Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Visceral Politics
Amity Shlaes has some thoughts on the political meaning of former Reason editor Virginia Postrel's volunteering a kidney to her friend Sally Satel, a prominent critic of politicized medicine.
[W]as this a policy kidney? In a certain sense, yes. As a fan of biotechnology, Virginia recalls, she didn't have the ``visceral'' reaction that others might have to giving an organ. (Yes, she used that word). She looked up the risks of the donation and found that "we do lots of riskier things every day.''
.....
Virginia's husband Steve even came up with his own elegant little market solution to the fatal organ shortage. Citizens who give an organ get a holiday from federal taxes for a year. High earners pay lots of tax, and low earners pay next to none. As Postrel points out, the holiday idea is therefore less vulnerable to the usual criticism that organ dealing exploits the poor.
.......
"It was not as Virginia, the libertarian, but Virginia, the friend, that I was giving'' Postrel says. "People who believe in markets do all sorts of non-market transactions.''
|3.20.06 @ 12:16PM|#
Postrel is ruthless. She has a post up right now mocking New
York health authorities for regulating New York chefs and banning
one form of gourmet fish preparation, sous vide cooking, as
unsanitary. Where is this woman's concern for infant
botulism?
What an ass. Virginia Postrel did a beautiful and noble thing.
After Amity tries to cheapen this gift with pointless policy
discussions, maybe she can explain the policy-driven hidden agendas
of atheists who nonetheless exchange presents at Christmas.
|3.20.06 @ 12:20PM|#
After Amity tries to cheapen this gift with pointless policy
discussions, maybe she can explain the policy-driven hidden agendas
of atheists who nonetheless exchange presents at
Christmas.
You can't teach an old dogmatist (religious or secular) new
tricks.
Timothy|3.20.06 @ 12:23PM|#
My political motivation for gift giving at Christmas is keeping my girlfriend happy with me. See also, members of my immediate and extended family.
|3.20.06 @ 12:25PM|#
True fact: you should not give honey to babies under the age of one or two, because honey can contain botulism spores that don't bother adults and older children, but infant immune systems can't handle it. And yet, Amity Schlaes has NEVER come out in favor of banning honey. Where is this woman's concern for infant botulism?
lunchstealer|3.20.06 @ 12:29PM|#
Postrel is ruthless. She has a post up right now mocking New
York health authorities for regulating New York chefs and banning
one form of gourmet fish preparation, sous vide cooking, as
unsanitary. Where is this woman's concern for infant
botulism?
I will admit to having little specific knowledge of infant botulism
or food-borne illness pathology, but this strikes me as a
ridiculous distortion at best.
First off, why should restaurant regulations have anything to do
with infant botulism? Infant botulism is a condition that only
occurs in newborns who have yet to develop their immune system
thoroughly. Does this woman think that ANY approved restaurant food
is safe for infants? Because its not. Infant botulism is caused by
feeding food that's safe for children and adults to an infant.
Honey, for example, is perfectly safe for anyone over the age of 2
but for an infant it can still contain unsafe microbes.
Postrel's complaint was that NYC health commissioners were banning
a method as unsanitary without justifying that with an actual
justification of the threat. Amity essentially accuses her of
having no concern for babies?
http://kidshealth.org/parent/infections/bacterial_viral/botulism.html
|3.20.06 @ 12:36PM|#
That may be the most muddle-headed, insipid pile of steaming drivel I have ever read. A point-by-point refutation is not worth the effort; all one can really do is marvel at the stupidity.
|3.20.06 @ 12:41PM|#
"Steaming drivel" should have been either "steaming horseshit"
or just drivel. I Must start re-reading when I take a call in the
middle of posting.
None the less, Schlaes is a twit.
|3.20.06 @ 12:43PM|#
Postrel is ruthless. She has a post up right now mocking New
York health authorities for regulating New York chefs and banning
one form of gourmet fish preparation, sous vide cooking, as
unsanitary. Where is this woman's concern for infant
botulism?
