The Shotgun Blog

« "Blogger Seized From Streets of Havana, Beaten, Released" | Main | Greens commemorate fall of the Berlin Wall »

Monday, November 09, 2009

Thought experiment: A deadly influenza is sweeping the globe. Who should be vaccinated first?

There are two ways to allocate scarce resources: 1) through markets or 2) through the political process.

It is generally understood that the market allocation of scare resources is efficient, but that the political allocation of resources is just, or at least that the political process has a greater possibility of being just.

This general understanding, however, conflicts with the libertarian view which is that market allocation is on the whole both efficient and just. It is efficient because when goods are properly priced and traded freely they end up in the hands of those for whom the goods have the most utility. It is just because this free and consensual trade allows for property rights to be exercised, and property rights are foundational to individual rights, which are foundational to a libertarian view of justice.

In the case of H1N1 immunizations, the allocation of this desperately scarce vaccine is political. After initially opening vaccinations to all Albertans, the provincial government has now established “priority groups” for vaccinations. If you’re not a member of any of the priority groups, you’ll have to wait to be vaccinated.

The market allocation of vaccinations would allow the price of the vaccine to move up or down depending on supply and demand, and the vaccine would be available to anyone willing and able to pay for it.

The argument for the political allocation of the vaccine is that individuals most vulnerable should be vaccinated first, as their need is greater. And that some groups are ultimately more important than other groups, a judgement left to governments.

The argument for the market allocation of the vaccine is that a free market for vaccinations would create price signals and profit opportunities that would encourage vaccine manufacturers to supply the market more efficiently, and encourage individuals in low risk groups to either forego vaccination or wait until demand eases and prices fall before seeking the vaccine.

If the market allocation view is correct, a free market in health care would likely have better managed the demand we currently see for the H1N1 vaccine. Instead, Albertans are forced to wait hours, even days, in queues reminiscent of Soviet bread lines. And now most have no access at all. Albertans wait in line for health care for the same reasons individuals in the Soviet Union waited in line for food: the misallocation of resources caused by socialism, or political decision making.

Before readers recoil at the idea of privatizing vaccinations, consider this thought experiment:

Suppose the H1N1 influenza is highly contagious and deadly. And suppose the government begins to establish priority groups that put public sector workers ahead of private sector workers, which is precisely what the Edmonton Police Commission is demanding for its healthy, medically not-at-risk members. Robert Dunster, vice chair of the Commission said “When we heard about the priority list, and they weren't on, then we also heard that the police were told to line up, I mean, so much for the idea they were considered first responders, or in some situation at greater risk than the average person in public."

Is the life of a private sector CEO less valuable than the life of a police officer? Are police officers truly at greater risk than a Tim Horton’s employee, for example, who attends to hundreds of potentially infectious customers every week? And shouldn’t the notion of public service come with an obligation to put the public first...to serve and protect? (The police can’t serve and protect if they are not healthy. I get it. But a father can’t care for his family if he’s sick or dead.)

With the political allocation of scarce resources comes the inevitable demand by the politically connected for special treatment, often at the expense of the general public. I don’t begrudge the Edmonton Police Commission for wanting their members at the front of the line. I question the efficiency and justice of this type of political decision making.

On November 10, and until otherwise notifiied, the Alberta government has determined that the following groups will be eligible for vaccination:

• (New) both parents or one parent and one caregiver of infants under six months of age;
• (New) children under 10 as of November 1 with chronic health conditions (e.g. diabetes);
• children over six months and under five years as of November 1; and
• pregnant women.
• Infants under the age of six months are at high risk for severe illness and cannot be immunized. In order to reduce their risk of exposure to the virus, vaccine will be provided to both parents, or to one parent and one caregiver. Proof of the infant’s age (Health Care card, birth certificate or other valid documentation) must be provided by each caregiver.
• Parents and caregivers need not bring their infants with them, but caregivers attending clinics alone will need photo ID and a letter from the parent or guardian confirming their role.
• The vaccine will also be provided to children under the age of 10 years as of November 1 with underlying medical conditions that put them at greater risk of severe illness related to influenza. Proof of age and a prescription or other record of the child’s medical condition will be required.

At this time, the vaccine will not be available to other Albertans.

Return to the thought experiment for a moment: A highly contagious and deadly influenza is sweeping the globe, and you’re told to wait while the state determines who lives and who dies.

This fictional situation raises some challenging philosophical questions that we have so far been fortunate not to have to answer. But what if?

