Christopher Hitchens on National Health Care, Socialism, and Ayn Rand

[@SecularTalk]

nice sound

[@x2f01mick]

Hey kyle, Hitch combined with you challenged my worldview. Now I don't vote against humanity's and therefore my own self interest, anymore. Thank you.

[@jayjasperjp]

Wow Kyle nice seeing you here

[@PJsharie]

Yooooo Kyle!!!!

[@leftcritical7352]

jesus that scared me

[@Xen0Phanes]

HAH! Like you can do better! ...Wait, is that you, Kyle? I take that back.

[@royms2000]

"(The American system) combines the worst of capitalism with the worst of socialism" most accurate thing ever said about the American healthcare system.

[@duderyandude9515]

I don’t understand how it has the worst parts of socialism. To me, the American healthcare system is just the result of free market capitalism.

[@sky.the.infinite]

@@duderyandude9515 I think the socialist aspect is the public healthcare system (ie DHS SS ‘welfare’ healthcare. It intermingles with the worst aspects of a so-called free market form of capitalism.

[@dkupke]

I just love that smarky little way he sums up Ayn Rand and her devotees; that its “quaint” that there are actually people who believe the United States is not selfish enough, and that we are already a socialist hellhole. #hitchslap

[@R3tr0v1ru5]

@@MrJimShorts Funny how countries with such a vigorous "safety net" still have tonnes of homeless people and still need charities. It's almost as if Socialism doesn't work.

[@portpass1974]

@@R3tr0v1ru5 Countries with "safety nets" and even large welfare states are capitalist, not socialist. And the massive numbers of homelessness in the United States is utterly unmatched compared to the rest of the western world.

[@nickoliekeyov746]

@MrGuitaristMetal America has no safety nets in place for the homeless. They’re imprisoned or ignored.

[@adenizenabroad9593]

@@R3tr0v1ru5 lol the us I littered with homeless, for all its faults altleast no one in cuba doesn’t have insurance and atleast there’s a fraction of the homeless ppl in comparison

[@soulvigilante]

4:58 "I always thought it quaint and moving that there is an American movement that thinks people are not yet selfish enough" Hitchslap of the day! We miss you, Christopher.

[@betterdeadthanred4196]

Hitchens would vote for Trump in 2024

[@MrTomte09]

For me the greatest factor that prevents me from emigrating to the Unites States (I'd like to) is its atrocious health care system

[@lestergreen1190]

Please stay out. Our asshole quota has been reached.

[@mirabeaux851]

I tell every foreigner who’s thinking about coming over here to just go to Canada. Once I tell them about the healthcare system their faces change automatically.

[@sthuntersville9182]

"almost everybody gets care [in America], although many people lack insurance" - yeah, like all the veterans who died while on the VA's waiting list

[@ivy3754]

That first caller was 7 shades of prophet

[@ticallionstall]

ivy3754 Seriously, he described American libertarians exactly how they are today.

[@Claronium780]

Our health care system is much better for most people - NOT everybody gets care even now in the US! for a few things Canadians DO have to wait but not long for most things ! If I was old I wouldn't mind that much waiting for a non life-saving thing like a hip-replacement....we don't have to wait for life-saving surgeries David Frum - and yes, Canada has just as good surgeons as the US, not as many because we have a much smaller population!

[@jmitterii2]

Depending on what is needed to be done, we in the US have just as long a wait as Canada or any other country. You have only so many doctors and so many patients. I experienced Germany's medical system, and it was actually faster. Not being part of their social program because I'm an American, I paid. But it was cheap. Way cheap compared to US. But then again every developed 1st world country just about has cheaper medical services, medicine, and medical appliances than the US. Every foreigner I know who arrive here still order medicine from their country, and will even wait to do surgeries back home. Even some impoverished countries, like people from Mexico and India will often go home for surgeries because of the price is too high. Our medical system is a joke. We could at least do what New Zealand has done. A non profit insurance company of which has also started building its own hospitals and clinics to keep costs and prices down, of which more than 60% of New Zealnders are apart of last I read. In the US, I've noticed we're more of an oligarchy system. Somewhat funny as the premise of our country was partially founded on the abjection of tyranny and hereditary rule. But so many contradictions on the original foundations of our country. Really, it was to provide such liberties to white property owner men because some white property owning aristocrats felt they should qualify for lordships. Then decided, what makes them great is their accumulation of wealth over generations. So any white property owning family could become an American feudal lord. Later with a help of a civil war, riots, the country evolved to apply to everyone regardless of race, gender, economic station, etc.

[@jennifergrove2368]

"Almost everyone gets care, even though not everyone is insured." Tell that to the families of the ones who've died from lack of health care.

[@granudisimo]

An average of 18.000 Americans die each year because they literally can't afford to stay alive.

[@emlmm88]

@@granudisimo More like 45,000

[@granudisimo]

@@emlmm88 Thanks. I also heard that 500.000 go into medical bankruptcy, please don't tell me the actual number is worst...

