The Challenge Dividend: Other

Whenever you see a person or organization go unchallenged, run. No I don't literally mean run for the hills, but we should automatically question the beliefs, choices or course of anything or anyone that runs unchecked. A great example is the legion of experts who travel the globe telling us what is right or wrong.

I call them the "Expertists" - futurists and economists, for example - and I believe we should point-blank-question the words of anyone who thinks he knows the ultimate truth or can predict the future. In spite of their impressive credentials and our human nature to search for answers, as a society we must challenge "experts" proclamations and credibility.

We must question them because the opinions of "experts" can drive frightening implications for all of society. One example comes via Technology Review, which recently interviewed Arthur Caplan (pictured above) a "Bioethicist" that has "written or coauthored more than 400 peer-reviewed articles and several books on the ethics of new medical technologies. In the interview, Caplan brags that he "single handedly held up the movement toward creating markets in organs" while working on a committee for the National Organ Transplant Act.

With this one stroke, Caplan may caused several thousand deaths, as a "market for organs" is a measure that might have helped solve a serious shortage of organ donations in our country. But we didn't get a vote on this or even see it covered in the media. Meanwhile, Caplan holds no medical degree and he admits he is not a scientist, saying, "I did go to medical school for a while, at Columbia. I liked it, but I don't have the patience for the level of detail that makes good science." Shouldn't "good science" be leading any examination of medical public policy? Simply shameful.

Some brave souls have worked to challenge the predictors and self-proclaimed "experts" who spend time writing biased books and traveling the talk show circuit. Julian Simon, for example, famously challenged doomsayer Paul Ehrlich to a wager on the future price of commodities. Ehrlich claimed that a population bomb would starve hundreds of millions, and that "England would cease to exist by the year 2000." Simon's bet left Ehrlich's academic pants down and his wallet $576 lighter.

The Internet as a whole is serving as an excellent "B.S. Detector" - as research is at the fingertips of millions and bold statements are recorded forever on Google's hard drives.

At the end of the day, it is human nature to both make bold predictions and want to believe them. But we must go beyond manipulation by Expertists and go back to the words of Socrates: "He who is wise admits he knows nothing."

(Thanks to Dynamist Blog for the find)

While I don't subscribe to any one political party, the philosophy that fits best with The Challenge Dividend is probably Libertarianism.

Libertarians believe that people should be free to do whatever they want as long as it does not hurt others. Similarly, I believe that a free market and free people have the most power to take on challenges, innovate and succeed. And if there's an organization that represents the Libertarian way, it is the Cato Institute. Based in Washington, DC, Cato's mission is to advance the principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace.

As a result, I've been spending a lot of time with the Cato Institute's relatively new set of blogs. I recently found two specific eye-opening posts to share here:

First, as an update to my recent post on how insurers are beginning to post the prices they have negotiated with hospitals, now the federal government will be publish Medicare's prices. So today one can find the county-by-county prices paid for more than 30 hospital procedures. It's a modest effort, but again might lead to a move toward consistent, comparable, and lower prices for all.

Second, Cato points out a new restriction on personal freedom, as the state of Washington is about to make online gambling a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. I had to re-read the story three times before I could believe that playing poker online in your home can now put you in jail for the same amount of time as child pornographers.

Just another case of the "moral majority" imposing its beliefs on the rest of us? Nope. Instead, it seems the bill was pushed heavily by the state's existing, highly profitable casino and horse racing businesses. Fearful of the challenge of online gambling, these businesses have sought protection from government rather than focusing on how to compete fairly and win.

Many thanks to the Cato Institute for working heroically to further the cause of free competition and personal liberty. I'll keep cheering their progress and highlighting their best work here.