Posted by Matthew Johnston

Posted by westernstandard on November 9, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

Whether or not to get vaccinated is a personal decision between individual and doctor. It has now become a decision of the politician ... with the predictable consequences.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-11-09 12:05:57 PM

H1N1 has been overblown by the media. I was reading in the paper it killed 5,500 people in the entire world. As opposed to the regular seasonal flu which kills 4,000-8,000 people in Canada every year. That means that the regular seasonal flu will probably kill more people in Canada then H1N1 will kill in the entire world.

Good thing the whole H1N1 thing is a generally mild flu outbreak. Or else we would be screwed, when you look at how badly our government has mismanaged H1N1. That makes me think that if a deadly influenza strain did sweep the globe we would be entirely screwed over by the governments lack of preparedness.

Posted by: Sheldon | 2009-11-09 1:10:55 PM

Matthew, it is not the government who determines who lives and who dies; that is up to the vagaries of the disease itself. The government is determining whom it will help first, based on criteria that may or may not be morally, ethically, and logically sound. You are conflating inaction with bad action, and indifference with malevolence.

The fundamental flaw of the free-market system is that it is entirely reactive in nature, in that it can only attempt to fix problems after they become evident; sometimes the proactive approach, with its emphasis on prevention of the worst, produces a better overall outcome. But free-market types needn't despair, for there is a place for their philosophy in this hypothetical example. Those who did not receive the vaccine, but do survive, can vote the government out of power at the next election.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-09 1:34:12 PM

Me.

Posted by: News Flash | 2009-11-09 2:02:05 PM

Shane, Walmart is known for watching weather reports and shipping large amounts of goods like batteries, blanket, water, etc., to the areas likely to be affected at soome near future date. This is not reactive.

And if the vaccine manufacture, and sale, was market driven, then the manufcatures might take a risk to make more, in anticipation of an increasing demand. This would not be reactive either.

Posted by: TM | 2009-11-09 9:00:13 PM

I know TM, I saw the reactive comment as well. I'd would very much like for the interventionists to logically explain how bureaucrats and politicians would be more proactive than consumers, doctors, entrepreneurs, and corporations. Or for that matter, how they would be better equipped to understand and respond to patient / consumer neends.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-11-10 5:09:22 AM

Thanks so much for posting this information! We appreciate the time you must have taken to present this information so clearly.

Posted by: managed hosting | 2009-11-10 6:23:11 AM

But also not driven by market forces, rather anticipated market forces. I am not trying to say companies never try to plan for the future, only that market forces taken collectively are reactive, no proactive. Moreover, the libertarian model advocates limited government intervention and stresses sternly punishing the offender after the crime has occurred, rather than taking measures to prevent it in the first place (which usually involves the curtailment of some liberties).

And if the vaccine manufacture, and sale, was market driven, then the manufcatures might take a risk to make more, in anticipation of an increasing demand. This would not be reactive either.

You are assuming that the vaccine can be made any faster than it is right now. Demand is already sky-high. Supply is limited. If market forces were brought to bear on this vaccine, it would cost ten thousand dollars a shot right now.

I'd would very much like for the interventionists to logically explain how bureaucrats and politicians would be more proactive than consumers, doctors, entrepreneurs, and corporations. Or for that matter, how they would be better equipped to understand and respond to patient / consumer neends.

Because the government has access to far more information than private companies and, unlike the private sector, is accountable to the people (at least at election time). Also, if private citizens and providers are more proactive than the government, how is it that education as a whole (among other things) only became firmly entrenched across all classes of society when the government got involved?

Government involvement certainly isn't the answer to everything; there are areas it would do better to leave untouched. But neither is it the answer to nothing, as so many here seem to claim.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 7:17:07 AM

"Because the government has access to far more information than private companies and, unlike the private sector, is accountable to the people (at least at election time)."

Oh, Shane. Your faith in government is quite touching. If that was really the case then government could run whole industries far more efficiently than the private sector. If you're really interested in trying to understand what libertarians / classical liberals are talking about, read some von Mises.

The argument for government rationing boils down to altruism. The weakest or most vulnerable get access to the medicine first, whereas in a free market the rich would get it first.

Starting with the latter argument first, the well connected will always get access to medicine before everyone else, regardless of whatever social system is in place. Rationing to ensure that the weakest get the medicine first makes sense in a wartime situation, where supply is essentially fixed or restricted. We are not in wartime and in any case the crisis is being overblown by the media.