[@randomkid7390]

Hospitals have to treat you in America. Literally call 911, get a ride to a doctor, get treatment, then they ask if you can pay. Complain about the debt all you want, but the idea there is a lack of healthcare in America is incorrect.

[@randomkid7390]

@@MrJimShorts Such as?

[@mistermackey638]

Ayn Rand is the philosophy equivalent of the short bus

[@chriswhited]

+Burt Kocain even if that's true many things she said was true.

[@ThePlatinumMatt]

What's "the short bus mean"?

[@dkupke]

I actually love how he summarized it by saying it is “quaint” that Rand and her fans even today believe the United States is, in fact, not yet selfish enough-and that we are already a socialist hellhole. Read up on Galt’s Gulch Chile some time.

[@dkupke]

Klaa2 read up on the convoluted history of “Galt’s Gulch Chile.” Long and short is that a group of Ayn Rand fans thought they were going to creat her magical land of capitalism-in socialist Chile. Big shock, it ended up being a giant scam and the people behind it took the money and ran. So rather than go through the government they so hate via the courts to get their money back, they all just use forums like Dollar Vigilante or reddit to bitch about how they got scammed, insist not realizing that it was a scam is not their fault, and tell themselves how intellectually superior they still are because they are objectivists. Its frigging hilarious.

[@zico739]

True, but she has never been taken seriously within serious philosophy circles anyway.

[@OmarTorrez]

Rand's works are sad, pedantic pablum. I suffered through Atlas Shrugged and marveled that she was published at all. A Talentless hack... Passion is NOT enough, one need ability as well!

[@AnthroArcade]

Randroids should really stop directing people to Atlas Shrugged as a "bible" of Rand's principles and ideas. Couldn't even get past the first few chapters! I just sought out her essays and non-fiction books instead and found that an easier read...at least I wouldn't have to suffer through terrible fiction writing! _Niko Linni_

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 I have stances, yet I know that all stances are contradictory. Socrates knew this, Aristotle, Einstein. This is hardly a new idea. Examples? TO be against bigotry is to be bigoted against bigotry. TO be against conflict is to make conflict with conflict. To be open-minded is to be closed to closed-mindedness. To be for freedom of speech means you are against speech that opposes freedom of speech. This could go on for ages. I think you get the point.

[@OmarTorrez]

I respectfully dispute your position that health and health maintenance are "products" or "services" in ANY way save in the most twisted and depraved minds. Health is a state of being, NOT a consumer product. There is a WORLD of a difference between wanting a Porsche and not being able to buy it and have heart trouble and not being able to afford medical care. YOu DO see this, yes? (I hope so..)

[@salahudeenabduladl]

That caller's comments were brilliant!

[@waori]

@cdsilber I think they are referring to the system as a whole being better for the average person in the country. There's no doubt that privately run hospitals will provide fantastic services for those who can afford them.

[@Warhero1171]

American's have the right to "life," but not to healthcare that is critical to life.

[@yvranx]

@brazenhubris Nice idea. In reality though, A would use his property to prevent B from acquiring his own. B would need a government to prevent that. So A buys the government, too. This is historic fact btw.

[@alteregoash]

Absolutely, and I've explained this to Americans who talk to me about the socialism of Obamacare. It's hilarious they think reform is the same as Canada's truly socialist overhaul of the system. It's not even in the neighbourhood of socialism. Socialists are depressed that's all that went through.

[@NibblesTheNibbler]

It's interesting to hear the issues and ideological currents going on in older videos like this. You get to see an early state, or snapshot in time, of some of the issues or movements happening today. For example the infant stage of the Ayn Rand and libertarian ideology in America in this video. Fast forward a little more than ten years and Ron Paul is popular and the Koch brothers had been funding laissez faire/libertarian policies, studies, and political candidates for quite a while by then.

[@gspaulsson]

@hawkmoon4 yes, the only real difference between the U.S. system and the Canadian one is that you get Medicare starting at 65 (when it starts getting expensive) and we get it all our lives. The great virtue of the system (before the provinces started hacking away at it for their own selfish reasons) was its simplicity: you saw your doctor (any doctor you liked); he billed the government; you paid your taxes. Minimum bureaucracy, no expensive malpractice suits, no "defensive medicine".

[@sonrouge]

Hitchens, like a lot of people, is bellyaching about the problems of American healthcare without trying to understand how it got to that point.

[@sonrouge]

It isn't a blank check for the government, chum. And look up "Health Care is not a right" by Leonard Peikoff. And respecting individual rights is the best way to promote the general welfare without trampling on anyone.

[@sonrouge]

Sorry, chum, but you don't get to just dismiss someone out of hand with me. Either cast doubt on his points or throw in the towel.

