From: yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: The Two Faces of Ayn Rand
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:25:19
Organization: Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: world
	<YAMAUCHI.92Nov16113937@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu>
	<Bxxu4J.Crw@quake.sylmar.ca.us>
NNTP-Posting-Host: yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu
In-reply-to: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us's message of Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:45:54 GMT

In article <Bxxu4J.Crw@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <YAMAUCHI.92Nov16113937@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu> yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>>In article <BxrBDG.20B@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>>>Rand had a completely
>>>different view.  She said that the good is that which promotes one's
>>>life while the evil is that which detracts from it.

>>Then why isn't it moral to initiate the use of force in order to save
>>your life?  

>The whole point here is that the use of force and the maintenance of your
>life are essentially opposed to one another.  The right choice is to not
>promote situations where this is necessary.  The right choice is to be 
>productive so as to avoid the situation where living like an animal is
>your only remaining choice.  If you have sunk to the level where such action
>is necessary to stay alive, you should do so, but expect the consequences...
>being treated like an animal: caged, hunted, or shot.

This depends upon the society in which one lives.  If you live in a
society where the initiation of force is severely punished, by loss of
life or freedom, then all of the above applies.  If you live in a
society where the initiation of force is rewarded or ignored, then
none of the above applies.  In our society, the use of certain forms
of force (e.g. murder, theft, etc.) is punished, while the use of
other forms of force (e.g. government power) is not.

Bill Clinton is neither caged, hunted, nor shot (at least, not yet),
despite the fact that he would increase the amount of government
intervention in the economy.  Neither are the lobbyists who are
all fighting for a increased share of the government pie.

I agree that this is not the optimal way to run a government -- in
fact, it's not even close -- but I do not see that those who lobby for
more government force are "treated like animals" or suffer for their
actions...

>There are what
>Rand called "Emergency  Situations" which might require that one do things
>like the initiation of force, but emergencies are not normal and by their 
>nature are temporary and rare.  You can't make political or moral 
>principles based on situations which are rare and temporary.

Fair enough -- but it means that these principles have exceptions...

>>Suppose you are suffering from a potentially lethal, but
>>treatable, disease and you can no longer afford the treatment.
>>Wouldn't it then be rational to steal the money to pay for the
>>treatment, assuming you were confident that you wouldn't be caught?

>No, the rational thing to do would be to raise the money somehow, or 
>get the owners of the medicine to provide it for you at a cheaper rate
>or for free.  Let's stick to reality.

Let's.  Do you really believe that drug companies and medical
equipment companies will give away their expensive products just
because you ask them?  They've invested a large amount of money into
the associated R&D, and thus need to charge a high price to make a
profit.  This is legitimate, in my opinion -- but it doesn't do _you_
any good if you can't afford it...

>True enough,
>if the normal situation were that people were often sick and that they couldn't
>produce enough to buy what they need (or buy insurance) AND that theft
>had few consequences, then maybe you might have a point, but since all of
>these are false, your criticism carries little weight.

It depends what you consider the "normal" situation.

I'm a libertarian pragmatist.  I believe that in the absence of all of
the government overregulation of the health industry -- including
sanction of the most successful trade cartel in the nation, the AMA,
and endless delays in FDA approval of new drugs and medical
technologies -- the prices would come down to the point where _many_
more people could afford health care.

This doesn't change the fact that the _current_ situation is that many
people do get sick and can't afford health care or health insurance.

>Objectivist ethics 
>are intended for use in the real world.  That they don't work out well in
>artificial contrived situations hardly seems a valid criticism.

The current health care situation may be "artificial", but it exists
in the real world.  I agree that government intervention has caused
more problems that it has ever solved, but that doesn't make my
initial situation -- terminally ill, unable to afford medical
treatment, but able to lobby for additional funds -- any less
realistic.  In fact, it's happening right now -- take a look at what
the AIDS activists are doing...

>>Wouldn't it also be rational to lobby the government to provide
>>funding to pay for your treatment?

>If it is politically possible to rob the drug companies, the drug companies 
>will become weak and/or die.  If you advocate the robbery of the general
>public, you are opening your own pocket to be picked, and that of everyone
>else on whom you depend.  I consider that living in a country of free
>people is a tremendous value (compare it to the opposite and you'll fell the
>same way).

>It is
>the freedom of the drug companies that allows you to even have anything to 
>steal in the first place.

I agree that, in general, a free market allows for a much faster rate
of progress in medical research and treatment.  And I agree that
placing price restrictions on drug companies will reduce the amount
that they are willing to spend on R&D, and thus reduce the rate of
medical progress.  And I agree that increased taxation has a
detrimental effect on the economic prosperity of the citizenship as a
whole.

None of this changes the fact that, if you're going to die in three
months if you don't receive treatment X, and you can't afford
treatment X, it's in your self-interest to lobby for the government to
provide treatment X for you.  Yes, in the long run, this sort of
policy will result in massive government medical spending and huge
amounts of taxation, huge deficits, or both.  And in the long run,
this will be very bad for the economy.  But in the short run, you'll
be dead if you don't receive this treatment -- so you won't have a
long run.  Does this count as one of Rand's "emergency situations"
where the initiation of force is allowable?

I'm not arguing for increased governmental spending on health care, or
national health insurance, or socialized medicine.  I'm arguing that
there are circumstances where initiating the use of force can be in
your individual self-interest, which means that a moral code which
says "a man's life should be his highest value" and "the initiation of
force is always wrong" is inconsistent.

On the other hand, if you're willing to modify the second statement to
read "the initiation of force is usually a bad idea" or "a society
based upon the extensive use of force is unlikely to work well" then I
would agree wholeheartedly...

>Are you really defending the idea that theft is morally justifiable?

No, I'm arguing that your system of morality is inconsistent...

>>Don't get me wrong -- I'm no fan of socialized medicine; it causes
>>more problems than it solves.  

>Why not just stop there then?

Because I'm not arguing for a statist medical system, I'm arguing
against Objectivist ethics...

>Theft is not in your self-interest, even if you can "get away with it" in the
>"not being in jail" sense.  Do you disagree?

1) If it's a choice between undetected theft and certain death, then
theft is certainly in your self-interest.

2) Otherwise, no -- but this requires a broader system of values than
simply "life".  It requires other values such as integrity and honesty.
--
_______________________________________________________________________________

Brian Yamauchi			Case Western Reserve University
yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu	Department of Computer Engineering and Science
_______________________________________________________________________________

Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5013 talk.philosophy.misc:2539 rec.arts.books:20388