Objectivists - Libertarianism's Stalinists

[Trystan]

Completely uncritical.

Thoroughly indoctrinated.

Yes - the Randobots are capitalism's tankies.


I cannot understand why this old bat has such an enduring influence (mostly in America). I mean, why? Aside from being philosophically illiterate and a below average novelist, she was a dangerous cult leader who even held trials for comrades suspected of being "irrational". Her "critique" of Kant is most hilarious. Her initial approval and subsequent dismissal of Nietzsche even more so (when she actually read the guy, she realised that he was nout but a revisionist traitor). Yes that's right - revisionist. That is how Randist creatures react to dissenting voices. For example, allow me to summarise my discussions with them:

Me: "Rand epistemology was primitive and was essentially a new kind of naive realism"

Randobot: "You're professor [my professor?] is a Kantian"

Me: "Property ownership in modern society is based on the threat of force, as no consensual society of free-thinking rationalists would arrange such a richly imbalanced set of property distribution."

Randobot: "Why are you so afraid of liberty and what Objectivism is? Are you fearful of Objectivism?"

Me: "A collectivist society based on voluntary cooperation would be a good thong"

Randobot: "Collectivism is EVIL."

Me: "If selfishness is good, why is it unreasonable to live off welfare?"

Also somewhat reminiscent of of fundamentalist Christians who say we atheists are afraid of salvation and are too naughty to understand what's good for us. :rolleyes:

Uh, rant over then . . . discuss?

[GPDP]

I actually made this point a few hours ago to a liberal friend of mine: that IMO, the biggest tools in the political spectrum are fundie conservatives, dogmatic Stalinists (sorry, "anti-revisionists"), and Objectivists (though libertarianism as a whole is pretty toolish tbqh, but these guys really take the cake).

[apathy maybe]

Me: "If selfishness is good, why is it unreasonable to live of welfare?"
That's a good point. Heh, stupid objectionists. (Wait, did I spell that correctly?)

I have never had the misfortune to come across these objectionable people in real life, but the few times I've crossed paths on the Internet have been enough for me.

[Bud Struggle]

I have never had the misfortune to come across these objectionable people in real life,

Neither have I. Are there real people out there that believe this stuff--or is it a straw philosophy that everyone loves to have but has no real followers?

[Sendo]

Unfortunately a good friend is a total Friedman and Rand punch drinker. This makes me cry. :(

[Dean]

Neither have I. Are there real people out there that believe this stuff--or is it a straw philosophy that everyone loves to have but has no real followers?

No, I've met these creeps and its shameful.

[pusher robot]

I believe that Objectivists are mostly just modern-day Greek Stoics.

[Incendiarism]

They would hate the stoics...they saw everything in the universe as one unified whole Talk about collectivism all you want, but imagine it on a cosmological level

[pusher robot]

They would hate the stoics...they saw everything in the universe as one unified whole Talk about collectivism all you want, but imagine it on a cosmological level

What? Where are you getting this from? Stoics are concerned, first and foremost, about the relationship between self and nature (we would say "universe".)

[Incendiarism]

Yeah yeah personal fulfillment and developing one's own virtues all that jazz, but stoicism also posits that we are all essentially one giant whole have you ever read any stoic philosophy man

*has a copy of marcus aurelius' meditations* :cool:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I cannot understand why this old bat has such an enduring influence (mostly in America). I mean, why?
Rand's pathetic excuse for philosophy basically amounts to: "I am so much better than everyone else. I am creative, intelligent, godlike; most people are worthless collectivist slime. Being nice and helping other people is weakness - or worse, outright evil. The only way to live a moral life is to be an uncaring selfish jerk."

The enduring appeal of Objectionism is that it makes sociopaths feel good about themselves.


Neither have I. Are there real people out there that believe this stuff--or is it a straw philosophy that everyone loves to have but has no real followers?
I know a few people who read Ayn Rand and vaguely liked her ideas (mostly because they completely missed the point; they're under the impression that she was arguing for a moderate liberal democracy like we have today). But I don't know any genuine Randroids in real life. They do seem to exist only on the internet. Maybe that's because they all live in dark basements and dream about the day when the world will finally kneel in awe at their genius.

Either that, or because sociopaths don't like to admit being sociopaths, and they constitute 99% of Rand's following.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Ayn Rand is one of those philosophers you stand back at the age of maturity and ask, "What the fuck?" Her entire world concept is a conscious reaction towards the Soviet Union. I've met Objectivists in real life. One or two were nice, decent, and semi-reasonable people, but the rest are border-line sociopaths. Self-created, mind you. They hated the poor. They talk endlessly about what the world would be like if the underclass died. Apparently with death from poverty skyrocketing, their livelihood will improve twofold.

I know all this because I identified as a libertarian in a political debate once. Yeah, I forgot to add that I was a "libertarian socialist." Big mistake.

Individualism is wonderful, but Rand straitjackets what conditions individualism must live in - admitting that a state must force these conditions, no less.