[@caffeineandphilosophy]

Not at all; Hitchens' point about America combining the worst of Capitalism with the worst of Socialism is a point Hayek brought up in The Road to Serfdom. The combination produces the worst of both worlds. Capitalism works, at a price, and socialism works in the short run (we're all dead after that, never mind the children), but the combination fails utterly. When asked about Hayek's critiques of Socialism, Hitchens only responded by referencing Orwell's own critique of the Austrian professor: not that he was wrong, but that his timing was off, that people didn't want to be told they were preparing the way for more Nazis right at the end of WWII. Other than that, he's largely sympathetic to libertarian ideals, and said as much in his book "Letters to a Young Contrarian."

[@MaskedMarvyl]

sonrouge, I doubt you understand very much yourself, and Hitchens understood much more than you, and would have wiped the floor with you in an argument about this. Stop your own bellyaching, sonrouge.....

[@ryandavis2775]

"David Frum is a neo-fascist neo-conservative. He helped get us into the useless Iraq War." What's that supposed to mean in a debate with Christopher Hitchens? So did Christopher. Hitchens was a die-hard supporter of the Iraq War until the day he died and never even remotely recanted. He was very influential in making a "left-wing" case for the war in public many times. Bizarre comment.

[@sqmuth]

Please repost with about 500% the volume.

[@SaulOhio]

"If tempted by something that feels "altruistic," examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still want to do it, wallow in it!" -- Robert Heinlein Ayn Rand recognized that we are emotional beings. There is her concept of a "sense of life", which is the emotional experience you get concerning the important philosophical questions, especially of whether success and happiness are possible and the proper condition of humanity.

[@rowdy3837]

Second caller incredibly prescient regarding the libertarian threat and cult of Ayn Rand. Virtue of selfishness indeed, welcome to America 2020...

[@Disciple1000]

This clip just proves what a forward thinking genius Hitchens is and where the right-wing beliefs of free market for profit heath care are backward and callous.

[@SaulOhio]

Seeing others suffer can be damaging to your own sense of life, or at least dull its edge. Helping others when it is not self-sacrifical, when it is in fact in keeping with your own values, can be very moral. In fact, it can be quite selfish. I see this as a very beautiful way to look at human interaction, as uplifting and benevolent. Because in this perspective,helping others is not a duty or imperative. You help others because you WANT to. Isn't that a more honest and admirable motive?

[@OmarTorrez]

YOu are right, I did not understand your position. Now I do. Yes, healthcare for profit has Always seemed to me to be a pernicious and shady business, almost mafia-like in it's "products."

[@rsr789]

The reaction on Hitch's face is priceless.

[@amolkhobaragade]

"In US, very few have healthcare but everybody has care" That didn't age well.

[@drfoxcourt]

The problems with the American health care system are: 1) there is no system (it is a market) 2) what substitutes for a system is not about delivering health care (its about prestige, money, and politics. 3) the overhead of the american medical process will grow faster than medical advance until national health care and more deliberate support of science is instituted.

[@themathguy]

Not if you are super-poor. The super-poor will qualify for all sorts of government aid. It is the ones in between poor and middle-class that are really in the worst position. And we could probably debate all day about the exact causes of this. The ultimate question is whether or not the ends justify the means. I could say "Nobody should ever have to get sick", but does that mean I have the right to force everyone by law to live in plastic bubbles to achieve this? I would say "no".

[@XOmniverse]

Duty, on the other hand, is a PRESCRIPTIVE claim about what I SHOULD do. The fact that I can choose my actions and that those actions don't have to be pro-life or pro-species is proof that the so called "evolutionary precedent" is not relevant to the discussion. There ISN'T a better use for the word duty. It is a RELIGIOUS CONCEPT because it is not grounded in reality. This has been my case since the beginning.

[@XOmniverse]

"If we do not behave, be kind and help one another our species will die." It does not follow that I have a duty to make our species live. The only choice isn't to survive; death is a choice that can be made. You still haven't effectively defined or defended any rational conception of duty. I still maintain that duty is a religious concept that is not grounded in reality but in the commandments of a deity or some other authority.

[@XOmniverse]

Prove that, given choices X Y and Z, I have a duty to pick X. Hell, even give a coherent definition of what a duty is. Clearly I don't HAVE to help people (I can choose otherwise), so in what sense do I have a DUTY to help people? Helping people might be a RATIONAL choice to bring about the kind of society I want to live in, but this is purely selfish and not driven by duty at all.

[@XOmniverse]

There's no such thing as duty; that's a religious concept in and of itself. I'm not anti-sympathetic, anti-social, or destructive, and I have no problem with people helping each other. But I also recognize that using violence to coerce people into helping you is slavery, essentially by definition. No, I do not think that slavery is a kind institution, or one that societies need to flourish.

[@XOmniverse]

I think you kind of missed the point of my comment. That's my entire point; atheism does not imply any particular set of values, so it makes no sense to automatically associate with people on account of their atheism. The majority of PEOPLE (atheist or not) believe that you can have a right to something that has to be provided by the labor of others, meaning that the majority of people support slavery, even if they refuse to regard it as slavery.

