Saturday, June 09, 2012
[T]he First Amendment does not allow the government to ban people from sharing ordinary advice about diet, or scrub the Internet--from blogs to Facebook to Twitter--of speech the government does not like. North Carolina can no more force Steve to become a licensed dietitian than it could require Dear Abby to become a licensed psychologist.The whole idea of government licensing is premised on the notion that ordinary people cannot adequately decide for themselves the merits and qualifications of someone whose advice or services they desire. As such, occupational licensing is antithetical to freedom of speech. Unfettered communication of all kinds of ideas, right or wrong, is an important part of anyone's thinking.
No one is infallible, including the government: Neither forcing people to abide by guidelines that could well be wrong (but also see this), nor preventing them from exploring other possible courses of action protects the basic individual right of acting on his own judgment. Whether this man is completely right, full of poppycock, or anywhere in between, the fact that he is being censored means that we are all less free to discuss diet and uncover errors in this young, complicated science.
Whatever one's opinions on diet, this is great news. (HT: Dismuke)
"If something's really important to your spouse, then you're more than happy to 'give in.'" -- Michael Hurd, in "I'm Happy When You're Happy" at DrHurd.com
"Investors shouldn't worry about the Mayor's proposal denting soda stocks, most of which have powered higher in recent months despite a weak market for risk and the persistent threat of even greater government regulation." -- Jonathan Hoenig, in "Bloomberg Won't Flatten Soda Stocks" at SmartMoney
My Two Cents
Michael Hurd's column does the best job I have ever seen of explaining in rational terms what many good people are trying to say when they claim that "compromise" is necessary for a good romantic relationship.
A Well-Earned Evisceration
Via HBL, I have learned of a superb review, by Sarah Rolph, of Gary Weiss's Ayn Rand Nation. The below is but the tip of the iceberg:
His misunderstanding of Rand's work is something [Weiss] freely admits. He says he read both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged a long time ago, isn't sure whether he finished them, and didn't understand them. Yet he wants us to take his word for what the books mean! Since he doesn't understand her ideas and doesn't seem able or willing to think in principle, he brings his own interpretation to her work and then proceeds to chop down the strawman he has created. [minor format edits]Fellow admirers of Ayn Rand, take heart. Detractors, you have been warned (again).
Update: A commenter notes that, at Amazon, Rolph retracted her assertion that Weiss hadn't read Rand's two most important novels.
6-13-12: (1) Added update to last section. (2) Corrected spelling of Rolph's first name.