Democracy

[an8150]

broncofan, "I will get to the rest of those points when I have a chance. But in the cyanide powder paragraph I was saying what would happen sans regulation [then the cyanide powder is added either because in the doses used it is beneficial or because the producer wants to kill or harm, or is reckless as to that possibility; in the former cases, no harm done, in the latter, both criminal and civil common law would come to the aid of the victim]. This is the world I deduced you prefered from some of your posts. I consider all of those things not to be the present state of affairs but the state of affairs if you had your way. In short, one part chaos, one part misery [no producer's enlightened self interest is served by landing himself with lawsuits or prosecutions; a producer's enlightened self interest is best served by best serving those he chooses to serve].

As for disability, it is fairly well-known that people have stereotyped views of the extent to which disability bears on an individual's other capacities. Surely an amputee should not operate manual machinery but a man who is blind can answer telephones. Private employers would not hire these individuals without some push from the government [why not, if they're as valuable as you suggest?]. People with HIV can work in all sorts of jobs but there was a point in time when such individuals were stigmatized to the extent they could not be hired for jobs where they posed no direct (or indirect) threat [such decisions may or may not have been ignorant, depending on the state of medical knowledge at the time, but you're overlooking the importance of freedom of association and of freedom of contract]. Employers have legal defenses to the government's mandate against discrimination and do not have to hire people who cannot in fact do the job. They are just barred from irrationally stigmatizing such folks and systematically excluding them from the workforce.

A great deal of crony capitalism results from a lack of regulation. Without regulators what is to prevent anti-competitive acts such as price fixing? [regulators are protection rackets. and having conferred their protection, they raise barriers to entry which entrench the anti-competitive behaviour you complain of] What is to prevent insurers from not holding enough money in their reserves? [the rule of caveat emptor] What is to prevent banks from lending more than they can afford to lend? [ditto; and, incidentally, central banks/governments acting as lenders of last resort underwrites irresponsible bank lending] Surely you're not going to tell me a bank would never do something so stupid or make an imprudent investment decision unless the government encouraged them to? [that is precisely what has happened]

The problem you cite with not being able to identify the exact number saved from such policies is a problem faced in all the social sciences [yes, and it's a profound problem, to put it mildly]. You can only get empirical numbers for the policy you enact and when comparing previous numbers with more recent figures to compare policy alternatives you don't have anything like ceteris paribus [so how do you know my utopia would be a hellhole?]. However, studies do attempt to address these problems and take a serious approach to developing a methodology to overcome them. For instance, when you force employers to provide a "reasonable accommodation" to their disabled employees, and the number of disabled people with income below the poverty line falls in a ten year period there could be causes other than the enacted policy.

But such studies attempt to account for those differences and certainly requiring employers to make some attempt not to stigmatize the disabled does bear a logical relationship to increased welfare for such people [For present purposes I'm content to assume you're right; the fact remains that this increased welfare has come at a cost of diminished human liberty, and in a 1,001 tiny ways a number of people's lives have been made slightly worse in order to achieve that improvement; you say that's a good thing; I say, who are you to trade one man's welfare for another's?] . The inability to control all extraneous factors and re-design the world in the form of a controlled experiment is hardly an excuse for ignoring the evidence we do have [I find this a curious argument given that it is the statists and collectivists who are so fond of collecting data and trying to apply levers and pulleys and incentives to that data to produce what they consider a desirable outcome].

Also, you don't have to prove you are philanthropic. I am just somewhat skeptical that those demanding to opt out of a system of taxation will help address the unavoidable problems that less fortunate people in society face [Actually I think the philanthropic instinct is stifled by state action. My perception is that this hasn't yet occurred in the States to anything like the same degree that it has in Yurp, what we see here, after decades of social democratic welfarism is an attitude that "I need not care, because the state will sort it out". Remember about ten years ago that sizzling French summer when 10,000 old folks died of heat in their un-airconditioned apartments? Well it happened in August, France's holiday month, and the unenlightened selfishness of the holidaying offspring of these oldsters (offspring also of the social democratic state) was somewhat distasteful] . "

[Prospero]

Just watched the clip of Ayn Rand and i think to respond to her racism would hijack this thread away fro the articulate discussion of the role of the state. I'll simply say, in passing that she denounces terrorism by "arabs" (I suspect this was recorded pre-9/11) - while turning a blind eye to arguments that the behaviour of the Israeli state constitutes state terrorism against the Arab people. It can be argued that terrorism might be the only viable response.