But if you think Rand is bad, read Terry Goodkind. He's a "fantasy" author (who refuses to acknowledge as much, because fantasy is below him) who incorporates Objectivism into his writing. And it shows:

"The bird let out a slow chicken cackle. It sounded like a chicken, but in her heart she knew it wasn't. In that instant, she completely understood the concept of a chicken that was not a chicken. This looked like a chicken, like most of the Mud People's chickens. But this was no chicken. This was evil manifest."

[GPDP]

"The bird let out a slow chicken cackle. It sounded like a chicken, but in her heart she knew it wasn't. In that instant, she completely understood the concept of a chicken that was not a chicken. This looked like a chicken, like most of the Mud People's chickens. But this was no chicken. This was evil manifest."

Wow, what the fuck?

[IcarusAngel]

Luckily, most of the Socialist/anti-capitalist literature/fantasy borders on being brilliant.

Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis, Jack London, Kurt Vonnegut, Aldous Huxley, Mark Twain (who hated and mocked capitalism).

I'm going through Player Piano again, I like how Vonnegut points out that both politics and religion has been transcended by the national corporate industries that exist, that corporate personhood is just assumed, that there is a huge underclass created by the corporate society, that managers/engineers seem to run about half the economy, while business people run the other half.

Cat's Cradle, Slaughterhouse-Five, Mother Night (excellent fucking book, gives you a look into what an evil right-wing might actually be like, and he might not be so evil after all, but, "you are what you pretend to me") - interestingly, mother night was a TomK recommendation. :laugh:

Socialists have always been writing and contribution to humanity.

[JimmyJazz]

I don't get why we're picking on Stalinists in this thread; socialists all across the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum can be dogmatic assholes.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't get why we're picking on Stalinists in this thread; socialists all across the "libertarian-authoritarian" spectrum can be dogmatic assholes.

True. Look at The Anarchist Tension. ;)

Opponents of all welfare (like Rand) should realize that the state is a machine that monopolizes on force and authority. It is believed (by some) to provide a level of uniformity that is simply needed in society. However, by having a state we have now prevented competition of systems. If you're going to prevent competition, it is only reasonable that you provide some security net.

Ayn Rand was a reactionary. There's really no getting around that. Instead of putting forward thoughts from critical thinking she let her emotions dictate what was right. This created a weird stew where "natural rights" according to her was the only proper way of determining property acquisition/ownership, and thus the state must make this the only system free of competition.

[PigmerikanMao]

I had an objectivist English prof, naturally my conflicting ideology made it difficult to pass her class. I guess there are just some people who are too blunt to actually debate or educate. Although we can't dismiss objectivists, we can't win a debate when they use irrelevant logic to back up a pointless argument. Quite a thorn in the side... Hmm. :(

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Although we can't dismiss objectivists, we can't win a debate when they use irrelevant logic to back up a pointless argument. Quite a thorn in the side... Hmm. :(
We can win any rational debate with any objectivists at any time, because their logic is full of holes and their premises never support their conclusions. I have a lot of experience proving those idiots wrong. Tell me what arguments you have in mind and I'll show you how to refute them.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Rand hated libertarians, actually. She and her followers supported imperialism, intellectual property, and corporatism...none of these things really appeal to the modern libertarian as concepts to endorse.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Marxian: Randians believe people shouldn't be forced help the poor

Me: So you believe people should be forced to help the poor?

Marxian: OMG YOUR SO SELFISH! THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HELPING THE POOR! RANDIANS ARE SO SELF CENTERED!

Me: Never said there was. There is nothing wrong with helping another person. What is wrong is when people are forced to help that person.

Marxian: But we are all in it together! We should be sharing everything including sharing each others suffering and everyone should make the same!

Me: So whats the point of doing a good guy if everyone makes the same?

Marxian: Schools of socialism have proven that people will work hard for one another! It will happen automatically!

Me: ugh? No not really, people are selfish and so that is why a system that relys on selfless labor will not work.

Marxian: But Capitlism has killed 1000000000 in Africa and all over the world!

Me: No this countries live under tyranny.


You can never beat the communist. He somehow thinks that communism would be the perfect system whre everyone will be wealthie.

[Trystan]

Me: Never said there was. There is nothing wrong with helping another person. What is wrong is when people are forced to help that person.


Actually . . .

According to Rand, you should never help a person if that person is not "worthy". As I have already mentioned, she even held trials for people who disagreed with the official line. Murray Rothbard documented the cultish behavior of Randobots in this essay: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html


We have already mentioned the excommunications and "purges" in the Randian movement. Often, the excommunications – especially of important Randians – proceeded in a ritual manner. The errant member was peremptorily ordered to appear at a "trial" to hear charges against him. If he refused to appear – as he would if he had any shred of self-respect left – then the trial would continue in absentia, with all the members present taking turns in denouncing the expelled member, reading charges against him (again in a manner eerily reminiscent of 1984). When his inevitable conviction was sealed, someone – generally his closest friend – wrote the excommunicate, a bitter, febrile, and portentous letter, damning the apostate forevermore and excluding him forever from the Elysian fields of reason and reality.