[@Lucasbessey2]

Christopher Hitchens has just discredited himself across the board! To have this little understanding of economics and history tells me that this guy cannot be trusted in the realm of philosophy or religion. I mean really, he just sounds smart, but when you listen to his ideas it is hard not to mentally vomit.

[@XOmniverse]

Hey, living proof that someone being an atheist doesn't, by virtue of them being an atheist, make them my ally with regard to much of anything. A right to anything that has to be provided by the labor of others is, fundamentally, a right to slavery. Insofar as other atheists favor slavery, I'd almost prefer not to be called an atheist.

[@XOmniverse]

Of course I agree there are consequences of murder and objective reasons that these consequences should be considered bad. I don't agree that I have a duty to not murder. Duty implies that someone else is making the choice and not me. I choose to not murder because I don't want to, not out of duty.

[@XOmniverse]

You have failed to establish how "evolutionary precent" creates a duty for me to behave in a certain way. Organisms naturally evolve in the ways that best lead to the survival of their species due to ordinary cause and effect. This is not a PRESCRIPTIVE claim but a DESCRIPTIVE one.

[@XOmniverse]

You don't seem to be a very clear thinker. I never advocated letting people murder each other. I said there's no DUTY for them not to do it, only consequences for their actions. You're conflating so many distinct concepts here, it is ridiculous.

[@SaulOhio]

The philosophy I am arguing for allows all those very different people to define the standards of "better" for themselves. But we do share some values in common, such as a secure food supply, freedom from disease, shelter, and so on. Each person does have to decide on the form of these values for himself, and of course they will be acting as selfishly as I do. You can't scare me with the word "selfish".

[@SaulOhio]

I'm sorry, but you seem unable to make your meaning clear. I get a vague idea that you think trading is using other people as a means to your own ends or something like that, but you are unable to articulate your actual objection of Ayn Rand's moral philosophy. Here's one thing you probably wouldn't conclude onnyour own: If seeing other people suffer makes you unhappy, as it does many Objectivists, and Ayn Rand , it would be right to spend a lot of your own wealth helping them.

[@SaulOhio]

What? First you say "Rand does not treat people as ends in themselves" Then you say "Rand believes every person is an end to themself". If you did nto change your mind, if I didn't get you to correct yourself, what explains this turnaround? Are you simply being self-contradictory? I feel like I am talking to a scizophrenic here. Your mind is split so you can beleive contradictory things at the same time, and deny either one at any time.

[@SaulOhio]

What concern? Why? Rand presents mutual self-interest as much more dignified than the relation of slave to master, or of undeserved charity. Charity does have its place, but even then it ought to be given in regards to the beneficiary's at least potential virtues. The alternative leads to enslavement, dependence, stagnation, and collapse. I finally get you to admit Rand saw everyone as ends in themselves, now you find there is something wrong with that. Moving the goalposts?

[@SaulOhio]

"The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others--and therefore, that every man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others not sacrificing others to himself." Ayn Rand, "The Objectivist Ethics" in "The virtue of Selfishness", p30

[@SaulOhio]

I am laughing at you. As Ayn Rand would be laughing at you, as any Objectivist would laugh at you for claiming she did not treat people as ends in themselves. "I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Oath of John Galt, by Ayn Rand Look up Ayn Rand in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The phrase "ends in themselves" appears several times there.

[@SaulOhio]

It is absurd to argue that Rand did not treat individual people as ends in themselves. Thats is what rational self-interest means. "A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. He does not treat men as masters or slaves, but as independent equals. He deals with men by means of a free, voluntary, unforced, uncoerced exchange-an exchange which benefits both parties by their own independent judgment."-- Ayn Rand

[@SaulOhio]

Ayn Rand insisted that every person is an end n himself. It is only in your own bizarre interpretation and understanding of self-interest that people could be treated as simply cmmodities. Ayn rand presented her basic ideas as universals. What applies to one person also applies to everyone else. If she claimed that the purpose of her own life is her own happiness, then she was at the same time also upholding the principle that your purpose is your own happiness. Its RECIPROCAL! Get it?

[@SaulOhio]

Your premises are all wrong. Ayn Rand says that you should only help others in that it is non-sacrificial and in keeping with your own values. "The proper method of judging when or whether one should help another person is by reference to one’s own rational self-interest and one’s own hierarchy of values: the time, money or effort one gives or the risk one takes should be proportionate to the value of the person in relation to one’s own happiness."--Ayn Rand

[@SaulOhio]

Your false premise is that children lack moral worth or value. They are of great value to their parents. You shift the context. In the first case she was talking about random people you meet in society. In the second context, you are talking about children, which parents willfully choose to have because of the great value they add to one's life. Ayn Rand argued A -->B-->C, and you jump to an unrelated Z.

