A Libertarian Convert to Socialized Medicine
andrewhammel.typepad.com
andrewhammel.typepad.com
Unless I'm confused, this is conflating two issues. Requiring patients to have a full doctor's visit in order to get a prescription for simple but non-OTC medicines is logically distinct from single-payer/non-single-payer. If you require more visits, you will of course spend more money.
"Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter."
I was going to do so myself but thought it would be better HN etiquette to let the submitter (or someone) edit the URL here.
Objectivism provides the essential philosophical basis for individualism and long-term rational selfishness required to properly support political conclusions in favor of freedom. Libertarians, on the other hand, don't know or understand the philosophy from which many of their political conclusions were copied, and are thus susceptible to reverting to political conclusions that appear momentarily practical, or consistent with altruism (which many libertarians implicitly embrace).
On top of that, "libertarian" has come to means so many things that it means nothing - there are libertarians in favor of and against abortion, in favor of and against anarchy, in favor of and against anti-trust regulation, to name a few random examples.
Objectivism isn't pervasive enough yet for political change based on it to occur, and libertarianism is a political dead end (because it's not consistent with the terrible mixed bag of present-day American values, or with itself.) So if you consider yourself a libertarian, and you don't like where Welch and his ilk are heading, I invite you to read Ayn Rand and new scholarly works that examine her philosophy deeply (Tara Smith's "Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist".)
You are aware that libertarianism predates objectivism?
I invite you to consider that to be rational is to WIN. Libertarians, unlike most objectivists, understand this (or at least appear to, in that they tend to take the pragmatic view, with pretty much amounts to the same thing).
If you want good health care, and one system gives you good health care, but is somehow philosophically impure... don't you think maybe the philosophy is irrelevant?
Don't believe me? Try it for yourself:
tl;dr I broadly agree with the main point, but I don't want to cheapen it by letting stand the fact that it is an exaggeration.
But the similarity is beguiling, and points not only to issues in the statement of Objectivism itself but also to the emotional influence Rand's youth had on her allegedly purely-rational theories. Both of these are common enough critiques in actual philosophic circles, but depressingly absent from "internet Objectivism" (a close cousin of internet libertarianism, another troubled philosophy).
A lot of other philosophies fit too, too, but I like using Marxism as the example because (since in theory Objectivism is diametrically opposed to it) it has the largest "wait, what?" effect, hopefully followed by some deeper and more thorough thinking about the philosophies. The comic you linked is trying to do the same thing: make people step back and think for a minute about what they're really saying (my preferred approach was always just to ask who cleans the toilets in the Gulch).
As to me being just like "the millions of other critics" (nice strawman, by the way), well... probably not. I do have an intense dislike for Objectivism, but mostly because -- in the course of earning my degree in philosophy -- I did enough reading to see how weak Rand's system really is. To paraphrase a famous bit of literary criticism: there are parts in it which are good, and there are parts in it which are original. But the parts which are good are not original, and the parts which are original are not good.
Let me address it. You claim Objectivism claims all rich people are productive and all poor people are parasites. I claim it clearly doesn't. To prove my case I'll just cite a few names, which you, with your deep knowledge of Objectivism, ought to know: Jim Taggart and Lillian Rearden on one side; Mike Donnagan and Steven Mallory on the other. Even Howard Roark did quite a bit of manual labor, and presumably was never anything approaching rich within the pages of The Fountainhead.
As for who cleans the toilets in Galt's Gulch? Let's start with Quentin Daniels. Ever get that answer before?
I do no such thing; I merely draw an analogy to the broad grouping of social classes in orthodox Marxism, which equally does not argue that 100% of Class A are good and 100% of Class B are bad.
Meanwhile, let us consider Rand's philosophy as expounded by Rand herself; for simplicity's sake, and because she considered it such a vitally important work, we'll look at Atlas Shrugged. We are meant to glean from it a view of Rand's purely-rational, logically-defensible Objectivist ethics, but what we find is merely contradiction piled upon contradiction.
Selfishness, Objectivism tells us, is a virtue. So how is it presented in Atlas Shrugged? Well, while the selfishness of, say, Galt is held up as great and good, the selfishness of people other than Rand's heroes is painted as a vast evil, such that their very lives are to be forfeit as punishment.
And though Objectivism preaches an ethics based on the sanctity of the individual's rights over him- or herself and that subverting the individual's goals for the "greater good" is an absolute evil, Atlas Shrugged preaches that individuals can and should be killed as needed in the service of greater advances. Say, to expose corruption in railway management.
I could go on if you'd like, since Objectivism as expressed by Rand in her books has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese, but hopefully you'll trust that I've actually given this some thought. The final impression I came away with was that Rand was trying to write tales of Nietzsche's ubermensch (which would resolve contradictions by putting her heroes beyond mere everyday notions of good and evil), but merely produced a caricature of his philosophy embedded into a series of one-dimensional and frankly unreadable novels.
"Objectivism is -- literally -- orthodox Marxism with different words filled into key blanks."
Then your link leads to:
"There are two classes of people in society. One class, which we call the ____, is productive and labors to bring forth all manner of useful things. The other class, which we call the ____, is not productive and, in fact, consists entirely [emphasis mine -dgordon] of parasites who suck the life's blood out of their fellow men. These parasites accomplish their goal via exploitation and alienation: unjustly separating others from the fruits of their labor, though they wrap themselves in a philosophy by which they seek to justify their theft. One day, the revolution will come and the productive class will rise up and throw off the yoke of the parasites.
Broadly speaking, one can insert "poor" into the first blank and "rich" into the second and obtain the works of Marx. Or one can insert "rich" into the first blank and "poor" into the second and obtain the works of Rand."
Anyway, let me address your current argument.
"The selfishness of, say, Galt is held up as great and good, the selfishness of people other than Rand's heroes is painted as a vast evil, such that their very lives are to be forfeit as punishment."
Rand uses selfishness in a very specific and unconventional sense, which includes "neither sacrificing oneself to others nor sacrificing others to oneself." The second one is considered selfish under the conventional definition. So if you're trying to claim that Galt's selfishness is the same as, say, Jim Taggart's selfishness, which you seem to be, that won't work because you're clearly conflating Rand's definition and the conventional one. (Was that new definition a good one for ease of understanding? Maybe not, but I'm not sure what word is available to convey the same meaning -- even "independence" or "self-reliance" don't quite get there.)
In your other argument, you seem to be referring to the train crash that collapsed the Taggart Tunnel, and specifically to the listing of the beliefs of the passengers in the train. Nothing there suggested they "can and should be killed...to expose corruption." First, the situation that led to the train being sent into the tunnel with an unsafe engine was much deeper and worse than corruption in railway management. More importantly, nothing in the book said or suggested they "can and should be killed" -- only that the ideas they practiced and preached helped to create the state of society in which they could die in the way they did. If you disagree with that claim, fine, but you're badly distorting that part of the book.
I don't trust that you've given this thought, because you're repeating standard criticisms which don't have much substance to them.
Try harder next time.