So much for freedom of thought. Rand was right and Rand was rational! Don't you dare disagree!
;)

And communism as never been achieved on a large scale, but has been successful on a smaller scale despite the selfishness inherent in humanity. But what is communism? Communism. But what is communism? Communism. But what the fuck is it? Communism! Well thanks Mr. Rand!

:lol::lol::lol:

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Actually . . .

According to Rand, you should never help a person if that person is not "worthy". As I have already mentioned, she even held trials for people who disagreed with the official line. Murray Rothbard documented the cultish behavior of Randobots in this essay: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

;)

And communism as never been achieved on a large scale, but has been successful on a smaller scale despite the selfishness inherent in humanity. But what is communism? Communism. But what is communism? Communism. But what the fuck is it? Communism! Well thanks Mr. Rand!

:lol::lol::lol:

What if I help a person out that I consider to be worthy of my help?

Where has communism been successful?

[Trystan]

What if I help a person out that I consider to be worthy of my help?


That depends. If you are rational, you are selfish. So logically you should keep all your money for your self. That is the Objectivist logic.


Where has communism been successful?

The Israeli kibbitz thing comes to mind.

[Wanted Man]

I don't get why we're picking on Stalinists in this thread; socialists all across the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum can be dogmatic assholes.
It really is odd, actually. They openly disrespect people with opposing views, and then they get surprised that 'stalinists' on RevLeft are less and less interested in debating with them. It is easily assumed that anyone who has the guts to actually call himself a communist must be an evil 'stalinist'. Because the communist parties are not much stronger than the trotskyist or anarchist groups in North America and Northern Europe, the image of isolation, anti-revisionist dogmatism, etc. is much more prevalent. I wonder what some people here would say to tens of thousands of young communists in your average demonstration in, say, Greece or Portugal. Or a bunch of Livorno fans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyMK1uQ9W64

"Is that a North Korean flag??? You evil dogmatic Stalinoids!" :laugh:

Quite frankly, it can be just as annoying to debate with dogmatic Avakian fans, IMT drones, people who believe that social-democracy can change the world, primitivists, LM-style 'marxists', Objectivists, paleo-libertarians or hardcore Ann Coulter-style neocons. And of course, all of them are 'anti-stalinist' in some way or another. So maybe Objectivists are 'libertarianism's RCP'.

Objectivism itself was best summed up in this thread as a way for sociopaths to feel good about themselves. Just look at the Nathaniel Branden Institute. These 'anti-collectivists' had an inner circle called 'The Collective' to preserve doctrinal purity. Branden and Rand cheated on their spouses, who accepted it. After all, in objectivism, if you can get away with it through manipulation, it's virtuous. But when it turned out that Branden was also shagging a third woman, Rand got jealous and had him purged for supposedly ideological reasons. :D

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Me: So you believe people should be forced to help the poor?
Yes.

Next question?

[Trystan]

Yes.

Next question?

Uh-oh. Look out!

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/2/2b/Red_Son.png

[Schrödinger's Cat]

CC, you believe the state should force me to recognize your authoritarian property claims, yet you don't want to pay into a public pool of welfare? That's fucked up.

It's called a concession. Your property protection for welfare. The poor can also reciprocate the benefits with a more productive economy. Contrary to the failed philosophy of market extremism, there are demonstrable taxation successes like the land value tax. Taxing unused land increases productivity by curbing land speculation.

LABOR restrictions have a long history of being successful, right to the Progressive Era and WW1 where government involvement effectively laid the demise of what we consider sweatshops. It's corporate involvement which hurts our economy. There are quite literally thousands of laws on the book which centralize wealth: longevity of patents, the waning defense of Fair Use for copyrights, limited liability, corporation subsidization, corporate personhood, entry barriers to new banks, strict regulations on credit unions, unfair tax policies (major corporations don't pay all of our corporate tax because they trade overseas, but small ones do), differential tax advantages for corporate debt and capital depreciation, taxes on labor being more than taxes on capital, federal auctions to the highest bidder, mass amounts of land being turned over to one or two corporations... The list just goes on and on. These need to stop.

Funny thing is, Objectivists don't want to get rid of half of those.

[CaptainCapitalist68]

Yes.

Next question?

No one is every honest enough to answer this question.

Forcing someone to do something is slavery.

Your system depends on people doing things at the point of a gun. Logic is another way to make men do things.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Forcing someone to do something is slavery.
Really? I bet that you live in a country where the government forces you to obey street signs and traffic lights. So you're enslaved, right? If you were free to do absolutely anything you wanted, except one thing - exceeding the speed limit for example - then you'd be a miserable slave, right?

Of course not. Anyone with half a brain understands that slavery is a condition where you are the property of another person, forced to work for that person without compensation and without the right to leave.