That's a signal for capital to flood the industry. In all but the most extreme of circumstances a free market would provide for more vaccine more quickly. In should be noted that the vaccine is being produced by a private company and sold to the state. So the government is acting purely as distributor not creator.

As for education Shane, please read some history. The British and Americans had the highest literacy rates in the world prior to the introduction of state education. A system of state education only became viable once society was rich enough to support it.

People also only started sending kids to school when education began to make economic sense for the majority of the population. Truant officers used to have a nightmarish time trying to get kids to show up for class. Why? Because even though the schooling was free, the opportunity cost of their labour was very high for poor families. What allowed for mass education was economic development. Had the state not seized control of that industry, education would have permeated society just like every other service and good. Did government teach people how to drive cars? Or operate computers? Is the ubiquity of cars and computers the product of government efforts?

Posted by: Publius | 2009-11-10 7:38:48 AM

"Because the government has access to far more information than private companies"

I'm going to file this one away in my "the world according to Shane" file. So thousands of bureaucrats have more information than millions of consumers and companies??? This just keeps getting dumber ...

Posted by: Charles | 2009-11-10 8:46:26 AM

Damn. So much political capital, never mind taxpayers' money, has been expended making H1N1 vaccine and 'informing' taxpayers about H1N1, that politicians are scrambling to keep justifying this blatant over-reaction. Is this a global-warming look-alike?

Recall the Spanish influenza epidemic in 1918/1919. The rich and poor were hit alike.

Posted by: Agha Ali Arkhan | 2009-11-10 9:11:16 AM

If you breathe, Agha, you're a candidate for flu. Those not breathing need not worry.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 9:31:58 AM

Shane, the story I Pencil http://fee.org/library/books/i-pencil-2/ is a story about many individuals pursuing their own self interest, in many cases totally unaware of the other people involved in the Pencil manufacturing or distribution process. Yet the simple pencil is always available everywhere you need one, all without the hand of the government, with all their access the information we don't have.

The market is highly tuned to react, predict, create, and risk. It is the only way to deliver the simple pencil to exactly the right places at the right times, all over the world. The government is incapable of doing this. As things become more complicated, the government is even less capable.

Posted by: TM | 2009-11-10 9:49:17 AM

And if they're really interested in growing their constituency, they should learn to articulate themselves better. Because to judge from the Shotgun, libertarianism is a blatantly self-serving and utterly amoral philosophy, which limits its appeal.

The argument for government rationing boils down to altruism. The weakest or most vulnerable get access to the medicine first, whereas in a free market the rich would get it first.

This is exactly the point I made about what would happen if the free market controlled, through price, access to this vaccine. I suppose it's a question of what's more just: distribution according to need, or distribution according to wealth?

Starting with the latter argument first, the well connected will always get access to medicine before everyone else, regardless of whatever social system is in place.

If you're talking about the sports-team scandals, at least some of the officials responsible for that fiasco have been fired. The fact that there are some abuses does not alter the fact that vulnerable groups who would not otherwise have access are in fact getting immunized.

Rationing to ensure that the weakest get the medicine first makes sense in a wartime situation, where supply is essentially fixed or restricted. We are not in wartime and in any case the crisis is being overblown by the media.

First of all, we ARE in a wartime situation; we are fighting a war in Afghanistan. Secondly, the supply is, in fact, fixed; only so much can be produced in a given time frame, and the shortage is critical everywhere. Lastly, I agree with your point about how the media have hyped this to hell; with rare exceptions, for most people H1N1 will be indistinguishable from the seasonal flu.

Shane, you are basically correct in saying that the price of the vaccine would probably be quite high initially. Guess what happens next? Like with every other good and service when its first introduced, the price is very high. That's a signal for capital to flood the industry. In all but the most extreme of circumstances a free market would provide for more vaccine more quickly. In should be noted that the vaccine is being produced by a private company and sold to the state. So the government is acting purely as distributor not creator.

Yes, but those goods and services do not usually have the potential to save human life. The U.S. is estimated to have up to 200 million doses by December, which was the previously set date. The free market almost never responds that quickly. Moreover, why AREN'T other companies producing more vaccine and selling it to, say, HMOs and hospitals?

Well, that must be a pretty brief history, Publius, because many New England colonies instituted mandatory education quite early on, beginning with the Massachusetts Bay colony in 1642. Most of the schools were initially private, meaning the state was involved, if not in actually providing the education, then at least in requiring that people get one. By the end of the 19th century, public schools outlawed private ones. Literacy in 1870 was 80 percent, today, it is virtually 100 percent.