Wasn't Schlaes being sarcastic? What baby eats gourmet fish?
lunchstealer|3.20.06 @ 12:43PM|#
Hmm, going back and re-reading it, I think that Schlaes was, in
fact, being facetious with the whole infant botulism thing. So used
to seeing that sort of ill-informed kneejerk reaction to
libertarianism that I completely took it seriously.
Note to self, lighten up.
|3.20.06 @ 12:56PM|#
None the less, Schlaes is a twit.
Number 6,
Perhaps you meant to type "twat" here?
|3.20.06 @ 1:18PM|#
Smacky-I suppose either is accurate. But now I'm wondering how serious that woman's column is. It could be that my satire-o-meter needs calibration.
|3.20.06 @ 1:18PM|#
Smacky-I suppose either is accurate. But now I'm wondering how serious that woman's column is. It could be that my satire-o-meter needs calibration.
|3.20.06 @ 1:27PM|#
" After all, libertarians insist on applying commercial
paradigms to moral problems, which seems asocial and downright
unfeminine."
Well, when you start out by misrepresenting an entire class of
people, you know the rest is gonna be good.
To clear it up for Ms. Strawman: libertarians apply many other
solutions to "moral" problems. Furthermore, when commercial
paradigms are applied, it's typically because it is
believed that the said solution would be the most
successful---given how often the free commercial market is
successful at meeting the needs and wants of a multitude of people.
So, I see nothing asocial or unfeminine about applying a solution
that probably works. But I digress...
"Without thinking much about it, Postrel and Satel have made
some important points. Well-intentioned policy can be
fatal."
Oh, you mean, like, um, banning restaurants from serving a certain
type of dish because of the remote possibility of "infant
botulism"? Yes, Amity, you're right...well-intentioned policy CAN
be fatal. Not only to someone's life, but to someone's livelihood,
or their natural rights, or their freedom granted to them by the
constitution.
"Arch-conservatives can have big hearts, as big as any heart at
the London School of Economics or at the Democratic Leadership
Council."
Why does this need to be said? Liberals like to think of themselves
as having "bigger hearts" than conservatives, simply because they
think that 'having bigger hearts' should be required from upon
high. Yes, Amity, and tomatoes are red. Any more brilliant
conclusions? Why, sure...
"Market-orientation and charity are not opposites. Sometimes
they go together."
Well, jesus, are you fucking brilliant, or what? This entire thing
reads like a child who is figuring out what is obvious to adults.
Yes, Amity, I hope you are enjoying breaking down all of your wrong
assumptions. Dimwit. You think libertarians believe in the free
market just because their selfish? Idiot. God, what an idiot.
"Public institutions can't monopolize morality, as much as they
would like to. And they probably shouldn't be allowed to monopolize
kidneys, either."
Oh, but, public institutions are fine to monopolize "public"
health, though. "Probably"? Please, tell us one hypothetical
instance where it WOULD be a good idea to let public institutions
monopolize organs.
And this twat is a columnist? Deezamn.
|3.20.06 @ 1:36PM|#
Well, when you start out by misrepresenting an entire class
of people, you know the rest is gonna be good.
Make that two classes of people she's misrepresenting.
(I'd like to know exactly what paradigms are feminine, you stupid
twat.)
Tim Cavanaugh|3.20.06 @ 1:39PM|#
What an ass. Virginia Postrel did a beautiful and noble
thing. After Amity tries to cheapen this gift with pointless policy
discussions, maybe she can explain the policy-driven hidden agendas
of atheists who nonetheless exchange presents at
Christmas.
I think you're misreading her. Within the context of the article,
which is really pro-Virginia and pretty sympathetic to
libertarians, the botulism business is clearly sarcastic. All
policy discussions are pointless, but in this case I think it's
legitimate to talk about the philosophy a bit as it relates to
stereotypes about libertoids.
|3.20.06 @ 1:40PM|#
If this woman was trying to be satirical, she did a pathetically
bad job.
