 |
Comments |
|
 | Friday, December 25, 2009 at 15:03:20 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: youra fool
E-mail: youra(at)fool.com
URL: http://www.yourafool.com
Fool |
|
| Friday, December 25, 2009 at 15:21:09 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: subzero
Great letter |
|
| Friday, December 25, 2009 at 15:59:41 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Michael A. Slivka
E-mail: michaelslivka1(at)comcast.net
URL: http://www.slivkalaw.com
I seem to recall an email you sent in Fall 2008, Diana, telling us how we should all vote against Republicans, because Leonard Peikoff had said so in his DIM presentation at that year's OCON. Well, here we are, a Woman's sacred right to choose remains inviolate (even if ObamaCare might not pay for all of it), but all our other rights go down the crapper....and the DIM book reamins unpublished. At least Yaron Brook and the others at ARI got behind the tea party movement.
For my nickel, I'd vote for Republicans any time to avoid those "Progressive" types. And I'd rather have a Holy Roller for a neighbor over one of those sick liberals. At least the former has some hope of seeing the error of his or her faith. |
|
| Friday, December 25, 2009 at 16:54:08 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Michael -- My view that religion is the greatest long-term threat remains the same as ever. That's also still Yaron Brook's view, last I spoke to him about it. (Also, LP's "DIM Hypothesis" book is on-schedule, to be published in 2011, I think.)
The fact is that the theocrats on the right and the progressives on the left are happy to feed off each other's statist power-grabs. They've been doing that for years, more blatantly of late. At present, the left happens to be in power -- and with dangerous majorities. They're paving the way for a socialist-environmentalist-theocratic dictatorship -- and doing so based on explicitly religious principles. The religious right will embrace that basic scheme wholeheartedly, perhaps fighting over small details, so long as they are granted the power to shape us into Good Christian Soldiers. That's already happening today -- as seen in the focus on abortion funding in the health care debate. Our only realistic hope at slowing down this rocket ship to hell is some party-based gridlock.
Note, the hope of principle-based gridlock -- meaning actual advocacy of free markets from Republicans -- is sheer fantasy. GOP politicians don't oppose socialism; they simply want a slightly different form of socialism than the Democrats. They don't want good laws; they want their laws. If President Bush had proposed this current health care reform bill, most of the Republicans would have supported it -- just as they supported his god-awful prescription drug benefit. Recall here that Mitt Romeny's health care reform in Massachusetts is the model for the Democrats' federal health care reform!
It's all about party loyalty today. Right now, we have one party with too much power, and thus too much capacity to do damage. Gridlock can slow down the damage, but it's gridlock that I advocate, not putting the Republicans in power.
In rather more vulgar words, the Democrats and Republicans are all evil statist fucks without the slightest rightful claim to power. Perhaps, however, if they're focused on fucking each other, they'll be less capable of fucking us. |
|
| Friday, December 25, 2009 at 17:26:09 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Fred Weiss
E-mail: fredweiss(at)papertig.com
URL: http://www.papertig.com
Excellent article and letter.
I also completely agree with your response to Michael Slivka.
Even given the price we are paying now, the Republicans profoundly deserved to have their heads handed to them in the last election. Furthermore, I actually dread even more what a McCain/Palin presidency would have been like. Sometimes your purported "friends" can be your worst enemies if they discredit the principles you uphold. The damage done by Bush et al, including that fuck Greenspan (to borrow your French), has been incalculable. How many people are saying now, "See capitalism failed, even that Ayn Rand acolyte Greenspan admits it"!!
Now in opposition (and they tend to be better in opposition) the Republicans seem to have rediscovered their roots and their voice. Even the RINO, Olympia Snowe from Maine, has signed on to challenge the constitutionality of the health care bill. So long as Obama is in office it would be much better to have a Republican congress to put a check on him, just as it did under Clinton. |
|
| Friday, December 25, 2009 at 19:08:20 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: SurahAhriman
Fred, you nailed it with Greenspan. I can't count the number of times I've seen some drivel like "Greenspan, a student of Rand and the Church of the Free Market...", which then rapidly descends even further into nonsense. My standard response is something along the lines of "Greenspan spent the first twenty years of his professional life (the Rand years, btw) explaining why everything he did in the last twenty years would lead to calamity and ruin. So calamity and ruin happens, and you think the problem lies with the ideas from the first twenty? The ideas that predicted the actual outcome? You either have a synapse misfiring, or you simply have no idea what you're talking about."