[@SaulOhio]

I have admitted nothing. You see a contradiction where there is none. Why have you shifted from talking about unearned compassion to nurturing a potential? You need to shift context, to equivocate, in order to create this contradiction. If I can change the meaning of your words, the context of what you are talking about at will, I can find ways to accuse you of all sorts of contradictions.

[@SaulOhio]

I have not overlooked this, since its not there. Ayn Rand did explain why people might want to raise children, and a bit about how they would go about doing it. Not having experience in it herself, she didn't say too much. Go look it up. A child is like a small copy of one's own self. You raise that child according to your own values. Yes, a new born child has no moral character. But it is understood as a work in progress. Rand did not look at life as a static picture.

[@SaulOhio]

OK. She was against undeserved compassion. As she was against ANYTHING undeserved, guilt, wealth, self-esteem, whatever. My brother has a lovely daughter. He is a great admirer of Ayn Rand as I am, and he is doing a great job of nurturing her. Do you see any Ayn Rand heroes killing children? How do you come to these strange conclusions? Its as if Ayn Rand says "2+2=4", and you reply with "Then you must think 22 is a prime number!" Again, using the label "narcissistic" isn't an argument.

[@SaulOhio]

Nope. You wrote "Ayn Rand argued against compassion it is was deemed undeserving". Maybe you mistyped it, but going back and reading what you wrote carefully, there is no blaming me for interpreting it the way I did. But your conclusions are entirely wrong. Ayn Rand showed her heroes nurturing and helpingothers. How do you explain Rearden carrying Tony's broken and dying body to safety, and comforting him?

[@SaulOhio]

Your argument is another example of what I have noticed in critics of free market ideas, particularly Ayn Rand critics. Only a very few such critics make up their own original arguments (and they create strawmen or personal attacks), but the rest of the sheep just bleat out repetitions of those same memes. You are just repeating something you got from George Monbiot’s "How AynRand became the new right’s version of Marx”. This is what you do when you want to criticize someone, but have no clue

[@polymath7]

Hitchens has told his share of lies and outrageously misleading half-truths as well. The most salient difference is that he, most unlike Frum, could actually read and write and had a superb command of language that one really has no honest choice but to admire (if grudgingly). By contrast Frum, in addition to his demagoguery being invariant rather than intermittent, like most demagogues lies in a way that is pathetically crass and unclever, and requires very little intelligence to see through.

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 "Proof" within the linguistic paradigm of dialectics. I ALREADY EXPRESSED that all positions we take are contradictory. I am being consistent. Our conversation is dimensional. THe first part is literal, (We try a semantic accord) the second part is objective (Recognizing #1. that language is inadequate at communicating thoughts #2. Our perceptions are severely distorted by our cognitive, psychological & perceptive limitations.) All these things happen at the same time. I consistent.

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 #1.The truck that brought it to my home is only and extended function of me being in a large city & all the resultant functions and factors involved with sedentary city life are steps removed from the basic necessities for life. Food, water, shelter & intoxicants. The rest is just societal layering. Naturally we grow used to this padding but it is not essential. #2. People have been making wine since before 6,500 BC, BEFORE WRITING. Tradition predates books/scrolls, etc.

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 Of course there is knowledge beyond the senses. Can you "sense" math or logic? Can you point to these things on a map? How about "good" or "Brilliant?" Can you point to these things in a geographical space? No, you cannot. Abelard proved this 900 years ago. These things are not "real" in a physical sense. They are real in a conceptual sense (Only in our minds) We use these linguistic paradigms & apply them to physical space. Do you doubt this?

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 The physical body simply the most basic element of our existence. Pity on those who only live in this realm, unwilling to explore the transcendent regions of consciousness. (Whether they be biological or spiritual or both) Art in all its forms lives in the realm above the field of space/time & cause & effect. Objectivist philosophy seems to be happy to be stuck in the fields of real estate & consumer products. Wine is one of the ONLY essential products for mankind. The rest is B.S.

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 Pressure groups will ALWAYS EXIST. No government? No problem, Zog had 8 friends with axes and wants 20 dollars every week. That too is free market. Zog acting on his selfish interests. How You respond is ALSO based upon your selfish interests. "Broken knees or pay 20$ weekly." This is free market in action. Whenever 2 parties negotiate, one party ALWAYS loses a bit more than the other(lesser negotiating skills). The perceived self interest > regret >sense of loss>LACK OF FREEDOM.

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 I know more about Soviet history than 99% of the population. Soviet repression is well known. What is lesser known is what freedoms they DID have. They have certain "freedoms" which we did NOT have in the West. Freedom from peddling pop culture garbage to make $ (No Britney, J-Lo, Lady Gaga, New Kids On the Block) Freedom to pursue athletics, music art, drama, film without worrying about how to make rent, home payments, AS LONG AS THEY WENT TO A SCHOOL/UNIVERSITY FOR THEIR PROFESSION

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 Sigh, 5 more minutes! I WROTE that freedom is "Absence of coercion." Yet this formula is too simplistic. What do you mean freedom from force? I have trained in wrestling, judo, boxing, Jeet Kun Do and Weight training for most of my life. I do not fear force. Am I freeer because of this? No. I know professional fighters with greater physical power & they are slaves to the banal consumerist elements of US society. I am free because I live/see beyond it. Free= What U make it.

