Free Market Revolution

[Mr. A]

Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rands Ideas Can End Big Government by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

This book was just published today and it is on my new Kindle Fire HD just waiting to be read by me.

Both writers are from The Ayn Rand Institute, Brook being the executive director.

Whenever I read it, I will post a review, in the mean time anyone is free to discuss it.
http://freemarketrevolution.org
That is the site for the book

 

[sparkchaser]

So instead of a government rule, you'd rather have corporate rule?

Got it.

 

[Mr. A]

Got it.

No, the political economic system would be capitalism, and it would look like this:
The Capitalism Site | Laissez-faire capitalism is the political economic system based on individual rights

 

[Mr. A]

Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand’s Ideas Can End Big Government by Yaron Brook and Don Watkins


In regards to this regulatory-entitlement state, mixed economy that we live in, this book is a great source, in how to put an end to it. Basically they argue that nothing less than laissez-faire capitalism will do. Nothing less than that fully moral, fully practical political economic social system.

My review of this book will be done in more than just one post.

I want to begin with discussing the very last chapter in this book first, Chapter Fourteen, titled “Stopping the Growth of the State” as it is a chapter of most significance to me. I want to trim the branches of government down to size, cut off all the excess growth, finding moral/practical ways to do it. So let me begin:

America was founded upon the basis of an idea: an individual’s right to live his own life, for his own sake, to pursue his own happiness. But when the Founding Fathers conceived this idea, inalienable rights, there was a contradiction in the very founding of it, as explained in the book:

“Although the Founders recognized man’s political right to pursue his own happiness, they could not defend man’s moral right to pursue his own happiness.”

“Altruism was the hole in the dike: It allowed a trickle of government intervention into the Founders’ system from the start, and unless the hole was patched— unless altruism was jettisoned completely and laissez-faire [capitalism] introduced— it was inevitable that the trickle would become a torrent. The defenders of capitalism did not jettison altruism. Instead, in a pattern that persists to this day, they attempted to paper over the contradiction— first by trying to mix altruism and selfishness, then by trying to mix capitalism with state intervention. Altruism does not demand total self-sacrifice, they said. You can pursue your interests— a little. You can enjoy life— a little. You can make money— a little. Just make sure you’re not too healthy, too happy, or too successful— make sure you put the welfare of others above your own part of the time. “

This type of “mixed morality [of self-interest/selfishness mixed with altruism] leads inexorably to demands for a mixed economy.” The result is more and more government interference, intrusion, expansion into the economy, the government grows BIG: hence our regulatory-entitlement state that we live in today.

“If there is to be a real movement to stop the growth of the state, it will be one shaped by the ideas of Ayn Rand. Only Rand’s morality of rational selfishness can resolve the contradiction at the root of the founding and provide the idealism, the consistency, and the intellectual clarity necessary to end Big Government.”

“This is the Free Market Revolution. It is a revolution in the way we think about capitalism. It involves completely reconceiving what a free market is, how people function and succeed in one, and how to morally evaluate the capitalist way of life. It’s a revolution in the way we think about self-interest, the profit motive, the profit system.”

“America’s regulatory-entitlement state did not come into existence overnight, and it cannot be ended overnight. Our goal should not be to extinguish Big Government tomorrow. But there can be no viable short-term solutions without a long-term program. It’s time to define that program. Our long-term program must be to establish a limited government based on the principle of individual rights, with its economic concomitant, a fully free market.”

They provide some steps that need to be taken in regards to such a program in the book, but succinctly put, it comes down to:

The total separation of state and economics. Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of production and trade.

Nearing the end of the chapter and book, is what I refer to as a call to action:

“Capitalism works. It creates material prosperity and the freedom to make the most of your life. […] We must come to understand what capitalism is, why it is practical, and why it is profoundly moral.”

“The first step to changing this country’s direction, then, is to educate yourself. Learn the case for capitalism. Learn its history, its economics, its philosophic foundation. Read the great economists. Read the Founding Fathers. Above all else, read Ayn Rand.”