This contributed mostly to students not progressing to the secondary grades. By 1900, requirement of the completion of primary school was almost universal in America, and this happened to be the age at which children were less use around the house or in the fields. Our traditional summer vacation actually exists because only then could kits help with the harvest, the busiest time of year. As late as 1900, 9 in 10 Americans lived on a farm.

Had the state not seized control of that industry, education would have permeated society just like every other service and good.

Assuming willing consumers.

Did government teach people how to drive cars? Or operate computers?

I wish it would. The amount of technology imbecility out there is staggering.

Is the ubiquity of cars and computers the product of government efforts?

What has this to do with anything?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 10:04:02 AM

So thousands of bureaucrats have more information than millions of consumers and companies??? This just keeps getting dumber ...

As we speak, Charles, who, currently, right now, in this country, at this moment, has access to people's medical records? Starbuck's? Or the government? That's right. So put it back in your pants, smart mouth.

Companies don't share information; it's not in their interest to. So absent some compulsion or prior agreements, amalgamating data from hundreds or even thousands of private databases would be a nightmare. And what good is a medical chart if only the patient knows it? Do you expect a patient to be an objective arbiter as to whether his need for the vaccine is greater than someone else's? Get real.

Communism is often criticized as being against human nature because it assumes a degree of altruism that is not typical of the species. I see libertarians have the same problem, but they take it to an even more outlandish extreme. Not only do they have faith in universal altruism, but they have faith in universal competence. Except where the government is concerned, of course; government inexplicably sucks at everything.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 10:09:42 AM

"I see libertarians have the same problem, but they take it to an even more outlandish extreme. Not only do they have faith in universal altruism, but they have faith in universal competence. Except where the government is concerned, of course; government inexplicably sucks at everything."

Shane, it is exactly because libertarians know people will generally not be altruistic that they mistrust governments. As for other people, libertarians know that some individuals will be incompetent. It is better that they fail with only their property at risk than to fail with all of our property at risk.

Posted by: TM | 2009-11-10 10:45:21 AM

"Do you expect a patient to be an objective arbiter as to whether his need for the vaccine is greater than someone else's? Get real."

No one's saying that Shane. Stop making stuff up. And you expect a bureaucrat to be able to do that? It is simply impossible for bureaucrats to be able to manage that much information.

That's why we have doctors. They know their patients inside out and can make a much more informed decision as to which patients need vaccines and which do not. Furthermore, if the decision making process is fragmented, multiple vendor will compete for the business and drive prices down.

"Not only do they have faith in universal altruism, but they have faith in universal competence."

You really don't understand liberalism do you? Nice strawman. No libertarian / liberal has ever made that statement. Try again.

Posted by: Charles | 2009-11-10 11:48:30 AM

Bravo, what an insightful paragraph, I couldn't agree more, but would like to add that libertarian aulturism as extreme as it may be, is so very needed to get us to the middle of the rational road.

Altruism and rationality are not mutually dependent. You can have either without the other.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 2:25:04 PM

Its clear to me, and probably everybody else what was implied. Taking it out of context like you just did, forces it to make no sense.

Asking what something has to do with something is taking it out of context, and "forcing it to make no sense"? Do you even know what context is?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 2:25:50 PM

No one's saying that Shane. Stop making stuff up.

You listed patients as a source of information, knowing full well they know only their own case file, and cannot properly interpret much of it. Therefore including "millions" of patients was a cynical attempt to pad your numbers, and I called you on it.

And you expect a bureaucrat to be able to do that? It is simply impossible for bureaucrats to be able to manage that much information.

They've been doing it for thousands of years, Charles; that's what bureaucrats do for a living. Maintaining a database isn't hard. The trick is to make sure it's complete, and a government, which can demand information consistent with the services it provides to everyone, is in a better position to do that than a doctor whose only interest is in his own practice.

That's why we have doctors. They know their patients inside out and can make a much more informed decision as to which patients need vaccines and which do not.

Many Canadians do not have a family doctor, and in any case, as noted above, doctors do not routinely share their information with other doctors unless they are involved in the patient's care. In fact, confidentiality may prohibit them from doing so. Furthermore, there are 192 Canadians for every Canadian doctor, and only a fraction of those doctors are in general practice. Do you expect 31 million Canadians to report to doc for a yes or no sticker at a service charge of $35 a pop?

Furthermore, if the decision making process is fragmented, multiple vendor will compete for the business and drive prices down.

No, it won't. Because the decision-making process in this case has nothing to do with how much vaccine would eventually get used, only with who gets it first.

