Sunday, April 27, 2008
Bull Testicles: A Brief Policy Analysis.
Here is the link to the full article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24328818/
In Florida Sen. Carey Baker is trying to ban the replica bull testicles that people hang from the rear bumper of their trucks. The senator says that they are offensive and should be banned before other obscene ornaments appear. If you don’t know what I am talking about you can go to trucknutz.com to purchase your own pair.
Under economic efficiency we need ask ourselves if there is a market failure with the fake bull testicles hanging from the bumpers of trucks. Well I don’t see any natural monopolies going on here; I can purchase many different kinds of bull testicles from many different bull testicle dealers. I can even become a bull testicle dealer if I so chose, so I don’t see any barriers to entry in to the fake bull testicle market.
Now are there any externalities associated with fake bull testicles? Well I do not see any non-market interdependence going on here. Some people would say that the obscene bull testicles are a negative externality to the people who are easily offended but it’s really not. Therefore the government should not tax or subsidize the displaying of the bull testicles.
For economic liberty the question needs to be asked if anyone is aggressing on another person. The objection the Senator is making to the bull testicles is that they are offensive to others which is another way of saying that they are aggressing on others. This is where people have different views on what aggression means. Some say that aggression can be a mental aggression of feelings and other say it can only be force used against another such as taking property or physical harm. I tend to agree with it being force and not the sissy hurt feelings rant some people spew. No one is forcing people to have bull testicles on their car and no one is forced to look at them ether.
The whole argument against the bull testicles started in Virginia when a girl asked her father what was dangling from the bumper of the truck in front of them. The father apparently didn’t like the fact he had to explain the natural reproductive parts of a bovine to his daughter. He felt he was being aggressed upon by the driver of the truck in front of him with his display of the six and one half inch life size replica bull balls. He must have felt that he was forced to explain what they were to his daughter. However, this is guy is an adult and he can chose to explain them to his daughter or not, no one is forcing him to explain anything.
In conclusion, economic efficiency does not say much about what to do other then do not apply a tax or subsidy to displaying bull testicles. As for economic liberty, no one is being aggressed upon so no liberty is being infringed on. Final conclusion is that the government should take no action on the subject and leave the bull testicles alone.
In Florida Sen. Carey Baker is trying to ban the replica bull testicles that people hang from the rear bumper of their trucks. The senator says that they are offensive and should be banned before other obscene ornaments appear. If you don’t know what I am talking about you can go to trucknutz.com to purchase your own pair.
Under economic efficiency we need ask ourselves if there is a market failure with the fake bull testicles hanging from the bumpers of trucks. Well I don’t see any natural monopolies going on here; I can purchase many different kinds of bull testicles from many different bull testicle dealers. I can even become a bull testicle dealer if I so chose, so I don’t see any barriers to entry in to the fake bull testicle market.
Now are there any externalities associated with fake bull testicles? Well I do not see any non-market interdependence going on here. Some people would say that the obscene bull testicles are a negative externality to the people who are easily offended but it’s really not. Therefore the government should not tax or subsidize the displaying of the bull testicles.
For economic liberty the question needs to be asked if anyone is aggressing on another person. The objection the Senator is making to the bull testicles is that they are offensive to others which is another way of saying that they are aggressing on others. This is where people have different views on what aggression means. Some say that aggression can be a mental aggression of feelings and other say it can only be force used against another such as taking property or physical harm. I tend to agree with it being force and not the sissy hurt feelings rant some people spew. No one is forcing people to have bull testicles on their car and no one is forced to look at them ether.
The whole argument against the bull testicles started in Virginia when a girl asked her father what was dangling from the bumper of the truck in front of them. The father apparently didn’t like the fact he had to explain the natural reproductive parts of a bovine to his daughter. He felt he was being aggressed upon by the driver of the truck in front of him with his display of the six and one half inch life size replica bull balls. He must have felt that he was forced to explain what they were to his daughter. However, this is guy is an adult and he can chose to explain them to his daughter or not, no one is forcing him to explain anything.
In conclusion, economic efficiency does not say much about what to do other then do not apply a tax or subsidy to displaying bull testicles. As for economic liberty, no one is being aggressed upon so no liberty is being infringed on. Final conclusion is that the government should take no action on the subject and leave the bull testicles alone.