[an8150]

"Just watched the clip of Ayn Rand and i think to respond to her racism would hijack this thread away fro the articulate discussion of the role of the state. I'll simply say, in passing that she denounces terrorism by "arabs" (I suspect this was recorded pre-9/11) - while turning a blind eye to arguments that the behaviour of the Israeli state constitutes state terrorism against the Arab people. It can be argued that terrorism might be the only viable response. "

She would have been speaking at least 20 years before 9/11, Prospero, since she died in 1981. If she was speaking between 1978 (or possibly 1979) and 1981, then the only arab nation not explicitly committed to the annihilation of the Jewish state was Egypt. If she was speaking before 1978-9, then they were all committed to the annihilation of the Jewish state. A number of these other countries had launched wars of aggression in both 1967 and 1973. They got their arses kicked. Tough. You live by that sword, you die by it. The Palestinians who ended up in what are commonly called the occupied territories were shafted by their countries of origin after both wars, not allowed to return. In other cases, they remain in UN-run camps in their countries of origin, but we only ever hear about the Israeli camps. The fact is, the Egyptians and the Jordanians don't want those benighted people (although the West Bankers have recently made a better fist of things than have the Gazans) any more than the Israelis do. The Egyptians have even built their own wall to keep the Gazans out. Again, we only ever hear about the Israeli wall. As for the charge of state-sponsored terrorism, it is spurious. The Palestinian terrorists explicitly and deliberately target civilians, the Israelis do not (with the arguable exception of rogue soldiers).

As for the charge of racism, Rand always said that racism is the oldest form of collectivism, and that she was an individualist. I accept that she is talking in generalities, but then the questioner seemed to invite that. I also accept that her language was either forthright or provocative, depending on your point of view. But in what sense is her description of the arab middle east, and specifically the behaviour of Palestinian terrorists, inaccurate? where does she blame race for the facts as she describes them?

I can see that her description might be unpalatable. But describing the people responsible for, for instance, the atrocity at Munich, as savages (I think that's the word she uses) is in my view scarcely an insult.

[Stavros]

Stavros, "If you watch this clip from Donahue you may for once admit that Ms Rand does not show much respect for human life when she chooses not to, an extreme form of individualism which is also, as Donahue points out, not very objective from the apostle of objectivism."

I've watched the clip, Stavros. I see nothing in it which demonstrates or implies lack of respect for human life, although Rand is certainly not respectful towards middle eastern arabs. In fact she is disdainful of their societies.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what the last three sub clauses of your comment mean. FWIW I had the sense that the youtube clip had been edited. I've heard of this Donoghue bloke, but never seen him in action. If his conduct in this clip is normal for him, then it follows a pattern familiar to the persecuted minority of libertarians: a witchfinder-general tone of voice, sentences constructed to hector an interlocutor rather than elicit information and comprehension and an indifference either to rational trains of thought or constructive debate. Or maybe the editing of the clip did him a disservice.

I'm happy to disagree with Rand as and when I choose, btw. Honest.

What I meant by what I said is that there was precious little objective about this objectivist's views of the Arabs -is it in her interest to antangonise people whom she believes herself are 'terrorists' and likely to attack her? If she believed that -and she painted the whole of the Arab world with one colour- she was behaving irrationally -the objectivist would maximise individual self-interest, of which getting killed is not one, I assume-thus, in the year of the Camp David agreement, the first peace treaty between the Israelis and the Arabs, she could have recognised that peace is a better option, and worked toward that.

The clip is edited, but you can see the whole of the show on youtube (link below), it is in 5 or six parts and was broadcast in 1979. Donahue was the most articulate, and I think fairest of the talk-show hosts of the US shows we used to get here, superior in tone and interaction to Oprah, Rikki Lake, Geraldo, the woman with glasses whose name I forget, and Springer. Donahue's programmes with transexuals were -as I recall the ones I saw- always resepectful and informative and fun where the others were faux-comical and cheap. He retired I think in the 1990s and of that genre, I think his shows were the best. His remarks to her at the end, are an attempt to offer an alteranative voice to Rand's remarks with opinions the audience had not aired -it is quite common for talk-show hosts to end their programme with a homily anyway.

[Prospero]

Very defensive post an8150. VERY aware of the Middle eastern political situation and not as you might construe from my brief post pro-terrorism. But to describe anyone as savages seems racist (even if she sees race as collectivism.) It glides over the bigger political issues incarnated in the Arab-Israeli situation. The brutality of the israelis for instance in the establishment of their nation etc etc.

