Reason.tv’s Nick Gillespie sat down recently with Patrick Byrne, the CEO of Overstock.com, the online retailer famous for sexy ads (“It’s all about the O”), low, low prices, and hyperattentive customer service.
Born in 1962 and now living in Utah, Byrne holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Stanford and serves as the co-chair (with Rose Friedman) of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. He is the former manager of Blackhawk Investment, a cancer survivor, and a black belt in tae kwon do.
An outspoken critic of online sales taxes, Byrne is a self-declared libertarian who champions short-selling while adamantly opposing the more-controversial practice of ”naked” short-selling.
From his journalistic perch at the blog Deep Capture, he and his colleagues regularly chart the ways in which regulators routinely stifle innovation and maintain a status quo that favors connected firms at the cost of competitors and consumers alike.
Raised in New Hampshire, Byrne describes himself as a former “Yankee Republican” who has never felt comfortable with anti-market Democrats and no longer recognizes the GOP as the party of small government and individual liberty.
In this 10-minute interview, Byrne explains why school choice is the key issue of our day, how bad regulations contributed to the current economic crisis, and why “the government should pave the roads, run the Post Office, and stay off my porch.”
“There’s a whole bunch of care that’s being provided that every study, that every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier,” he said.
Gibson interjected that often patients don’t know what will work until they get every test they can.
“Oftentimes we know what makes sense and what doesn’t,” the president responded, making a push for evidence-based medicine.
| — |
Am I reading into this too much, or does this sound like rationing? |
Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it’s not provided by insurance.
Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.
The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if “it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.
I just read purported emails between Sanford and his mistress at the state. It is actually pretty sad to read them. Yes he comes across as a cheesy middle-aged republican dude, but it is also pretty clear that he was a man very much in love and very much conflicted about the relationship. She also seems to share this internal struggle over their love. I feel bad for reading them, but I suppose State should have published them b/c it turns out his statement that it has been romantic/physical for only 5 or 6 months was very much a continuation of the lie.I admit I do take some schadenfreude when hypocrites are caught because it exposes the naivete in their espoused worldview for everyone else but them, but I do feel sorry for this man and his family and the woman who he clearly loves. This is between him and his wife (the affair is at least - the fact that he ran off for a week without telling any staff could certainly be an issue for those in the palmetto state). He owes me nothing. He never made a vow to be faithful to me. He hasn’t made a mockery of me and the life I built with him. He hasn’t hurt my children. But he, and others in his party, have espoused a philosophy that demands a certain world view and life path of the rest of us in society, yet behind closed doors they live a very different life. That is the part that is so infuriating.
I look around at many people I know who are libertarian or socially liberal when it comes to public policy and many, if not most of them, are actually quite conservative when it comes to their own personal life choices and family. They just want everyone else to be able to make those same choices for themselves. They trust the people to decide what is best for their own life. They are, you know… Democratic.
Actually, Republican. Democratic principles (not those of the party, I should emphasize) would have the majority dictating the lives of the minority. Republican principles (not those of the party) would allow individuals to make their own life choices.
Otherwise I agree.
I don’t want this to sound like a defense of Sanford, but rather a defense of the word hypocrite. What he did is obviously a bad thing. But having an affair while espousing family values doesn’t make you a hypocrite, it just makes you weak. Unless of course the person having the affair espouses family values but secretly thinks that affairs are perfectly ok.
Another thing- everyone is pointing at this as hypocrisy because he is a Republican, Republicans espouse family values, and family values means it’s not ok to have an affair. Therefore, because he’s a Republican, he’s a hypocrite. Does this mean that if he were a Democrat, it would be ok? And for that matter, does that mean Democrats are pro-cheating on your wife?
PJ O’Rourke came into town the other night and I was lucky enough to be able to hang out with him for 5 or 6 hours. Three highlights:
- We went to a booksigning where he took questions. Someone asked what he thought of Sarah Palin. His response: “I like Sarah Palin. I also like Earth, Wind and Fire. But I’m not going to elect them President.”
- Over cheeseburgers at Boston Blackies, he told some great stories from his National Lampoon days, and dished on some of the names- Matty Simmons, Henry Beard, Doug Kenney, Rob Hoffman, Tony Hendra, John Hughes, Michael O’Donoghue, etc.
- When we got back to the studio, I gave him a few vintage (1978) issues of National Lampoon to sign. Instead of signing them and handing them back, he sat down and flipped through them for about 10 minutes, pointing out what was good and bad with each issue (he was editor-in-chief for both issues).
| — |
Price Tag of Health Reform Bill Prompts Sparring and a Delay in Congress I’m glad Hatch has his eye on the ball on this issue. Because isn’t Ted Kennedy’s legacy what’s most important here? |
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
| — |
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Those damned racist Republicans strike again. |
Even among proponents of a congressional apology, reaction to yesterday’s vote was mixed. Carol M. Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University who had pushed for the Bush administration to issue an apology, called the Democratic-controlled Senate’s resolution “meaningless” since the party and federal government are led by a black president and black voters are closely aligned with the Democratic party.
“The Republican Party needed to do it,” Swain said. “It would have shed that racist scab on the party.”
| — |
Senate Unanimously Approves Resolution Apologizing for Slavery - washingtonpost.com Those damned racist Republicans, with their Abraham Lincoln, underground railroad, and abolitionists. |
