FrolicsomeQuipster

I'd do me. 

Thomas Sowell writes about something I am particularly concerned about as a parent: the war on achievement being fought by the left. Although the following is more of an aside within his column, it struck a chord with me:
On top of what Sowell points out in the second paragraph, this astounding and deliberate misuse of language manages to righteously commit injustice on many levels at once (evidence, reasoning, or contradictory goals be damned): (1) to deprive individuals of recognition for their achievements, (2) to assert that individuals exist only as parts of groups to which they are members from birth, (3) to assign personal guilt through association, and (most important) (4) to claim justification for the enslavement of some groups by others.
On of the most important things a parent must do is encourage one's child to set and achieve goals. Although I was already aware that I'd have to navigate through our "every kid gets a trophy" culture, I have noticed that it is possible (and common) to heap inappropriate praise on children. (This is even on top of accounting for what even very young ones can realistically accomplish.) It is almost impossible, for example, to look at modern children's programming that does not treat individual effort as if it doesn't exist or divorce effort from reward. So I guess that if I help her see though this nonsense or she does so herself, we can look forward to the same battle again, from a slightly different angle, later on. The progression seems to be: empty praise, hooray for the group, pillage groups that have more than your own. Forewarned is forearmed.

On a much more positive note, the rest of the Sowell piece brings up an inspirational story you probably haven't heard of yet. Do read the whole thing.

-- CAV

Link to Original

That thing looks sinister. It coud work well for the Objectivist secret society.

A movie of Atlas Shrugged, written by committee? 

Suppose a criminal brutally raped your daughter or friend and impregnated her, she got an abortion, and then the government subjected her to first-degree murder charges (for killing the fetus) and handed her life imprisonment or the death penalty. A proposal likely to appear on the Colorado ballot in 2014 carries this potential.
The measure would—if interpreted by the courts as its sponsors intend—criminalize every intentional killing of an embryo or fetus, whatever the reason. It would outlaw not only all abortions—even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and risks to the woman’s health—but all forms of birth control, in vitro fertilization, and stem-cell research that might kill an embryo. Anyone violating the law could be charged with first-degree murder.
If the measure sounds too insane to be real—or if it sounds like it could be seriously proposed only in places like Saudi Arabia—consider the measure’s language and what its sponsors have said about it.
One of the two sponsors of the measure is Gualberto Garcia Jones, who sits on the board of Personhood USA. This organization calls itself a “Christian ministry” and considers all embryos and fetuses to be “preborn children” deserving the same legal rights as (born) people. Personhood USA supported two previous “personhood” measures in Colorado, one in 2008 and another in 2010. (Voters defeated each measure by wide margins.)
The 2014 measure (known by the Colorado Secretary of State as Initiative 5) is worded differently than were the previous two proposals, but its intended effect is the same. The measure calls for “homicide prosecutions for killing the unborn.” On September 30, supporters of the measure submitted signatures to place it on the Colorado ballot. (The Secretary of State must review the signatures before formally placing it on the ballot.)
The measure declares that “the words ‘person’ and ‘child’ in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act must include unborn human beings.” Jones explicitly equates a drunk driver who injures a woman and thereby kills her fetus with a doctor who provides an abortion: Both, in his view, deserve criminal prosecution. (Whether the courts would interpret the proposal to include all embryos and fetuses as “unborn human beings,” the measure’s sponsors clearly intend the courts to do just that.)
The proposal would subject anyone who intentionally kills an embryo or fetus to first-degree murder charges—whether a pregnant woman seeking an abortion, a doctor who provides one, an in vitro fertility provider who destroys unused embryos, and so on. Colorado statute 18-3-102 states:


A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if . . . [a]fter deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, he causes the death of that person or of another person. . . .
First-degree murder is a Class 1 felony under Colorado law. Colorado statute 18-1.3-1201 states that the penalty for a Class 1 felony is the death penalty or “life imprisonment.” Obviously, then, if the term “person” in Colorado’s criminal statutes includes all embryos and fetuses, the deliberate and intentional killing of any embryo or fetus would be considered first-degree murder under existing statutes.
One difference between the 2014 proposal and the previous “personhood” proposals is its packaging. Supporters of the measure call it the “Brady Amendment,” after Brady, the name that Heather Surovik gave her eight-month-old fetus who was killed by a drunk driver. (Surovik is listed as the second sponsor of the measure, along with Jones.)
Calling this proposal the “Brady Amendment” adds injury to absurdity by tying the proposal to a genuinely criminal act. The law would do far more than punish criminals who kill a woman’s embryo or fetus against her wishes—it would also punish women, doctors, and others for ending a pregnancy in accordance with a woman’s moral right.
Moreover, Colorado already has a law that punishes criminals for killing a fetus or embryo against the wishes of the pregnant woman. On June 5, Governor John Hickenlooper signed bill 13-1154, the “Crimes Against Pregnant Women Act,” which carefully distinguishes between an abortion a woman wants and a criminal assault that kills her embryo or fetus. Notably, Personhood USA opposed the bill because it did not grant full legal “rights” to embryos and fetuses.
The so-called “Brady Amendment” cannot be dismissed as the insanity of a tiny fringe group, as around 140,000 people signed this year’s “personhood” measure, and “personhood” is widely embraced by leading Colorado Republicans. At least three possible candidates for governor support “personhood” to varying degrees, as do three possible candidates for U.S. Senate and three standing members of Congress in Colorado. A Colorado religious leader in this video explicitly calls for the death penalty for women who get abortions.
Although the measure is not likely to pass a popular vote next year—and, even if it did, it is not likely to pass judicial muster anytime soon—“personhood” supporters are serious about someday making their proposals the law of the land. Deadly serious.
Those who recognize what rights are—and that women have them whereas embryos and fetuses do not—should be outraged at the very thought of such a measure, let alone a movement with the backing this proposal has today. Speak up.
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:
The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society Planned Parenthood and Others Admirably Fight Texas Anti-Abortion Bill

Link to Original

As September draws to a close today, I wanted to share some of the kind words sent to me about Philosophy in Action Radio lately… as a tiny reminder to you to contribute to Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar if you enjoy the show too. Here we go:


Your radio show is awesome, by the way. You pack such impeccable logic and reason into an easily digestible philosophy and I applaud you for tackling real issues…
Ah, thank you!


I just wanted to send you a general “thank you!” and “keep up the good work!” I’ve been enjoying all of your radio shows, and especially liked your interview with Jonathan Hoenig on the workings of financial markets. The school year will be starting soon for me, and it will be nice to have your radio show on Sunday to relax to.
Yay! Here’s that interview: Jonathan Hoenig on The Workings of Financial Markets.


I just wanted to thank you for the all the efforts that go into producing Philosophy in Action. I am something of a podcast junkie, but I do make your show a priority. You’ve succeeded in making philosophy fun, interesting, and even humorous. …
I appreciate you answering my question about non-financial incentives for showing how much a person values your show. To that end, I’m making it a point to share upcoming events as often as I see them.
In reference to that last sentence, even if you can’t afford to contribute to Philosoph in Action’s Tip Jar, I really appreciate when people share upcoming events, posted podcasts, and blog posts on social media. That helps spread the word about the show, and I appreciate that hugely!


Thank you for providing the podcasts. My husband and I are both programmers who work from home. Since we don’t have commutes, we don’t often set aside time to listen to radio or podcasts otherwise. But we recently started a big painting project in our house, and a friend recommended your show. We’ve been looking forward to listening in on Sundays & catching up on your back catalog for the past month of weekends as we slowly finish painting my husband’s office. Your discussions have provided us with plenty of food for thought and topics for conversation. I really enjoyed your answers to the problem of dealing with panhandlers (a sadly common occurrence where we live) and social contract theory. Please keep up the great work. You’ve gained two loyal listeners & I’ll be setting up a recurring payment soon.
I love that! Here are the discussions mentioned: Responding to Panhandlers and Social Contract Theory.


I’ve been reading NoodleFood for many years, and it has been a huge boon to my life. I started reading it just after I read Atlas Shrugged, back when I was an Objectivist infant. You’ve helped clarify my thinking on so many issues. And the work you’re doing now in your podcasts is better equipping me to pursue my own life and happiness. I’m thrilled to support your work in whatever small way I can. Thank you so much.
Hooray!


Thank you for providing the same support that I used to get from the Ayn Rand newsletters which also provided rational views of topical situations. I enjoy the broadcasts and will send more tips.
Wow, that’s really lovely to hear. Really!
Today is the last day to support my work this month via Philosophy in Action’s Tip Jar. I want to give a big shout of appreciation to everyone who has contributed so far in 2013, particularly to the amazing people who contribute every week or month. That’s so important to me, both spiritually and materially.



