Appeal To Heaven » Socialism

Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged: A Brief Review

adc — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:32:00 +0000

If you want my quick advice: This is an important book, and you should read it. You will probably be better off reading it yourself, and drawing your own conclusions – than reading my evaluation of it, since there is no possible way I can adequately address the many ideas covered.

Instead, I will provide a introductory overview:

Atlas Shrugged is a philosophical social commentary written in fictional form, that challenges many, if not all, commonly held ideologies. I would say that the core criticism of Atlas Shrugged is against the idea of altruism. In other words, the central question could be, does a person has the capacity to act completely and totally without self-interest – and if so, is this a good thing? Should a society of free people be based on altruism? Where does such a concept ultimately lead? Can and should people be compelled to act altruistically?

The book is certainly not without it’s faults – and I can honestly say that I was glad to have finished it. The tone of the writing in places could be described as ‘clubbing you over the head’, and can become tiresome. The book itself is written with a very black and white approach. You won’t really find characters that are a mix of good and evil. However – I think Atlas is a picture of extremes, in order to make valid points. (For instance, I think that it’s criticism of collectivism is complete valid – though I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who fully and openly advocates for the destruction of self, individual identity, and rights.) But none of this should stop you from reading this book. Rand’s arguments are relevant, important, and deserve be considered, even if you do so only to disagree and argue against them.

You can order a copy of Atlas Shrugged from Amazon.

I have included an interview with Rand below where she briefly discusses some of her ideas which she presents in Atlas Shrugged. Again – the point is not to simply agree, but her arguments can’t simply be ignored:

Here is an excerpt of her commentary on Rights:

Jobs, food, clothing, recreation(!), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values—goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.”

A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one’s own effort. . . .

The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

“Man’s Rights,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

The Dawning of the Age of Adolescence

adc — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:13:43 +0000

We are attempting to put in place policies and programs that treat people as if they are not adults. Brief as it is, I think this video does a decent job explaining this point:

I certainly agree with the idea that we deserve the government that we get. If we, as a society, feel that the decisions and responsibility concerning our own health are things that our government should be shouldering, rather than us – then we deserve socialized medicine.

If this is our choice, then we must also acknowledge we will be necessarily handing our own choice over to a third party – and be willing to live with this decision. We also must be willing to accept that in the future, removing this government program will be impossible – given that it provides citizens with something they perceive as ‘free,’ in exchange for their votes and loyalty to keep that program going. Mark Steyn points writes about this change in rolls:

“The problem isn’t the cost. These programs would still be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them each month. They’re wrong because they deform the relationship between the citizen and the state. Even if there were no financial consequences, the moral and even spiritual consequences would still be fatal.”

[...]

“Once you have government health care, it can be used to justify almost any restraint on freedom: After all, if the state has to cure you, it surely has an interest in preventing you needing treatment in the first place.”

This idea of cultural infantilism is much more fully discussed in Steyn’s article: Live Free, or Die.

You are probably wondering, if I am against a socialized or nationalized plan – what alternative would I suggest? Well, I am certainly no expert on health care – however, I do have several guiding principals and questions that we should ask or consider when we talk about health care:

First, Thomas Sowell’s famous three questions:

How much does it cost?
Who pays for it?
Does it work?

Now, several of my own:

Does the new plan increase – or decrease personal liberty?
If the new plan isn’t initially in conflict with personal liberty (question 1), can it easily be made to be so (for instance, by a future corrupt government)?
Why does any plan need to be created at the National or Federal level? Why not let the states figure out their own plans, especially since they are much closer and more knowledgeable about their own peoples and situations?
What evidence can you point to that our government can afford such a program, given the state of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security?
Does the new plan increase personal choice? In other words, under any proposed plan, would an individual have more choices overall, or less?
Does the plan encourage competition? Historically, industries that have free and tough competition, have to find ways to entice the customer to their service – or they will cease to be. Usually they do this through innovation, providing cheaper services, or providing better services for similar prices. Would whatever new plan we are considering create competition, favor one business over another (such as one provider teaming up with the government, similar to lobbying), or eliminate competition?

Those are just a start, so I will probably return to this post and add additional questions. Feel free to add your own in the comments. In the mean time, here’s John Stossel’s take also:

And here are ten facts about the U.S. health care system you might not know (via The Hoover Institute – follow the link for in-depth explanations):

Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.
Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.
Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.
Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom.
People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.
Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.
Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain.
Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.

Milton Friedman: “Government becoming our Master, rather than our Servant” -on Donahue, 1980

adc — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:47:05 +0000

What I like about Friedman, was how positively and reasonably he presented his arguments. They are worth listening to and considering, even if you disagree. Not to mention, in my view, his ideas and critiscisms of central planning are as relevant today, as they were two and half decades ago.

