Harms in Public Spaces

The Brits are working out a new way to intervene in private lives and in private businesses, this time in an attempt to control “harms” done via (not by, mind you) “online platforms”—social media.

Under the [British] government’s proposal, a new regulator would have the power to require companies to protect users from a number of identified online harms—such as pornography, extremist content, and cyber bullying.

And

[T]he pair talked through the different terms that had been used to describe social media in a legal context, looking for the right analogy. They tried “platform,” “pipe” and “intermediary.” Nothing seemed to fit. Then “we thought of a ‘public space,'” says Ms Woods. “People do different things online. It was just like ‘how do we regulate spaces?'”

“Identified” online harms? We can’t even define the harms—such as pornography, extremist content, and cyber bullying.  Even Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart ultimately walked back his foolish I know it when I see it nonsense, recognizing that such a nebulous “definition” had no place in law.

We have not—we cannot—define any of these harms, much less what constitutes a “public space;” there is no basis for Government regulating these things.

Nor have we succeeded in recognizing who actually is responsible for these harms, whether public or private.  See the disconnect, at a high level, between the Left’s Big Government is responsible on the one hand and the Right’s focus on individual responsibility on the other.

The British government may want to create a whole new, intrusive bureaucratic agency for controlling one more aspect of British citizens’ lives. When we wrote our Constitution and ratified it those two and a quarter centuries ago, we explicitly walked away from the British system of governance for a number of reasons; central among them being the illegitimacy of Government intrusions into private lives.

This is one more example.

Data Transfer and Privacy

The European Union’s Court of Justice had recommended to it by an adviser to the court in a particular case involving Facebook that

Companies, including US tech giants, should be blocked from transferring European users’ data in some cases if they can’t guarantee it will be handled in compliance with European Union privacy laws….

That would seem to include a large number of international companies besides ours. Yet several EU member nations are moving apace to bring Huawei into their communications networks….

Hmm….

An Appeal

Bayer is appealing a District court judgment against it and its Roundup product which has glyphosate as an important ingredient. The judgment is for $25 million, and Bayer thinks it’s a wrong judgment.

The German company’s main argument is that US federal agencies have determined its product is safe and not a carcinogen.

Bayer noted that the

verdict defies both expert regulatory judgment and sound science.

And

Because the EPA has consistently approved the sale of glyphosate without a cancer warning and has stated that including such a warning on the label would render the product misbranded, any state-imposed cancer warning is expressly preempted

Wow. Truth as defense.  What a concept.

Gimme, Gimme, Gimme

That’s what French unions are demanding with their strikes against French President Emmanuel Macron’s and French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe’s plans to streamline, standardize, and otherwise reduce the cost to French taxpayers of France’s byzantine pension system.

Never mind that the pension system consists of 42 different pension plans or that French civil servants insist that they are, somehow, special and so should have special perquisites unavailable to petty private sector workers.

Trains, subways, and buses were still severely curtailed on Friday, and hundreds of domestic and regional flights were canceled. There were no demonstrations on Friday, but unions have warned the strike could last days and become one of the biggest in France in over two decades.

And

Civil servants, in particular, fear they may lose advantages they have over private-sector employees.

To hell with their fellow citizens attempting to get to and from their own work, to and from their own necessary errands, to and from their own entertainments.  The unions want theirs, and no one else matters.

All the government wants to do is to

extend the number of years needed to collect a full pension and create a universal plan that would do away with the so-called special regimes enjoyed by French civil servants, including rail workers.

Currently, full retirement occurs after 43 years of work or age 62; the latter being the youngest full-retirement age in the OECD.

“Screw you,” say the unions, exemplified by Catherine Perret, Confederal Secretary of the CGT trade union:

We won’t let go[.]

This is the naked, if strictly legal, extortion of union strikes made national.  The US has Taft-Hartley, in which the government can order the end to a strike for a significant period during which serious negotiations could occur.  France, not so much; its unions are amok.

Medicare for All

Simon Johnson, of the MIT Sloan School of Management and an “informal” advisor to Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D, MA) presidential campaign, thinks her Medicare for All scheme is the cat’s meow.  It would, he claims

cut costs by reducing inefficiency, eliminating predatory pricing (for example, for prescription drugs) and using the purchasing power of a single-payer system. Her plan would also constrain the growth rate of underlying medical costs.

This, of course, is utter nonsense.  While Johnson correctly notes that our present health care burden hangs around the neck of every company in America, and this dead weight gets heavier each year, government intervention only makes things worse, as each of the points he makes, ostensibly in support of his contention, illustrate clearly. Medicare for All schemes—not only Warrens, but all of them—only and severely exacerbate that government intervention and increase the costs heavily.

First, there is the onerous contribution most companies are required to make through employer-sponsored insurance. Every business owner wants employees and their families to have health insurance, but the cost rises inexorably.

Labor market competition and labor unions are the source of this “requirement,” and the government-mandated restrictions on businesses’ ability to band together—unless they’re in a narrowly defined “similar” business—denies them the market power to negotiate effectively.

Second, companies cannot by themselves easily constrain health-insurance premiums. They need healthy workers who are not ruined financially when a family member is rushed to the emergency room. In most competitive markets across the US, if an employer cuts back on health benefits (or raises deductibles, copays or out-of-pocket expenses), it raises the burden on employees and increases the risk that the best will leave.

See above regarding labor market competition, union power, and government-mandated limits on businesses’ negotiating power.

Third, the unpredictable nature of health-care costs makes it significantly harder to start and run a company. Every year, entrepreneurs and managers hold their breath while insurance companies decide what to charge them.

Again, see above regarding businesses’ government-mandated limits on negotiating power, now in contrast with the unpredictability of realized health care needs.

Nor is Medicare for all damaging only fiscally: such schemes eliminate choice; in fact, their proponents say that we Americans are too stupid to make our own choices; each of the plans’ proponents would throw the millions of us who have private health coverage, coverage better tailored to our individually determined needs, from one source or another off those plans.

 

Further restricting our choice—our right to decide for ourselves on what we’ll spend our property, our money, is Medicare for All’s requirement that we buy that one-size-fits-all government insurance—even though we judge ourselves healthy enough to not need a coverage plan or to not need Government’s dictated plan, or we just choose to run the risk and spend our money on our own needs and wants.  After all, these Progressive-Democrats Know Better, so by their fiat, we are to be denied.

 

Then Johnson sneers at efforts to switch to competition, but as the political economist should know, the failures here are failures of Republicans and failures of Progressive-Democrat obstructionism. The failures have nothing to do with competition.

Finally, the health care coverage costs—which are apart from health care needs—exist and burgeon by government fiat at the State level as well as the Federal, and the costs inflicted have little to do with health care provision or cost of provision, nor are they related to the likelihood of any particular health care need. Businesses—and we consumers—are not allowed to trade across state lines, and State insurance commissions set the range of premiums health care coverage entities are allowed to charge.

Obamacare made that even more explicit at the Federal level: the coverage plans carried coverages for matters we consumers neither want nor need and at fixed prices that are by design independent of the likelihoods of those mandated coverages. Beyond that, Obamacare forced millions of consumers off our privately held plans that we preferred and forced us to buy from the Federal government’s “market.”

Medicare for All is just an extreme version of Obamacare. In every respect. At trillions of dollars of higher cost.