Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reblogged: Ted Cruz and Atlas Shrugged Against ObamaCare

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Screen-Shot-2013-09-25-at-9.13.51-AM-300Although some of Ted Cruz’s views and positions are contrary to the principle of individual rights and thus wrong, he deserves great credit for his stand on defunding ObamaCare—and high praise for speaking all night last night, urging both Democrat and Republican senators to do the right thing and defund this monstrosity. (ObamaCare should not merely be defunded; it should ultimately be repealed—along with all the other laws interfering with medicine.)

Cruz quoted Ayn Rand at length during his speech (see for instance markers 13:58:00 and 14:12:50 in the C-Span video), including some highly relevant passages on productive work and on morality.

One passage from Atlas Shrugged he did not quote (at least not to my knowledge) is also appropriate in this context. In the novel, a surgeon named Dr. Hendricks says:

I quit when medicine was placed under State control some years ago. Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I could not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything—except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the “welfare” of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, but “to serve.” That a man’s willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards—never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness at which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind—yet what is it they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands?

ObamaCare puts not only doctors but insurers and patients increasingly under the control of politicians and bureaucrats. It violates the conscience and stifles the mind of everyone who would rather decide for himself how to provide or seek health-related services and how to contract with others for that purpose. Kudos to Cruz for drawing attention to these crucial principles and to Ayn Rand’s vital ideas.

Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.

Related:

Creative Commons Image: Gage Skidmore



Link to Original
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if Cruz has ever proposed semi-decent reforms to our pre-Obamacare system? As for the GOP at large, they were responsible for the unjust pre-Obamacare system. So, when another set of pressure groups replaced their unjust system with a new unjust Obamacare system, they really have no leg to stand on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That was what I could not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected..."

Unfortunately, a filibuster often requires a guy like Cruz to lean on those fraudulent generalities. That particular passage might have felt out of place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if Cruz has ever proposed semi-decent reforms to our pre-Obamacare system? As for the GOP at large, they were responsible for the unjust pre-Obamacare system. So, when another set of pressure groups replaced their unjust system with a new unjust Obamacare system, they really have no leg to stand on.

 

This statement is nonsense. "... the GOP at large, they were responsible for the unjust pre-Obamacare system."? Such a statement is laughable. Check your premises. What is more, Cruz was not even in the Senate "pre-Obama". Do you think the HMO act of 1974 might have had something to do with some of the problems of the old health-care system? Surely you cannot blame Republicans for that, can you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This statement is nonsense. "... the GOP at large, they were responsible for the unjust pre-Obamacare system."? Such a statement is laughable. Check your premises.

Oooh! Mystical unstated pseudo argument. Okay, then let's up the ante. Not only was the pre-Obamacare system unjust and supported by the GOP, but the alternative that the GOP was working on -- including places like the Heritage Foundation -- forms the core of Obamacare. This includes the so-called individual mandate. Tea-party frauds like Cruz can grand-stand against Obamacare while they are funded by the Heritage foundation that was the genesis of these ideas. Behind all the posturing is the simple fact that the other side implemented their plan. 

(Also see this article on Conservatives health plan.)

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obamacare is just an optimized version of what we had before, which, recall, was just as much "socialized medicine" in every fundamental respect as we have now.

 

Is Ted Cruz against all forms of socialize medicine, including Medicare? Hardly. One can only assume that if a Republican president created Obamacare, he'd be for it.

 

That notwithstanding, the OS says:

 

Although some of Ted Cruz’s views and positions are contrary to the principle of individual rights and thus wrong [...]

[...]

Kudos to Cruz for drawing attention to these crucial principles and to Ayn Rand’s vital ideas.

 

Are they out of their minds?!?! The only principle Ted Cruz draws attention to is that of pure nihilism in aid of pure power lust. Round is yesterday's square as long as it gets him some votes. The very premise of his (not) filibuster was farcical: he was pretending to be engaged in a filibuster. Even a Fox News commentators thought it was actually below their subterranean bar.

 

And the OS praises him. His slime will now slime the OS, and Objectivism in general. Thanks, assholes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious, I've seen many Objectivists damn Ted Cruz because of his alleged bipartisanship(he would support entitlement programs just as democrats) and that he speaks of God along with Rand(he is not a nihilist, what did you expect?). To those I ask, would you have preferred him to not have read from the pages of Atlas Shrugged, let alone even mention Rand? Does supporting Ted Cruz assault your integrity, similar to how you wouldn't want to be labeled as a libertarian?

