I came across an article titles "Who is John Galt" and the author in my opinion has grossly mismatched and merged ideologies. I intend to rebut this. I have a draft of my rebuttal and would like help to ensure its integrety.
Link to article:
http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=45393&comview=1
Article copy-pasted:
My rebuttal: (Please comment on before I post)
Link to article:
http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=45393&comview=1
Article copy-pasted:
On my daily walk to class, I am taunted by chalkings that declare obscure statements such as “Who is John Galt?” Undoubtedly the handiwork of some pretentious “free-thinking” student group, these chalkings echo a disturbing trend among college students to identify themselves as libertarians.
For the uninitiated, Galt is the protagonist of “Atlas Shrugged,” the seminal tome that laid the groundwork for objectivism. Written by Ayn Rand in 1957, the book unabashedly glorifies laissez-faire capitalism and individual self-interest. Such lofty and admirable ideals are most closely equated with the modern notion of libertarianism.
Libertarians, as I understand, are deeply committed to the promotion of social and economic freedoms. This statement, while innocuous, belies the radical and dangerous agenda of libertarianism. The official libertarian manifesto is a creed against welfare, public education, gun control and social security – you know, all the things that make a just and modern society.
While many people, including myself, would agree that the government has no business legislating social norms, the debate gets murkier when dealing with economic issues. Libertarians, who hail the glory of free markets, forget the inherent injustice of unbridled capitalism. Emphasizing free trade over fair trade has meant the outsourcing of American jobs and a growing income gap between the rich and poor. A social contract dictates that when a corporation’s goal of profit does not coincide with fairness, governmental intervention through income redistribution is needed.
The last six years have made it clear that privatization is not the answer to everything. For example, the Bush administration has been responsible for outsourcing war efforts to private contractors like Blackwater, with disastrous results. If anything, the Bush administration has proved that a government with good intentions can be the solution, not the problem.
Libertarianism is founded on the false assumption that the government that governs the least governs the best. Government programs are bemoaned as bloated and inefficient, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Take the issue of health care. Administrative costs for Medicare amount to only 2 percent of total revenues while the numbers total 13 to 15 percent for private insurers. The nation spends far more on health care than any other country in the world, but ranks only 37th in the overall quality of health care it provides, according to the World Health Organization.
I have generally been of the opinion that analyzing the modern libertarian platform is counterproductive since it only succeeds in legitimizing it. These are different times, however. Thanks to the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, students are generally more suspicious of the government and the positive role it can play. Such high levels of distrust translate into vocal support for leaders like Ron Paul, who once said, “When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.” How charming.
Don’t let libertarians fool you when they claim to be different from conservatives. Libertarianism, like conservatism, provides a justification for people to continue living in their own selfish interest, while ignoring the needs of others.
For the uninitiated, Galt is the protagonist of “Atlas Shrugged,” the seminal tome that laid the groundwork for objectivism. Written by Ayn Rand in 1957, the book unabashedly glorifies laissez-faire capitalism and individual self-interest. Such lofty and admirable ideals are most closely equated with the modern notion of libertarianism.
Libertarians, as I understand, are deeply committed to the promotion of social and economic freedoms. This statement, while innocuous, belies the radical and dangerous agenda of libertarianism. The official libertarian manifesto is a creed against welfare, public education, gun control and social security – you know, all the things that make a just and modern society.
While many people, including myself, would agree that the government has no business legislating social norms, the debate gets murkier when dealing with economic issues. Libertarians, who hail the glory of free markets, forget the inherent injustice of unbridled capitalism. Emphasizing free trade over fair trade has meant the outsourcing of American jobs and a growing income gap between the rich and poor. A social contract dictates that when a corporation’s goal of profit does not coincide with fairness, governmental intervention through income redistribution is needed.
The last six years have made it clear that privatization is not the answer to everything. For example, the Bush administration has been responsible for outsourcing war efforts to private contractors like Blackwater, with disastrous results. If anything, the Bush administration has proved that a government with good intentions can be the solution, not the problem.
Libertarianism is founded on the false assumption that the government that governs the least governs the best. Government programs are bemoaned as bloated and inefficient, in spite of evidence to the contrary. Take the issue of health care. Administrative costs for Medicare amount to only 2 percent of total revenues while the numbers total 13 to 15 percent for private insurers. The nation spends far more on health care than any other country in the world, but ranks only 37th in the overall quality of health care it provides, according to the World Health Organization.
I have generally been of the opinion that analyzing the modern libertarian platform is counterproductive since it only succeeds in legitimizing it. These are different times, however. Thanks to the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, students are generally more suspicious of the government and the positive role it can play. Such high levels of distrust translate into vocal support for leaders like Ron Paul, who once said, “When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.” How charming.
