Oakley is not a psychologist. Rather, her training and experience dwell in Medical Engineering. Now this is not to say that she isn't really smart and insightful, but she has not supported her claims with empirical results that would be accepted within the profession of Research Psychology. So then we might ask: 'What are her particular insights which might be of such value that they would transcend the reasearch barrier? Has she really said anything new, or rather has she simply remolded wise saws and modern instances into new jargon? To this end, Pascal wrote, 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions". So has she really said anything more? Otherwise, we have countless more examples of the principle that it's far better to give someone the seed, land and tools to farm with rather than simply the food that came from other sources. In brief, who is not aware of the moral hazard that comes with charity-- that some will prefer to stay on charity as apermanent life-style? The empiricism of pathological regulation goes back at least as far as Milton Friedman, in the early 50's, although much was cited in part by Mises, a decade or two earlier, typically without providing quantative proof. Again, we don't know the reactive consequences of our actions. For example, if we raise the minimum wage, we really don't know the consequences on unemployment. In this regard, 19th century French cynicism seems to have the last word: The mayor of Marseilles, desiring to exterminate rats. offered a franc for each rat tail. The citizens responded by raising rats. WF
| 
