I’m fed up with the notion that “renewable” = superior.  I’m fed up with the notion of “renewable.”  Resources are resources, and their value or usefulness exists in the minds of people who use the resources to fulfill their goals.  If there is less of a resource than people could make use of, it is an economic good and people will economize its use based on its cost.  Hence the only relevant indicator of superiority of a resource is it’s cost, not whether it’s “renewable.” 

Let’s take a quick example: the corn interests and (some?) greens push ethanol, because it’s renewable!!  Renewable means: we can always make more, as opposed to oil, which, they predict, will all be gone someday.  However, for the time being, we can make more oil as well, and it’s cheaper to make a gallon of gasoline or diesel than a gallon of corn alcohol, and you get more energy from it to boot!  So enough about the corn-hucksters’ claims of superiority.  The main issue for me and, I contend, most people, is cost, not some empty claim of “renewability” which amounts to moral posturing.  When the oil runs out, actually long before the oil runs out, it’s price will rise, and ethanol will become more and more attractive.  At some point perhaps ethanol will become economical, but at that point I won’t need the corn-hucksters’ notion of moral superiorty, of “caring about the earth” or what have you, to compel me to use their product.  I’ve already got a far more superior concern- cost- which, it turns out, is a far better motivator for getting the most out of resources, whether “renewable” or not. 

Economists ought to say, “Don’t tell me it’s renewable.  Tell me it’s cost-effective.”

I suppose it’s a sign of extreme wealthiness when people can afford to economize resources based on moral claims and not solely on money costs, but it bugs me immensly when these greens/renewable advocates tell me that I should care about whether a resource is renewable.  I don’t.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070324/od_nm/texas_abortion1_dc;_ylt=An_3gyEfoUwnTV6Sr3qjMzMSH9EA

 http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8677214

I disagree with the fact that this policy significantly promotes promiscuity.  It reduces the chances of developing cervical cancer from a virus most people don’t even know exists.  It does so for only half of the population.  The female population has essentially been given a new health risk and a new risk reducer at the same time, causing very little change.  This still leaves teens facing unwanted pregnancy, AIDS and a laundry list of other STD’s. 

Making this policy “mandatory” means all girls entering sixth grade must receive the shot or get a parent’s signature to opt out of it.  I doubt many of these horribly offended parents will actually put their money where there mouth is when it comes time to vaccinate their daughters.   According to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey the probability of being sexually active is just less than 50% for all girls, grade 9 – 12.   Most of these parents are betting on their children as sure things, whereas a Vegas bookie would at best give them even money that their kid stays chaste.

The American Social Health Association estimates 75% of all sexually active people will contract one form of HPV or another in his or her lifetime (keep in mind many forms of the virus show no symptoms and/or can be harmless).  This is no small portion of the population.  As a parent trying to minimize losses, which path should one take?  If the child remains sexually inactive, the results are the same.  One can opt out of vaccination at no cost.  On the other hand, a parent can insure the childs safety by paying the costs associated with vaccinating the child.  This is now less socially awkward, more abundant in supply, and most likely subsidized because the State of Texas has required it.  If the child does have sex, there are two possible scenarios for parents: 

A) The parent vaccinated the child:
Result:  The disappointment in a child who is sexually active. 

B) The parent did not vaccinate the child:
Result:  The disappointment in a child who is sexually active, guilt about not doing all in your power to protect that child,  and an increased cancer risk (also your fault).  

This is a no-brainer.  It would be great if every parent could trust their child to be sexually inactive before adulthood.  That just is not the case.  If it were, we wouldn’t need to discuss this problem at such length.  Health policies like this are not made to encourage premarital sex, they exist to provide insurance against some of its side effects.  Parents should take the insurance.  It’s more than worth it.

Kaiser Family Foundation Fact Sheet:
http://www.kff.org/youthhivstds/upload/U-S-Teen-Sexual-Activity-Fact-Sheet.pdf

American Social Health Association HPV Fact Sheet:
http://www.ashastd.org/learn/learn_hpv_facts.cfm

You can’t force democracy upon people.

Murray Rothbard attacks the “Cult of Rand” and likens them to the Communists that she so bitterly hated.  Rothbard is an anarchist and his capitalist beliefs are unimpeachable.  Whenever you hear the name of Rand, pause, and remember Rothbard.

I am going to ignore moral or religious arguments and ask why should it be mandatory?  This is not a problem of public goods and free riders; all benefits accrue to the vacinated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070206/od_nm/japan_police_theft_dc_1