/

I don't know if his reading of Atlas Shrugged will "slime" Objectivism. If anything, wouldn't it possibly be a gateway to learning of Objectivism for the young or principled old who truly care about ideas and haven't settled into the wretched two party system? Could Ted Cruz's inconsistency towards individual rights help set the context for someone that truly is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oooh! Mystical unstated pseudo argument. Okay, then let's up the ante. Not only was the pre-Obamacare system unjust and supported by the GOP, but the alternative that the GOP was working on -- including places like the Heritage Foundation -- forms the core of Obamacare. This includes the so-called individual mandate

The article you linked to very clearly explains that the Heritage proposal is very, very different from the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act. Do you really believe that that proposal comes anywhere near to being as bad as Obamacare?

 

Yes, the author opines that the Heritage proposal is "indistinguishable in principle" from Obamacare. But then he goes on to name the principle he is referring to: that the government shouldn't force individuals to buy something from a company. But that's not the principle you and I operate by, we believe that the government shouldn't force either side to interact with the other, company or individual. 

 

I assume that you don't see any extra immorality in the government forcing individuals over companies, as long as it's to the same degree. And I also assume that you don't see all proposals of using force as equal, you agree with me that there are degrees of evil in government. If my assumptions are correct, which is worse:

 

1. a plan that does not expand socialized health-care, but changes to source of the forced funding (from health care providers and tax-payers to recipients)

 

2. a plan that expands socialized health-care by orders of magnitude, forces some recipients to pay for their health-care, forces them to pay for other people's health-care, forces heath-care providers and taxpayers to pay more, institutes massive new regulations of the health care and insurance industry with the express aim to counter their for-profit motivation, raises taxes on medical research, reduces the length of medical patents, institutes rations, etc.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does supporting Ted Cruz assault your integrity, similar to how you wouldn't want to be labeled as a libertarian?

Supporting his suggestions on economic issues wouldn't assault my integrity. They are clearly suggestions to reduce the degree of government control over the economy. I supported that already, before Ted Cruz suggested it.

 

Supporting Ted Cruz' religion, suggestions on social issues, or support for some entitlements and regulations, would of course assault my integrity. But, luckily, I can support one and not the other just fine. I also support Obama's stance on gay marriage, btw.

 

As far as deciding who to vote for, that's a different question. A vote isn't unconditional support for a candidate and his politics, it's just an appraisal of which candidate is best/least harmful for the country's and my personal interests in the next four years. Ted Cruz is very, very high on my list of best/least harmful currently active politicians. Although I wish he'd use his real name, which is Rafael Edward Cruz. I don't understand how someone with serious political aspirations could choose to be known as "Ted". Then again, it could be worse: it could be Teddy.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious, I've seen many Objectivists damn Ted Cruz because of his alleged bipartisanship(he would support entitlement programs just as democrats) and that he speaks of God along with Rand(he is not a nihilist, what did you expect?). To those I ask, would you have preferred him to not have read from the pages of Atlas Shrugged, let alone even mention Rand? Does supporting Ted Cruz assault your integrity, similar to how you wouldn't want to be labeled as a libertarian?

/

I don't know if his reading of Atlas Shrugged will "slime" Objectivism. If anything, wouldn't it possibly be a gateway to learning of Objectivism for the young or principled old who truly care about ideas and haven't settled into the wretched two party system? Could Ted Cruz's inconsistency towards individual rights help set the context for someone that truly is?

 

It's not his inconsistency toward individual rights, it's his inconsistency... period. Willful, calculated inconsistency. So yes, supporting Ted Cruz assaults your integrity. He is an assault on integrity himself,

 

To be clear, I actually would have preferred him to only read scripture and not mention AR at all. That would have been kinder to the cause of reason than what he did.

 

We must depending the the Inexplicable Personal Alchemy to drive the adoption of Objectivism. That is a commitment to reason, to reality, to truth, and yes, to consistency. These things matter. Opposition to some minor tweak in the welfare state is not a valid trade-off to throwing one's mind away. Anybody with a commitment to reason knows this--and that commitment is not going to come from watching somebody lie and contradict themselves for hours on end, and if "Objectivism" is associated with that bullshit, anybody with a commitment to reason with validly recoil from it and never pick up a single book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by, "optimized?"

 

If you start with the premise that all citizens owe their brothers free health care--which every politician, including our Atlas-quoting friend Ted Cruz here does--then the next question is how to deliver on that premise in the most efficient way.

