Comment by busterarm | Hacker News Reader

Comment by busterarm | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> It's easy to be a libertarian when the market is treating you well.

I'm really glad that my brief flirtation with libertarian ideas didn't even last into my 20s. It was more like an unfortunate stepping stone from growing up in a Limbaugh household to being the radical lefty I am today. Though I try not to identify with any of that either.

At least I can understand where libertarians are coming from. It's really the objectivism and the worship of Ayn Rand in privileged and powerful economic/political circles that makes me worry about the future.

Things are going well when there's a reasonably fair balance between rich/powerful and poor/powerless, especially with respect to rule of law. There won't always be justice but there needs to be a reasonable idea of it. It feels like lately that is slipping away and that such a state of affairs is more common historically -- the culture of (potential) prosperity that our society worked hard for after WWII is gone.

It's like we are the same person. Or maybe we just live in the same country :)

It's worth mentioning that the only libertarian I know who has been able to argue with me to my satisfaction remarkably agrees with me on "what needs to be done." I suspect political philosophy is somewhat like religion: any sufficiently dedicated person can use any sufficiently developed philosophy to support any sufficiently developed plan. Here's my list. What's yours?

1. Campaign finance reform. Turn the bribing policy from "mandatory bribes" to "optional bribes." Going to "no bribes" is probably too difficult (how to close the "cushy job upon retirement" loophole?)

2. Legislative and judicial policy focused on creating competitive markets, not placating business (#1 necessary for #2)

3. Single-payer healthcare

4. Basic income (Milton Friedman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM )

Very reasonable list there.

1. Campaign finance reform. I actually would like to see some steps towards a return to the older party boss systems. Think Tammany Hall. These systems were incredibly corrupt but very efficient. Moreover, the base of each party wasn't the radical fringe. This isn't ideal, but at times it worked reasonably well.

2. Electoral reform. I would like to see instant-runoff voting. I say this with the caveat that there really needs to be more than 2 major competitive parties, so I'm lumping that into this bullet point as well.

3. Patent and copyright reform.

4. Single-payer healthcare

5. Prison reform. Rehabilitation instead of Punishment. Abolition of private prisons and an overhaul of the criminal code. Could add points onto this topic for hours.

6. Tax reform. Specifically a single tax system using Land Value Tax.

>It's really the objectivism and the worship of Ayn Rand in privileged and powerful economic/political circles that makes me worry about the future.

Be honest. How much Ayn Rand have you actually read? It's a very common strawman to pretend that Ayn Rand was promoting social darwinism. If you truly are just worried about objectivism, what is it that you have a problem with? People being shunned for harming instead of contributing?

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness.

As far as I'm concerned, her entire argument falls apart when she starts to argue that altruism is immoral. Once you remove altruism as being a virtue and argue for a society where everyone accomplishes everything solely based on their own ability, I don't see how it can be argued that you're advocating anything but social darwinism (just with a different approach).

That's not to say that there weren't some useful things that were said, but in my life it offers very little value and none of the juicy parts are original.

As for why it makes me worry: the ones who often cite her as an influence and publicly sing her praises are very often the ones who are so off the mark in understanding what she actually said.

Be fair! The woman was such a godawful writer that it's hard to get to grips with any of her ideas for their own sake.

Do you think it's a valid criticism then to complain about Ayn Rand's ideas when you haven't been able to comprehend them?

Sure! -- or would you have me believe every Randite who criticizes Marx has read his impenetrable opus? Being responsible for what posterity does to one's logos is an occupational hazard of the propheting trade.

Anyone who criticizes Marx without having first studied Marx should not be thought highly of. The degree to which you have studied something is roughly proportional to how much criticism you can reasonably heap on it.

I cannot launch an in-depth criticism of, say, Finnish politics because I have not studied Finnish politics in any detail.

I can give a limited criticism of Robert Greene, because I have studied a selection of his writings.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com