I've had moderate success with that line of argument. At least it seems to prevent the Greenspan idiocy from being brought up again... until the next thread where some economically illiterate fool vaguely remembers some details about Greenspan. |
|
| Friday, December 25, 2009 at 19:31:17 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Adam
All I know is that, considering my hope that things get as bad as possible as quickly as possible, the Objectivists here are even bigger enemies to me than the Democrats and the Republicans are. |
|
| Friday, December 25, 2009 at 19:38:27 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Joe Maurone
E-mail: spaceplayer2112(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://objectivish.blogspot.com
Diana, don't apologize. THANK YOU for doing this on Christmas. If Washington had waited to cross the Delaware, we might be sippin' tea right now...and you were kinder to your Senator than I was after I received a similar letter from Arlen Spector.
Merry Christmas to someone who deserves it. |
|
| Friday, December 25, 2009 at 19:57:39 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
Diana: I completely sympathize with your anger over this.
The form letter I got claimed to be from the White House, and thanked me for supporting health care "reform." Here is what I said in response:
"I wrote to the White House opposing the fraudulent pretense of reform the Democratic Party was putting forth, which delivers the uninsured bound hand and foot into the power of the insurance industry. I urged Mr. Obama to announce that he would carry out his campaign promises by announcing that he would veto any bill that included mandates. Your party has decided to be whores for the health insurance industry, and Mr. Obama has decided to join you. I will not vote for a Democrat again. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.""
My image of American elections is that of being trapped in a sewer, and trying to decide which of the tunnels will be slightly less ghastly to crawl down. I picked the Democrats last time, largely on the theory that the Republicans had behaved so abusively that they deserved to be crushed, in the hope that they would either die and make room for a new party, or figure out that theocracy wasn't selling them to the American people. Now I'm dealing with the aftermath: They got crushed just a bit too thoroughly and can't provide obstacles to the Democrats controlling the entire government. It looks like it's time for the Democrats to be massively crushed. And happily, if the Republicans ended up controlling both the House and the Senate, they'd still face Obama's veto, which might decrease the amount of harm either can do. |
|
| Friday, December 25, 2009 at 20:16:03 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Bil Danielson
E-mail: bildanielson(at)yahoo.com
Dianna, I too let the Senator have it..
Senator Bennet,
My family has been here in America since the late 1600's, I love my country and its foundational premise that government at all levels, particularly the federal level, is subordinated to the rights of the individual. Indeed, government at its best is singularly focused on the protection of those individual rights and that unique relation. This is opposed to the tyrannical regimes of the world that have taken it upon themselves to eliminate, or severely restrict, individual rights operating under the flawed notion of collective benefit or, worse, perceived need. That in this land individual rights and self determination trump perceived collective need thus allowing one the opportunity to prosper and to engage in true benevolence. Such is the hallmark and moral keystone of this great country. Yet, I am at an utter loss as to how any rational thinking individual, of any political party, who has any understanding of this unique American idea could possibly vote, as you have, to institute a legislative right to health insurance which turns all such virtue upside down.
You, sir, have voted for a bill which clearly flies in the face of The Constitution (Article 1, Section 8); If not its letter, clearly its unambiguous intention. As you ought to know, Article I, Section 8 establishes an important constitutional right to uniformity with regard to taxation and redistribution. This bill is an abomination with regard to uniformity as it clearly takes by force money from citizens of states such as Colorado, and uses it to pay for the Medicare expenses of citizens of states such as Nebraska. You claim you do not approve of this, yet you voted for it. You cannot have it both ways. Moreover, this bill includes the requirement (subject to the threat of coercion) that citizens purchase health insurance, whether they need it, or want it. Such overt government intervention and strong arming is the antithesis of our founding principles as noted above for it clearly subordinates the rights of the individual to the state. I would expect this sort of interference by a totalitarian state, not a free country. How dare you vote for this monstrous violation of my rights as an individual and citizen!
