My thoughts on the deficiency of public education (and education in general), over at PJM.
65 thoughts on “You Just Might Be A Marxist”
Comments are closed.
My thoughts on the deficiency of public education (and education in general), over at PJM.
Comments are closed.
What is being argued is that it would be better for banks and the economy if loans were re-negotiated for people who lost their jobs.
I understand banks do this sometimes in commercial real estate. If the loan is deep underwater, chopping some off the loan to keep the debtor paying beats dealing with default. It may not be worth the effort for people who lost their jobs (since even at say, 10% off the loan, they might not be able to maintain payment of the loan). Frankly, I think it’s a better strategy for property that people with jobs are tempted to walk away from.
I had a long drive last night, and during that drive I figured out my real objection to Rand’s article. The article is historically illiterate. See, Marx didn’t develop his ideas in a vacuum.
When Marx was doing his thinking, he was living in an era with no minimum wage, no income tax, no old-age pension, no real labor laws and poorhouses for the bankrupt. It was, in short, exactly the sort of libertarian world Rand wants. Unless one was a white Anglo-Saxon male with money, life was less than good.
Now, Rand may say “but that’s corporatism!” That’s like a Marxist saying “but that’s Stalinism!” Corporatism is what happens when libertarians get control of government, just like Stalinism always follows Marxism. And corporatism sucks so badly that all sorts of mass movements, from anarchists to communists, rise up against it, frequently violently.
So while Marx was coming up with his ideas, other people were coming up with theirs, which included a lot of the progressive ideas like minimum wage, etc. For example, as mentioned by a commenter above, bankruptcy laws and requiring people to be paid in legal tender.
See, these are progressive ideas. After all, bankruptcy is by definition theft – the defaulter steals value from the creditor(s). Requiring people to be paid in real money is interferring with the free market. After all, why shouldn’t two people be allowed to agree on an alternative means of payment or a “trade” of labor for services?
Progressives, looking at the problems of industrialized, urbanized life, discovered that setting a floor or a “safety net” on society meant that the poor wouldn’t rise up and kill the rich. This was considered beneficial to all concerned. We can argue about the size and parameters of the safety net, but arguing that the net is “Marxist” is simply wrong.
Ken, I was genuinely asking what I asked. There are degrees of tyranny.
Now, Rand may say “but that’s corporatism!” That’s like a Marxist saying “but that’s Stalinism!” Corporatism is what happens when libertarians get control of government, just like Stalinism always follows Marxism. And corporatism sucks so badly that all sorts of mass movements, from anarchists to communists, rise up against it, frequently violently.
Why would Rand say that, given that corporatism is a useless label for anything? And the 19th Century was over a century ago (while things like minimum wage date from FDR’s reign). Why are you still pursuing old ideas that have been proven to cause hardship?
Ken, I was genuinely asking what I asked. There are degrees of tyranny.
So what? Such questions remain irrelevant to this thread.
Bob-1 writes:
Do you think mandating a purchase from your choice of private insurance companies is worse than mandating the purchase of various services from a government monopoly?
You’re giving me a false choice. I pick option C: I get to decide for myself whether to buy medical insurance in the first place, and if so, what kind is appropriate for me and my family — while Mr. Bob-1 gets to decide what’s appropriate for his situation. Got a problem with that?
Mr. Cooper, I was wondering how you felt about other services the govt provides (perhaps against your will) which are paid for via taxation, as compared to forcing you buy inurance from your choice of private companies. I ask because you singled out mandatory private insurance to criticize instead of focusing on the government services Godzilla mentioned. I thought you might find forced taxation to support govt monopolies even worse.
Mr. Cooper, I was wondering how you felt about other services the govt provides (perhaps against your will) which are paid for via taxation, as compared to forcing you buy inurance from your choice of private companies. I ask because you singled out mandatory private insurance to criticize instead of focusing on the government services Godzilla mentioned. I thought you might find forced taxation to support govt monopolies even worse.