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 WHAT? WHO WROTE ABOUT "FREEDOM???" Freedom is an ephemeral idea which has only subjective manifestations. For some, freedom=absence of coercion. For some, riding a Harley at 120 MPH on PCH. For others it is beating people up, For others it is playing music that you love in front of 30,000 people, or drinking Georgian Wine in the Mountains in Patara MiTarbi near Bakuriani. You do both of us a disservice to attribute bizarre, nonsensical statements to me. You discredit our debate.

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 Well, come on! Who WANTS to pay taxes? Nobody, but what if somebody hits your car, then beats you up? In Russia, if they have more money than you, they will walk. Here we have police & a court system that will litigate the case, with the possibility of restitution. Who pays for this? The government. Can you imagine of PRIVATE companied did this? Gee, Apple Corp in Copertino has been destroyed by mysterious fire, all inquiry was surprisingly halted by the Microsoft court system. :-)

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 American 19th economics was protectionist. They successfully fended off the superior & CHEAPER British Steel through trade tarifs until American Steel companies could build themselves up. This is an example of Government intervention to help foster a nascent industry. This is NOT Free Market. THis is practical-minded and smart mercantalism. We can thank such NON-free market intervention for allowing our great industries to grow.Look it up.

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 Market speculation causes bubbles. Hi Tech, Housing markets, UNREGULATED MARKETS cause bubbles. HOLLYWOOD STUDIO BUBBLES are caused by irresponsible creatives going big budget while ignoring budgetary concerns in hopes of a giant hit. The creatives need to be REGULATED by accounting and production coordinators. Yep, REGULATION, as long as it is not too intrusive, is essential.

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 No, not if you have a fixed tax rate. Then it is an incentive. I am sure the businesses truly appreciate the roads, the fire dept in case of fire, police in case of break ins, courts in case of lawsuits, army in case of invasion that tax revenue pays for. How does gov't pay for these? (Rhetorical question) Intervention is part of life. When I want to drink all night with friends, my wife intervenes. I am better off for it. :-)

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 You didn't get my point. I will phrase it another way. #1. We both agree that hypersocialism does NOT work, it removes selfish interests from the economy. Yes? #2. Thus hyper socialism cannot exist for long, yes? #3. Hyper capitalist countries are ALSO handicapped because of HUMAN NATURE. ANYONE with an advantage(Military Friends, CEO buddy, coke dealer to CEO,etc.) will use their connections for superior market position, yes? #4.CONNECTIONS RULE! >OLIGARCHY>FREEMARKET SOON GONE!

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 You evade the crucial problem which erodes the idea of free markets. How are markets "free" when a small percentage of people have advanced intelligence & resources to alter market dynamics OUTSIDE & ABOVE the efforts & abilities of hard-working entrepreneurs, INCLUDING MANIPULATING POLITICAL STRUCTURES to place themselves in superior market positions? Is this Free Market? Nope. OLIGARCHY, LIKE RUSSIA & MEXICO. Do you need examples?

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 I travel throughout Russia. I also LIVE part time in Moscow, have a Dacha in Zvineger & am friends with may well off business men. What do you mean buy the statement, "They cannot feed themselves?" Do you mean they do NOT have a social network to protect against starvation? You would be right. There is LOTS of money & plenty of food in Russia. There is no ECONOMIC INCENTIVE for Russians to feed their poorer areas. Free Markets!

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 My point is that the RICHEST & MOST SUCCESSFUL countries are mixed economies. The more extreme in one direction or another, the more repressed the population is. In more free market economies; Iraq, Guatamala, India, MAYBE Russia, the VAST majority of the people are suffering. The social networks are ravaged or nonexistent. THese countries have a reputation for lassez Faire neglect, abject poverty &health problems. France, USA, UK, Germany, NORWAY, SWEDEN, DENMARK offer better life

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 UH... The before the Gov't bailed these banks out they were PUBLICLY TRADED CORPORATIONS, FOUNDED BY, as you say ENTREPRENEURS. HOw does Bank of America, Citicorp, Enron, Haliburton, United Fruit Company, how on earth can you suggest that these companies are NOT CAPITAL-DRIVEN BUSINESSES WITH THE RATIONAL SELF-INTERESTS OF BOTTOM LINE PROFIT AS THEIR ONLY MOTIVE. Can you actually deny this. The fact that the Government bailed them out does nothing to dispute this realty.

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 YOu objectivists miss this point entirely. Just as you say the state-run services will stifle through lack of competition, (Against human nature you say) YOU GUYS MISS THE POINT that businessmen, operating on behalf of companies will ALSO stifle competition through cheating, lying, bribing officials, police, military, ANYTHING to gain a competitive edge THUS AGAIN STIFLING COMPETITION . THIS IS ALSO HUMAN NATURE. Do you see the inconsistancy in your position? The CONTRADICTION?