"Virginia Postrel doesn't care about babies." (Hyuk, hyuk! Wasn't
that brilliant satire? Isn't that hilarious? Aren't you all just
wetting your pants with mirth? Any second now, the guys from The
Daily Show will be sending me an email offering me a job.)
"Libertarians are selfish." (Comedy gold!)
|3.20.06 @ 1:45PM|#
I can see now that it was sarcastic, but sarcasm can be tricky to convey in writing. I didn't quite catch it at first. Either it was poorly conveyed, or else I'm used to seeing such accusations against libertarians.
|3.20.06 @ 1:47PM|#
Either it was poorly conveyed, or else I'm used to seeing
such accusations against libertarians.
Ha, ha, HA! Brilliant! Hysterical! Viva satire!
|3.20.06 @ 1:50PM|#
The article immediately came across as sarcastic and sympathetic to me. Some of the comments above ("twat", "idiot") demonstrate that some of you need to get out of the libertarian isolation chamber once in a while.
|3.20.06 @ 1:52PM|#
Tough crowd.
Well, when Reasonoids are used to wit like mine, other attempts at
humor simply pale in comparision. She should try harder next
time.
[/snark]
|3.20.06 @ 1:59PM|#
Maybe the real reason Dave Barry retired is because he knew he couldn't possibly compete against the brilliant comedic stylings of Ms. Schales.
|3.20.06 @ 2:01PM|#
It turned out that Virginia's kidney was a good match for
Sally. Maybe it was their intellectual sisterhood. They joke that
they even had the same blood type: Diet Coke. Virginia's Web site,
dynamist.com, has a photo of Sally recovering from surgery with her
favorite beverage.
Good to see that she's already overworking her new kidney with
toxic sludge.
I just read the article, and (even before Rhywun's comment), it
would have appeared to be sympathetic and/or sarcastic to me, too.
But she's still a twat for insinuating that supporting a market
solution is somehow "downright unfeminine". What a douchebag. (Is
that feminine enough for you, Amity?)
R C Dean|3.20.06 @ 2:05PM|#
"After all, libertarians insist on applying commercial
paradigms to moral problems, which seems asocial and downright
unfeminine."
Well, authoritarians insist on applying political paradigms to
moral probmes, which seems even more asocial to me.
After all, a "commercial" solution is at least voluntary for
everyone involved, unlike a political solution. In my book, that
makes the commercial solution less "asocial."
Besides, libertarian "solutions" generally begin and end with
leaving people to find their own solutions. Which strikes me as the
ultimate in "social."
|3.20.06 @ 2:11PM|#
But she's still a twat for insinuating that supporting a
market solution is somehow "downright unfeminine".
Or, is she a twat for pointing out that that's what many people
think...? Pay close attention. The very first words of the article
are "The reputation of libertarians is..." What follows is
satirical. Sheesh.
|3.20.06 @ 2:16PM|#
The very first words of the article are "The reputation of
libertarians is..." What follows is satirical. Sheesh.
Well, in that case (if that is her intention in even
uttering the phrase "unfeminine"), then I agree with Jennifer. Not
funny, pointless, failed attempt at either wit or humor. She
should've just written the article as a straight human interest
story.
|3.20.06 @ 2:31PM|#
Who exactly is she writing for? If her attempts at "wit" or "satire" would be picked up by anyone, I would think it would be libertarians. Anyone who isn't a libertarian or very familiar with libertarianism will probably adopt those bullshit stereotypes as their conception of what libertarianism is. The last thing such an obscure political fringe ideology needs is hamfisted "sarcasm". Subtle political humor will no doubt be lost on many non-libertarians reading the article, as is expected. That's my take on it, anyway.
|3.20.06 @ 2:32PM|#
I was in a used book store last weekend, and found some old
copies of Godey's Lady's Book from the nineteenth century. There
was one "humorous" article that read something like this:
This is a very humorous and mirthful essay you are reading. Are you
not laughing at its lightheartedness? This commentary tickles your
funnybone, as it is most comical. Indeed, this be the funniest
thing you've read in well over a fortnight.
