Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Undercurrent

Regulars
  • Posts

    188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Undercurrent

  1. According to Bolivian President Evo Morales' "Law of the Rights of Mother Earth," your right to life should be defended with equal vigor as the squirrel's in your back yard. In fact, according to this newly enacted legislation, which has also been drafted in similar form for the United Nations, the idea of human rights as exclusive to our species is obsolete. Rutgers' The Daily Targum has recently applauded the legislation as not just some "weird, neo-hippie ideal," but as a noble and just cause that should be embraced by all. This law is a declaration of the political equality of all organisms and thus represents a scorn for man's means of survival. Such a monumental claim needs justification, and none has been provided. The law ignores the fact that human beings are unique in the natural world, and that human rights apply only to human beings. Why? By virtue of our means of survival, human beings have risen to shape our environment to fulfill our needs. Our greatest attribute and tool, the power of reason and rationality, has allowed us to scale mountains, conquer the skies and oceans, and even to stand proudly on the surface of the moon, planting the American flag in exaltation of our achievements. Animals do not have the capacity for such achievements. Their survival is of a physical nature, while men have the unique ability to live in a way which is not tied to physical strength or numerical superiority, but to the power of our minds. While a lion hunts its prey on the African savanna, man cultivates the bounty of Earth's resources in a sophisticated system of agriculture. While wolves hunt in packs for physical dominance, man joins with the minds of his brothers in erecting skyscrapers and statues. It is the difference between animals and man which explains the source of human rights. Human beings create societies, which are conducive to our way of life. By living in society, we are able to maximize our potential as individuals through trade, communication, and companionship. These benefits are only possible in the absence of coercion. Edwin Locke, writing for the Ayn Rand Center for Individual rights, explains: Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice. There is only one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life. To live successfully, man must use his rational faculty—which is exercised by choice. The choice to think can be negated only by the use of physical force. To survive and prosper, men must be free from the initiation of force by other men—free to use their own minds to guide their choices and actions. Rights protect men against the use of force by other men. Animals do not survive by rational thought. They survive through inborn reflexes and sensory-perceptual association. They cannot reason. They cannot learn a code of ethics. A lion is not immoral for eating a zebra (or even attacking a man). Predation is their natural and only means of survival; they do not have the capacity to learn any other. Only man has the power to deal with other members of his own species by voluntary means: rational persuasion and a code of morality rather than by physical force. Given that man is unique in the natural world, rights are necessary only for human beings. To extend those rights to all species would result in unresolvable moral conflicts: If all living things have rights, should we human beings stop eating altogether in order to protect those rights? Should we police nature to ensure that no animal ever violates the rights of another? Rights are inapplicable to animals and essential for men. This is why human rights are exclusively human. Creative Commons-licensed picture from Wikimedia Commons Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  2. This week marks the 40th Anniversary of the "War on Drugs," first declared by President Richard Nixon, who subsequently created the Drug Enforcement Agency. A piece on The Atlantic Wire reminds us about the drug war’s track record of failure, and ponders why it continues: Though the size and cost of the DEA is but a fraction of total spending in the War on Drugs, you'd think its utter failure to stop drug use or the global drug trade would've prevented this from happening: Almost every year the DEA budget and staff are expanded, never mind if the organization is succeeding or failing at its mission. This isn't the DEA's fault. The illicit trade in narcotics is a black market that cannot be eliminated in a free society. But why do legislators continue to increase its size? Why do legislators continue to fight the unwinnable drug war, even when it encourages a black market in a product traded between consenting adults and is thereby responsible for out-of-control gang violence from Mexico to Chicago? A government that wants to force us to purchase health insurance "for our own good" has trouble resisting the siren song of the paternalistic argument for drug prohibition. In both cases, the argument is that government needs to protect us from the consequences of our own bad decisions. If we don’t have the right to go without health insurance, we certainly don’t have the right to take cocaine. Writing earlier this year, our own Amber Chambers argued that the only way out of the drug war quagmire is to abandon the devotion to paternalistic government and embrace the value of individual freedom: Once again the solution to the current violence in Mexico and the US is to end drug prohibition and restore Americans’ rights to produce and purchase what products they see fit. The markets, transporters, and buyers of alcohol can seek legal protection when a contract is violated, a product is faulty, or they’re threatened with blackmail. . . . Only by returning the sale of drugs to the province of legal trade, thus upholding individual rights, can we eliminate the crime inherent in unnecessary black markets. Many drugs prohibited by the current enforcement regime are surely destructive of the lives of people who consume them. But it is their right to make this mistake. A country does not respect individual freedom if it only respects the right to make the right decision. Inherent in an individual’s right to liberty is the right to make a bad choice as well—provided that it leaves the rest of us alone. Left to their own (self-destructive) devices, most drug users would leave the rest of us alone. All too often, drug cartels and their gangs, empowered by black market profits, do not. And neither does a paternalistic government. Creative Commons-licensed picture from Wikimedia Commons Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  3. The Atlantic Wire carries a story about a recent poll by the National Journal showing that Obama's popularity ratings have returned to 2008 levels (likely because of the assassination of Osama bin Laden) but that his numbers have actually declined among young people (ages 18 to 29), by nearly ten percentage points (from 66% to 56%). The Wire notes a New York Times story which attempts to explain the curious decline via anecdotes from Oberlin College: Four undergrad editors at The Oberlin Review signed an essay lamenting that most students had opted out of agitating, unlike alums who protested slavery and the Vietnam war. A symposium last month called "Oberlin-based Perspectives on the Obama Presidency" noted that students don't think Obama's cool anymore—all his cute little quirks have become grating, a polisci professor explained, and the real Obama can't live up to their idea of him. Students aren't even impressed that Osama bin Laden was killed, protesting that the world's most wanted terrorist was unarmed when he was shot. Vinocur writes that although disaffection at Oberlin is "a speck of confetti in a storm of pre-2012 election indicators in America... it's also a fact that Mr. Obama's most diligent canvassers in 2008 often came from the country's campuses." Brownstein, too, notes that the lack of youth enthusiasm is "worrisome" and could be related to young people's higher unemployment rates. Obama's diminished popularity among the young could be caused by any number of factors, such as the high unemployment rate. And surely there are some on campuses like Oberlin who have decided that Obama is simply not left-wing enough. But is the fading youth commitment to Obama just because of Obama, or because of broader cultural trends? In an article this past spring in The Undercurrent, we offered an additional explanation for the general decline in idealism on the left: Perhaps Democrats were so easily demoralized because their commitment to the Presidentís ideals was never very serious to begin with... Many Americans, then, are jaded about the very idea of political ideology. They view ideology as 'toxic' or, if they're like