Additionally, in your commentaries you have taken unfair and misleading pot shots at the insurance industry. You claim, by extension, that they are the root cause of the problem of the current “high cost” of health insurance and generally make them out to be some mystical boogie man. If what you were truly interested in was reducing this cost then perhaps you would have investigated why it is that insurance companies charge the rates they do. Had you done that, you would have discovered the reality that it is government regulations, anti-trust manipulations, required (mandated) coverage laws, portability restrictions, and tort law issues that impel insurers to charge what they do. And they do so in order to survive and employ the hundreds of thousands of dedicated personnel who try very hard in the face of such government intervention and coercion to act as an efficient means of spreading catastrophic risk.
In short, it is the abject absence of a free market in health insurance which has caused the high cost because it is the government and its interventions that prevent the free market to operate. Those issues could easily have been addressed with targeted legislation freeing up the market. Such would have been an intelligent, insightful, and foundationally coherent approach. Instead, you have voted to go 180 degrees, and 500 miles per hour, in the opposite direction.
Senator Bennet, I am deeply disappointed in you, disheartened, and, in fact, sickened by this initiation of tyranny over the lives of good, decent, hardworking Americans. |
|
| Friday, December 25, 2009 at 23:02:05 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Paul Lin
E-mail: paul.linux.lin(at)gmail.com
Do we have enough doctors, nurses, and other workers in the health care industry that will oppose this bill? If we do, I think we still have a chance to stop the enemy. At this point, it would be great if someone can do a research and come up with numbers.
I looked up demand elasticity of health care and only found out that the demand for physicians is inelastic. My guess is the demand for health care is inelastic, but I need a confirmation in order to estimate the economic impact of a sudden decrease of supply. |
|
| Saturday, December 26, 2009 at 6:24:47 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Bil Danielson
E-mail: bildanielson(at)yahoo.com
** correction ** In my enthusiasm to pen my letter, I inadvertently referred to Medicare expenses when I meant Medicaid... Ben Nelson's deal essentially gets the federal government to fund Nebraska's Medicaid program INDEFINITELY. It is a special deal, and Nebraska was the only state that received this - so far.. Apologies all around! |
|
| Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 0:12:07 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: William B.
E-mail: wbeaumo1(at)gmail.com
Not that it matters much, but to correct an earlier commenter, Dr. Peikoff's advocacy of voting against the Republicans, and how that ties in with his DIM hypothesis, began in 2004, not 2008. (One wonders how different a Kerry presidency would have been for the previous four years, and how that would have changed our choices in 2008.) Furthermore, I don't recall (based on his podcasts) Peikoff being as urgently anti-Republican in 2008. I seem to recall that in one podcast he made vague comments about Obama having Muslim religious ties, so it wasn't like a vote for him was necessarily a vote against religion in politics. Overall, the impression I got was that, unlike in 2004 when he said both sides were bad but one side was WAY worse than the other, in 2008 both sides were about equal in terms of badness (to him). Can anyone correct me on that? |
|
| Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 7:55:23 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Bill -- Your recollection is correct. LP abstained in the presidential election in 2008 for exactly the reasons you cite. |
|
| Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 12:06:21 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Michael A. Slivka
E-mail: michaelslivka1(at)comcast.net
URL: http://www.slivkalaw.com
It still seems to me that it will be impossible to create any meaningful "gridlock" (which I agree is the best possible scenario in Washington)unless at least some Republicans get elected. Leonard may have his reasons for disagreeing with the Republican platform, but to condemn an entire party (or even to abstain) will just keep us in the direction we are headed: the collectivism of the Progressive agenda. I always think back to the part of Galt's speech on the virtues, especially independence being the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment. Despite Leonard's admitted grasp of the highest principles and applications of Objectivism, I do not think that it would be prudent to allow even him to become the "pinch-hitter" for our use of our rational faculty. |
|
| Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 12:18:38 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Michael, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you are in thrall to the GOP (or anyone else) because we disagree on long-term political threats or short-term political strategy. I might think you're mistaken -- perhaps very seriously so. However, I wouldn't assume -- let alone publicly suggest -- any moral failing on your part.
I would appreciate if you'd show me the same respect.
Unless you have some evidence to suggest that I've subordinated my judgment to LP by agreeing with him, I'd strongly recommend that you refrain from such comments. I've heard them before, they're completely absurd, and I do not take kindly to them. The fact that your accusations come in the form of vague, ill-defined suggestions does not make them any less offensive -- or anything other than clearly directed at me.
