Why I Am Not A Secular Humanist

[JESTERKING45]

Before I became an Objectivist I spent a lot of time on generic atheist websites and I got a lot of e-mailed information and articles that I read and that only occasionally touched on economic issues, but the more I read the more I realized that the atheists who I was reading didn’t know jack about what they were talking about. Here’s a prime example of the nonsense that drove me away from them:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?s...ge=kurtz_29_2_1

“Given the current crisis, it is clear that both extremes are mistaken. A robust economy needs a dynamic free market to initiate innovation and entrepreneurship as well as government regulation and public programs that the private sector cannot support—a strong infrastructure, public-health facilities and public schools, highways and bridges, military defense, and investment in projects that private capital is unwilling or unable to finance.”

The errors in this should be obvious but I’m going to lay them out anyway. A “dynamic free market” doesn’t need regulation, or most of the public programs he advocates. And how does he know that the private capital wouldn’t finance schools, highways or bridges? How does he know that the “private sector cannot support any of the things he lists?

“Larry Kudlow, NBC’s perennial optimist, proclaims the triumph of capitalism, but it surely should not be “unfiltered” capitalism. Why? Because we now recognize the need for a balance between the private and public sector. This means mixed economies with a strong free-market component, government regulation and vital public projects.”

The obvious error here is still fun to point out. We have already tried a mixed economy and that is what has failed!!! The “unfiltered” capitalism he talks about is a myth!

“An unregulated stock market can lead to abuse and chicanery—such as the Ponzi scheme attributed to money manager Bernard Madoff. The Securities and Exchange Commission was unable to protect the public from fraud. Effective regulation must be reintroduced to protect the public interest.”

We have a heavily regulated stock market and Bernard Madoff still got away with his ponzi scheme! As a matter of a fact the SEC knew that Madoff was running a ponzi scheme and did nothing not because they were “unable” but because they chose not to act. Regulation doesn’t need to be reintroduced; it was there and didn’t do any good.

"Variable interest rates have been imposed on unsuspecting homebuyers who did not read carefully the terms of their mortgage contracts—and were subsequently hit with higher rates than they were unable to pay and forced into bankruptcies and foreclosures. Banks need to be more stringent in determining who qualifies for a loan. There should be some protection against predatory mortgage lenders who have abandoned standards of ethical conduct."

Unsuspecting? Notice how he gives a pass to lazy or incompetent people who “did not read carefully the terms of their mortgage” as if we should shirk responsibility and forget that they if they didn’t read the term of their mortgage it’s their own fault. He also ignores the problem of why a bank would loan money to people who can’t pay them back, why would a bank engage in such irresponsible behavior of their own volition?

“The unlimited free market has destroyed manufacturing in many affluent nations in North America and Europe, with disastrous consequences for their societies. With the loss of jobs, we face a dilemma: free trade is important but not if it means the destruction of the manufacturing base of a country.”

Not to beat home a point too hard but what unlimited free market? This is nonsense, unions have destroyed manufacturing in North America, as well as regulations. (I’m not an expert on this particular subject and this is an educated guess based on what knowledge I do have, if someone on this site knows more about why manufacturing has suffered in North America I would like to know, but my argument still stands What unlimited free market?

To add insult to injury Mr. Kurtz finishes with the following hilarious paragraph:

“The Obama administration faces a Herculean task in balancing these conflicting principles. We ought to avoid outdated ideological mantras—whether it be the view of government bailouts as a savior or of an unlimited free market as a panacea. We need to develop pragmatic policies that work without appealing to the simplified slogans of the past. In the last analysis, science and reason are essential if we are to solve these problems. This should blend an expression of goodwill with a sense of optimism that we can overcome our current problems.”

After the litany of factual and logical errors that he’s made in this brief piece he has the gall to advocate reason? In the entire article he provided not one piece of factual evidence of the “unregulated free market” that he bashes repeatedly. He merely makes assertion after assertion and they’re all ridiculous and impossible to take seriously. I have found this type thinking on many atheists web sites, and forums. Apparently the stringent logic and appreciation for reason that many (not all, I am an atheist after all) apply to religion has no place when it comes to analyzing economic matters, they seem more than happy to spew what sound like rehashed democratic party talking points. It’s arguments like this that made me sick of going many atheist sites.

On a personal note I feel that many atheists ignorance of economic matters stems from a lack of interest. They’ve spent a lot of time studying philosophy and religion and not a moment of time reading anything on economics or pubic policy.