Arlen Specter was on The Diane Rehm Show today, promoting his new book about his battle with cancer. I'm paraphrasing from memory, but he said something like "If we had continued the War on Cancer, I wouldn't have gotten cancer." I was unaware that this war had ended. However, it has gone about as well as the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, and the War on Poverty: some anecdotal successes, but overall a failure.
This all reminded me of something a colleague once said to me: "In biology, if we are given enough money, we can accomplish anything." I actually agree with this. Infinite resources probably would lead to cures for cancers.
But 1) So what? This might sound harsh, as I am sure that everyone reading this has felt the terrible impact of cancer. I am no exception; I fully realize the tragedy of cancer. But infinite resources thrown at any problem will oftentimes result in complete "success" in theory. If we all spent all of our money and time on street-cleaning, the streets would indeed be spotless. That doesn't mean we should pursue that goal.
And 2) As Hazlitt said, "Instead of what?" Should we cure cancer at the expense of preventing murder? How do we know what the trade-off should be? How do we know that $1 trillion/yr is sufficient instead of infinite dollars per year? You can't answer these questions without a free market.
The odds are stacked up against the US government winning this particular war. It is time to end it.