And what was the point, Bob? You make claims twice about your intentions, but you have yet to explain why this dubious false dilemma had merit. No offense, but it’s reasonable to assume something is up.
I simply don’t get why you can’t understand the problems with false dilemmas and other logical fallacies. And generalizing, this seems to a reoccurring problem with a number of people who post here. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, you need to learn how to argue.
Karl, I’m not presenting a false dilemma at all. I’m really curious about why David Cooper singled out mandatory private health insurance instead of focusing on goverment-provided services as well (as Carl did), so I asked. A perfectly reasonable answer from David would be that he hates both equally, but I don’t know what he thinks, so I asked him.
(I wish you would stop ascribing motivations to me that I don’t have — I don’t do that to you.)
David, I myself had a reaction very much like yours when I first heard the idea of making private insurance mandatory. It seemed unamerican! It seemed more obnoxious than taxes! I particularly resent the idea that I can’t just stick with paying cash if I want to. But then I thought about it, and I realized that while mandatory private insurance seems onerous and limiting, one argument in favor of it is that it actually allows me more choice and better harnesses the power of the market than taxation does to support other government programs. So maybe mandatory private insurace, compared to taxation, is more in keeping with the majority ideology on this blog, and maybe more in keeping with your beliefs as well. Why make the comparison at all? Well, I suppose we’re all used to taxes, whereas mandatory private insurance is a new idea which seems horrible, wheras maybe it is an improvement (even if it is still bad in your eyes.)
There are pragmatic arguments why mandatory private insurance will keep your personal health care costs lower, but regardless of whether they are right or wrong, I think pragmatic arguments aren’t the point here.
There are degrees of tyranny
On that we agree Bob. Do you understand how much you piss people off when you ask them, “which of these two evil do you prefer?”
Because you’ve closed the door on the real answer. “I don’t want ANY tyranny.”
You may say, “You can’t have that. There must be some tyranny.”
To which I reply, “Perhaps, but I’m willing to knock them down, one issue at a time, starting with the most egregious.” Although any elimination of any tyranny at any time is welcome as well.
But in order to make any progress at all, you have to understand that respect for the rights (true rights, not the made up kind some keep coming up with that actually take true rights away) must be inviolate.
Bob, for your edification, here is Wikipedia’s description:
That precisely describes your original question. We already pointed out there are other options, hence, the question was a false dilemma.
David, I myself had a reaction very much like yours when I first heard the idea of making private insurance mandatory. It seemed unamerican! It seemed more obnoxious than taxes! I particularly resent the idea that I can’t just stick with paying cash if I want to. But then I thought about it, and I realized that while mandatory private insurance seems onerous and limiting, one argument in favor of it is that it actually allows me more choice and better harnesses the power of the market than taxation does to support other government programs.
We call this process “rationalization”. Sometimes it is useful, but not in this case.
Karl, for your edification:
False dilemma: Standing at fully stocked 31 flavors being asked
“do you want chocolate or vanilla?”
Polite question: “Do you like chocolate more than vanilla?”
I see Karl finally put Bob in his place. Bob’s trying to change the topic, probably because he likes strawberry.
Nice Job on the article Rand. It seriously stirred the pot here and at PJM. I think you got an order of magnitude more comments than the average over there.
Or stop spending so much. That is what we mere mortals have to do when not enough money comes in.
Well, fortunately for you, there is a first world economy about to try the dramatic spending cuts and massive decreases in government size route that you seem to like. They’ve even taken a chainsaw to the scared cow of military spending.
I’m terribly curious to see how it turns out and rather glad I’m going to be 5000 miles away while it happens.
I’m interested to see that Ronald Reagan appears to have been a Marxist too.
I’m also interested to see that the strongest G8 economy also appears to be Marxist…
Still, nice to see you guys haven’t lost touch with Cloud Cuckoo Land.