Stewart or Colbert, downright laughable. They regard it as toxic because they believe it encourages dogmatism, 'inflexibility', and 'divisiveness'... To live life seriously, we need ideas, and to understand our ideas we need ideology. Ideology integrates our ideas in a way that helps us see what it means to take them seriously—the essence of idealism. As Americans lament ideology, they undermine their capacity for idealism and allow a discouraged cynicism to take its place. For more on how the decline in college idealism reflects today's wider cultural cynicism, read the rest of my piece. Creative Commons-licensed picture from Flickr user jonathan mcintosh Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  4. In an aptly-titled piece in the University of Florida’s Alligator (“As orchestra plays, U.S. economy sinks”), Chris Ceresa reminds college students about the continuing economic stagnation they’ll face once they graduate. (The recent report of an anemic May job market creates even greater cause for concern.) But Ceresa has no illusions about the current administration’s strategy for reviving economic growth: Part of the problem is the prevailing economic philosophy. The people in power subscribe to the Keynesian school of thought, the idea that when demand is low, the government should spend money to create artificial demand thus preventing a slowdown of the economy. The problem is that Keynesianism is ultimately unsustainable. Constant spending to bandage the limping economy leads to deficits and debt. Capitalism is natural selection in the economy, and government interference is its antithesis. We are also part of the problem. The average voter has consistently opposed tax increases, yet yearned for more social services. We hold dear to programs that are now unsustainable, such as Social Security. We must stop vacillating and choose between more government or less government. Judging from the excesses of Washington, I'd prefer less government. Economics is complicated, and it is hard to blame specific downturns on specific policies. But it is not as hard to see when specific policies—like the administration’s stimulus package of February 2009—have failed to achieve their stated goals. By this time according to Obama’s 2009 projection, the unemployment rate should have declined to under 7%. Instead it is now lodged at just over 9%, with little hope on the horizon for renewed job growth. Of course even the best economists regularly fail to predict the future. But there are underlying economic and even philosophical reasons for which we should have expected the stimulus package to fail to kick start economic growth. Back in 2008, Yaron Brook explained why reducing the size of government (as Ceresa suggests) is needed to help bring the return of economic growth: [T]he key economic activity that causes growth is not consumer spending but production. Economic growth means an increase in the amount of wealth that exists in a country--and all wealth must be produced. Houses, health care, air-conditioning and transportation do not come ready-made from nature. We have them only to the extent that individuals and businesses bring them into existence. The focus of today's stimulus packages on consumer spending is therefore completely backward. Consumption is a consequence of production. This fact is ignored by the Bush plan, which attempts to achieve prosperity through $100 billion in deficit-spending. Though this might bring the appearance of prosperity, in the same way that an unemployed man appears prosperous if he goes on a shopping spree with his credit cards, the reality will be the opposite. The fact is that consumer spending is slowing because production is slowing. . . . Production does not need stimulation from the government; it needs liberation from the government. What a productive, dynamic economy requires of a government is that it restrict itself to protecting property rights from force and fraud, and refrain from interfering in free production and trade. Brook’s words apply to Obama’s policies just as much as they did to Bush’s. Read the whole article to see how we could have reasonably predicted back in 2008 much of what we are experiencing today. And if you’re a student, remember this the next time you’re considering voting for a politician—Democrat or Republican—who promises to create jobs by force of law. Creative Commons-licensed picture from Wikimedia Commons Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  5. Minnesota is currently in the thick of an ongoing debate surrounding embryonic stem cell research and its legislature is now considering a bill that would classify such research as a criminal offense rather than as a scientific achievement. In an article in The Minnesota Daily, Julian Switala dives right into the middle of this controversy: Arguing that life begins at conception is misleading, not only because prior to conception both the sperm and egg cells were alive; they carry out the processes of living organisms. If the human cells capable of creating human life are infinitely sacred, then the use of birth control, wet dreams and masturbation should be felonies. With this rather amusing example, Switala shows the irrationality behind legally protecting a cell that has merely the capacity for human life. It’s clear that the real debate surrounding this research depends entirely on determining when human life begins. Opponents of stem cell research argue that human life begins at conception and believe that once the sperm enters the egg, that cell automatically obtains personhood and is therefore subject to governmental protection. The error in this view is treating a potential being (an embryo) as equivalent to an actual individual with legal rights. But a potentiality is not the same as an actuality so an embryo is nothing more than a group of cells. Kira Peikoff, author of a new novel about stem cell research, explains further: [but] I can hear some of you protest, life begins at conception. So shouldn’t embryos be protected from destruction? No. First, let’s get out of the way the notion that humans sprout magical souls at conception that automatically grant them personhood. Scientifically, we’re talking about cells only visible under a microscope. The question to ask then is not, “When does life begin?” but rather, “When does a potential become an actual?” In other words, when does a clump of pre-human cells become an actual human being who acquires individual rights and protection under the law? When it’s a biologically independent being, no longer requiring its mother’s body for survival. Only then can this life rightly be called human. Until that point, the cells are part of the mother’s body. No one else is morally entitled to determine what happens to them. It’s important to understand that opposition to stem cell research is fundamentally rooted in religion: opponents have faith that there is a tiny soul within those microscopic cells when there is no evidence that one actually exists. For that reason, any ban on embryonic stem cell research is a mixture of church and state and the imposition of a religious bias on our scientific freedoms. They may not be forthright about their motives, however, as Representative Bob Dettmer told Minnesota Public Radio "we just feel [stem cell research is] not for Minnesota." The question to demand an answer to is: exactly why not? What one finds is that there is no rational defense to the question, no value in preserving clumps of tissue at the expense of progress, and no justification for preventing a blind man’s opportunity to get his eyesight back. Creative Commons-licensed picture from Wikimedia Commons Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  6. In the wake of the release of the Atlas Shrugged movie, Ayn Rand's prominence in the culture has increased, and people who had previously not been aware of her are taking notice. Notably, Christian groups are now starting to point out the hypocrisy of Republicans who praise both Ayn Rand and Jesus. As Eric Sapp of the American Values Network puts it, "[The] GOP must choose: Ayn Rand or Jesus". [Rand] said religion was "evil," called the message of John 3:16 "monstrous," argued that the weak are beyond love and undeserving of it, that loving your neighbor was immoral and impossible and that she was out to undermine the idea that charity was a moral duty and virtue. An ad developed by the American Values Network on the topic of Ayn Rand vs. Christianity We wholeheartedly agree, and have long been arguing so. Though Rand herself was what she called an intransigent atheist—she was more for reason than against religion. The morality of Christ and the morality of rational selfishness are opposites. As we stated in 2009: There is no way to reconcile an individualistic, self-interested morality and an altruistic morality of religious duties. Politically, this means there is no way to support both capitalist and religious policies. "The party of principle," as the GOP often calls itself, is currently governed by two sets of principles that fundamentally contradict one another. We hope there is more attention brought to this issue. Clarifying what Ayn Rand actually stood for, and how it is contrary to the prevailing philosophies of both the left and the right, can only be beneficial. For more on this topic, read our 2009 article, “The Republican Party's Identity Crisis”. Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  7. The dangerous moral premise underlying the call for national service The recent debate on government budget cuts has resurfaced discussion on an enduring subject: national service. In a prominent example in Newsweek magazine, General Stanley McChrystal presents his vision of the role national service should take in American culture. He writes: We have let the concept of service become dangerously narrow, often associated only with the military. This allows most Americans to avoid the sense of responsibility essential for us to care for our nation–and for each other. We expect and demand less of ourselves than we should. The solution, we are told, is to work towards a culture in which selfless sacrifice for the nation is expected. On this view, the pursuit of our personal interests, like starting a business, building a dream house, or simply pursuing a successful career, takes a backseat to “America’s need.” In essence, this is a philosophy of “country before self.” This idea raises important questions. Why are our individual concerns subordinate to those of the nation? What does it mean for “the nation” to have needs? What is it about a nation that holds a claim on our time and effort? One argument is that the privilege of living in America should require something in return, that with individual rights come collective duties. As McChrystal puts it: As important as those inalienable rights are, there are also inalienable responsibilities that we must accept and fulfill. Those responsibilities are wider than are often perceived or accepted. Just as we have allowed the term “service member” to apply solely to the military, we have allowed the obligations of citizenship to narrow. The idea that citizenship involves duties to one’s country has long been considered. In 1967 philosopher Ayn Rand addressed the notion that “rights impose obligations.” She asks: Obligations, to whom? –and imposed, by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse than the evil it attempts to justify: it implies that rights are a gift from the state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something (his life) in return. Logically, that notion is a contradiction: since the only proper function of a government is to protect man’s rights, it cannot claim title to his life in exchange for that protection. In order to establish the first nation in history founded on rights, the American revolutionaries wanted to establish a society without unchosen obligations, which had always been foisted upon them in the name of duty to the nation. They recognized that rights exist to protect life, not to extort it, and that we properly enter into obligations by choice, not by birth. The idea of “country before self” stands on a contradiction because rights exist to free us from the burden of unchosen obligations, not to impose them. Besides, sacrificial obligations are counter to a healthy, wealthy society. Acting on self-interested motives, most Americans are brimming with worthwhile endeavors and value—values borne not out of duty or arbitrary responsibility, but from their importance to the people who pursue them. Going to college, building a career, saving up for a new car, or even watching a movie are rightfully done because they fulfill our individual goals and desires. And yet, these personal endeavors very often have a positive and wider impact. In other words, we need not justify pursuing our values by the benefit they confer to others, and yet these actions frequently do benefit others. Many believe that a culture of people seeking their own interests is characterized by neglect and deterioration. But this ignores the enormous and amazing things Americans have achieved precisely by being the most self-interested people in the history of the world. Consider the phenomenal success of Apple and the contribution it has brought to the lives of so many Americans. Steve Jobs was not motivated to serve his country and community as his primary concern when transforming Apple into a multi-billion dollar company. Rather, Jobs was interested in creating innovative and life-enhancing technology-and earning a massive paycheck to boot. And yet, his efforts have introduced billions of dollars into the American economy as well as an iPod or iPhone into the hands of millions of his fellow Americans. Had Jobs sacrificed his vision, instead enlisting in AmeriCorps, much of the technology we enjoy today would have remained a fantasy of science-fiction. Steve Jobs accomplished something on a tremendous scale, but something we are all capable of. One does not need to be a billionaire to pursue one’s happiness and provide value to others in the process. Every day, electricians, soldiers, musicians, and countless others make possible our modern economy and all the relative luxuries it affords. And yet, the most successful among their ranks pursue their careers from personal, self-interested motives—not because they’re willing to toil for decades out of a duty to their nation. Had those millions of passionate individuals renounced their self-interested goals in order to put country first, we’d be missing out on the countless values created through their passion. Those who selfishly pursue their chosen endeavors, not those dedicating themselves to a vague “national service,” are truly responsible for shaping the world into a better place. Country does not come before self. Our pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right and requires no sacrifice in return—indeed, it’s a contradiction to say that we should sacrifice our happiness to earn our right to pursue it. America thrives as a society of self-interest, not sacrifice. In the end, the greatest service we can do for our nation is the service we do for ourselves. Jonathan Akin is an undergraduate studying philosophy and the history of math and science at St. John's College. He lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  8. After the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, some left-leaning commentators were quick to suggest that the shooter must have been a right-wing Tea Partier. When this proved to be baseless, they retreated to the allegation that a vague “climate of hate” generated by right-wing political discourse had somehow created conditions encouraging violence. The charge has echoed through the campus media. A variety of columns in recent weeks have condemned the “polarization” of political rhetoric. Some dwelled on the use of militaristic metaphors by Sarah Palin (such as her now-infamous map of congressional districts with Giffords’ district behind crosshairs), which could arguably be regarded as insensitive if the metaphors involved were not so widespread and cliché. But the examples that others cite, of right-wing positions on policy, reveal not a concern for sensitivity but a desire to silence legitimate political discourse. Writing in Vanderbilt’s Inside Vandy, for instance, Matt Scarano cites as examples of political “radicalization” the following: Republicans just took over the Senate on the platform that they will not compromise with Democrats. On the other side of the aisle, President Obama passed a healthcare initiative through regulation that was previously struck down in Congress. Likewise, Chad Mohammed of the University of Florida’s Alligator listed as sources of this polarization most of the political issues dividing left from right: Over the past couple of years, hot button issues such as immigration and health care reform coupled with a harsh economic climate led to a caustic political environment unseen since the Vietnam War. . . [T]he lion’s share of [the Republican party] is not inclined to calming the language and refraining from using pejoratives such as “Obamacare”, “anchor baby” and “death panels” in order to rouse their base into a frenzy. But if this “caustic political environment” results from disagreement about the very issues that lead to the existence of distinct political parties in the first place, what do these critics want? A country in which nobody disagrees about anything? Writing in 1971, philosopher Ayn Rand observed that when political disagreement is characterized as “polarizing,” those who make this charge might not want to silence all disagreement, but they do want to silence important disagreement. “It is principles,” she wrote, “fundamental principles—that they are struggling to eliminate from public discussion.” It is one thing to bicker about the particulars of health care legislation, these critics might claim. But, they say, it is polarizing to oppose health care regulation altogether (on principle), on the grounds that it represents government abridgment of individual freedom. Contrary to conventional wisdom, disagreement about fundamental principles is precisely what we need to encourage “civil discourse,” the absence of which so many critics of today’s political climate lament. Rand’s case for “intellectual polarization” is compelling: If clear-cut principles, unequivocal definitions and inflexible goals are barred from public discussion, then a speaker or writer has to struggle to hide his meaning (if any) under coils of meaningless generalities and safely popular bromides. . . . He must strive to be misunderstood in the greatest number of ways by the greatest number of people: this is the only way to keep up the pretense of unity. … In its present state, what this country needs above all is the clarifying, reassuring, confidence-and-credibility-inspiring guidance of fundamental principles—i.e., in modern parlance, intellectual polarization. This would bring to our cultural atmosphere an all-but-forgotten quality: honesty, with its corollary, clarity. It would establish the minimum requirement of civilized discourse: that the proponents of ideas strive to make themselves understood and lay all their cards on the table... If today’s political climate is distasteful, it is not because of too much “polarization,” but because of too little of the right kind. What passes for political debate today is usually nothing better than a series of personality attacks, charges and countercharges of hypocrisy, and endless appeals to emotion. What more can we expect when today’s politicians scrupulously avoid naming their position on the fundamental question of politics: whether government exists to protect the rights of the individual or to promote the alleged interests of “society.” Instead of debating which if any political party a deranged shooter might have been inspired by, we should be debating which if any political party is right, and more importantly, what is the correct answer to that fundamental question? To demonstrate why persuasion and not violence is the proper way to transform society, we must rededicate ourselves to exemplifying political persuasion in its purest and most fundamental form: philosophical argumentation. Valery Publius is a teacher living in the American South Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  9. Every year, there’s a Tax Day Tea Party held in downtown Raleigh dedicated to promoting limited government and free markets. On April 15th, I handed out hundreds of copies of The Undercurrent and talked to people in the crowd about Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. Many of the attendees were polite, receptive to new ideas, and were interested in learning more about Objectivism. Distributing copies of The Undercurrent and other literature. Send us a picture of your distribution efforts! It was quick and easy to sign up for a table online and print a few copies of some tea party fliers before heading to the event. I noticed a few individuals reading The Undercurrent in the crowd after picking up a copy, then they came back to my table and signed up to receive more information about us! When the event was over, I stood at one of the exits and handed out the paper as the crowd walked by. A few people asked more questions about the paper, but many of them happily took a copy. Tell us your story about distributing The Undercurrent for the chance to win a $75 Amazon.com gift card! See our Spring 2011 Distribution Contest Story page for more details about this opportunity. Submit your entry by June 4th, 2011 for a chance to win! You can enter using our convenient entry form or e-mail your entry to [email protected]. Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  10. From being asked to spare some change, to major disasters like the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, we often face the question: should we give to charity? If so, to whom and how much? For many, the answer to the first is treated as self-evident: of course we should give. As to whom we should give, many claim that we are obligated to lend our money, time and effort in whatever way we can to whomever needs it most. For example, responding to the outpouring of aid that has gone to help Japan recover, many call for us not to “lose sight of Haiti.” After being hit by an earthquake more than a year ago, Haiti is still in shambles. Some claim that we are even more obligated to help Haiti than Japan because Haiti is much poorer and less able to recover on its own. A similar argument is frequently made in more familiar contexts. By the same standard, it is better to give our money to the homeless than to lend a friend money to buy a suit for his new job; or better to help in a soup kitchen than to help a friend build his backyard deck. And we have all heard that it is immoral to supplement our wardrobe with the latest designer clothes while “people are starving in Africa.” Of course, whatever help we choose to give comes at a price: our limited time and resources. What would it mean to give aid based solely on need? Giving to Haiti because they are poor means that time and money will not go to aid Japan. Every dollar given to charity is one less dollar for you to spend, and every minute served in a soup kitchen is one minute that you can’t spend with your friends or pursuing your career. Notice that a morality in which need is the standard gives short shrift to one’s own values and desires. In other words, it declares that one must sacrifice, to give up something important and gain little or nothing in return. This idea that needs impose obligations ends up pitting oneself against the need of one’s beneficiaries. Philosopher Ayn Rand illustrates the conflict this creates: The first thing he learns is that morality is his enemy: he has nothing to gain from it, he can only lose; self-inflicted loss, self-inflicted pain and the gray, debilitating pall of an incomprehensible duty is all that he can expect. He may hope that others might occasionally sacrifice themselves for his benefit, as he grudgingly sacrifices himself for theirs, but he knows that the relationship will bring mutual resentment, not pleasure-and that, morally, their pursuit of values will be like an exchange of unwanted, unchosen Christmas presents, which neither is morally permitted to buy for himself. But there is an alternative to sacrifice, an approach that questions the supposedly “self-evident” obligation to give. Instead of disregarding our own goals and needs and considering the needs of others, any giving we do ought to be determined on the basis of our values, i.e. the things personally important to us. Consider this in everyday practice. We might give money to a newly-married friend as a wedding present, or patronize a struggling restaurant that has excellent service. We may volunteer our time to help a friend build his backyard deck and strengthen our friendship in the process. We might even give an enormous sum to a young inventor we don’t personally know on the premise that his success will improve our lives with innovative products. And consider the case of Japan again. The Japanese people are of enormous value to many Americans. Just a few examples include the incredible innovations produced by the Japanese in engineering, computer programing, finance and other industries. Thus, Americans’ livelihood and success depends in many ways upon the relationships we share with Japan. And while Japan was a wealthy and productive country before its catastrophe and will continue to be as they recover, many of us have a crucial interest in their expedited recovery. In such cases, we are serving our interests in helping those whom we value. By contrast, we can only begrudge those who stake a claim on our lives and yet are nothing but strangers to us. Only in self-interested, not self-sacrificial giving can we maintain genuine good will towards our fellow men. Haiti was barely productive before their earthquake, and has little to no impact to most of our lives. There is nothing inherently wrong with giving to Haitians—there may be ways in which Haiti is valuable to certain Americans. But charity is not morally obligatory. Sacrificing our time and money to non-values would mean neglecting the values we do have. This is what sacrifice really demands of us. When our values are at stake we ought to give and give generously to safeguard them. But we need to think hard about whether we face one of those situations before giving. Our values and those of our closest friends hang in the balance. Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  11. With the House of Representatives voting to repeal the FCC’s net neutrality controls along with the recently announced merger of AT&T with T-Mobile, the debate over the legal and moral status of the internet continues. There is no doubt that the internet is of enormous value to us all. The internet brings movies before our eyes in a matter of seconds, answers any trivia question we can think of, and enables us to buy whatever we want without leaving home. Yet, this marks the extent of an average American’s knowledge of the internet. Without a clear understanding of the various technological, material, and business components that make up the internet, many become outraged upon learning that some internet service providers intend to charge their customers different prices for using different bandwidths or even which web sites are accessed. Responding to the various ideas and business practices of internet service providers, some propose “net neutrality”: a series of government policies masquerading as a kind of safeguard for the internet. Writing for The Minnesota Daily, Lolla Mohammed Nur offers the typical definition of net neutrality put forth by its proponents: Put simply, net neutrality is a principle that says the Internet should remain free, open, and unregulated. Regardless of who is using a website—a corporation, a blogger, a college student—net neutrality says that everyone should have equal access to online services and websites, and every website should be given non-discriminatory treatment from Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Nur goes on to write: The problem with allowing major broadband corporations the power to choose what we see is that there would be no guarantee of nondiscrimination against certain websites. Our ISPs would be playing the role of gatekeeper over a medium that, since its inception, has been the hallmark of open and free speech. To think of the issue in terms of allowing the broadband corporations to sell a service presupposes that the internet is a kind of public property. If we have a “right” to internet access or if it counts as a form of “public property,” ISPs can only do business with our permission. If this is the case, shouldn't ISPs give internet access to every businessman, politician, bus driver, and bum with a heartbeat, free of charge? How can somebody advocate net neutrality while not being outraged when they get their Comcast bill at the end of the month? Part of the answer has to do with fact that many proponents of net neutrality know—but dare not admit—the fact that the internet is private property. In an excellent article written for The Objective Standard, Ray Niles addresses this issue. He writes: To hold that the Internet is a “commons” or “public property” is to evade its actual nature; the Internet is a network of privately owned personal computers, servers, and cable. Ignoring this fact and pretending to themselves that the Internet is “public property,” proponents of net neutrality seek government control over private property—specifically that of Internet service providers. There is no getting around the fact that property is not something kept by permission. The internet is a service that is owned, produced and provided by businesses; a service that must be paid for like any other purchased product. For example, Mr. Niles compares the internet to books: The fact that Internet access is a profound value does not justify government force against the ISPs that make it possible, any more than the fact that books are a profound value justifies government involvement in Barnes and Noble’s pricing, displaying, and stocking of books. The property of Internet service providers is theirs; as such, they have the moral right to use and dispose of it as they please, regardless of what their customers, FCC bureaucrats, and net neutrality advocates have to say about it. For the same reason that it would be absurd to demand that Barnes and Noble charge the same price for a 100 page book as for a 1,000 page book, or shelve their bestsellers next to their flops, it is absurd to arbitrate by force which prices and packages an ISP is and is not “allowed” to offer. The reason is that a business must be (and has the right to be) the sole judge of the nature of their products. In determining the price of its products, for example, a business must account for the materials, labor, shipping costs, insurance, employee wages, customer affordability, and its own stake in the transaction, i.e., its own profit. These are just a few of the factors a business must take into account when determining which of their products to feature most prominently—ISPs included. Those on both sides of the net neutrality debate should read the rest of Niles’ article. Until then, they should reconsider the principle of net neutrality. Its proponents would have you believe that it will keep the internet free, open, and unregulated. But taking this position on its own terms and to its fullest implications, net neutrality means: the Internet should be kept “free” by overlooking the rights of internet companies, “open” by removing choice over their products, and “unregulated” by regulating its producers. Net neutrality is the opposite of leaving the net alone, and if it is enforced, we’ll all pay the price. Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  12. We now have a PDF preview of the April 2011 Edition available online! If you'd like to distribute and help spread rational ideas in your community, you can still order copies of this edition here! Don't delay, the deadline to order copies is April 13th. As always, we welcome and kindly appreciate feedback. Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  13. The Fukushima Daiichi incident demonstrates the power of the human mind After the destruction caused by the Japanese earthquake, the world continues to watch the story of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. While the immediate worries have been about the extent of the meltdown and leakage of radioactive material, those looking at the bigger picture have wondered what the accident means for the future of nuclear power. Since the advent of industrial-scale nuclear energy, this technology has often been portrayed as an example of the double-edged sword of human ingenuity. On one hand, a single nuclear power plant is capable of providing large amounts of energy using a small quantity of fuel: typical reactors can generate 10 TWh using about 25 tons of fuel in a single year, compared to several thousand tons of coal required to generate a comparable amount of energy. On the other hand, incidents like the Chernobyl disaster, the far less damaging accident at Three Mile Island, and now Fukushima Daiichi are cited the show the dangers of wielding so powerful a technology. The fundamental issue in the debate over nuclear energy comes down to whether or not human beings are capable of using such power effectively and responsibly. Opponents of nuclear energy tend to seize on nuclear accidents as evidence that we are fundamentally incapable of controlling nuclear technology. In the wake the Fukushima Daiichi incident, critics claim a variety of factors as reasons to limit the spread of the technology, ranging from the dangers of aging facilities and the disposal of spent fuel, to the vulnerability to unanticipated natural disasters and terrorism. The common thread in these objections is that nuclear energy presents problems that man is not and never will be capable of solving. But the critics of nuclear energy fail to mention that examples of actual nuclear disasters are difficult to find. Mathew James of the Emory Wheel rightly points out the vanishingly small number of meltdowns and subsequent breaches of containment associated with nuclear energy: The only full nuclear meltdown to ever occur at a civilian power plant occurred at Chernobyl. . . . Reactors in the U.S. are designed so that it’s physically impossible for what happened at Chernobyl to occur. Three Mile Island demonstrates these features perfectly. When the reactor started to melt down [ sic], containment vessels collapsed and prevented a large-scale explosion and radiation leak from happening. An article in The Wall Street Journal further explains how flaws in the design and operation of the Chernobyl reactor caused the graphite used to absorb high energy neutrons to catch fire, a physical impossibility in today's nuclear reactors. It could be argued that the Chernobyl disaster owes more to Soviet ineptitude than inherent dangers of nuclear energy. Nuclear fission provides a significant fraction of electrical energy generated by the industrialized nations of the West, where there has never been a meltdown and loss of containment. Nuclear plants are constructed so that in the event of external damage or operator error, control rods fall into place halting the nuclear reaction. Newer designs even employ a “passive cooling system” that requires no external electricity to cool the nuclear fuel in the event of power loss. Even the technical problems of waste disposal have been addressed with the construction and operation of facilities like Yucca Mountain (which has been derailed by political opposition). The industrialized world has clearly demonstrated efficacy in understanding and managing the problems that come with nuclear energy. Consider the sequence of events that precipitated the nuclear scare in Japan. The recent natural disaster is nearly unprecedented in its magnitude. The Earthquake and tsunami combination is among the most fearsome natural onslaughts a civilization can face. This magnitude 9 quake was one of the most powerful ever to hit Japan, while the resulting tsunami was over thirty feet in height and barely slowed by Japan’s sea walls. In the middle of this disaster was a forty year old nuclear power plant operating at nearly full capacity. Through it all, the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi have not breached containment. The safety protocols to shut down the nuclear reaction worked correctly, and even though the emergency generators designed to cool the reaction were knocked out, resulting in a partial meltdown (something passive cooling designs would avoid), the containment features of the reactors have given crews time to work on a solution and have successfully kept any significant amount of radioactive material from escaping. There has been some leakage into the surrounding areas, but not enough to seriously endanger the public. Contrast this with the tens of thousands who lost their lives due to the natural disaster itself and it becomes clear that the harm caused by damage to the manmade nuclear reactors pales in comparison to that caused by nature. The fact that this nuclear plant was able to withstand this kind of blow and effectively keep the situation from turning into another nuclear disaster should be a ringing endorsement of the efficacy and safety of nuclear power, not a reason to abandon this technology that has so much value to offer us. The Fukushima Daiichi incident does not reveal humanity’s helplessness in the face of natural disaster, but our ability to cope with and make ourselves safe from such disasters through the use of our reasoning minds. Whatever problems may arise through the use of nuclear energy in the future, the incident at Fukushima Daiichi should give us confidence in our ability to solve those problems. Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  14. File sharing remains a confusing and controversial issue on college campuses. As the practice becomes increasingly common, many college students and administrators are seeking clarification on the legal and ethical status of sharing copyrighted material. A student may be well aware that selling copied music to his friends is illegal, yet he is often asked to download portions of textbooks for his classes. In fact, sharing educational materials by college faculty is quite common, and creates an intellectually stimulating environment for college campuses. So, many are wondering if there should be a compromise between a “free flow of information and ideas” and upholding intellectual property rights. This includes the editors at Duke University’s The Chronicle, who argue: “In the end, colleges must seek a middle ground, balancing the necessity for intellectual property protections with the contingencies of societal expectations in an increasingly connected, digitized world.” It’s not clear what exactly the authors mean by “societal expectations,” but their vagueness is dangerous. If what they mean is a university's usage of fair use provisions and other licensing agreements, fine. But if it means that people expect to be able to obtain whatever intellectual property they want—music, movies, books, lectures—without paying, then such an expectation is more than unwarranted—it’s wrong. And to call for a “middle ground” on these terms would mean “balancing” the rights of content producers against the baseless expectation of consumers to be handed a product without payment. Writing in another piece for The Undercurrent, Rituparna Basu explains: The student who file shares, whether he realizes it or not, is engaged in an injustice comparable to the injustice he would commit if he stole candy from a store owner. The recording company saw the value in the artist’s talent, gave the artist the means to create his music, and then compiled this music for our enjoyment (on specific terms). Denying producers, artists, and distributors the value they seek, whether this is money, publicity, or recognition, in return for enjoying their products denies them the ability to enjoy the well-earned fruits of their labor. One of these fruits includes being able to produce more of the music that we love. There are certainly many legitimate, legal ways to share and distribute content. For example, some musicians and writers release their content for free in hopes of making their living in other ways through income from their audience. These kinds of distribution reflect a producer’s and a distributor’s right to determine the price and terms of sale (in some cases, free). But many try to lump these kinds of legitimate sharing with illicit sharing that doesn’t respect the rights of content producers or distributors. In the latter case, to call for a middle ground in the debate on file sharing is to call, in effect, for a compromise between intellectual property rights and theft, as if there is a legitimate amount of each in a proper mixture. In other words, compromise would mean that stealing is acceptable when we want it to be or can get away with it. But creators of intellectual material have nothing to gain from such a compromise, and ultimately neither do we as consumers—if we want to encourage the continued and expanding availability of the content we seek. In an environment where theft can be justified for any reason, only the thief can benefit. As philosopher Ayn Rand put it: There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one’s silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one’s property. Instead, we should uphold a firmly uncompromising stance on intellectual property rights. To seek a middle ground undermines the foundation of a marketplace for content and threatens the free flow of information and ideas, fostering an environment where producers of intellectual material are stifled, as are their consumers. Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  15. The newest issue of The Undercurrent (TU) is now available to order! The April 2011 Edition features articles on rethinking college education, the legitimacy of public service, the free market in education, and green energy. Place your order at http://the-undercurrent.com/order today, or e-mail your name, address, and the number of copies you would like to [email protected]. The final day to order copies is April 11th, so get yours today! The Undercurrent is sold at or below our cost to print and ship the papers. Here are the prices for the April 2011 issue (including shipping and handling): 250 copies: $30.00 500 copies: $60.00 750 copies: $85.00 1000 copies: $115.00 1250 copies: $140.00 1500 copies: $165.00 If you would like to hand out copies but cannot afford to do so, please let us know. Send us an e-mail at [email protected] and we may be able to find a donor to sponsor your distribution efforts. On the other hand, if you have no time to distribute, we would greatly appreciate a donation. We’ll use your donations to fund student distributors in your local community or region of the country, or to support deserving distributors in other locations. For more information about donating to The Undercurrent, please visit http://the-undercurrent.com/donate or e-mail us at [email protected]. Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  16. You can win an Amazon.com gift card by sharing your distribution stories with us! Any story we choose to use in promotional materials will receive 100 free copies of TU, while the best story will be rewarded with a $75 Amazon.com gift card! First prize: $75 Amazon.com gift card. Second prize: $50 Amazon.com gift card. Third prize: $25 Amazon.com gift card. Entry deadline: June 4th, 2011. Krista shows off copies of TU ready to be distributed. Send us a picture of your distribution efforts! To enter your distribution story, simply fill out the form below or e-mail us at [email protected]. If you decide to send your story via e-mail, please include your name, address, and the location of your distribution efforts. We encourage you to send in pictures or videos that go along with your story about handing out copies of The Undercurrent! The video in this blog post is a great example of a good entry. You can also view the winners from last years distribution contest to get some inspiration! We’re more likely to utilize a story on our website if it is highly detailed as well as enthusiastic. When you handed out your copies, did you go to a high-traffic area of campus or to a Tea Party? Was the crowd receptive to your presence? Did you hear any interesting comments from first time readers of the paper? Did you discover any great distribution strategies while handing out TU? How many copies of the paper did you give away? Alternatively, if you don’t have any distribution stories from handing out previous editions of The Undercurrent, you can share the plans you have for distributing TU in 2011 with us. Tell us if you’ll hand out TU at a special event or leave them on a newspaper stand. Include relevant details like whether you’ll stamp your club contact information on your copies or discuss article content at a club meeting. The more details you include, the better! Submit your entry here. If you have any questions about the contest, e-mail us at [email protected]. Thank you, and good luck! Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  17. In another hard-hitting piece in MIT’s The Tech, Keith Yost responds to the charge, much discussed of late in connection with the Wisconsin union protests, that our society faces a crisis of “inequality”: Let’s begin with the obvious: the inequality of well-being has drastically fallen since 1967. Bill Gates may have a million times the income of the average man, but he cannot eat a million meals. Despite the enlarged access to medical care that his income enables, his life expectancy is not much higher than his fellow American. . . . Technology and economic growth have brought most significant technologies within buying reach of the masses; the real mean income of the bottom quintile may have only increased by 28.6 percent to the top quintile’s 70.7 over the past 42 years, but the utility that the bottom quintile got from each marginal dollar was much higher. . . . Between Wal-Mart and globalization of production, low-end consumer goods have become cheaper at a much faster rate than high-end consumer goods. Adjusted for purchasing power, the growth disparity in consumption between the classes becomes miniscule. This is all true, but Yost makes his argument by way of apologizing for economic inequality when he should be celebrating it. He emphasizes that Gates cannot actually consume much of what he earns. What he neglects to mention is that Gates earns so much more than the rest of us because he has produced so much more, by fostering innovation in technology and in business. We can only benefit from such surplus production. Consider a separate point made by Yost, that the increasing degree of economic inequality we see today may be amplified by the networking effects of the internet age. As Yost puts it, “Is J.K. Rowling [any] better of an author than Charles Dickens, or is she merely the recipient of a windfall that the information economy has provided?” This is an especially noteworthy point, because more than most people, it was Bill Gates who made it possible for more and more people to benefit from the economizing influence of information technology. Arguably, without Bill Gates, there may have been no J.K. Rowling. You may not have found your current school or job or boyfriend or wife without the availability of cheap, effective personal computers. And this reminds us of a passage from the hero’s speech in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged: In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the “competition” between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of “exploitation” for which you have damned the strong. The old Marxist myth, that in a capitalist system workers bear the burden of the rich who live off the fruit of their labor, is the opposite of the truth. We should not apologize for economic inequality, but celebrate it and embrace it. If we are grateful for the benefits of the modern age, we should acknowledge our debt of gratitude to men like Gates, and the sizable income that is their due. Creative Commons-licensed picture from Wikimedia Commons Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  18. Writing for The Harvard Crimson, Ms. Sandra Korn points to an interesting phenomenon. A large proportion of Harvard’s recent graduates have chosen to pursue careers in finance such as investment banking. This is no doubt due partly to the impressive salaries that such careers often provide. The author proceeds to scold these graduates for disregarding Harvard’s imperative to “depart to serve better thy country and thy kind.” Financial careers, she says, are largely “socially useless” and even “socially destructive.” She concludes: It is vital that students question the ubiquitous pre-finance culture that pervades Harvard and dedicate themselves to truly serving their fellow human beings—not creating more wrongs. Still reeling from the economic crisis, many likely sympathize with the idea that financiers are socially useless. But are they? Even the author concedes that the financial industry provides companies with capital to enable hiring, expansion and innovation. In “The Morality of Moneylending,” Dr. Yaron Brook writes: ...[L]ent money is not “barren”; it is fruitful: It enables borrowers to improve their lives or produce new goods or services. Nor is moneylending a zero-sum game: Both the borrower and the lender benefit from the exchange (as ultimately does everyone involved in the economy). The lender makes a profit, and the borrower gets to use capital—whether for consumption or investment purposes—that he otherwise would not be able to use. Although Dr. Brook refers specifically to the practice of moneylending, the principle applies to all financial practices. Finance is characterized by trade, which allows each party to exchange his time, money, or expertise for something of greater value to him. Financiers make a living by providing others with the means to achieve retirement, home ownership, a more comfortable lifestyle, and an education for their children, just to name a few. Are we to believe that a specialized service which enables people to improve their lives is socially useless? And yet, there is a question much deeper than the benefits of the finance industry at stake here, a question of moral value. Is it true that Harvard graduates looking to turn their hard work into dollars are wrong to do so? Should one’s moral purpose be to dedicate oneself to serving one’s fellow human beings? Are we our brother’s keepers? In the hero’s speech in Atlas ShruggedAyn Rand writes: Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? Every value, from a slice of cake to a Wall-Street sized salary, requires an act of creation. Each individual must earn values through his own thought and action. For this reason, each needs a moral compass that acknowledges his need to benefit from the values he creates; a code that recognizes his life as the standard of moral value. From this perspective, a financier who produces abundant wealth for himself is pursuing his happiness. He is as moral in pursuing his happiness by creating wealth as he would be in teaching an elementary school or putting out fires. When it comes to a moral evaluation of careers, we should not apologize for creating and enjoying values but assert the pursuit of our own happiness as right. Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  19. How government “encouragement” undermines technological development In recent years, “green energy” has become a major hot-button issue. Advocates argue that the inevitability of global climate change caused by carbon emissions, an end to our “addiction” to fossil fuels and the need for renewable forms of energy all necessitate increased research and development in alternative energy technologies. Government programs to develop green energy include taxes, subsidies and regulation of everything from consumer products to the production and use of fossil fuels. Taken together, these programs represent an attempt to engineer massive changes in the landscape of energy production and the way we consume it, at a cost of billions. Given the struggling economy, these facts demand a closer look. The first fact to consider is one that many alternative energy advocates seldom deny: in terms of abundance, accessibility and power output, most alternatives are vastly inferior to currently available fossil fuels. Far from being free, solar and wind energy face myriad challenges that prevent their wide-scale application to national power generation. An area the size of the state of Utah would need to be covered with photovoltaic panels in order to satisfy energy consumption in the United States, not to mention the challenges of high-efficiency power transmission, maintenance, and