You really don't understand liberalism do you? Nice strawman. No libertarian / liberal has ever made that statement. Try again.

I did not say liberalism; I said libertarianism. And it is a cornerstone of libertarian belief that the individual is competent enough to use his freedoms wisely, and that therefore all policy, such policy as they are prepared to tolerate at all, should reflect this. So this potshot, which carefully avoids all discussion of specifics and simply amounts to a pitying headshake, rebuts nothing.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 2:35:58 PM

Shane, I don't think libertarians, in general, believe that the individual "is competent enough to use his freedoms wisely." Rather I would say libertarians believe simply that we should be free to make choices that may or may not be good for us as individuals. It is about freedom rather than competence.

Posted by: TM | 2009-11-10 3:42:36 PM

Vegan hat, you may be correct about all you say. We will never know for sure. But it is also possible that many many more lives have been saved because of agriculture.

Posted by: TM | 2009-11-10 10:15:30 PM

Mahmoud, your arguement does not address the possibility that more lives are saved by agriculture than lost by the cancers you believe are caused by it.

Posted by: TM | 2009-11-10 11:00:43 PM

If they do think that, TM, then it is about freedom rather than either competence OR responsibility—something libertarians frequently insist is important but which I rarely see them talk about.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-11 12:10:34 AM

The reason you people are concerned about getting sick is because you eat diseased animals.

Vegetarians never get sick? I'd like to see proof of that. I've already seen proof that they're crazy.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-11 12:13:22 AM

Matthew,

The wonderful Russ Roberts and Mike Munger of, respectively, George Mason Economics and Duke Political Science take up this precise question in detail. A wonderful listen or read.

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2009-11-11 6:36:02 AM

who said they never get sick? vegetarians are almost meat eaters, I do not doubt they get sick BTW nice twisting of the facts idiot.

TWISTING FACTS fuh fuhfuh fuhfuh fuh, fuh fuh fuhfuhfuh...

You clearly stated that the reason "we people" get sick is because we eat diseased animals. And vegetarians are "almost" meat eaters? Are you on drugs, Oog? Oh, wait...

You are sort of correct though, I never ever catch colds or flu, not in a over a decade anyways. Vegans rarely get sick. There is info on the oogle to support my claims.

You never get sick because you live as far away from your fellow man as you can get.

If you stop drinking milk you will become lactose intloreant. Parents force their kids to learn how to accept ingesting what the body rejects.

And many people force themselves to ingest what their bodies initially reject, like marijuana smoke.

They don't know better, and if they did, they would never treat their chidren in this cruel manner.

Great. Another childless child expert.

You are what you eat, how can meat teaming with animal cancer and disease be what is best for you, or even healthy for you, it does not add up, think about it.

That's why we cook it, you moron.

What is the likelihood that humanity will survive, if they stay this course?

Fecundity and longevity are increasingly not problems. In fact, they are so unproblematic, that they are themselves causing problems in need of solutions, such as China's one-child rule and a welfare system broken by nonworking elderly living longer and longer.

Give it time, with meat like that you will all be ill beyond repair, and then you will have your answer, TM, far less saved by agriculture than killed.

Agriculture is the farming of plants, not animals. If the vegan lifestyle is best, how is raising soybeans and turnips bad?

After reading that 100% of eggs and chickens THAT YOU EAT tested positive for cancer and lukemia instead being grossed out and concerned about what you are eating, you ignored this important fact in order to pose a straw man question to me that has nothing to do with anything, this pressing issue at hand.

STRAW MAN fuh fuhfuhfuh fuh fuhfuh, fuh fuhfuh fuh...

The leukemia virus in question is not active in humans, and does not cause cancer in them. Scientists have looked in vain for a leukemia-causing virus in humans. By the way, scientists in Scotland have apparently bred hens that lay eggs with cancer-fighting chemicals, so does that help any?

Every three minutes a Canadian gets cancer, Will it take one every minute in order to get the public concerned?

You have proof that it will reach that point, then? Or, like a gun-control nut, are you just tossing around numbers in an attempt to frighten people into accepting your point of view?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-11 10:13:13 AM

Mahmoud, it is relevant because you are stating opinion as fact.

Posted by: TM | 2009-11-11 10:58:53 AM

Shane, if libertarians do in fact not talk about responsibility, they should. The problem with responsibility is that often people mean that your idea of responsibility should be imposed on me, or mine on you. In which case the issue also then becomes one of liberty.