Having to obey laws is not slavery. Grow up.


Your system depends on people doing things at the point of a gun. Logic is another way to make men do things.
Does your system require people to refrain from raping each other? Then your system also depends on people doing things (or NOT doing things) at the point of a gun. And guess what? Every imaginable system would have to include some rules that are enforced at the point of a gun.

[Self-Owner]

Really? I bet that you live in a country where the government forces you to obey street signs and traffic lights. So you're enslaved, right? If you were free to do absolutely anything you wanted, except one thing - exceeding the speed limit for example - then you'd be a miserable slave, right?

Apart from your questionable example of traffic lights, you're making an all or nothing fallacy. Conditions that people live under can be more or less slavelike, it doesn't have to be simply binary.



Of course not. Anyone with half a brain understands that slavery is a condition where you are the property of another person, forced to work for that person without compensation and without the right to leave.

Having to obey laws is not slavery. Grow up.Correct, having to obey certain laws is not slavery if those laws ensure people don't aggress on the person or property of anyone else. But you don't see how taxation is directly analogous to forced labour? Medieval serfs were forced to work for 3 days a week (i.e. 3/7 ~ 42% of their time) on their lord's land. In the UK, funnily enough, the government takes on average 43% of every pound earned by citizens - in other words, modern Brits spend longer working for their master the state than medieval serfs spent working for theirs.


Does your system require people to refrain from raping each other? Then your system also depends on people doing things (or NOT doing things) at the point of a gun. And guess what? Every imaginable system would have to include some rules that are enforced at the point of a gun.No one is saying that force should not be used in order to protect people. What he is saying, I think, is that any just system of laws will have a complete ban on the initiation of force.

[Demogorgon]

Correct, having to obey certain laws is not slavery if those laws ensure people don't aggress on the person or property of anyone else. But you don't see how taxation is directly analogous to forced labour? Medieval serfs were forced to work for 3 days a week (i.e. 3/7 ~ 42% of their time) on their lord's land. In the UK, funnily enough, the government takes on average 43% of every pound earned by citizens - in other words, modern Brits spend longer working for their master the state than medieval serfs spent working for theirs.

But we also get a hell of a lot back, a decent health service which vastly outstrips the American one, proper education services, well maintained roads, social welfare to prevent us becoming utterly destitute and so forth. Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the system, some taxes are blatantly unfair, some Government spending is grossly inefficient and I strongly object to having to pay taxes to pay for the UK's various imperialist projects and so forth, but given that public services do benefit me, as they do almost all of us, and as the cost of all the insurance I would have to take out without them greatly exceeds the amount I pay in taxes, it cannot be reasonably claimed that the taxation is harming me.

The medieval serf got little in return for working for his Lord (incidentally at the risk of dragging this off topic, I don't think it was three days a week, which would be half the week as Sunday was not spent working, but that isn't really relevant here), all he got was the guarantee of alms should he fall sick and protection should bandits attack. We gain a lot more in return for our taxes than the serfs did, so it is not analogous.

[Self-Owner]

But we also get a hell of a lot back, a decent health service which vastly outstrips the American one, proper education services, well maintained roads, social welfare to prevent us becoming utterly destitute and so forth. Don't get me wrong, I am not defending the system, some taxes are blatantly unfair, some Government spending is grossly inefficient and I strongly object to having to pay taxes to pay for the UK's various imperialist projects and so forth, but given that public services do benefit me, as they do almost all of us, and as the cost of all the insurance I would have to take out without them greatly exceeds the amount I pay in taxes, it cannot be reasonably claimed that the taxation is harming me.

Of course public services benefit me, in one sense of the word. If the government taxed me an extra percent of what I earned in order to provide me with unlimited free hotdogs, it would still 'benefit' me in the same sense of getting something in return. But of course maybe I don't want hotdogs, or maybe I'd rather only buy a few, or maybe I'd rather buy them at the far cheaper price they'd be available on the free market at!

The public services currently provided are almost exactly like this. Health care, for instance, could feasibly be largely private like the Singaporean system, which would reduce the cost vastly. Education: a recent study seems to have found that here in the UK, the government spends more per capita on education than private schools do. It's a simple corollary that private education would provide better quality or lower cost service. This is of course not to mention the vast amounts being spent on bombing unfortunate brown people which our government seems to love doing against our will. Yeah, maybe all these things 'benefit' me, but I'd still love the chance to opt out thanks very much.


The medieval serf got little in return for working for his Lord (incidentally at the risk of dragging this off topic, I don't think it was three days a week, which would be half the week as Sunday was not spent working, but that isn't really relevant here), all he got was the guarantee of alms should he fall sick and protection should bandits attack. We gain a lot more in return for our taxes than the serfs did, so it is not analogous.We gain a lot more party because the economy is a lot more productive, techology is a lot more advanced etc. Do you honestly not see the analogy though? The rulers unilaterally take 40 odd percent of our produce in order to provide us with things that 'benefit' us which we either don't want in the first place or would have been provided for about half the cost on the free market. And of course in both cases the middlemen, the Lords or the government and their favoured friends in business, get rich at our expense.

