So ture.

And not just spiritually or psychologically: imagine how much cheaper healthcare would be if people were willing to accept death as an option.

Maybe we can come up with some new ones that are more uniquely American.

How's about:

Only in America can the first black president actually be a white guy (Bill Clinton).

My only objection to this list is the notion that these circumstances could arise only in America.  During 8 years in Europe, I recall witnessing at least #1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10. 

"..could the rich people who pay most of all income taxes be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all." -- sounds like 90% of the countries on the planet to me.

Note to Americans: you're just not that special.

Yes and no.

A good portion (although certainly not the majority) of the advance in lifespan over the last few hundred years has been through the containment of infectious diseases - the plague, smallpox, polio, measles, you name it.

While some infectious agents have been minimized through non-medical advances (such as sewage treatment), most have been stopped through vaccines, antibiotics, and/or epidemiology.

One reason it is possible for an individual like yourself to opt out of medicine today is because so many others have partaken both in the past and the present.  If smallpox were still rampant, I doubt there would be many parents refusing to have their children vaccinated.

This isn't to say that many interventions aren't superfluous.  But when it comes to contagious diseases, those who opt out are often profiting from those who stay in.

While it is always fun to pick on wealthy countries and the shortcomings of their state-mandated healthcare giveaways, HIV drug scarcity is really only a problem in Eastern European countries (especially Ukraine and Russia).  In all likelihood, the stolen African ARVs were headed to the Ukraine, which has more HIV-positive citizens than France, Germany and the UK combined.

Of course, in many ways the drug shortage in Ukraine is also a government problem: there was a promise to provide free antiretrovirals to everyone with HIV, but corrupt bureaucrats diverted too much of the money along the way, leaving many patients helpless.

At several Europe-wide virology conferences I have attended, the issue of ARV shortages in Western Europe has never come up.  However, given the financial crisis and the tendency of many governments to defraud their creditors through worthless bonds, this scenario may become real in the future.

If Michelle Obama remains First Lady, look forward to M.A.S.S.: Mothers Against Snacking Stoned.

And you thought the obesity epidemic was bad now....

As an aside, I don't think it's necessarily un-libertarian to be against women in combat roles. 

Most strains of libertarianism are accepting of discrimination when it comes to jobs which require certain traits only possessed by certain groups of people.  In other words, discrimination can be tolerated on meritocratic, but not superficial, grounds.

Is anyone familiar with integration of women into the IDF? 

All I know is that women can serve in combat positions there, and I would be interested to hear if this includes infantry, and what the experience there has been.

Whenever people complain about the how the obesity "epidemic" is ruining America, my reaction is: better food than booze, meth or painkillers.

Great point.  The question is, now that most Americans see state borders as little more than boundaries separating different sales tax rates, does it make sense to go back?  Or have we grown inextricably into an ever closer union?

I think this topic dovetails well with the discussion last week about government grants to the states. 

We already have a problem with the federal government granting the states a large portion of the federal budget for state matters such as highways, education and Medicare. Repealing the 17th Amendment would put the state legislators who profit so grandly from federal gifts in a position to choose senators who would funnel even more money their way.  Talk about a gravy train.

I certainly agree, and think the two go hand-in-hand.

However, I think there are sometimes limits to the power of our self discipline that we lose sight of.

Take my mother.  After my father left us, she worked long hours, often at night, to provide for me, lived within her modest means, and still took enough time to care for me - truly a personification of self-discipline and personal responsibility.  At the same time, she turned to overeating to relieve the stress - food was cheap and a quick fix.  All of us know a number of overweight people who overeat not because they are lazy, but exactly the opposite: because they work so hard.

The happy ending is that after I got older and more independent, my mother was able to take the time and lose over 75 pounds, where she has stayed to this day.  Keep up the good work, KP!

Yes and no.

I certainly agree that certain conservative measures - eliminating agricultural subsidies, patients paying their own healthcare - are necessary, and would greatly reduce obesity in America.

But even with perfect external incentives, at its core overeating is driven by an internal, subconscious incentive which can be stronger than pressures from our free will or our pocketbook.  As I said above: we are naturally predestined to be addicted to sugar.

Free choice is the only way to properly run a society, but one downside is that some choices are driven by powerful instincts which run against our own self-interest.  Conservatism can definitely make great strides in managing obesity, but the problem is probably here for the long run.

I agree that this has certainly played a major role, but consider as well that lifestyles have been quite sedentary for at least 50 years in the US, yet obesity didn't start really growing until the 80's - a decade in which grain prices fell by about half in the U.S.

I don't think there is one single driver of obesity, and I don't think the price of food is the root cause, but I do believe the incredible drop in food prices over the last 50 years - on the whole an incredibly positive trend - was the trigger.

Sorry for being overwrought myself.  I have to finish a big project today and, as usual, am procrastinating, which makes me a little too trigger happy.  

I do, however, stand by my first post that government agricultural subsidies have helped contribute to obesity. What's so dumb about that?

Calling people stupid for having poor diets is overwrought.

Our brains contain a reward system which is hard-wired to desire simple carbohydrates and consume them whenever available.  And for good reason: glucose is the only type of energy digestible by the brain, is laborious for the body to produce, and was very rare in the savannahs of Africa where our modern brains evolved.  If you came upon sugar, you ate it, and ate it 'til there was no more.

One of the tenets underlying classical liberalism is that our subconscious desires will always be much stronger than our cognitive plans.  That's not to excuse the behavior of overeaters, but don't forget the whole "crooked timber of mankind" aspect.