Letters

From the February 1991 issue

DONKY KONG

In “Don’t Dismiss the Democrats” (Nov.), Joel Kotkin demonstrates a truly creative use of words when he belittles the idea of “putting someone in jail for ...performing an abortion.” Why, anyone who would jail someone just for “performing” must be a menace to all actors, jugglers, concert pianists, etc. By all means, let us encourage the free expression of performers: of Ted Bundy, who performed mass murder so audaciously and creatively; of the Central Park teenagers, who performed rape and assault with so much enthusiasm; of Saddam Hussein, who has performed the magic act of making Kuwait disappear; of Josef Stalin, who performed land reform by cleverly starving millions of kulaks; and of Adolf Hitler, whose followers raised performance art to a new height by the zeal and efficiency with which they performed genocide.

The issue, of course, is whether a “performance” takes away someone else’s rights. An unborn baby has no less human life than does a newborn baby, a handicapped person, a mature adult, or a senior citizen afflicted with Alzheimer’s. To say that government has the power to give one person the right to extinguish another (innocent) human life is to turn the concept of libertarianism on its head. And to say, as does Mr. Kotkin, that a person who snuffs out an innocent life should not be brought to justice by the state is to completely misunderstand the xoper function of government. Robert L. Brittingham Memphis, TN

I FAIL TO SEE MUCH positive in Joel Cotkin’s embracing the donkey over the elephant because, he says, “the Republican Party ... has chosen to embrace within its core the most repressive elements in our society.” I find liberals abandoning the First Amendment (by calling for curbs on “racist” speech at universities, for example) and promoting a ‘‘fail draft” for the upcoming war with hac (that supposedly would alter the “discriminatory” race- and class-basec makeup of our all-volunteer armed forces) far more frightening than conservatives giving lip service to a drug wai everyone knows is a joke or defunding performance art by chocolate-splatterec feminists parading in the buff. All told, il one chooses not to become a big-L Libertarian, one is better off joining the Dumbos than the Eeyores. Dumbo’s positions may be asinine, but Eeyore’s ideological shifts are dumb like a fox. Sally Anne Moore Cincinnati, OH

SO JOEL KOTKIN won’t register as a Republican because he doesn’t wish to ally himself “with proto-fascists like Bill Bennett and Jesse Helms.” I’m not particularly fond of those two myself. On the other hand, I won’t become a Democrat because I refuse to ally myself with the likes of Ted Kennedy. Come on, Kotkin. The Democratic Party has time and again proven itself to be purely statist and socialist. Read its last several party platforms and breathe deeply their strange and esoteric smells. Better yet, take a good long look at the party’s most recent presidential candidate. Lawrence D. Skutch Westport, CT

FARMERS MARKET

Jeff Taylor’s article criticizing the Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Trade Act of 1990 (“Wooly Bullies,” Dec.) was right on target with one exception: the implication that American agribusiness would benefit from a failed Uruguay Round of GA’IT talks. In fact, the majority of American farmers would benefit more from reductions in foreign trade barriers and European farm subsidies than they would “lose” from continuing to rely on government farm policy. As a result, mainstream farm groups urged Congress to uphold President Bush’s veto of the textile bill so that the GATT talks could continue. True, four Democratic farm-state senators who voted against the 1985 textile bill joined Minority Leader Robert Dole (R-Kan.) and supported the 1990 legislation. But the House vote to sustain President Bush’s veto included representatives from the country’s 10 largest farm states. Taylor is right that the protectionists will be back. For hundreds of years, the battle for free trade has been more successfully fought in textbooks than in reality. But as foreign barriers fall and more individuals come to depend on trade for their jobs, the chances increase that protectionism will be relegated to the classroom, where it belongs. Bryan Riley Director of Trade Policy Citizens for a Sound Economy Washington, DC

JEFF TAYLOR’S “Wooly Bullies” was on target, but deficient in at least one important respect: The bulk of American farmers, represented by the American Farm Bureau Federation (3.8 million member families) were strongly opposed to the Textile, Apparel, and Footwear Trade Act of 1990, and supported its veto. Most farmers know that a free-trade policy is in their own best interest as well as that of the nation and world as a whole. Unlike the labor movement and a good portion of American industry, farmers have been steadfast in modem times in their support for free trade. If the current GATT talks fail, it will be due to the European Community’s stubborn resistance to the reduction of farm subsidies, including dumping through subsidized exports. The U.S. proposal to substantially reduce or eliminate farm subsidies in Europe and the United States is a logical extension of freer trade and elimination of the costly and unproductive system of production controls and subsidies that. have plagued farmers for far too long. C.H. Fields Alexandria, VA

COLLUSION POLICY

Jacob Sullum’s examination of the U.S. auto-insurance industry (“Totaled! ,” Nov.) was highly perceptive. The only shortcoming in this otherwise sterling piece was the omission of the role the McCarran-Ferguson Act has played in creating not only the auto-insurance mess but also the troubles in other sectors of insurance.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act exempts the insurance industry from antitrust suits (with a few minor exceptions). The reason given is that insurance companies can better set rates if they share their actuarial data. Further, consumers will be better able to compare insurance products if each company offers policies based on a common form (as is currently provided by the Insurance Services Office).

Of course, sharing these data does enlarge the statistical sample on which insurers rely to set rates. However, rates are just as likely to be set for other reasons. Overhead, claims losses, investment inzome, and so on vary from insurer to insurer. Rates reflect far more than just the insurance risk the insurer is accepting. The case for sharing data appears less than compelling

. As for product comparison, the current system seems to favor the notion that ‘you can have any color car you want so ong as it’s black.” An auto policy based )n a common form is unlikely to vary nuch from company to company. So the consumer’s choice becomes one of which agent smiled more warmly rather than which company will suit the policyiolder’s insurance needs. Warm smiles ire important, but insurance tailored to he needs of the client is better than off the rack coverage. Form-based policies liminish this diversity.

A further provision of the McCarran-Ferguson Act places the responsibility for regulating the insurance industry on the states-a wonderful example of federal government spinelessness. Congress and the White House excuse the industry from antitrust rules and then require the states to deal with this stacked deck. The feds shouldn’t set such rules in the first place. But when they do, they ought to clean up the mess that follows. Jeff Myhre Executive Editor Lloyd’s of London Press Inc. New York, NY

Mr. Sullum replies: The McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption does not appear to be a significant factor affecting price or diversity in the auto-insurance market. Large companies generally set their own rates and do not need access to data collected by other insurers. In any case, I don’t see any objection to allowing companies to share information, so long as barriers to entry remain low enough to deter collusion. Indeed, the ready availability of rate-setting data probably helps to promote competition.