Lame, yes, but still better than Amity's attempts.
|3.20.06 @ 2:35PM|#
Smacky, I hate you and I hope you drop dead.
(Don't look at me like that! I was being satirical! Isn't it
obvious? Geez, you guys are so humor-deficient.)
|3.20.06 @ 2:59PM|#
Could a Reason staffer please post something for the regulars to focus their anger on?
|3.20.06 @ 3:22PM|#
The writer of The Greedy Hand: How Taxes Drive Americans
Crazy and What to do About It, someone who won the Fr�d�ric
Bastiat Prize, writes about commercial activity being "unfeminine"
and says things like "Postrel is ruthless. She has a post up right
now mocking New York health authorities for regulating New York
chefs and banning one form of gourmet fish preparation, sous vide
cooking, as unsanitary. Where is this woman's concern for infant
botulism?" and some people here take it seriously?
There might be some irony-deafness at work here, people. It's never
a good thing to become immune to irony and humor. You end up
sounding like feminists or neo-conservatives.
Heck, you might even take facetious posting identities seriously.
(Last mention, promise, JMJ.)
SGT. Robert Mcgrover|3.20.06 @ 4:44PM|#
My suggestion to her would be that if she wants to have the various libertarian people to understand her use of irony and wit, she should be vivid and coherent in her next message in this regards
|3.20.06 @ 5:04PM|#
I'm looking forward to seeing Shales and Shelly Malkin starring in next season's shoot of The Simple Life...
|3.20.06 @ 8:04PM|#
I agree that the article was sympathetic to the situation
between Satel and Postrel. The author continually plugs facts about
the 1984 'National Organ Transplantation Act' and snidely states
that the "supposedly humane setup [created by the law] 'degenerates
into an equal opportunity to die on the waiting list.'"
The last little bit should have cleared up any doubt regarding the
tone of the piece, "Public institutions can't monopolize morality,
as much as they would like to. And they probably shouldn't be
allowed to monopolize kidneys, either."
|3.20.06 @ 11:27PM|#
Amity is a libertarian and I think I remember reading that she's a personal friend of Virginia Postrel. I don't see how you people could possibly read this article and think that it's intended to be critical of either Virginia or libertarianism.
|3.21.06 @ 12:25AM|#
I know what the complaint about the "tax holiday" idea would be. Did nobody else see this one, or was it just too obvious to mention..."It's a giveaway to the rich!" (Whom, according to the same people who would say that, already pay no taxes, but whatever.)
|3.21.06 @ 12:51AM|#
yes, this whole "giving voluntarily" thing must be stopped, because the government is the ultimate arbiter of "value." Anyone who disagrees is a selfish fuck and we need to stop them from spreading their message of volunteerism, capitalism and freedom.
raymond|3.21.06 @ 1:12AM|#
You think libertarians believe in the free market just
because their selfish? Idiot. God, what an idiot.
You think altruists believe in altruism just because they're
selfish? You bet they do.
This entire thing reads like a child who is figuring out what
is obvious to adults.
The unintended irony of that statement is delicious.
What an ass.
The unintended irony of that statement is delicious, too.
|3.21.06 @ 2:23AM|#
The satire is fairly easy to see.
Jennifer,
Quit making excuses for your inability to understand satire.
|3.21.06 @ 3:30AM|#
Damn, smacky and jennifer, how many times do you guys have to let us know it wasn't witty or funny? I mean, damn, just admit you didn't realize it was satirical at first and move on, or don't, your choice I suppose.
|3.21.06 @ 8:51AM|#
Damn, smacky and jennifer, how many times do you guys have
to let us know it wasn't witty or funny?
Six.
|3.21.06 @ 12:57PM|#
Eh, sorry about that. I was in a really bad mood yesterday. And I never once thought it wasn't satirical.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245