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 I explained why some services are different. Do you remember Enron jerking the energy markets in California & bankrupting the state? Was that free market? ...Depends how far you look down the rabbit hole. And that is my point about "free Markets" the cannot exist save in the mind. Corruption ALWAYS comes into play when big $ is involved. Why do you think that somehow businesses play by the rules? Or that there should be no rules? Have you been to Guatamala? I have stories for you!

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 THese objective laws of nature that you refer to have been discovered to be slightly inaccurate. Einstein first rattled the edifice of Newtonian physics. We are now in the age of quantum mechanics and string theory. THese newer scientific ideas are more accurate still yet fall into seemingly contradictory results when analyzed at the Planck scale. (1 particle being in 2 or 3 places at once!) These differences are small, but they can be measured.

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 Regarding private schools, I went to a private Jesuit school. I prefer their rigorous scholastic approach to all other schools private & public. NOT ALL public schools are bad. Not all private schools are good. Again, In Europe, take Norway, the population is generally better far better educated than Americans. Socialized education. Some things are TOO important to be left to businessmen. Examples next.

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 France has socialized medicine & the highest rated national care in the world. When my mother in law went to a PRIVATE doctor in Avoriaz, 50 minute with the doc, 2 x-rays AND a lab test. The bill? 110 Euros. Do you know how much this would be in the US? With 5 minutes of doctor time & misdiagnosis. (Which is why she had to go to the doc in the Alps-Bad US Doctor diagnosis)

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 I completely disagree with your point that for profit healthcare is the best way. I can posit numerous examples that dispute your point. (Nearly all of Europe, for example) For profit health care in illogical & cannot function. How? How does a car maker make money? Buy making cars that people want & selling them How does an Insur, Co make money? Taking our premiums. How does he lose it? BY paying out claims, thus it is in his interest to make ways to avoid paying(Bending laws)

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 Fetishize is word often used in socio/economic discourse. In this case it refers to your apparent worship of successful businessmen. I find them to be among the least interesting people to speak to, with a few exceptions. Yet, AT NO TIME am I "Against their success, " whatever that means. This would be a strange & irrelevant sentiment. I am happy that my brother in Law's business is successful & we revel in his luxurious pad in Avoriaz in the French Alps., drinking great French Wines

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509 Free market capitalism has NEVER existed. The closest such market is in present day Iraq. How do you analyze their economy? Doing GREAT, eh? Mercantalism is what rules the day & I can assure you, there is NOTHING "free market" about it. People lie, cheat and steal what they can to gain wealth. I understand this. We all have these impulses. Yet to posit that these impulses should be allowed to roam freely without legal barriers is savage & self-destructive.

[@OmarTorrez]

@0932486509" Food" was in this category. It is the 3rd word in my first sentence. I do not consider businessmen to be evil at all. I do know that they subject to the same impulses that drive a small child to strike another for a toy or to steal another' child's cookies when momma is not watching. That you extremists believe that rational self-interest = morality is humorous. EVERYONE is selfish. Why celebrate this? If we aim higher, we will go further.

[@OmarTorrez]

@amadeusyaoi But are they "entitled" to your directions? Do you often view human relationships within the prism of "entitlement?" You know, like," My mom yelled at me for not doing my homework which means that she is not 'entitled' to a kiss tonight." You would not be alone with such mercantalist social beliefs but this strikes me as a very primitive, animalistic approach to life. Would it be greater to aim higher? I am just wondering.

[@OmarTorrez]

@simplybornhuman What do you mean, "cannot live by the property of others?" This is exactly what man has been doing since the beginning of sedentary agriculture. We have been "living" quite well. You seem to be living as well. I am just pointing out the absurd, obfuscating language Rand employs. She blinds herself with countless layers of idealistic babble. Her followers latch onto this confused form of semantic discourse and everyone loses. Please, at least read Adam Smith & Ricardo as well.

[@OmarTorrez]

@simplybornhuman People get these friends by their own self of purpose, gumption, intelligence and understanding of the system they function within. Such people are the very definition of Randian heroes for the fight for what they feel they deserve. Yes, Mafia are very much "objectivists." Self service is their only ethic. Your assertion that other people must give by their own "will," is difficult to quantify. If a man is holding a baseball bat at your knees, I am sure you'll comply willfully.

[@OmarTorrez]

@simplybornhuman Economically freer. With the RIGHT FRIENDS, you can take over any business, & pay yourself WHATEVER you want. This is pure selfishness. Rand would LOVE IT! This is wild West capitalism with little regulation. This is similar to the Latin American model. Did you know that Mexico was voted the best place to do business in our hemisphere by Forbes? (I think Forbes?) Do you see a trend? Fewer regulations lead to crony-capitalism & corruption,total deregulation leads to feudalism.

