Ayn Rand was a nutcase! Libertarianism is crazy!



Ayn Rand was a prominant Libertarian thinker, and I recently found on Youtube an interview that was conducted with her in 1959. The woman was clearly a nutcase and how anyone could/does take any of this crap seriously I will never know.
Watch the creepy shifty eyes as she is interviewed. Observe the complete lack of emotion. What a cold hearted woman this truly was.

In the first part of the interview, the interviewer tries to prompt some form of emotion in her by making wider statements about how we should care about each other as a society and in response to this, she gives the typical robotic bland libertarian answer of how we should not concern ourselves with others and be selfish and even makes the point that caring for others makes us into "sacraficial animals".

"What's wrong with loving your fellow man, why is this kind of love immoral?" asks the interviewer and she just spews a load of crap trying to actually make some kind of logical argument which amounts to pretty much saying she thinks it IS immoral because everyone by nature is selfish and can't bring herself to even empathise with what the interviewer is saying. She then goes on to say she agrees that there are very few people in this world worthy of being loved.

Shes cold and emotionally vacant and talks complete bullshit.

Now watch her shuffle in her chair and shift her creepy eyes around as she is then asked about Americas achievements in social protective legislation - her reply? "It is terrible". "You see destruction all around you" (WTF!!!) and we are "moving toward disaster" which will effect the whole world until basically the protective legislation and welfare state are completely abolished. She feels the welfare state means "everybody is enslaved to everybody".

Interviewer Mike Wallace then makes an excellent point- that all of these things came about democratically- because people wanted them to happen. People arn't exactly enslaved if they want welfare and they want protective legislation and so on now, are they?

Well, Ayn Rand then comes right out and flat out says she opposes democracy. Her reply is that no one should be able to vote a mans property or freedom away from him and disagrees that if a majority votes in favour of an issue that it makes an issue right.

She then goes on to talk about how the government should basically be restricted to doing nothing other than protecting property rights and stopping criminals and that anything beyond this is "initiating force". The interviewer then asks if she is completely opposed to government tax, welfare legislation, unemployment benefits, regulations during stress ect. She replies "that is right, I am opposed to all forms of controls" - "for the separation of the state and economics" and believes that this seperation results in "peaceful co-operation and justice and harmony".

The interviewer points out that this would lead to a dog eat dog type of society, which is precisely what it would do.

The most outragous part of this whole interview for me is part 3, where Ayn is asked "How do we build roads? Sanitation facilities? Schools? If the government should not have the power to tax, are you saying we have to depend on the trickle down theory...." (in other words that rich people will benefit society left to their own devices).  Ayn then asks- "well who pays for those things?" the interviewer says "all of us do".. So what Ayn then basically goes on to say is that it is wrong to take taxes "by force" from the wealthy- that we have no right to tell wealthy people how to spend their money- we have no right to take money from the wealthy and spend them on things like hospitals and schools. "You believe in the good will of all human beings , especially the super rich to provide these things?"- Ayn rand just answers that "no good will is necessary, only self interest". What kind of utter bullshit is this? Seriously?

At no point does she comment on the fate of people who are unemployed in a society where there is no state help for the unemployed. Basically those people will just be left to sink into poverty. When asked where all these crazy ideas even came from, Ayn replies that they came from her own mind- her crazy, messed up mind!

Libertarianism is an ideology TOTALLY devoid of compassion and seems to think we live in a world where there are no other people who we must interact with, care for or concern ourselves with. We have to just live in our own little bubble and only care about ourselves and do everything out of self-interest and selfish gain. The most sickening thing about this is that despite all this talk of selfishness being this amazing human quality, it is Libertarians who then turn around in answer to questions like "what is going to happen to the poor in society when government help is taken away?" they say stuff like "well CHARITY will step in and help and the wealthy will give to charity" ect ect. What a complete load of crap. Not only is this a load of crap- it is a DANGEROUS ideology.

Amazing isn't it that workers produce and create and do all of the work- and all the money goes to those at the top and this trend is reflected in wider society as a small proportion of society have the lions share of the wealth whilst the other 80% or 70% struggle to get by. And despite the fact you have this rich elite, creaming off the wealth created by the workers, getting insanely rich, basically STEALING the wealth and productivity of the workers, these Libertarians then turn around and say that taxing those rich people to provide help to the poor in society is "THEFT"! What an absolute load of horseshit!