“When you know your case, then make it: Speak out, in whatever way and on whatever scale is open to you. Tell people what capitalism is. Tell them how it works (and has worked). Tell them why capitalism is good.”

As an aside, the two books that are the best that I have ever read in regards to what capitalism , would be Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, and Andrew Bernstein’s excellent work, The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic,Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire: Andrew Bernstein: 9780761832218: Amazon.com: Books

“In 1776, when the Founding Fathers declared their independence from Britain, they were committing themselves to what many thought was an impossible goal: fighting and defeating the mightiest military power on earth. Nevertheless, they believed in their cause, in a nation based on individual rights, and so they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to that cause.”

“The Founding Fathers were willing to put everything on the line.
We are willing to put everything on the line.
We hope you are, too.”

In my next post, I will zoom out and will focus on a general overview on the other previous chapters in the book, and then zoom in particularly on the 2008 Financial Crisis and the Healthcare Crisis.

BTW, here is Don Watkins being interviewed in regards to this book:
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-realist/2012/sep/17/asking-don-watkins-can-ayn-rands-ideas-really-end-/

 

[Mr. A]

Part 2 of my review.

For brevities sake, let me just provide you with the titles of the chapters in the book which are divided into two parts:

Part 1: The Problem

1. The Incredible Unshrinking Government
2. Why Government Grows
3. With Friends Like These…
4. The 2008 Housing Meltdown: A Crisis That Government Built

Part 2: The Solution

5. Rethinking Selfishness
6. The Morality of Success
7. The Business of Business
8. The Nobility of the Profit Motive
9. Selfishness Unleashed
10. The Dynamism of the Market
11. The Regulatory State and Its Victims
12. The Immoral Entitlement State
13. You Are Not Your Brother’s Health Care Provider
14. Stopping the Growth of the State.

The titles can give one a basic impression of it’s surface, but not its depth, which I want to explore some in another post, especially Ayn Rands reconceptualization of selfishness, the virtues of self-interest, businessmen as great liberators, profit is a good thing, and so forth. This book has both depth and height to it, with a lot of research, facts and stats that function to support the entire structure of the book.

That said, let me now go over with you two really good topics from this book, topics of which there is often a lot of misunderstanding about, finger pointing in the wrong directions as the facts point otherwise… The first topic will be in regards to the 2008 Financial Crisis and the second, the Healthcare Crisis.

Financial Crisis:

On October 23, 2008, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan appeared before Congress. The financial crisis had exploded onto the headlines only a few weeks earlier, and Greenspan’s appearance set off a firestorm: Greenspan, the alleged archdefender of capitalism, admitted that the crisis revealed a “flaw” in his free market ideology, thus giving credence to the most popular account of the 2008 housing meltdown— that it illustrates how free markets inevitably fail.

The flaw is not in the free market ideology as evidenced in this book (and elsewhere). So, what then, was the real causation of the crisis?

It was another credit boom— this one manufactured by Greenspan himself— that set into motion the events that would culminate in the devastating financial crisis of 2008. Economists Steven Horwitz and Peter Boettke summarize the cause of the crisis nicely: It was, they wrote, “a credit-fueled and regulatory-directed housing boom and bust.” The Federal Reserve kept interest rates artificially low, flooding the market with cheap money, which eventually created a housing bubble. This bubble was intensified by government housing policy and a highly regulated financial industry able to take on monstrously large amounts of risk (since taxpayers would be liable for most of the losses in case of failure). The bust followed as a matter of course.

So what would the free market look like in this respect?

In a truly free market, there would be no central bank. Interest rates would be determined by the supply of savings and the demand for loans, not by the machinations of an Alan Greenspan. Money would consist of a finite commodity like gold, so the government couldn’t create bubbles by printing gobs of cash. This financial crisis was rooted not in a free market but in our unfree market.