[Jazzratt]

Self-owner: This (http://www.revleft.com/vb/freedom-promise-enforced-t89546/index.html?t=89546)largely ignored thread's first post deals adequately with your whining about "slavery".

[Demogorgon]

Of course public services benefit me, in one sense of the word. If the government taxed me an extra percent of what I earned in order to provide me with unlimited free hotdogs, it would still 'benefit' me in the same sense of getting something in return. But of course maybe I don't want hotdogs, or maybe I'd rather only buy a few, or maybe I'd rather buy them at the far cheaper price they'd be available on the free market at!Such things as the Government provides are rarely cheaper on the free market. Take healthcare for instance. The only industrialised country without Universal healthcare is America, so let's compare that with Britain. There the cost of Health insurance is greater than the amount most people in Britain are paying in taxes for health. Moreover the Government itself in America actually spends more per capita sorting out the problems in private healthcare than the British Government spends on the entire NHS. And all of this for an inferior healthcare system. How would it be in anybody's interests to adopt that?


The public services currently provided are almost exactly like this. Health care, for instance, could feasibly be largely private like the Singaporean system, which would reduce the cost vastly. Education: a recent study seems to have found that here in the UK, the government spends more per capita on education than private schools do. It's a simple corollary that private education would provide better quality or lower cost service. This is of course not to mention the vast amounts being spent on bombing unfortunate brown people which our government seems to love doing against our will. Yeah, maybe all these things 'benefit' me, but I'd still love the chance to opt out thanks very much.Well first off, Singapore also has Universal healthcare, the Government largely pays the private sector to provide healthcare. There are minor costs to healthcare users, but there are also state run hospitals for people who cannot afford healthcare at all, even at the subsidised rate. It is a system that works in a different manner to that of Britain, but it is still healthcare funded from taxes.

As for education, you say that private education is better, before I demonstrate that that is not true, what do you propose for those who cannot afford private education? Anyway Private education is inferior to public education as the British example shows. Private schools tend to get better results in exams, but that is because they practice selection and only take the most academic pupils, while state schools have to take everybody. When adjusted for this, state schools do better on average than private schools. Obviously, there is variation in quality within state schools with some being pretty poor, but that is true of private schools at all. Incidentally, you would be surprised how much Government spending on education subsidises private schools, albeit indirectly.

And if you want to opt out, well you can always move abroad. Libertarians always tell us that we are free to change job if we feel exploited, if that is so, it must go both ways, if you feel exploited you can also move country.


We gain a lot more party because the economy is a lot more productive, techology is a lot more advanced etc. Do you honestly not see the analogy though? The rulers unilaterally take 40 odd percent of our produce in order to provide us with things that 'benefit' us which we either don't want in the first place or would have been provided for about half the cost on the free market. And of course in both cases the middlemen, the Lords or the government and their favoured friends in business, get rich at our expense.
Well as I say, it cannot be provided cheaper by the private sector by and large. Can you explain to me why I should wish to pay vast sums of money in insurance to cover me for ill health, inability to work and so forth, when I can get the same from the Government through taxation for less? Libertarians tell us we act in our own self interests. How would it be in my self interest to have to pay more money?

[Sprinkles]

It really is odd, actually. They openly disrespect people with opposing views, and then they get surprised that 'stalinists' on RevLeft are less and less interested in debating with them. It is easily assumed that anyone who has the guts to actually call himself a communist must be an evil 'stalinist'. Because the communist parties are not much stronger than the trotskyist or anarchist groups in North America and Northern Europe, the image of isolation, anti-revisionist dogmatism, etc. is much more prevalent. I wonder what some people here would say to tens of thousands of young communists in your average demonstration in, say, Greece or Portugal.


The argument from popularity aside, my personal experience with debating Stalinists is that they're just as keen on slandering and pidgeon-holing a dissenting opinion as being Trotskyite or whatever else they can think of. Probably it's just the nature of the internet and the perceived anonymity it provides.

Having said that - this is not meant offensive at all, but since Stalinism is the most well known proponent of communism and arguably being the most accessible and least critical view of the history of the USSR, a lot of Stalinists you encounter on the internet have a fairly limited knowledge on the array of critique that is countered at Stalinism as a historical movement and by extent aren't that skilled at debating the subject at all. The times I've been called everything from petit-bourgeois to a Trotskyite-Fascist instead of receiving an informed rebuttal to my arguments are innumerable.

Regarding the OP: Objectivism is an irrelevant philosophy outside the english speaking world, I have never come across an objectivist in real life and 90% of the objectivists on the internet are from the U.S. I would also add that the reasons for supporting their respective ideologies are completely different, Objectivism is a justification for personal indifference and greed, while Stalinists in general have good intentions even though I disagree with them ideologically.