The reason Libertarians hate taxes so much is because taxes go toward building SOCIETY. Roads, hospitals, schools, helping the elderly and disabled and the poor. Society can rot in hell as far as they care. Everything could be falling to pieces, people could be dying in poverty and Libertarians don't give a shit about any of this so long as the wealthy elite are protected. What kind of a sick attitude is this and why would anyone really support this crap?

I mean lets think about this for a moment. I realise there are people who abuse the system but what do you actually think would happen if we took away all the assistance for the unemployed right now? It's obvious what would happen. The free market would not magically produce all these jobs and come skipping to the rescue. The people who are unemployed would have absolutely no money, that's what would happen. They would have no money for food or for their housing. There would be millions of people in poverty overnight. Why would you want to do something like that? Why would you want to enflict such mass misery and poverty on millions of people who cannot find a job under a capitalist system which by the way, even top capitalist supporters admit cannot produce full employment? That's right- capitalism cannot produce full employment. Unemployment and capitalism work hand in hand.

Should the NHS be privatised?

It seems the Tories are racing towards NHS privatisation. Is this a good idea? I used to think so. Until recently, viewing the behaviour of many speakers in the US during their healthcare "debate".

Why should healthy people have to pay for the unhealthy? The government can't even run the post office effectively, let alone healthcare! Universal healthcare will lead to "death panels". The government will control your health. The free market is always more efficient ect ect ect...
These are all the sorts of arguments put forward on the anti-universal healthcare side.

The bottom line is, having lived in a country which has universal healthcare, I just dont' feel any of the accusations are true.
The fact is, we are blessed to live in a country where we can access medical care free at the point of need.
The idea that anyone should have to live in fear of getting ill because they do not have enough money to get access to decent medical attention is crazy.

The poor mother with little money cares just as much about her childs health as a rich person cares about their children. Why should people with more money get access to better treatment?

It is true that the NHS has faced long waiting lists, but you need to question why this is the case. Have we had governments in power over the last 30 to 40 years which are committed to the NHS? No, we have not. We have had governments which have continually privatised and slashed funding.
The previous Labour government unfortunately continued the trend of moving the NHS toward privatisation, however, it did increase NHS funding- and in my opinion, improvements have been noticable.

As for why should healthy people pay the price for unhealthy people, this happens with insurence premiums under private systems anyway. And if you happen to belong to a certain "group" which is deemed more likely to need medical attention, you will pay the price.
Does free healthcare encourage unhealthy lifestyles? I really don't see this as being the case.
The very people who advocate the "minimal government" , "abolish the NHS" argument would also have tobacco advertising made legal again, taxation on cigarettes and alcohol would be abolished, regulations on the food industry would be torn up and got rid of.
The idea that living in fear of being able to afford medical treatment will encourage healthy lifestyles doesn't seem to hold ground in reality. America has tremendous problems with obesity, yet it does not have universal healthcare.

The media frequently blast the NHS and talk about how it "fails" to deliver the care people need, but when do you ever see a newspaper headline praising the hard work of Doctors and Nurses and the many lives which are saved every single day??

Finally, to borrow an economic term, I think it is clear that health is an externality. That is, it is in your interests that not only are you healthy, but that the people living in the community around you are healthy.
The strict individualism of the hard right does not play out in reality. Health IS a social issue. There is such a thing as "public health" and it should be of concern to all of us.

The Tories Economic strategy

What is the Tory strategy for economic growth? Well it seems to be that their plan is to make huge cuts in public spending coupled with a VAT increase, whilst also working towards scrapping the future Jobs Fund.
Yep. Great plan. Axe loads of public sector jobs so that these people are left with no choice but to go on unemployment benefits thus increasing the social welfare bill and also leaving people with less spending power. At the same time INCREASE the tax on sales.
All I see and hear when I turn on the TV & radio at the moment are adverts saying "beat the VAT increase!".
The Tories also plan to scrap the Future Jobs Fund which was a £1 billion investment made under the last Labour government to help young people avoid getting trapped in long-term unemployment.
Having been unemployed myself for some time when I was younger I can say that unemployment does eat away at you and make you depressed. That stage in my life felt like a waste. The longer you are unemployed, the harder it is to get a job and you gradually lose your confidence. I think it makes perfect sense to be helping young people through these difficult economic times so that we do not have another "wasted generation".