You can be as irresponsible as you want so long as your doing so does not trample on my liberties. And I see it as my responsibility to be responsible for myself. I also believe it is my respnsibilty to defend freedom, including yours.

Posted by: TM | 2009-11-11 11:10:25 AM

You meat eaters are responsible for the swine flu, you truly have nobody but yourselves to blame, but I forgive you, because its largely a hoax

My thoughts are this, does not anybody fear vaccines ( not our glaxo crap) created by China, a nation who is eyeing up this country as a way to feed their masses and fuel their industries?
China could throw 500 million people at a militray problem, and still have the biggest population.

What if the Vaccine sent to the US has biological ticking time bombs that are undetectable, because they are made to appear as something else?
If I was China I would do it,alls fair in love and war. :) JK

Half the population would have to be dead before I would put that poison in my body.

Swine flu fear is just the latest Y2K in many respects.

Posted by: Lou | 2009-11-10 9:43:53 AM

Lou, your a fucking moron

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-13 4:15:48 PM

Communism is often criticized as being against human nature because it assumes a degree of altruism that is not typical of the species. I see libertarians have the same problem, but they take it to an even more outlandish extreme.Not only do they have faith in universal altruism, but they have faith in universal competence. Except where the government is concerned, of course; government inexplicably sucks at everything."
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-10 10:09:42 AM

Bravo, what an insightful paragraph, I couldn't agree more, but would like to add that libertarian aulturism as extreme as it may be, is so very needed to get us to the middle of the rational road.

Posted by: Lou | 2009-11-10 10:16:29 AM

Again Lou your a fucking idiot. Show one historical case communism actually worked

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-13 4:18:25 PM

@Vegan Hat"Listen up concerned citizens!

The reason you people are concerned about getting sick is because you eat diseased animals.
Read what I posted here and ask yourself if you are not what you eat?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism

No the reason people get sick are germs. Anyone who cites wikepedia as a source is a moron and does not know what he is talking about

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-13 4:22:15 PM

If they do think that, TM, then it is about freedom rather than either competence OR responsibility—something libertarians frequently insist is important but which I rarely see them talk about.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-11-11 12:10:34 AM

Shane, you have to define libertarian. Politically I am a fiscal conservative, social moderate, classical liberal influenced by John Stewart Mills and Ayn Rand. A Libertarian Party is about as useful as The Nihilist Party. In Canada we need a Mind Your Own Business Party

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-13 4:27:31 PM

Give it time, with meat like that you will all be ill beyond repair, and then you will have your answer, TM, far less saved by agriculture than killed. You the consumer allow the producers to feed you eggs and meat teaming with poison, TM read it again because you are clearly missing the point. I don't care if you eat the meat, its your colon.

Posted by: Mahmoud Vahidnia | 2009-11-11 1:10:45 AM

Cite your sources.

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-13 4:29:05 PM

Posted by: TM | 2009-11-11 11:10:25 AM

You are exactly right TM. We libertarians must define libertarianism.

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-13 4:31:37 PM

Dougy, go to the wiki link I left for people exactly like you, and at the bottom of that page are the links to all the sources of information,....as if you did not know that.
Then come back, and we will hash it out like intellectuals, fair enough dougy?

Sure, anything from wikepedia has huge amounts of credibility. It is as credible as "they say". Who the hell is they?

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-14 10:04:24 AM

Lou, your a fucking moron

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-13 4:15:48 P

Dougy, I write my thoughts and you go from post to post calling posters fucking idiots without anything to support your vulgarity.
Are you familiar with the definition of moron, I think you are closer to that bench mark than me,but that is just an opinion too.

Posted by: Lightning Rod of Controversy | 2009-11-13 6:10:30 PM

I believe I called Lou a fucking moron because he said something completely stupid. I didn't say anything to you. If someone deserves to be called a fucking moron I'll call him a fucking moron. I thought this was for opinion and people who do not want their thoughts sensored. Am I wrong?

Posted by: Doug Gilchrist | 2009-11-14 10:12:34 AM

Whether or not a vaccine is efficiently distributed has nothing to do with whether a government is socilaist or not. What is more important is whether they are good managers. Manitoba(that socialist hotbed) is providing vaccine to target groups efficiently without hours long line ups, and is now at the point where it is available to the general public o a first come first served basis. Alberta's government is obviously not socialist enough. They can't plan their way out of a wet paper bag.

Posted by: Jim Vickers | 2009-11-19 11:00:16 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Monday, November 09, 2009

Thought experiment: A deadly influenza is sweeping the globe. Who should be vaccinated first?

Comments