To read more about the gold standard, please read Greenspan himself, for he wrote an excellent article on it in Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” book, titled “Gold and Economic Freedom” He’s no fucking dummy, so why did he fucking play dumb in front of Congress? He should know better as evidenced by that article.
To go more in depth with the financial crises, I recommend exploring the Ayn Rand Institutes ARC site here on it:
ARC's Response to the Financial Crisis - The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

And also John Allison’s new book, The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure.

Anyways, let us move to bigger topic they go into thoroughly in the book: the HealthCare Crisis. I have way more of an understanding of how pervasive governmental interference in health insurance, hospitals, doctors really is now.

The cause of the crisis they evidence is that it is the government that has made healthcare inefficient, costly, and affected it’s quality. They speak of Medicare/Medicaid (which are government-provided health care coverages), the DRG systems price controls, ObamaCare, tax incentives, licensing, insurance regulation, the effect on cost, patient care, doctors, hospitals… Yeah, lots they touch on.

Government intervention in the name of a “right” to health care drives up costs and cripples quality. Such intervention— not any government failure to make health care a right— is the cause of the health care crisis. The reason millions of Americans can’t afford insurance, and many more are struggling to pay their bills, isn’t because of our free market in health care but because of our unfree health care market. Where supply and demand aren’t skewed by government intervention, these problems don’t exist. Lasik eye surgery, for instance, is wildly popular. Its cost plunged from roughly $ 2,200 per eye in 1998 to $ 1,350 in 2004. “Why the price decline in this market and not others?” asks economist Alex Tabarrok. “Could it have something to do with the fact that laser eye surgery is not covered by insurance, not covered by Medicaid or Medicare, and not heavily regulated? Laser eye surgery is one of the few health procedures sold in a free market with price advertising, competition and consumer driven purchases.

If government intervention is the cause of the health care crisis, it doesn’t take Dr. House to identify the cure.

Now let’s see what steps can be taken towards the solution by:

defining clearly the goal (what would a truly free market look like?), defining an agenda for getting there from here (how do we disentangle government from the market?), and waging a powerful defense of that program.

And this is what a laissez-faire (’hands-off‘) approach to healthcare would not be like:

A free market would not have government-enforced licensing of medical providers, which drives up costs by restricting the supply of medical personnel, with no corresponding benefit to consumers.

A free market would not have widespread employer-based health insurance, which among other problems keeps people tied to jobs they would otherwise leave.

A free market would not have perverse incentives for buying insurance that covers regular checkups and low-cost procedures, which is akin to using auto insurance to pay for oil changes.

A free market would not prevent people from buying inexpensive insurance that covered only catastrophic medical expenses; there would be no government insurance mandates forcing people to buy expensive packages that cover everything from in-vitro fertilization to massage therapy. Even in today’s ultra-regulated, ultra-distorted market, catastrophic plans are available for as low as $ 29 a month— less than most people pay for their cell phone plans.

A free market would not have expensive, bureaucratic redistribution programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP.

A free market would not force emergency rooms to treat all comers, regardless of their ability to pay, which imposes tremendous costs on hospitals and has even led many hospitals to close their emergency rooms.

A free market would not lead to skyrocketing prices and declining quality. As with personal computers, medical services would improve, and prices would decrease.

Any questions, comments, concerns are welcome. Any part of the book you would like to know more about, just say so.

 

[Conscious Bob]

Both writers are from The Ayn Rand Institute, Brook being the executive director.

This wouldn't be the same Ayn Rand Institute that advocates nuking the Muslim world would it?

 

[Mr. A]

This wouldn't be the same Ayn Rand Institute that advocates nuking the Muslim world would it?

This page of their site can give anyone interested a handle on their responses to Islamic Totalitarianism:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=media_topic_islamic_totalitarianism

Let us keep on the topic of this book, please. Not hijack it...

 

[Conscious Bob]

I don't think it's off topic...

The Title of the book is Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rands Ideas Can End Big Government

Now what more emphatic end is there to big governments than a nuclear strike? Yaron Brook is the co-author, this is what he had to say on the subject.

No Apologies for Hiroshima and Nagasaki - The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

 

[Mr. A]

I don't think it's off topic...