[Self-Owner]

Self-owner: This (http://www.revleft.com/vb/freedom-promise-enforced-t89546/index.html?t=89546)largely ignored thread's first post deals adequately with your whining about "slavery".

The only person whining here is you, and I have no idea what that thread is meant to say against any of my arguments. If you want to make a point, I'd highly suggest making one.

[Self-Owner]

Such things as the Government provides are rarely cheaper on the free market. Take healthcare for instance. The only industrialised country without Universal healthcare is America, so let's compare that with Britain. There the cost of Health insurance is greater than the amount most people in Britain are paying in taxes for health. Moreover the Government itself in America actually spends more per capita sorting out the problems in private healthcare than the British Government spends on the entire NHS. And all of this for an inferior healthcare system. How would it be in anybody's interests to adopt that?

This is actually a point that comes up quite often and makes no sense to me. The US government spends more per capita on its citizens' healthcare than the UK government does, yet when its performance is shown to be worse this somehow becomes the free market's fault? It seems like you're trying to hedge your bets here, by saying 'if the US system is bad then that's a failure of the free market but if it works then that's a success of the government.' Needless to say I don't find this position very plausible.


Well first off, Singapore also has Universal healthcare, the Government largely pays the private sector to provide healthcare. There are minor costs to healthcare users, but there are also state run hospitals for people who cannot afford healthcare at all, even at the subsidised rate. It is a system that works in a different manner to that of Britain, but it is still healthcare funded from taxes.

FWIW I wasn't trying to get into any argument about different health care systems (I'd be happy to in another thread.) My entire point was that healthcare is one of those things, like my hypothetical hotdogs, that cost a hell of a lot more when provided by the government. Singapore has a more private based system which costs a fraction of the US's.


As for education,...

Again, I don't want to get into a debate about how education should be provided; it's a big topic. My point was simply that private schools and state schools spend about the same per pupil, yet private schools have quite clearly the better results. The inference is that government schools, like government hotdogs, cost too much. I just don't believe that state schools outperform private schools in any way, and I'd love to see some evidence if this is the case.


And if you want to opt out, well you can always move abroad. Libertarians always tell us that we are free to change job if we feel exploited, if that is so, it must go both ways, if you feel exploited you can also move country.

Except that's not the libertarian argument at all. The 'love it or leave it' argument presupposes that the government has the effective right to write legislation enforced in 'its' territory - this is precisely what libertarians dispute.


Well as I say, it cannot be provided cheaper by the private sector by and large. Can you explain to me why I should wish to pay vast sums of money in insurance to cover me for ill health, inability to work and so forth, when I can get the same from the Government through taxation for less? Libertarians tell us we act in our own self interests. How would it be in my self interest to have to pay more money?

Libertarians don't say that people always act in their self interest, we generally make the much weaker claim that people are more likely to act in their own self interest than politicians are. And you're assuming here that government provision of health care, unemployment ensurance etc are all cheaper than the private alternatives, which I think is patently false. If they genuinely did provide all those things better and cheaper, why do you think anyone would oppose them?

[Demogorgon]

This is actually a point that comes up quite often and makes no sense to me. The US government spends more per capita on its citizens' healthcare than the UK government does, yet when its performance is shown to be worse this somehow becomes the free market's fault? It seems like you're trying to hedge your bets here, by saying 'if the US system is bad then that's a failure of the free market but if it works then that's a success of the government.' Needless to say I don't find this position very plausible.

Only if you confuse free market with level of spending. The American system is more market based than the British system, nobody can deny that. Similarly the American Government spends more on health than the British Government, again nobody can deny that and thirdly American healthcare is inferior to British healthcare, again pretty hard to deny. The reason is simple, there are no economies of scale in the American system, also there is the need for an expensive and useless insurance system that is not required here. People are in fact having to pay more in taxes for the "privilege" of also having to buy insurance that won't cover them for everything. That is the outcome of the only experiment in non-Universal healthcare in the industrialised world. Who on earth would want that?


FWIW I wasn't trying to get into any argument about different health care systems (I'd be happy to in another thread.) My entire point was that healthcare is one of those things, like my hypothetical hotdogs, that cost a hell of a lot more when provided by the government. Singapore has a more private based system which costs a fraction of the US's.

The merits or otherwise of the particulars of the Singaporean health system are not something I want to get into here, other than to say the cost of healthcare in Singapore is kept dow by better health in general which can be attributed to other factors. The point I was making is that the principal of healthcare in Singapore works exactly like it does in Britain. The Government forces people to pay taxes for healthcare and then makes sure everybody is provided with said healthcare. You object to this in the British context, it is pretty disengenuous to praise it in the context of Singapore.


Again, I don't want to get into a debate about how education should be provided; it's a big topic. My point was simply that private schools and state schools spend about the same per pupil, yet private schools have quite clearly the better results. The inference is that government schools, like government hotdogs, cost too much. I just don't believe that state schools outperform private schools in any way, and I'd love to see some evidence if this is the case.