Link to Original

Rights Are Inalienable But Forfeitable:

In my recent Philosophy in Action Webcast discussion of the death penalty, I mentioned Craig Biddle's discussion of the fact that rights are inalienable but forfeitable. As promised, here's footnote 46 of his excellent essay, Ayn Rand's Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society


... If rights were somehow inherent in man by virtue of his being man, then we could never punish people who violate rights--because using retaliatory force against them would violate the "rights" that they "inherently" have and that they thus always retain by virtue of being human. Because Rand's theory is based on and derived from the observable requirements of man's life, it is not afflicted with contradictions regarding those requirements. On Rand's theory, rights are inalienable, in that others cannot take away or nullify one's rights; but they are also forfeitable, in that one can relinquish one's own rights by violating the rights of others. If and to the extent that a person violates the rights of others, he relinquishes his own rights and may be punished accordingly. His choice to violate rights places him outside the purpose of the principle and thus the scope of its protection. Again, one cannot claim the protection of a principle that one repudiates in action. If rights were inherent in human nature, based purely on DNA or species-membership, then the advocates of "personhood for zygotes" would be right: the fertilized egg would have a right to life. However, on an objective theory of rights, rights cannot apply until the fetus is biologically separated from the woman. Only then does the fetus -- then a baby -- enter the social context necessary for rights. For further details, see Ari Armstrong's and my recently-published essay, "The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties.


Original entry: See link at top of this post

Those assertions are meant to undercut idealism and confidence in one's mind.  Ignore them.  The people who assert them gave up pursuing their values and have settled for less in life.

The destruction of the state in Atlas Shrugged was not a good thing. It wasn't privatized into a bunch of competing firms of anything wacky like that. It fell apart Roman Empire style (Diocletian).  
 
 
Oh and socialism doesn't work because they can't get anyone to take out the garbage!!! 
 
 Do you really think libertarians "blank out" when they consider the problem of preventing people from using force? This stuff is free at least take the time if you are going to post about it. You come off like a troll when you use Rand's rhetorical devices so casually. 

"AnarchObjectivism" is a contradiction. "Objectivism" refers to the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and Miss Rand explicitly rejected anarchy in her philosophical writings:

(From "The Nature of Government" in The Virtue of Selfishness. Link.)
You are, of course, free to disagree with Ayn Rand in the field of politics, but you are not free to use her name (in the form of "Objectivism," which means "the philosophy of Ayn Rand") to promote a philosophy with which she explicitly disagreed. You also should not ascribe to her characters motives that they do not display in her novels (because it would be the same as ascribing to her ideas that were not hers). As can be seen in the conclusion of Atlas Shrugged, when Judge Narragansett (I think, it's been a while) adds his own modification to the US Constitution. This action on his part (which is supported by the other strikers) is explicit endorsement of the idea that a government must exist as an objective monopolist on retaliatory force, enforcer of contracts, and arbiter of disagreements.

On the topic of anarchy, I agree completely with Miss Rand (as you can probably tell). Anarchy is the same as rule by mob, because permissible force is not placed under the sole authority of an objective and restricted body but is permitted to any men who may choose to use it. In an anarchy, anyone could use force to enforce any laws they choose, because it is quite simply rule by brute force (You can say that initiation of force would be inadmissible, but without a government, who would prevent it from occurring? Blank-out). It is far more moral and practical to place force under the control of an objective government than to eliminate the concept of laws altogether and leave men with no objective body to protect them from brutes. I would rather live in a society with the modern American mixed system than in a society with no government, because at least some of America's current laws are objective while the concept of objective law would not even exist in a system of anarchy.

Silicon Valley billionaire funding creation of artificial libertarian islands



"There are quite a lot of people who think it's not possible," Thiel said at a Seasteading Institute Conference in 2009, according to Details. (His first donation was in 2008, for $500,000.) "That's a good thing. We don't need to really worry about those people very much, because since they don't think it's possible they won't take us very seriously. And they will not actually try to stop us until it's too late."

“The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it is delaying a major provision in the [ObamaCare] health care overhaul, putting off until 2015 a requirement that many employers offer health insurance”—a date after the 2014 congressional elections—Fox News reports.
This political move illustrates (among other things) that ObamaCare is creating a slow-motion disaster in health care—and that it is run by the capricious rulings of bureaucrats. (The Treasury Department announced the change, according to Fox News.)
The federal government has no legitimate role in forcing employers to provide insurance or in regulating insurance that employers may wish to offer. All such decisions should be left to employers, and potential employees should be free to accept or reject terms that an employer offers.
Rather than delay the employer mandates in question, the federal government should repeal all regulations and tax penalties associated with insurance, whether obtained privately or through an employer.
ObamaCare is unjust and destructive because it violates the rights of individuals to freely negotiate terms of employment and insurance. ObamaCare should not be delayed, it should be ended.
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:
How to Protect Yourself Against ObamaCare Supremes’ ObamaCare Ruling: Altruism In Politics Creative Commons Image: Marc Nozell


Link to Original

One person's failure at explaining how to induce doesn't mean no method exists. Also, how is it true  that the *only* way to induce, or make any kind of generalization, or even abstract information, is by using criticism and existing explanations? To me that indicates a problem with the Popperian method, if all you have is explanation and criticism; where does the explanation and criticism come from? (I'm asking, those questions aren't rhetorical.)
 

Omitting things due to irrelevance *is* measurement omission. Rand didn't necessarily mean measurable as always and only quantifiable, just that there is some type of measurement to consider. "Greater than" would qualify as a kind of measurement, even if not a precise number. Then that measurement (and any number of other measurements) is left out when forming a concept with some uniting measurement(s). I don't think measurement omission is as specific as you think Rand meant. So, in what way do you think that Rand overemphasizes?

In this episode of Reason at Large, Craig Biddle answers a question from Amy: “You’ve said that people should be intolerant of Islam. How do you square this with the right to freedom of religion?” In answering, Biddle discusses the difference between respecting rights and being tolerant, the fallacy of package-dealing, the nature of Islam, and the fundamental reason so few Westerners are able to categorically condemn a religion that calls for their death.

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:
Great Islamic Thinkers Versus Islam Why “Sacrifice” Means Loss, Not Gain

Link to Original

The well-documented abysmal failure of government schools has prompted a homeschooling boom, as many parents have chosen to retain or regain control of their children’s education instead of leaving it in the hands of the state.
One inspiring example comes by way of the Harding family. The parents, Kip and Mona Lisa, have ten children, and they have applied an education program that dramatically accelerates their children’s learning. Education in the Harding household begins with mastery of the “three Rs” (reading, writing, and arithmetic) and then moves on to independent study. And all of it proceeds in the context of a supportive family culture. The results? The six oldest Harding children reached college by age 12, and the four youngest are on track to follow suit.
By the time a Harding child is 4 years old, Kip and Mona Lisa have taught him to identify and trace letters, to sound out English phonemes (distinct units of sound in the language), and to read what they call “easy books.” By age 6, the child has learned to subtract, to multiply, to write simple sentences, and to read more-advanced books.
The Hardings look to the child’s personal interests to provide motivation for studying each subject. For example, if the child loves music, as one of the Harding children does, his parents give him reading materials, writing assignments, and mathematical problems that relate to this interest. Mona Lisa explains, “We find out what [our children’s] passions are, what they really like to study, and we accelerate them gradually.” The goal is to make learning enjoyable and fruitful. Kip explains, “The expectation is that you’re going to have a fun day.”
The Harding children who have graduated from college are enjoying careers as: a Navy doctor, a mechanical engineer, a musician, an architect, and a computer scientist.
Although the Hardings incorporate Christian doctrine in their children’s education (a substantial flaw in their approach), for the most part they aim to help their children achieve mastery of the three Rs and other subjects, and to love learning.
It is debatable whether sending a child to college at age twelve is in his best interest. But the Hardings’ program demonstrates that children have potential to learn much more and much faster than educators typically realize. Other parents and educators would do well to take note.
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:
The New Abolitionism: Why Education Emancipation is the Moral Imperative of our Time Interviews with Innovators in Private Education

Link to Original

Imagine this (fictional) news-story:

Sacramento, May 1st 2035: Governor, Richard Nader, today signed a bill that will make California the first vegetarian state in the nation.

The slaughter of animals has been illegal in California for the last decade, and taxes on meat products have been raised steadily. Per capita beef consumption has dropped from a high of 66 pounds per year at the end of the last century to just under 10 pounds today. Some cities, led by San Francisco, already ban the sale of meat and meat products within their jusrisdictions.