The virtue of JUSTICE requires nothing less. |
|
| Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 14:59:09 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Michael A. Slivka
E-mail: michaelslivka1(at)comcast.net
URL: http://www.slivkalaw.com
Diana -
That was by no means directed as a personal attack on you, for whom I have a great deal of respect and admiration (if that was the impression that came across, I sincerely apologize). I am speaking of and to all students of Objectivism. If I have learned anything from my studies of the works and principles of Ms. Rand and Dr. Peikoff, it is that the responsibility of final judgment always rests ultimately with me; revelation from on high has no place in this philosophy, even if the revealed truth comes directly from Rand herself (I would never give up listening to high energy rock and roll just because she preferred twiddly-wink music, for example). Philosophy can and should go beyond the personal predilections and foibles of its proponents, and their specific applications of its principles to real world situations.
I look forward to devouring the DIM hypothesis upon its eventual publication. |
|
| Sunday, December 27, 2009 at 19:02:30 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Michael -- Thanks for clarifying. (I'm a bit touchy on this subject, I must admit: I've been accused of every imaginable moral crime for my views.) I would stick by my basic point, however: unless you have some evidence that Objectivists are subordinating their judgment to Leonard Peikoff, to even suggest that they are is unjust. Notably, almost everyone I know struggled long and hard with the issue, accumulating and integrating evidence over the course of many years, finally agreeing with LP only reluctantly -- just as one would expect of people of independent judgment.
More generally, while I still encounter the sycophant Objectivists on occasion, they're a rare breed these days. Leonard Peikoff deserves much credit for that. He's worked very hard to beat the religiosity out of the Objectivist movement, e.g. via "Understanding Objectivism," "Objectivism Through Induction," and now his podcasts. (The other person that I'd credit is Yaron Brook: he's made a hugely positive difference in the culture in and around ARI.) |
|
| Monday, December 28, 2009 at 7:55:57 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Joshua Lipana
E-mail: joshualipana(at)yahoo.com
"It's all about party loyalty today. Right now, we have one party with too much power, and thus too much capacity to do damage. Gridlock can slow down the damage, but it's gridlock that I advocate, not putting the Republicans in power."
I agree completely with the principle that a political gridlock would be the best thing for America right now. The Objectivist movememnt there has been growing and growing every year, all that is needed now is time.
"In rather more vulgar words, the Democrats and Republicans are all evil statist fucks without the slightest rightful claim to power. Perhaps, however, if they're focused on fucking each other, they'll be less capable of fucking us"
Oh Diana, could you be any more awesome? |
|
| Monday, December 28, 2009 at 7:57:39 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Steve D
E-mail: duffne(at)prodigy.net
"view that religion is the greatest long-term threat remains the same as ever."
Long term threat yes, if we survive long enough. The fact is that Obama and the democrats are moving very quickly. There may not be time now to change the culture sufficiently to hold off socialism/fascism. Obama was without doubt the biggest mistake the US has ever made (along with putting his party in control of both major houses at the same time). His views were obvious long before he was voted into office. What has happened since was entirely predictable.
"For my nickel, I'd vote for Republicans any time to avoid those "Progressive" types."
While I wouldn't vote for either, I do think that most of the Republicans still have some patriotism albeit for some of the wrong reasons. Given the choice between them and people who hate the country, I think the choice is obvious. One might be able to reason with at least some of the Republican's but the letters from that despicable Bennet suggests the most of the Democrats are hopeless. It seems he was actually working to get the bill passed.
"Right now, we have one party with too much power, and thus too much capacity to do damage."
I agree but the only way to get party based gridlock is through strategic voting. If this is what you want then sometimes you will HAVE to vote Republican. Generally, this might mean voting for voting for the party least likely to win, or different parties for different offices etc.
We are not going to vote our way out of this mess anyway. At best we might be able to buy a very short amount of time (one reason to vote for the slow socialists rather than the fast socialists).
"LP abstained in the presidential election in 2008 for exactly the reasons you cite."
Good for him!
|
|
| Monday, December 28, 2009 at 8:02:06 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Steve D
E-mail: duffne(at)prodigy.net
"In rather more vulgar words, the Democrats and Republicans are all evil statist fucks without the slightest rightful claim to power. Perhaps, however, if they're focused on fucking each other, they'll be less capable of fucking us"
Eloquently stated. This has been happening for a long time but it is one major reason why the US is still far more capitalist than Europe. Now let's see what we can do to KEEP them at each other's throats! |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