Don’t let libertarians fool you when they claim to be different from conservatives. Libertarianism, like conservatism, provides a justification for people to continue living in their own selfish interest, while ignoring the needs of others.
My rebuttal: (Please comment on before I post)
Everyone can agree upon this lowest common denominator: I care not to see another suffer. The actual solution(s) to this denominator are seen through different ideological lenses, and offer different solutions. In this discussion we are referring to individualism vs collectivism. i.e. libertarianism vs socialism.
It is best to note that our current political ideologies using Republican and Democrat do not fall completely into these folds.
Generaly speaking (without getting into detail) libertarians side with Republicans and socialists side with the Democrats. Our political parties do not fall nicely into these two ideologies. Republicans are economicaly libertarian, with restrained individual libertarianism with the legislating of social norms. Democrats are the reverse. Economic socialists with more libertarian social norms.
I wish to point out a third ideology which you touch upon in your article (without naming directly): fascism. There currently is not a "fascist" party per se, but both the Democrats and Republicans are leaning more and more in this direction. This is a blatant labelization; my understanding of fascism: the merging of government and corporate interests. Both Democrats and Republicans merge these interests in seperate ways. While the following two examples are not the only examples, they have the most context within your article and capture the two common political discussions of the day.
Republicans are using military firms through subsidizing them, and the Democrats are using health institutions through subsidizing health care. Both of these acts are economic fascism. Removing government run military on the one hand, and removing free-market healthcare on the other.
I believe your article is written with the intent of the agreed upon "lowest denominator" from an anti-libertarian viewpoint, which would be socialism. However I believe it is a misrepresentation of the ideologies. Your mention of "privatizing" the military is not synonomous with free-market. "Privitization" in your definition above is the removal of government run military through subsidizing military companies that would most likely not exist without it, paid by the taxation of a population whether or not the majority of that population agrees. In a true free-market, e.g. a libertarian free-market, military firms would not receive one cent from the government. Your definition of "privitization" is NOT free-market libertarianism. This is a common misrepresentation so I am not trying to attack, just make clear the ideology.
In conclusion, we are both fighting the same enemy, and that is fascism. Socialists and libertarians are fighting each other when the real enemy of fascism is the cause. Fascism simply has to be recognized as the new "lowest common denominator" everyone can agree upon, and unite to dissolve.
When this task is complete, we can then return to running our country under the dual parties of socialism and libertarianism ideologies. Eliminate the merging of government and corporations. It is either governent run in its entirety, our spawned in the free-market.
It is best to note that our current political ideologies using Republican and Democrat do not fall completely into these folds.
Generaly speaking (without getting into detail) libertarians side with Republicans and socialists side with the Democrats. Our political parties do not fall nicely into these two ideologies. Republicans are economicaly libertarian, with restrained individual libertarianism with the legislating of social norms. Democrats are the reverse. Economic socialists with more libertarian social norms.
I wish to point out a third ideology which you touch upon in your article (without naming directly): fascism. There currently is not a "fascist" party per se, but both the Democrats and Republicans are leaning more and more in this direction. This is a blatant labelization; my understanding of fascism: the merging of government and corporate interests. Both Democrats and Republicans merge these interests in seperate ways. While the following two examples are not the only examples, they have the most context within your article and capture the two common political discussions of the day.
Republicans are using military firms through subsidizing them, and the Democrats are using health institutions through subsidizing health care. Both of these acts are economic fascism. Removing government run military on the one hand, and removing free-market healthcare on the other.
I believe your article is written with the intent of the agreed upon "lowest denominator" from an anti-libertarian viewpoint, which would be socialism. However I believe it is a misrepresentation of the ideologies. Your mention of "privatizing" the military is not synonomous with free-market. "Privitization" in your definition above is the removal of government run military through subsidizing military companies that would most likely not exist without it, paid by the taxation of a population whether or not the majority of that population agrees. In a true free-market, e.g. a libertarian free-market, military firms would not receive one cent from the government. Your definition of "privitization" is NOT free-market libertarianism. This is a common misrepresentation so I am not trying to attack, just make clear the ideology.
In conclusion, we are both fighting the same enemy, and that is fascism. Socialists and libertarians are fighting each other when the real enemy of fascism is the cause. Fascism simply has to be recognized as the new "lowest common denominator" everyone can agree upon, and unite to dissolve.
When this task is complete, we can then return to running our country under the dual parties of socialism and libertarianism ideologies. Eliminate the merging of government and corporations. It is either governent run in its entirety, our spawned in the free-market.
Last edited:
