, which is to challenge prevailing dogma. At present, Charlton alone decides what to publish.

Rob Heller, a spokesman for Elsevier, says the company has acted ethically towards Charlton but, “as owner of the journal, we have every right and obligation to make the final decision on the editorial policies of the journal”. (Read more from newscientist.com)