 

Studies over the years have shown that the current (or old, now) way of delivering socialized medicine had many inefficiencies. For instance, one could simply go without insurance regardless of their income and sponge off of the system.

 

Another premise that no politician in Washington (or elsewhere) rejects is the idea that an insurance companies should be not able to deny coverage (and this is in part practical: if somebody can afford it, you want them to start paying for their own care if possible and somebody who gets sick without coverage will essentially be forced to remain a deadbeat forever).

 

Hence, logically, within the premise which Ted Cruz et. al. supports, you must force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.

 

With me so far?

 

Because here's the problem: if insurance companies are forced to ignore pre-existing conditions, then it's actually sorta dumb to have insurance at all, at least all of the time. You just wait until you get sick and then get insurance. This of course negates how "insurance" even works and wrecks the financial model.

 

So what do you do to fix this? You force people who can afford it to have insurance. Evil? Ultimately. But it's just a logical consequence of the original premise.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, Obamacare might not accomplish the above correctly, or it might have practical problems of its own. It's fine to pick on those of course.

 

However, to paint "Obamacare" as socialism and "not Obamacare" as the path to freedom is... bullishit. However, that's how every single Republican fights Obamacare. It's a big lie. It's unreasonable, and it's anti-Objectivist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really believe ... [the Heritage] ... proposal comes anywhere near to being as bad as Obamacare?

No, the individual mandate is no the worst aspect of Obamacare, but it seems to be the crux of the GOP's argument against it, saying the government should not force people into contracts and saying that this was very different from making people buy car insurance. Now, they're thus check-mated by estoppel. If Ted Cruz can scuttle Obamacare, I'd be happy, even though I think he's just riding a pretty shallow, populist tide (within a segment of GOP voters).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the individual mandate is no the worst aspect of Obamacare, but it seems to be the crux of the GOP's argument against it

I don't know about the GOP as a hole, but Ted Cruz's main argument seems to be that the government shouldn't expand socialized health-care, and that in fact it should allow more individual freedom than it does at the moment. 

More specifically, he rejected any kind of individual mandate, even a limited one. He also called for portability of health plans, to address the issue of pre-existing conditions (a legitimate market solution to the problem, replacing Obama's solution of just buying those people insurance with taxpayer money), as well as increased competition by allowing the purchase of insurance across state borders.

Now, they're thus check-mated by estoppel.

Who is? Ted Cruz certainly isn't, he never supported any kind of individual mandate.

There are plenty of people in the GOP who don't see a problem with it, obviously (Sen. McCain, Sen. Coburn, Rep. King for instance are attacking Cruz for his attempt to defund Obamacare; King called him crazy). Are you talking about them? How does their stance make Cruz's stance illegitimate?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow, what do you think "Anti-Objectivist" means? I understand it as an attack or honest criticism of Objectivism. Saying a policy is anti-Objectivist only makes sense if it meaningfully singles out and targets Objectivists. You are not writing anything controversial when you write that each healthcare system (pre and post Obamacare) isn't what we'd see in a society lead by Objectivists, I'm in agreement if this is your point stripped of hyperbole. But none of this explains your vitriol for Cruz. The way you react when presented with a Republican is really strange.

 

The pre-Obamacare system was better than the post-Obamacare system. So if Cruz was advocating returning to the old system, yes, that would be bad. But it would be better than what we're currently heading for. Couple that with the prospect that some of the recent Republican proposals actually are measures that protect individual rights, and your denunciation of Cruz becomes all the more strange. A person doesn't have to be an unfailingly consistent advocate of Objectivism to quote Rand for good effect every now and then. If that were the case, neither of us would have a leg to stand on. You're kidding yourself if you think Rand can have broad cultural influence without some people using her ideas a la carte now and then.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to understand the divide between two groups of Objectivists: Those who don't want to associate with anything other than Objectivism and those who are willing to associate with those who are not, such as say, Ted Cruz.

 

From listening to this podcast by Yaron Brook on the question"Should Objectivists Disassociate From Tea Party Groups Because They Oppose Immigration Reform?", I'm assuming that Yaron Brook is willing to support Ted Cruz from his response, but that is simply an assumption of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian, an interesting thing for one to do is research and consider the differences between the way Mrs. Rand talked about, and to, more libertarian types, contrasted with the way the ARI does currently.