The massacre at Munich was an appalling crime. Savages is a wrong concept.
I'm not taking a side in that posting.

[Stavros]

If she was speaking between 1978 (or possibly 1979) and 1981, then the only arab nation not explicitly committed to the annihilation of the Jewish state was Egypt. If she was speaking before 1978-9, then they were all committed to the annihilation of the Jewish state. A number of these other countries had launched wars of aggression in both 1967 and 1973. They got their arses kicked. Tough. You live by that sword, you die by it. The Palestinians who ended up in what are commonly called the occupied territories were shafted by their countries of origin after both wars, not allowed to return. In other cases, they remain in UN-run camps in their countries of origin, but we only ever hear about the Israeli camps. The fact is, the Egyptians and the Jordanians don't want those benighted people (although the West Bankers have recently made a better fist of things than have the Gazans) any more than the Israelis do. The Egyptians have even built their own wall to keep the Gazans out. Again, we only ever hear about the Israeli wall. As for the charge of state-sponsored terrorism, it is spurious. The Palestinian terrorists explicitly and deliberately target civilians, the Israelis do not (with the arguable exception of rogue soldiers).

I can see that her description might be unpalatable. But describing the people responsible for, for instance, the atrocity at Munich, as savages (I think that's the word she uses) is in my view scarcely an insult.

Briefly -you are wrong about the 'annihilation of Israel' -if you set aside the inflammatory rhetoric Middle Eastern states indulge in (incuding Israel, whose represrentatives, even as I speak are talking with the Iranians at the Brussels conference on WMD).
King Abdullah of Jordan was engaged in secret talks with Ben-Gurion and other leaders (including on one occasion a young Golda Meir, much to his embarrassment) shortly after the 1948 war; King Hussein had regular meetings with Israelis (from 1958 onwards) -his obsession was with Jerusalem for historical family reasons and that was always more important to him than the rest of the country, and Jordan was not committed to Israel's 'annihilation' it signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, a year after Israel signed a peace treaty with the PLO, a treaty that was opposed by Ariel Sharon and Bibi Netanyahu and which the latter has done all he can to undermine. You are also not aware of the logistical support that Israel gave to the Royalist and Saudi-backed faction in the war that followed the so-called 'nationalist revolution' in the Yemen in 1962; that it was Israel that invaded the Arab states in 1967 having bombed them in 1966 and conducted numerous brder raids on Jordan and Egypt and so on and so on.

I am not blaming Israel for all the wars, but the history is much more complex as is the fate of the Palestinians, and beyond this thread. Munich was a political act, not the act of savages, and an act that probably did more damage to the Palestinian cause than any other, and remained so until at least the first Intidada in 1988.

[an8150]

If you regard Munich as a "political act" (which is a disgusting evasion), Stavros, then it in your eyes at least it can have done little damage to the Palestinian cause.

Jordan's signing of a peace treaty in 1994, 13 years after Rand's death, does not alter my observations as to the reality when she was speaking.

Indeed, to this day, Israel is the only country I know of which seems to be required to justify its existence.

[an8150]

A defensive post, Prospero? What of it? you made an allegation, I defended the object of that allegation. Necessarily my comments will be defensive. I repeat, so what?

[Prospero]

allegation? Nope. I offered a brief reference to one line of argument.

[an8150]

Stavros, "What I meant by what I said is that there was precious little objective about this objectivist's views of the Arabs -is it in her interest to antangonise people whom she believes herself are 'terrorists' and likely to attack her? If she believed that -and she painted the whole of the Arab world with one colour- she was behaving irrationally -the objectivist would maximise individual self-interest, of which getting killed is not one, I assume-thus, in the year of the Camp David agreement, the first peace treaty between the Israelis and the Arabs, she could have recognised that peace is a better option, and worked toward that."

I see. With respect, I think you mean that her choice of language is forthright, colourful, disrespectful, even rude. But unless her facts are wrong, she is not unobjective in using that language.

As to the likelihood of attack on her by terrorists, it's a cute point but it's for her to weigh into the balance the importance to her of telling the truth against the risk of physical violence for doing so.

You're right that she spoke in generalities, but as I've said already, the questioner seemed to invite a geopolitical broad brush.

And anyway, anyone capable of being so antagonised by words that they are prepared to commit homicide as a result of those words is no realistic partner for peace.