It is and is hijacking.

But I really dont mind quoting more things Yaron Brook says, it will just do him even more justice to do so.

I will be quoting some from this excellent article in The Objective Standard titled:

"Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense

written by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein (also from the Ayn Rand Institute)

Like an innocent individual, an innocent nation does not seek to exist at the expense of other nations, by force. But once force is initiated against it and its citizens, it must respond righteously with force; anything else is an injustice toward its citizens and an abdication of its moral purpose: to protect their rights.

Once the basic egoist view of morality and government is understood, the egoist view of war follows readily: The sole moral purpose of war is the same as the sole moral purpose of any other action by a proper government—that is, to protect the individual rights of its citizens. Every moral issue pertaining to war must be judged by this standard—and only by this standard.

By the standard of individual rights, a nation can morally go to war only for the purpose of self-defense, and can morally do in war only what is necessary for that purpose.

The necessity of war in self-defense arises when a nation is attacked or threatened by a foreign aggressor. In some cases it might be possible to stop such an aggressor through lesser coercive means, such as sanctions or ultimatums. Once it becomes clear that the enemy is undeterred, however, military force is not a “last resort,” but the only resort.

War is then inherently an act of justice, when waged this way.

It is important to note that a proper morality does not require that one be directly attacked in order to retaliate. We need not sit idly by as Iran builds nuclear weapons and missile launchers; we need not wait to respond until they have destroyed an American city. A preemptive strike is justified if the nation involved is an objective threat—that is, if it has shown, in action or in official statements, its willingness to initiate or advocate force against us. For America to identify a nation as an objective threat does not mean to identify exactly when or how that threat will materialize (that is impossible); rather, it means to identify that a nation or regime has the will and means to attack or support an attack against the United States. A nation that threatens innocent nations thereby forfeits its right to exist and deserves whatever consequences innocent nations visit on it. There is an analogy here to domestic criminals. When a government establishes that a man is making death threats against his wife, or has hatched a plot to kill her, it properly throws him in jail—it does not wait until her corpse is found, on the grounds that he might change his mind and not carry out the threat.

To fight and win a proper war of self-defense requires two basic courses of action: (1) objectively identify the nature of the threat and (2) do whatever is necessary to destroy the threat and return to normal life, with minimum loss of life and liberty on the part of the citizens of the defending nation.

As for what to do about any given threat, egoism gives the crucial sanction, in enemy territory, to kill and destroy whomever and whatever needs to be killed and destroyed in order to end the threat to the victim country. Such a policy, contrary to Just War Theory, upholds both the principle of justice and the principle of individual rights. Depending on the circumstances, legitimate targets can include the leaders, soldiers, and civilians of the enemy nation.

There is a popular notion, held by nearly every advocate of Just War Theory, that only a handful of crazed dictators and bomb-toting terrorists are our enemies; all other residents of the unfortunate, backward states are “innocent” civilians, tragically trapped among these few killers. Accordingly, we must wage war, not against a nation, but against the few evildoers within it, treating the rest of the population with the same respect we accord American citizens. This notion is false and deadly.

Now take the case of Islamic terrorism, a threat in which civilians are also a crucial source of spiritual support. Many civilians across the Arab world give terrorists encouragement by worshipping them as heroes. Newspapers in many Arab countries spread anti-Americanism and glorify the martyrdom of the terrorists. Clerics promise terrorists a glorious afterlife. Madrassahs indoctrinate students with Islamic Totalitarianism. Even civilians who do not entirely support the methods of Islamic terrorists are often sympathetic to and encouraging of their goal of Islamic world domination. Enemy civilians are also a crucial source of material support for terrorists; these civilians frequently provide terrorists with hideouts, money, and weapons. Rich statesmen pay large bounties to the families of suicide bombers.