Lawmaker Ron Reagan III, who sponsored the bill, said: "Violent acts toward animals have long been recognized as indicators of a dangerous psychopathy that does not confine itself to animals. Without an all-out ban, people in the less progressive areas of the state were making a mockery of the rule of law. A vast majority of Californians don't support cruelty and killing. It's really simple actually; I think the bible says it well: 'Thou shalt not kill.'"

Think it can't happen? I'd agree. Wait though... why not? What's the reason? Because the constitution does not allow it? Or, because it would not have popular support?

I've discussed the ethics of veal-eating with colleagues. I figure there's a fair number of people who'd sign up to ban veal. A fair number, but nowhere near enough. So, what's a PETA activist to do? The answer: target a smaller constituency. They came up with a very creative target. Any ideas?

Foie gras! Who is going to object to a ban on foie gras? How many people even eat foie gras over their lifetimes? How many even know what it is? How many who eat it will really miss it if it's gone? Foie gras is a target with little democratic (small "d") support.

A veal-eater ought to object to a ban on foie gras; a beef eater should too. Will they? Nah! That would be to defend a principle, rather than to defend something real. Too abstract to worry about. So, Chicago just went ahead and banned it.

Now this promises to be a world-changing development: Google plans to launch blimps and other “high-altitude platforms” above sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia to bring the internet wirelessly to a billion or more additional people, the Wall Street Journal reports.
With what will these people access the internet? Google is also working to make low-cost smartphones available in these markets.
Why would Google pursue these goals? Because of its huge business success and massive wealth creation, the company has the resources to pursue this magnificent project, and in the process to significantly improve life for many of the world’s poorest people. But the core motivation seems to be, appropriately, to turn a profit. The Wall Street Journal reports:


Connecting more people to the Web world-wide creates more potential users of its Web-search engine and other services such as YouTube and its Google Play media and app store. . . . More Internet users, in turn, would drive online advertising on many of Google’s services. The company currently derives 87% of its annual $50 billion in revenue from selling online ads.
Godspeed to Google as it develops these new internet platforms and helps welcome hundreds of millions of people into the networks of global capitalism. And may Google ultimately profit enormously from this ambitious undertaking.
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:
Apple’s App Revolution: Capitalism in Action Is Africa the Next Beneficiary of the Industrial Revolution? Image: Wikimedia Commons


Link to Original

Were it not for the bad punchline, the following, from a blog post by a fan of electric cars, would be quite amusing:



Texas is one of those states where it is actually illegal for an automaker to sell its products directly to its customers. They are forced to go through a dealership network, which is fine for the big, established players, but is a huge barrier to entry for startups like Tesla [an electric car manufacturer --ed]. It's amusing for a moment to see that government interference with the economy has greens (of all people!) in a tizzy. But the above raises a good point, intentionally or not. Texas is, after all, one of the few states in the nation that has seen an increase in the number of available jobs during the economic depression, and has a reputation for being pro-business.

Those last two things do not mean, however, that Texas is a shining example of capitalism. This silly example of the state meddling in commerce is hardly the only one . Worse, while one government hand is in your pocket, religious conservatives there are working around the clock to put the other government hand straight into your pants. Texas does not have a capitalist economy: It is merely among the less-completely government-run ones in the United States.

It is as revealing to see anti-capitalists admit the advantages of free markets (when they imagine that  they have a superior product) as it is to see allegedly pro-growth politicians give us "sales tax holidays" instead of repeals or even so much as floating a propoal for sunsetting them. Either capitalism is good, in which case why aren't they embracing it, or it isn't, in which case why complain about government meddling and theft? In any event, things like this are worth remembering the next time some anti-capitalist (admitted or not) blames "capitalism" (i.e., our mixed economy) for some economic debacle or the failure of some pet cause to set the populace on fire.

We don't have capitalism, and there are some ideas that are so bad that they would fail in any scenario in which individuals have even a modicum of personal freedom. That being the case, it's too bad that Tesla can't sell directly in Texas: We could watch Tesla flounder amid spectacular prosperity.

-- CAV

Link to Original

I think there might be quite a cultural divide here, in my time the most hard headed people I've met have been women.
Wishy washy attitudes have been most intense in the men I've met.
 
But this is coming from a European, and though I'd classify miss Rand as American in every other respect she did come from this continent.