 

Exactly. ARI and OS and the others are on their way to becoming a warmed-over Republican think tanks in a desperate attempt gain mainstream relevance. In lieu of the proper philosophical foundation which would support such a mainstream acceptance their choice is to either sell out or be content with less popularity. They choose the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crow, what do you think "Anti-Objectivist" means? I understand it as an attack or honest criticism of Objectivism. Saying a policy is anti-Objectivist only makes sense if it meaningfully singles out and targets Objectivists. You are not writing anything controversial when you write that each healthcare system (pre and post Obamacare) isn't what we'd see in a society lead by Objectivists, I'm in agreement if this is your point stripped of hyperbole. But none of this explains your vitriol for Cruz. The way you react when presented with a Republican is really strange.

 

The pre-Obamacare system was better than the post-Obamacare system. So if Cruz was advocating returning to the old system, yes, that would be bad. But it would be better than what we're currently heading for. Couple that with the prospect that some of the recent Republican proposals actually are measures that protect individual rights, and your denunciation of Cruz becomes all the more strange. A person doesn't have to be an unfailingly consistent advocate of Objectivism to quote Rand for good effect every now and then. If that were the case, neither of us would have a leg to stand on. You're kidding yourself if you think Rand can have broad cultural influence without some people using her ideas a la carte now and then.

 

Anti-Objectivist movement. And I wasn't talking about a political policy, I was talking about the tactical policy of heaping praise of a anti-reason advocate like Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz represents an idea: that the truth doesn't matter. That squares can be rounds when it makes political sense. That you can be in favor of both Ayn Rand and Jesus. That a pretending to filibuster is the same thing as a filibuster. That he's against Obamacare and socialized medicine even though he would never, never be against... all of the fundamental tenants of socialized medicine and Obamacare.

 

Any young person with the Inexplicable Personal Alchemy will reject Ayn Rand and Objectivism after watching Ted Cruz. Anybody with a devotion to reason will recoil from every set of ideas he claims as his foundation.

 

Yes, I react strongly to Ted Cruz--everybody should. The idea that "Objectivists" are coddling him portends the end of this movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Inexplicable personal alchemy" is the quality of holding to a benevolent universe premise, to which Cruz seemed to appeal in the short moments of his "fillibuster" that I saw. Given that he probably knows his actions were not going to scuttle Obamacare, I assume his ploy was to keep up energy for and interest in de-funding it and eventually eliminating it. From what I can tell, he succeeded. Nothing about that is unreasonable. He damn well deserves praise for that. His mixed premises on the subject are common to both sides of the aisle. He just has a better mix.

You are signaling that you think Obamacare is better than what we had prior to it. Did you intend to do this? What do you think Cruz should do?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to understand the divide between two groups of Objectivists: Those who don't want to associate with anything other than Objectivism and those who are willing to associate with those who are not, such as say, Ted Cruz.

 

From listening to this podcast by Yaron Brook on the question"Should Objectivists Disassociate From Tea Party Groups Because They Oppose Immigration Reform?", I'm assuming that Yaron Brook is willing to support Ted Cruz from his response, but that is simply an assumption of course.

I don't think there is a clear divide. Maybe some people draw the line at a slightly different spot than others, but that's about it as far as I can tell (by Objectivists I mean people who think like or mostly like Rand, not people who just repeat things she said out of context).

Objectivism isn't a list of rules. People can use Objectivist principles (correctly) to reach different conclusions because they have different contexts of knowledge, different experiences, etc..

There is nothing inherently wrong with engaging with people who oppose immigration. The decision should depend on whether it is worth it, to promote rational ideas, to educate those people into changing their views. There's also nothing inherently wrong with associating with such people to achieve common goals. It should always be a question of whether it's worth it, or just a waste of effort that will achieve nothing but confuse people about where you stand. It becomes wrong when it's harmful rather than helpful.

I'm assuming that Yaron Brook is willing to support Ted Cruz

You mean he's willing to support Ted Cruz in his attempt to repeal Obamacare and replace it with tax incentives and a change to regulations (mostly the removal of certain regulations) that promotes individual plans, the portability of employer based plans, and inter-state competition in the insurance market?

I don't think it's much of an assumption to say that he does. How can anyone in favor of freer markets, living in the real world (where there isn't a politician with the means and will to turn the US into a LFC society, the only two options are Obamacare and Cruz-care) not choose Cruz-care?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There is a fundamental conviction which some people never acquire, some hold only in their youth, and a few hold to the end of their days-the conviction that ideas matter....That ideas matter means that knowledge matters, that truth matters, that one's mind matters..."

 

-- Ayn Rand, The "Inexplicable Personal Alchemy", The Objectivist, January, 1969

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...