Most civilians of oppressive regimes do nothing to oppose or resist or change their governments. This passivity does not render them innocent; it renders them accomplices to the evils of their regimes. This passivity is one of the major factors enabling these regimes to commit atrocities against innocents at home and abroad. Unless oppressed civilians take active steps to object to the evil ways of their government, or to go underground, they are morally responsible for the actions of their government. (The positive or negative consequences of the actions one's government performs in one's name is one reason why being active in regard to politics, especially intellectually active in this realm, is a selfish obligation.)

“Individual citizens in a country that goes to war,” Ayn Rand once said in response to a question on this topic,

"are responsible for that war. This is why they should be interested in politics and careful about not having the wrong kind of government. If in this context one could make a distinction between the actions of a government and the actions of individual citizens, why would we need politics at all? All governments would be on one side, doing something among themselves, while we private citizens would go along in happy, idyllic tribalism. But that picture is false. We are responsible for the government we have, and that is why it is important to take the science of politics very seriously. If we become a dictatorship, and a freer country attacks us, it would be their right."

To summarize: The civilian population of an aggressor nation is not some separate entity unrelated to its government. An act of war is the act of a nation—an interconnected political, cultural, economic, and geographical unity. Whenever a nation initiates aggression against us, including by supporting anti-American terrorist groups and militant causes, it has forfeited its right to exist, and we have a right to do whatever is necessary to end the threat it poses.

Given that a nation's civilian population is a crucial, physically and spiritually indispensable part of its initiation of force—of its violation of the rights of a victim nation—it is a morally legitimate target of the retaliation of a victim nation. Any alleged imperative to spare noncombatants as such is unjust and deadly.

That said, if it is possible to isolate innocent individuals—such as dissidents, freedom fighters, and children—without military cost, they should not be killed; it is unjust and against one's rational self-interest to senselessly kill the innocent; it is good to have more rational, pro-America people in the world. Rational, selfish soldiers do not desire mindless destruction of anyone, let alone innocents; they are willing to kill only because they desire freedom and realize that it requires using force against those who initiate force. Insofar as the innocents cannot be isolated in the achievement of our military objectives, however, sparing their lives means sacrificing our own; and although the loss of their lives is unfortunate, we should kill them without hesitation.

You can read the whole article here:
“‘Just War Theory’ vs. American Self-Defense” by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein

 

[Conscious Bob]

Woohoo, Boom! How will your economic theories work when everybody is dead?

 

[sparkchaser]

It's easier to be selfish when there are less people running around using up your resources.

 

[753C]

:

 

[Mr. A]

I'm happy to report that this book has hit four best-seller lists, including the Washington Post, Publishers Weekly, and USA Today, and on the Tea Party Patriots’ recommended reading list.

In regards to this book, Don Watkins and Yaron Brook (who is sought after for interviews) have made appearances, numerous newspaper/magazine interviews, internet TV, radio...

This book is deservedly getting attention.

 

[Mr. A]

You've still to convince me why firing nukes makes sense to you, fallout takes no notice of market forces.

Do those last quotes of Brook make sense to you at all? When you hijacked my thread, you brought him up and what he has to say, so let's stay focused on that, and not drift to me.

 

[Conscious Bob]

Do those last quotes of Brook make sense to you at all? When you hijacked my thread, you brought him up and what he has to say, so let's stay focused on that, and not drift to me.

No. I'm talking consequences, that button gets pressed kiss free market forces goodbye.

 

[Mr. A]

No. I'm talking consequences, that button gets pressed kiss free market forces goodbye.

I disagree. It can keep a market free here in the US for example. Let me elaborate on what Brook said. Take 9/11, it was an attack on political-economic-social structure. Political structure, as in the Pentagon, economic structure, as in WTC towers, and social structure, as in the nation of individuals.

Governments function and purpose should be to recognize, uphold, protect our individual rights by freeing us from coercion by banning the initiation of force between all human interactions. Only can it use force in retaliation agaist those that initiate it, both foreign and domestic, by individual, nations, groups that initiate it. This protects our lives, freedom, activities in the market, etc. So by eliminating the foreign threat, we safeguard it. When we are under attack or threat or war declared on us, we make up the free market, so not only us, our well being, but also economic activities, freedoms, liberty from force are all at threat or under attack, declared war upon too. If eliminating or crushing the threat, attack, enemy involves toppling their group, government, then we do. Using invasion, bombing, whatever , its context dependent upon just how to. We have the why to, as in the right to.