Many thanks to Youtube user brittle13 for posting this full interview (in 5 parts):

Why Reject Socialism?: Collectivism vs. Individualism (part 1)

adc — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:46:11 +0000

Several months ago I was driving home from work, and I thought I would tune into Air America (If you don’t know, Air America describes itself as ‘…the nation’s leading progressive media network’ and is basically the progressive talk radio conglomerate in the U.S.) because I wanted to hear whatever they happened to be talking about that day. I caught the middle of a discussion on the government and anthropogenic (human-created) global warming, where the host made a statement along the lines of:

“You see, the problem is, Conservatives do not believe that anything good can be accomplished when people come together to get something done.”

The host was basically trying to make the point that, with regard to protecting our environment, everyone must work together. Obviously, this statement is true. One person being careful to turn their lights out, and make sure their refrigerator door is shut, won’t really have much of an impact on the environment as a whole. If any real impact is to be made, then everyone must take part. This is essentially how collectivism is defined: a view which stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective (or group), rather than the importance of separate individuals. (-wiki)

The problem is simply that the statement the host made is a Strawman. I don’t know of anyone that actually believes nothing good can come from people working together. There are many good things that can be achieved when people work together towards a common good.

However, the crucial point the host missed is that Conservatives do not believe individuals should be forced into collectivism by coercion. (It is important to note here that in America, the government is the only authority which has the power to force you to act involuntarily.)

In other words, Conservatives reject collectivism because a person’s individual liberty is necessarily sacrificed by force of government, for the collective. Consider the opening of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

America was founded upon the idea that Government does not create or establish Rights. Rather, Rights are intrinsic to each individual (granted by God) – and that Government is established only to protect (or provide security for) those individual Rights. Power lies primarily in the individual – not the government. Consider the Bill of Rights. Is the Bill of Rights a list of Rights that government gives to individuals? No. It is a list of Rights in which the Government cannot impede.

I’m sure you are thinking of one obvious objection:

But sometimes, isn’t Collectivism required to protect individual Rights?

Had the Air America host accurately represented Conservative’s objection to collectivism by coercion, his next objection may have been, “But in the case of Anthropogenic Global Warming, (a potential threat to everyone), wouldn’t individual rights be better protected in the long run by some form of forced collectivist action now?

Yes…potentially. However, as is usually the case with environmental threats, you would absolutely be sacrificing individual liberty, over something that is a potential threat and hotly debated (The environmental debate is a huge topic I will expand on in a post of it’s own). Anytime this happens – power is transferred from the individual, to the government. One doesn’t have to be a renowned historian to realize that governments do not give back power once they obtain it (thus, ‘checks and balances’).

It is important to point out here that there are many other ways to accomplish group oriented goals, such as environmental protection and conservation, without sacrificing personal liberty through government coercion. The government can, and probably should, encourage behavior that may benefit society – but this doesn’t require action by force.

But Isn’t Individualism Just Selfishness and Greed?

Milton Friedman has a great response to this objection:

The simple question is – what system is better than individuals making choices in their self-interest? The problem is that collectivist systems eliminate personal choice and freedom, in an attempt to create some form of greater virtue. Of course, how is something virtuous, if you are not free to choose it? Not to mention – who among men, has better wisdom to decide what is right for you, other than yourself? (This will be further discussed later in this series when we talk about Socialism, Oligarchy & democratic mob-rule.)

Also – the above misconception has more to do with people not putting individualism in the proper context. The argument for individualism is not one saying that you should disregard others needs and only watch out for yourself. Nobody is arguing that people shouldn’t care about one another. However, conservatives are nearly always claimed to hold this view: “You just don’t care about other people.” This is a misunderstanding.

Again – the conservative argument for individualism revolves around government’s relationship to individuals in society – not your personal relationship with other people. Interdependence between individuals is a very healthy thing for society – but it is only healthy when it is entered freely by personal choice. You are not a free person if the government gets to decide for you, how you should interact with other individuals (beyond the protection of each person’s rights).

So how does all this tie in with Socialism?

Socialism is Government Coerced Collectivism

Socialism is defined as:

Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources

-wikitionary

A couple things should be clarified from this definition: when you read “Support social and economic equality,” this refers to equality of results – Not equality, as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (‘…All men are created equal…’) of each individual. Equality of the individual means that each person has completely equal status, rights, and freedoms, simply by being a person.

Socialism aims to make people socially and economically equal. It can only achieve this goal by using government power to deprive the Rights of some, in order to “help” others.

Continue to Part 2 – Why Reject Socialism? (part 2): Private Property, and Economic Freedom vs. Economic Equality