Thanks to its claims that a federal educational database is collecting information about parents' political affiliations, a column by Arnold Ahlert linked at Jewish World Review caught my attention this morning. In attempting to verify this claim, I discovered that there is a great deal of justifiable concern among Tea Partiers regarding such an effort. Here is part of the list of things Ahlert claims the state will be collecting in its attempts to compile data on students:

Political affiliations or beliefs of the student or parent; Mental and psychological problems of the student or the student's family; Sex behavior or attitudes; Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, and demeaning behavior; Critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships; Legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers; Granted, I am rushing, as I usually do, to put something together to post this morning, but here is all I have been able to verify about what is being collected:
An unique identifier for every student that does not permit a student to be individually identified (except as permitted by federal and state law); The school enrollment history, demographic characteristics, and program participation record of every student; Information on when a student enrolls, transfers, drops out, or graduates from a school; Students scores on tests required by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; Information on students who are not tested, by grade and subject; Students scores on tests measuring whether they're ready for college; A way to identify teachers and to match teachers to their students; Information from students' transcripts, specifically courses taken and grades earned; Data on students' success in college, including whether they enrolled in remedial courses; Data on whether K-12 students are prepared to succeed in college; A system of auditing data for quality, validity, and reliability; and The ability to share data from preschool through postsecondary education data systems. This list sounds less disturbing, and it would be under capitalism. A private educational institution would have to tell parents up front what they wanted to do and why. It would be bound by law to honor its word, and parents could always send their children to another school that did not collect such data. But this is a government program that parents who lack alternatives cannot escape. "[D]emographic characteristics", "does not permit a student to be individually identified (except as permitted by federal and state law)", and "ability to share data" are  Orwellian enough in today's context of ever more meddlesome and invasive government. Does it really matter whether I can substantiate Ahlert's specific claims? Yes and no.
I recall from one article I scanned that a parent felt "powerless" in the face of such a proposal. What I do not recall seeing one whiff of was opposition to the whole idea of the government operating schools and excercising so much control over education. Rather, Tea Party opposition seems focused on these particular, easily-dismissed or dicounted allegations. Is this, perhaps, an early warning sign of the "political equivalent of an epileptic seizure" that Tom Bowden of the Ayn Rand Institute predicted a couple of years ago?



Meanwhile, however, the tea party’s “left brain” harbors the same moral impetus that has justified bigger and bigger government since the Progressive Era. The basic idea is that some people’s needs constitute a moral claim on the lives and wealth of others. The list of needs is endless: economic stability, job security, housing, health care, retirement funds. To satisfy those needs, government concocts regulatory and wealth transfer schemes that coercively subject the individual to society. Over the years, each new program – from the Federal Reserve to Social Security, Medicare, and beyond – acquires an aura of moral dignity that renders it politically untouchable by later generations. The needs of others permanently displace the freedom of the individual. Add "education" to Bowden's list of needs. Opposing government education outright would remove from the government any excuse to compile a massive database of the personal information of schoolchildren, because educating them would be recognized, properly, as none of its business. Supporting it in any form opens the door for the government to collect whatever data it claims, as educator, to need.

If Tea Partiers feel "powerless" in the face of such a government scheme, they should insist on ending the scheme, not "reforming" it. The idea that we can have government goodies without strings, or only with the strings we want, is pure fantasy. "Opposing" the strings to a government entitlement program will see the strings moved or replaced further down the road. Opposing the entitlement program is not (like any other effort) guaranteed of victory, but it is much a more promising way of getting untangled and staying that way. 

-- CAV

Link to Original

Dr. Jane Wright, a pioneer of chemotherapy—the medical treatment that uses drugs to destroy cancer cells—has died.
Wright made her key discovery after observing the symptoms of patients, including her father, who were being treated for exposure to mustard gas during World War II. These patients, she noticed, had low white blood cell counts, in contrast to sufferers of leukemia whose white blood cell counts were unusually high. From this she reasoned that some of the chemicals found in mustard gas—a deadly and, ironically, carcinogenic chemical—might be useful in the treatment of leukemia.
This spurred Wright’s interest in chemotherapy, which was then a new and relatively unsophisticated field, and she proceeded to develop the technique of testing potential cancer drugs on cultures of human tissue in a petri dish, a process that made drug testing faster and more reliable. She also pioneered the use of the drug methotrexate in chemotherapy, which is now widely used in the treatment of breast and skin cancers.
Although cancer treatments, including chemotherapy, cannot always cure the disease and can induce terrible side effects, they have cured cancer in many patients and have prolonged the lives of many more.
Here’s to the life, thought, and work of a great scientist, researcher, and hero, Jane Wright, whose life-giving work will live forever.
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:
Herman Boerhaave: The Nearly Forgotten Father of Modern Medicine Robert Edwards, Creator of Life, Has Died Image: Wikimedia Commons


Link to Original

Let me suggest that you actually bother to learn something about Ms. Jolie's motives behind her humanitarian causes before (and instead of) tossing off explicitly ignorant remarks in defense of her. Even a casual peek reveals a revolting stench of altruism.

