tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post6769692137548434445..comments2024-02-16T11:41:37.696-05:00Comments on Todd Seavey: Anarchy Tonight! (an optimistic glimpse of speaker David Friedman’s future)Todd Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08589187886030112999noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-66204351863586736872012-03-11T10:25:55.894-04:002012-03-11T10:25:55.894-04:00If you object in general to Heritage/Romney/Obama-...If you object in general to Heritage/Romney/Obama-care with its mandate, a coherent case can be made against it on the grounds that it forces people to enter into contracts they otherwise wouldn't have made. But it has nothing to do with the question of whether birth control should be included in the mandated program if such exists.<br /><br />The Boudreaux/Limbaugh position above objects to the transfer of money from the rest of the participants in the program to the recipients of the birth control benefit. In fact, the inclusion of the benefit seems to me likely to be making the mandated system *fairer* by lessening the subsidy that young females are forced to provide to everyone else. (If by fairness we mean removal of enforced, systematic subsidies.)<br /><br />Now I do not know that as a fact, since I don't have the relevant data. However, I suspect I am right about this point, and it seems to be it does<br />in fact negate this particular objection to the birth control part of the discussion.Mitchhttp://www.mitchgolden.com/esssaysnoreply@blogger.com