[@OmarTorrez]

@simplybornhuman You obviously do NOT know many rich people. I do. You believe that the source of their money is, "hard work?" This is a charming but quite inaccurate idea. Wealth comes from a variety of sources: LUCK, inheritance, intelligence & drive, OR... more likely, amoral avarice and corruption. I also know MANY people who work VERY hard and just barely make it. How "hard" one works is HARDLY the crucial element of wealth-building. Thus, your premise is wrong.

[@OmarTorrez]

@DavidsIllustrations I am not arguing against the abstracts you posit such as 2+2=4 and A = A. These ideas are true because they are self-contained abstractions. But, they do not exist in REALITY. By this I mean, find A in REALITY, (aside from where man has written it: signs, TV, etc.) Find 2. Yes, MAN can see 2 cats, 2 trees, 2 toes, etc but this is not real except IN OUR MINDS. Nature is everything united, there is ONE SYSTEM. ONly man cuts things up into smaller, more digestible abstractions

[@OmarTorrez]

@DavidsIllustrations THe best quote I have seen on this matter is from Emily Dickinson, "We do not see the world as it is, we see the world as WE are." I do NOT deny the existence of reality, I DO deny our ability to sense it accurately. Our senses are woefully inaccurate to sense phenomenal reality. Sight is our species' strongest sense yet we only see the narrowest band of the visible light spectrum. How is this "seeing" save in a primitive & inadequate way?

[@OmarTorrez]

@DavidsIllustrations There is NO human creation that is the product of ONE person. That is impossible. In order to think, we need language, taught to us by others. The tools we use are made by others. Our interactions with others give us ideas. Who made your computer? Did he compose the computer's metal alloys himself? Did he invent metallurgy? Did he invent symbolic language, mathematics, did he invent algorhythms? Computer programming? Individuality is a useful illusion, a metaphor.

[@OmarTorrez]

@DavidsIllustrations Yes, we do disagree. But whether freewill exists is NOT my point. I wanted to demonstrate that people cannot even know with certainty that such a fundamental idea like freewill even exists. Thus, we cannot know ANYTHING with certainty. Even "cogito ego sum" is, as you put it, an "effect" of our consciousness. This effect is however inaccurate within the paradigms of biology and physics. (We are multi-cellular collectives dreaming we are individuals & the quantum realities)

[@OmarTorrez]

Your final paragraph is a Non Sequitur. Certain institutions are too important to be left to the private sector for rather obvious reasons as the profit motive would perniciously corrupt & distort their goals. Examples would be: The Military, the Police, the Fire fighters, Health Care and a few others. The reasons for their DE-commercialization are plain to see for rational thinkers.

[@OmarTorrez]

The notion that we act automatically has been argued quite successfully, in the sense that we are simply slaves to our prejudices, desires, impulses, etc. In this sense we do not choose any action, we only react to our subconscious and inherited tendencies. This phenomenon may be called determinism & its champions include such thinkers as Spinoza, Hobbes, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche. A distinguished lot! (P.S. All human ideas are contradictory, this is hardly a negating factor)

[@OmarTorrez]

YOu think health care is like an i-pod or a lexus? Where do you draw the line? Should we be have police insurance? If an intruder breaks into your neighbour's home but the cops do NOT come because he doesn't have police insurance... "Sorry, your policy ran out, we can't come and arrest the suspect!" What about child-pornography insurance? If your child does not have it then he/she can be exploited by pornographers without penalty? What are your limits?

[@OmarTorrez]

"Silly"? You are forgetting that the healthcare for profit model is illogical. How do car companies make money?By selling cars to consumers who become the OWNERS. How do they lose $? Make bad cars noone wants How do insurance companies make money? By taking our premiums & investing them. How do they LOSE money? By paying out on claims. Thus, they LOSE money by doing what they should be doing! It is against their own interests to do their job. The very concept is flawed. Do you see this?

[@SaulOhio]

Di you notice i am the one saying YOU don't understand what self-interest is? Your understanding is biased by our irrational culture built on religious mysticism, You are the one using the word "selfish" as a synonym for evil, which implies the same package deal that Ayn Rand exposed as a fallacy. Just wanting to live and be happy does not make someone a monster.

[@SaulOhio]

You are arguing against a cartoonish version of Ayn Rand's ideas which would have made her laugh. Just read the first couple pages of the introduction to her "The Virtue of Selfishness" to find her debunking the very strawman argument you are making now. Read what she says about the "image of the brute".

[@SaulOhio]

The American system is not "pay or die". How often does anyone actually die from lack of medical care in America? They get the care, they just have to either pay for it themselves, or have someone else pay for it. Or it just goes unpaid. There are huge problems with the system, but it is clearly NOT "pay or die".

[@AlongtheFarClimbDown843]

"[The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change it's perceptions." -- Henry Kissinger, World Affairs Council Press Conference, Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel , April 19th 1994