American leftism/progressivism is the established way of thinking. It did not win by reason or persuasion; merely by default, or in the absence of any principled, rational alternative. The leftist agenda of a weak defense; unsustainable national debt; fostering dependence …
Source: Bill Nye: The Tyrant Guy | Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center
As the reddit user, /u/sobersymphony, I participated in a discussion on reddit on the subject of capitalism vs. socialism. Another user asked me in a private message (PM) about one of my statements in that discussion. The ensuing PM discussion is reprinted here with his permission:
Him: In that conversation, you said, “Circumstances that arise due to people’s voluntary choices are not examples of force. They are simply the law of cause and effect in action. That people have to work and be able to dispose of the product of their labor to live in the long term is a fact of reality that no one can wipe out. It is not coercive.”
The usual response to this is that we value freedom, but we value other things too, so we make tradeoffs. We obviously don’t want to be coerced, but we do want to live in what might be called a “fair” or “humane” society. Everyone (tautologically) wants to act in their self-interest, but sometimes it is in their self-interest to have some governing authority solve coordination problems in ways that leave everyone better off. The same author I linked to uses a hypothetical tragedy of the commons situation to illustrate this point. He explains how even a system of voluntary contracts would not solve this problem.
Analogously, in the “work or starve” situation: behind a veil of ignorance, everyone would prefer some form of coercion to prevent work conditions becoming too terrible.
How would you respond to this argument? Apologies if this is too basic, but I haven’t yet heard a satisfying answer to this.
Me:
Apologies if this is too basic, but I haven’t yet heard a satisfying answer to this.
No, that’s fine. They’re understandable questions that are worth analyzing.
The usual response to this is that we value freedom, but we value other things too, so we make tradeoffs.
The first question I would ask is: Who is this “we”? Do all individual human beings in a society share a collective mind and collective values, like the Borg in Star Trek? No, I might disagree with you and value different things than you do. My judgment is my own, and yours is your own. So on what basis can you say that “we” value some coercive governmental programs more highly than freedom?
I had an enjoyable and productive discussion with a lovely young woman on her blog. Theresa Fross just turned 18, and I can tell that she’s open to new ideas. She’s clearly intelligent and thoughtful, and we discussed Ayn Rand’s novels, the nature of life, values, self-interest, Christianity, and Buddhism. The discussion starts midway down the comments section, then, at one point, continues above my first post:
My discussion with Theresa Fross
–
Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, discusses the immorality of the government forcing people to pay for the health care of others:
You Are Not Your Neighbor’s Health Care Provider
–
Alex Epstein, president of the Center for Industrial Progress, gives a lecture at Vassar College on how Fossil Fuels Improve the Planet. Right now, it is only fossil fuels that make the current human population of the earth sustainable. His talk was momentarily disrupted by environmentalist protesters:
–
Everyone who agrees that liberty is a good thing should read this book:
Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand’s Ideas Can End Big Government by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins
I especially recommend it for those who are sympathetic to the Tea Party Patriots.
—–
Related Posts:
The Nature of the Morality of Rational Egoism: Short Notes
Why Healthcare in the US is So Expensive, and What Can Be Done About It
Atlas Shrugged, Altruism and Egoism
What Caused the Financial Crisis: It Wasn’t Capitalism or Deregulation
Fossil Fuels and Environment: McKibben vs. Epstein, Full Debate
On November 5th at Duke university, renowned environmentalist and AGW proponent, Bill McKibben debated Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress, on the effect that fossil fuels have on the human environment. Bill McKibben took the position that fossil fuels were harmful and an immediate threat to the human environment, while Alex Epstein took the position that fossil fuels continue to improve the environment we live in.
Here is the YouTube video of the full debate:
Here is a debate highlight from the question period: What does Bill McKibben really advocate?
Another highlight: Are affordable fossil fuels a “market failure”?
Objectivism In Depth 