 

[Conscious Bob]

I disagree. It can keep a market free here in the US for example. Let me elaborate on what Brook said. Take 9/11, it was an attack on political-economic-social structure. Political structure, as in the Pentagon, economic structure, as in WTC towers, and social structure, as in the nation of individuals.

I hope you're not comparing the average passenger plane with the average nuclear missile...

Governments function and purpose should be to recognize, uphold, protect our individual rights by freeing us from coercion by banning the initiation of force between all human interactions. Only can it use force in retaliation agaist those that initiate it, both foreign and domestic, by individual, nations, groups that initiate it. This protects our lives, freedom, activities in the market, etc. So by eliminating the foreign threat, we safeguard it. When we are under attack or threat or war declared on us, we make up the free market, so not only us, our well being, but also economic activities, freedoms, liberty from force are all at threat or under attack, declared war upon too. If eliminating or crushing the threat, attack, enemy involves toppling their group, government, then we do. Using invasion, bombing, whatever , its context dependent upon just how to. We have the why to, as in the right to.

Lame. Your man here Yaron Brook uses Hiroshima as an example of why his argument on total and overwhelming force is valid, the problem with that example is it's well over 60 years out of date.

When the US dropped the bomb on Japan it was, at that point in history, the only nuclear power and by that definition there was no possibility of counter-strike, there are now however several nuclear powers with significant nuclear arsenals, if the US presses the button there's no guarantee another nation won't do likewise.

The Hiroshima nuclear strike, awe inspiring as it was at the time, would be a damp squib in comparision with a modern nuke. A 'Hiroshima' is a unit of measurement of just how potentially devastating modern nukes are designed to be. You seem to think that by pressing the button the nasty foreign power disappears in a puff of smoke causing no trouble to US citizens at home. The reality is the world's atmosphere would be saturated with fallout and that would have dire consequences for every living thing on the planet, assuming there is anything left alive that is.

Back in the days of the Cold War there was an understanding that a nuclear strike would result in MAD, Mutually Aided Destruction, The important scientific evidence has been in the public domain for many years. For Yaron Brook not to factor it in is idiotic.

 

[Mr. A]

You seem to think that by pressing the button the nasty foreign power disappears in a puff of smoke causing no[…]

You seem to think I made that claim. To be clear, I said to eliminate the threat, which was context dependent on just what military actions it necessitates.

 

[Conscious Bob]

Actually I am not rich, as I am a janitor. Rand's code of morality is for everyone, rich or poor, in a society or out in the wilderness. Its a philosophy for living life on earth.

Yeah but it's a selfish morality that equates power with money and by your own admission you don't have much. The Ayn Rand Institute under the banner of laissez-faire capitalism will on principle not improve your circumstances. As you gain no benefit by promoting the institute's cause you are being altruistic, not selfish.

You seem to think I made that claim. To be clear, I said to eliminate the threat, which was context dependent on just what military actions it necessitates.

You want clear? I'll show you clear...

War, Nuclear Weapons and "Innocents" - The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

You promote the institute so their values are your values, all of them.

 

[Mr. A]

Yeah but it's a selfish morality that equates power with money and by your own admission you don't have much. The Ayn Rand Institute under the banner of laissez-faire capitalism will on principle not improve your circumstances. As you gain no benefit by promoting the institute's cause you are being altruistic, not selfish.

When I write part 3 of my review, I will be discussing her morality then so that you can have an actual idea of just what it actually does entail.

You promote the institute so their values are your values, all of them.

Absolutely.

And to be even more clear, what you said before is what you said I claimed, I merely agree with his claim. I wasnt making a claim myself.

Thanks for linking to that excellent article of Ghate's.