What is morally outrageous about Apple’s highly publicized tax avoidance is not that Apple (legally) avoided paying taxes—for that, Apple should be praised. Rather, what is outrageous is that the government is harassing Apple for legally avoiding taxes—and that various commentators are smearing Apple for it.
The root injustice is the government’s confiscation of corporations’ hard-earned wealth. As the Wall Street Journal points out, the United States sets the corporate tax rate at 35 percent (although, fortunately, many corporations manage to pay less than that through various tax breaks). In 2012, the federal government confiscated $6 billion of Apple’s earnings and distributed the vast majority of it to illegitimate government programs.
Apple and all producers have a moral right to keep and use the product of their thought and effort as they judge best. As a practical matter, had Apple been able to invest that $6 billion in its business operations, the company could have provided even more and better goods and services to its customers and even more and better jobs to prospective employees.
The government’s harassment of the country’s most productive businesses violates rights, impedes economic recovery, and showcases the immorality of taxation.
Of course no one argues that Apple did anything illegal. The Wall Street Journal summarizes, “Apple used technicalities in Irish and American tax law to pay little or no corporate taxes on at least $74 billion over the past four years,” according to the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Yet the Denver Post (among others) slammed Apple despite the fact that the company complied with the law, complaining that Apple “legally [!] dodged taxes.” Not only is it perfectly moral to legally “dodge” taxes, every corporation does so to whatever extent its accountants and attorneys can manage.
Americans who want to advance a rights-respecting government should praise Apple for attempting to legally minimize the government’s confiscation of the company’s wealth—and they should demand that the government begin reducing its unjust wealth confiscations by radically lowering corporate tax rates across the board.
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:
Apple’s App Revolution: Capitalism in Action Justice Department Unjustly Attacks Apple The Patience of Jobs Image: Wikimedia Commons


Link to Original

No scornful responses is one perk of living in a country where hardly anyone has heard of her. 
Though she does seem to have a boogyman status on humorous websites http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2968#comic .
And if its her position that's attacked its nearly always only the conclusion and never her method.

Dr. Beth Haynes makes a surprising but warranted claim in her recent article for Huffington Post: “Very few Americans have health insurance . . . because what people call health insurance really isn’t insurance at all.”
Real insurance, Haynes explains, covers high-cost, catastrophic events, not routine care. What usually passes for health insurance today is actually “prepayment of medical expenses.” Unfortunately, Haynes notes, ObamaCare makes this problem worse by mandating that “insurance” cover various types of routine care such as “health maintenance checks.” Haynes points out the absurdity of this: “It’s like having a law requiring homeowner’s insurance to pay for lawn care, house painting and water heater replacement.”
The consequence, Haynes notes, is that insurance companies have less money to cover truly catastrophic events; thus, “when we are at our most vulnerable, we are less protected.” Because the federal government requires insurance companies to spend more on routine care, that money is not available for emergencies or catastrophes. The government’s solution to the problem? To heck with the emergencies! Haynes offers the example of the American Academy of Pediatrics, “under pressure” to declare fewer premature infants eligible for treatment and to restrict the amount of care that insurance will cover for them.
Haynes admirably describes some of the key problems with ObamaCare and insurance mandates, and she identifies part of the solution: “We have to allow our health coverage to conform to the requirements of true insurance.” But I would like to emphasize the moral principle that ObamaCare and all such mandates violate: the principle of individual rights.
Insurance providers have a moral right to offer insurance packages they deem best for business, and customers have a moral right to seek the type of insurance that best meets their needs. Because the federal government increasingly violates the rights both of providers and consumers of health insurance to freely negotiate terms according to their own judgment, the government increasingly throttles people’s ability to serve their own interests.
Kudos to Dr. Haynes for pointing out some of the destructive consequences of government interference in health insurance. Let’s demand an end to this rights-violating practice.
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:
Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care” How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability Government-Run Health Care vs. the Hippocratic Oath Image: Wikimedia Commons (Elizabeth Cromwell)


Link to Original