Just look at the League tables, even though almost all Private schools practice academic selection they can only gain the slightest edge in average grades over state schools. Correct the results to take into account selection (and there are plenty of studies that do this) and lo and behold State schools do substantially better on average. Where Private Schools do better, is in getting more students into University, but that it seems is down to elitism rather than superior education.


Except that's not the libertarian argument at all. The 'love it or leave it' argument presupposes that the government has the effective right to write legislation enforced in 'its' territory - this is precisely what libertarians dispute.

It isn't a love it or leave it argument. It is the old social contract argument. Note that I do not agree with it myself, I am trying to show that by Libertarian logic obeying laws and paying taxes is voluntary as nobody in a country that does not restrict emigration is required to live under that particular Government.

And it is silly to say that Libertarians don't think Governments should not be able to legislate and enforce laws. Apart from the most extreme anarcho-capitalists, Libertarians have no objection to Governments legislating and enforcing such legislation, they simply wish to restrict it to certain parameters. Hell you can't go ten seconds in a debate with a Libertarian without hearing about things being solved through the courts. Courts require laws after al.


Libertarians don't say that people always act in their self interest, we generally make the much weaker claim that people are more likely to act in their own self interest than politicians are. And you're assuming here that government provision of health care, unemployment ensurance etc are all cheaper than the private alternatives, which I think is patently false. If they genuinely did provide all those things better and cheaper, why do you think anyone would oppose them?
If we are going to play that silly game, then I can throw back at you the question, if the private sector can provide these things for less, why does almost everybody support them being Government provided?

Look, you are trying to take it as an article of faith that the market will always provide a cheaper and better quality service than the state, but the empirical evidence shows this to be wrong. Sometimes the market provides a better service, sometimes the state does. Such a fact is as plain as day to anybody who observes the most simple of economic processes without their ideological blinkers on. You can make a perfectly valid argument that certain services currently provided by the state could be provided better by the private sector, we would have to examine the particulars of the case in question to see, but to say that there is nothing at all that the state can provide better than the public sector is simply absurd. It is simple ideological posturing with no relevance to actual reality.

[Self-Owner]

Only if you confuse free market with level of spending. The American system is more market based than the British system, nobody can deny that.

Well, I think I do deny it. By one immensely plausible measure of how much an industry is market based, government spending per person, the American system is less market based than the British.


Similarly the American Government spends more on health than the British Government, again nobody can deny that

I'm glad you think so, plenty of people have denied it when I've brought it up as a point against state healthcare.


and thirdly American healthcare is inferior to British healthcare, again pretty hard to deny.

I actually don't think this is true either, if you look at more fine grained indicators than simply life expectancy. For instance in cancer detection rates, the US blows the UK out the water.


The reason is simple, there are no economies of scale in the American system, also there is the need for an expensive and useless insurance system that is not required here. People are in fact having to pay more in taxes for the "privilege" of also having to buy insurance that won't cover them for everything. That is the outcome of the only experiment in non-Universal healthcare in the industrialised world. Who on earth would want that?

I'm not arguing for the US system. I'm arguing for a free market in healthcare. The two are as different as night and day. Look, the entire bizarre scheme of employers providing insurance came about because of Roosevelt's wage ceilings which forced employers to provide non monetary compensation to compete for workers together with bizarre tax breaks. The US system is statist down to its rotten core.


The merits or otherwise of the particulars of the Singaporean health system are not something I want to get into here...

Again, my point is simply this: the UK healthcare system is inefficient, compared to at least some of even the statist alternatives. A fortiori, it is inefficient. Why, therefore, is it any more fair to force me to pay for it on the premise that 'I benefit from it' than it would be to force me to pay $1000 for a hotdog?


Just look at the League tables, even though almost all Private schools practice academic selection they can only gain the slightest edge in average grades over state schools. Correct the results to take into account selection (and there are plenty of studies that do this) and lo and behold State schools do substantially better on average. Where Private Schools do better, is in getting more students into University, but that it seems is down to elitism rather than superior education.

I guess you're referring to the 'Value added tables' which obviously favour state schools (who do poorly in the first place) by definition.


It isn't a love it or leave it argument. It is the old social contract argument. Note that I do not agree with it myself, I am trying to show that by Libertarian logic obeying laws and paying taxes is voluntary as nobody in a country that does not restrict emigration is required to live under that particular Government.

Explain to me how you get this from what is virtually the sole libertarian principle, 'don't initiate or threaten to initiate force on anyone else.' It'll be fun.


And it is silly to say that Libertarians don't think Governments should not be able to legislate and enforce laws. Apart from the most extreme anarcho-capitalists, Libertarians have no objection to Governments legislating and enforcing such legislation, they simply wish to restrict it to certain parameters. Hell you can't go ten seconds in a debate with a Libertarian without hearing about things being solved through the courts. Courts require laws after al.

