If we continue to pay attention to authors like Schlosser and Ehrenreich who blame the free market for the problems we face, public support for the market will dwindle to less than it is already, and the prosperity that the free market generates will be destroyed.
Two books have become almost cult classics among the academic left, and both reveal shocking ignorance of the most elementary level of economic logic. Thomas DiLorenzo explains.
If we had the medical system that a number of politicians and newspaper editorial writers in this country have been demanding, I very likely could have died.
Dale Steinreich's June article about the centenary of the founding of the American Medical Association caused a tremendous uproar. Here is his answer to critics.
Last year, the governor of Alabama proposed and then overwhelmingly lost a bitter referendum to increase taxes and boost revenue, writes Chris Westley.
The body-weight crusaders continue their Quixotic struggle, writes Gard Goldsmith, because they believe in the Marxist myth that the owners of the means of production make people buy things.
Dale Steinreich explains the twin goals of the AMA-shaped medical industry: artificially elevated incomes and worship by patients.
Not even Krugman advocates an economic system akin to what we see in North Korea of the former Soviet Union. Yet, as William Anderson points out, we are now left with a perplexing question: If socialism does not deliver the goods like bread and automobiles in large numbers and in high quality, why does anyone believe that the practice of medicine is an exception?
Canadian law, like U.S. law, bans the buying or selling of human organs, but doesn't specifically address donations by complete strangers, writes Adam Young. The transplant monopoly insists living donors be either family or close friends. The result is a massive shortage which results in needless deaths. A market could so easily fix the problem, so why is this solution rejected?