Fraid I'm one of these 'extreme anarcho-capitalists.'


Look, you are trying to take it as an article of faith that the market will always provide a cheaper and better quality service than the state, but the empirical evidence shows this to be wrong. Sometimes the market provides a better service, sometimes the state does. Such a fact is as plain as day to anybody who observes the most simple of economic processes without their ideological blinkers on. You can make a perfectly valid argument that certain services currently provided by the state could be provided better by the private sector, we would have to examine the particulars of the case in question to see, but to say that there is nothing at all that the state can provide better than the public sector is simply absurd. It is simple ideological posturing with no relevance to actual reality.

It's not an article of faith, it's a simple look at the kind of incentive mechanisms which are in play in each of the systems. If you want to say that believing that incentives matter is an article of faith, fine. But I'll stick to it in the absence of a better principle to explain behaviour.

[Demogorgon]

Well, I think I do deny it. By one immensely plausible measure of how much an industry is market based, government spending per person, the American system is less market based than the British.
That is absurd. Look at it this way, the military excepted, the Government of Hong Kong spends more per person on virtually every service than the Government of North Korea does. Does that make North Korea more market based than Hong Kong?


I actually don't think this is true either, if you look at more fine grained indicators than simply life expectancy. For instance in cancer detection rates, the US blows the UK out the water.
Hardly. In the vast majority of indicators the UK wins hands down. You can select a few isolated instances where the US wins of course, but in general Britain does far better.


I'm not arguing for the US system. I'm arguing for a free market in healthcare. The two are as different as night and day. Look, the entire bizarre scheme of employers providing insurance came about because of Roosevelt's wage ceilings which forced employers to provide non monetary compensation to compete for workers together with bizarre tax breaks. The US system is statist down to its rotten core.
You are cherry picking here. Singapore can afford cheap healthcare because it is a healthy country. There are plenty of places with more market based systems of Universal healthcare where the system is more expensive than that of Britain.

At any rate, you are still comparing one system of Universal Healthcare to another. Presumably you oppose Universal Healthcare. Show us a system of non-Universal healthcare that works.

Again, my point is simply this: the UK healthcare system is inefficient, compared to at least some of even the statist alternatives. A fortiori, it is inefficient. Why, therefore, is it any more fair to force me to pay for it on the premise that 'I benefit from it' than it would be to force me to pay $1000 for a hotdog?

Because non Universal Healthcare would cost you a lot more as would most of the market based systems of Universal Healthcare in Western Europe.


I guess you're referring to the 'Value added tables' which obviously favour state schools (who do poorly in the first place) by definition.

Nope just look at the standard tables and you will see there is little difference. Of course once you correct them for selection, things really become clear.


Explain to me how you get this from what is virtually the sole libertarian principle, 'don't initiate or threaten to initiate force on anyone else.' It'll be fun.
Libertarians tell us that if we do not like the firm we work for and feel it exploits us we can voluntarily leave it and consequently it is not coercion. If we follow that logic, Governments are not initiating force either as they are giving their people the option not to obey them and to seek a preferable Government. Libertarians love to have it both ways here, saying the notion applies to firms but not to Governments. I'm afraid that won't work, either it applies to both or it applies to neither.


Fraid I'm one of these 'extreme anarcho-capitalists.'

I know, which puts you outside the mainstream even by Libertarian standards, which means you can't really speak for them.


It's not an article of faith, it's a simple look at the kind of incentive mechanisms which are in play in each of the systems. If you want to say that believing that incentives matter is an article of faith, fine. But I'll stick to it in the absence of a better principle to explain behaviour.
I am afraid that it is an article of faith. Until you can provide some empirical evidence as to why you are right, I cannot take your claims seriously.

[JimmyJazz]

Apart from your questionable example of traffic lights, you're making an all or nothing fallacy. Conditions that people live under can be more or less slavelike, it doesn't have to be simply binary.

LOL, there's few things I get more satisfaction from than seeing a Randbot's worldview implode.

[Self-Owner]

LOL, there's few things I get more satisfaction from than seeing a Randbot's worldview implode.

Sorry? I've never read a book by Rand, my worldview is perfectly intact (but thanks for asking), and if my post gave you such spontaneous satisfaction I'd highly suggest you get out more.

[PRC-UTE]

I'm guessing you wouldn't run into these types of free market libertarian gurus unless you were at a university. that's where all lovers of the unregulated market hide out.

[Sendo]

word. Especially the private joints. Whoever said colleges are halls of debate and free thought are deadly wrong. It's always been this way. Howard Zinn's written about how it has always been the case that rich, capitalist benefactors and boards of directors steer colleges towards narrow debates well within the framework of capital and reactionary thought. The students will fight this, here and there, but colleges have become so exclusive and elitist that the 60s and 70s seem like centuries ago.

Now, it's where Milton Friedmans and their undergraduate minions romp.

My school dished out an honorary degree to Colin Powell. Most students saw nothing wrong with this.