power generation on cloudy days. In areas of Europe, where wind constitutes a significant fraction of total energy production, changing air currents have played havoc with power grids, sometimes leaving large areas without power on calm days. Many environmentalists actually view such shortcomings as virtues of green energy—in contrast with inexpensive and readily-available fossil fuels. In the words prominent environmentalist Paul Ehrlich, “Giving society cheap, abundant energy…would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” For those that agree with this view (or have accepted the “green guilt” that it teaches), reliance upon inferior energy sources would force mankind into a more meager existence with a reduced impact on an otherwise-pristine Earth. Fundamentally, this viewpoint stands against human happiness and progress, characterizing the wonders of industrial civilization—light bulbs, automobiles, cell phones, industrial agriculture and personal computers—as part of a destructive “footprint” to be minimized, rather than an achievement to be embraced. That said, let us grant alternative energy advocates the benefit of the doubt and suppose that they do want human life to flourish. Assuming alternative energy holds some potential to that end, the question remains: Can government policies make green energy a viable benefit to our lives? After all, government is the dominant force in alternative energy development today. It creates tax credits for installing solar panels and driving hybrid vehicles, subsidies for start-up companies dedicated to generating solar power, and billion-dollar initiatives aimed at developing hydrogen fuels and electric vehicles. It imposes laws to restrict the ability of individuals and companies to produce carbon dioxide, declares carbon dioxide a pollutant, and may soon require that a certain percentage of energy come from renewable sources. Through the use of these contrived, state-funded carrot-and-stick mechanisms, bureaucrats have attempted to steer energy research in what they have deemed to be the right direction. But government involvement in the development of energy technologies has not driven an energy revolution; wind and solar continue to fall well short of generating the electricity needed in an industrialized nation, and after decades of development the effective range of electric vehicles still remains limited to a modest fifty miles under electrical power. In all of the government-driven research areas, we’re still waiting for technologies and energy sources approaching what’s available in the form of gasoline and coal-fired power plants. There’s no denying that current researchers face a number of difficult challenges. But it’s instructive to consider the contrast between the current pace of alternative energy research and the amazing developments in the early history of the petroleum industry. Technological advances too numerous to count included the use of kerosene as a lighting source, improved extraction and refinement techniques to increase the yields of usable petroleum products, and the creation of dozens of products like jet fuel and plastic water bottles. None of these achievements depended on government incentives. There was no tax on whale oil to force the move to kerosene, no government subsidies to research pipelines and no government agency to investigate the viability of developing new technologies from crude oil. The early petroleum industry was able to achieve so much because the best producers in the world were free to pursue what they judged to be the best methods. But, as in virtually every other area of production in the last century, politicians intervened. They imposed new laws and regulations constraining the choices open to petroleum producers. Today, a complex array of rules—including drilling restrictions and environmental regulations—has stifled the innovative spirit of the early petroleum industry. Few new refineries are built, and we extract relatively little oil domestically despite vast proven reserves. Government permission is required to drill new oil wells, and rare mistakes like the recent Gulf oil spill are punished with arbitrary long-term bans on drilling. The end result of decades of government edicts has not been a more creative, productive oil industry, but rather one in which all innovations are centered on finding ways to produce in spite of arbitrary government restrictions. Even in the areas that government allegedly promotes innovation, any actual implementation of innovative solutions is subject to the consent of lawmakers, regulators and special interest groups. Companies wanting to develop solar energy in the deserts of California are routinely blocked by environmental groups applying political pressure to preserve the area for “study”. Efforts to construct wind farms off the coast of Massachusetts have been stymied by layers of government permission-seeking well before the first turbine can produce a single watt. Even products as simple as solar panels for private homes are subject to government approval before they can be used to supplement domestic energy consumption. On a larger scale, the changing of political leadership can result in dramatic shifts in focus from one area of energy research to another. With the election of the Obama administration there was a parallel shift in government funding from hydrogen-based towards electric/hybrid cars. In the words of Energy Secretary Stephen Chu when announcing massive cuts to the government’s hydrogen vehicle initiative, “We asked ourselves, ‘Is it likely in the next 10 or 15, 20 years that we will convert to a hydrogen car economy?’ The answer, we felt, was ‘no.’” When support for technology development is subject to the changing winds of political opinion, it becomes much more difficult for entrepreneurs to sustain any long-term innovative push. Government intervention in the energy market, whether in the form of subsidies, taxes, or regulatory “oversight”, creates artificial uncertainty for producers and innovators. Why expand refinement capacity over several decades when the EPA might pass carbon restrictions next year? Why develop new coal plants with a “cap and trade” scheme looming on the horizon? Why spend millions to research cheaper internal combustion engines if the government is going to hand your competitors a massive subsidy for developing an electric-only car motor? Too often, the prospect of these government actions makes the risk of implementing new solutions unacceptably high. So, rather than undertake additional development and possibly run afoul of an antitrust suit or an overzealous regulator, the safe decision for producers is to continue doing what they've always done and no more—the essence of stagnation. In the end, government attempts to push development of "desirable" technologies undermine the innovative spirit required for the development of any technology. Innovation means discovering a new, unanticipated solution to a problem—but when the solution is dictated beforehand, it blinds innovators to better ways of doing things. For example, by offering huge incentives to develop solar and wind energy while demonizing fossil fuels, the government puts off-limits a wide array of potential innovations. Diverse new ways of attaining energy, ranging from nuclear fusion to genetically engineered plants capable of producing hydrocarbon fuels, go under-examined because government bureaucrats have already decided that solar and wind are the desirable solutions. The lesson of the most inventive periods in human history, from the Industrial Revolution to the explosion of Silicon Valley, is that in order to create new technologies and services human beings must be free to think independently and act on their own judgment, in their own interests. The transition from horses to automobiles was not mandated by government legislation. The replacement of lamp oil with electric light bulbs wasn't driven by taxes and subsidies. If energy harvested directly from the sun or wind is going to power our civilization in the coming centuries, it’s going to have to be able to do it without government crutches—born from individual, thinking minds, without government obstructing their course. Alexander Hrin completed his Bachelor's in Engineering Physics and Masters in Applied Physics from the Colorado School of Mines. He is currently enrolled in the Biophysics PhD Program at the University of Michigan as well as the third year of the Objectivist Academic Center. Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  20. Have Americans actually changed their minds about government spending? A Federal commission recently concluded its work on a proposal to address the nation’s skyrocketing national debt. That debt is the subject of much renewed attention, and is growing at an unsustainable pace which, like reckless credit card use, promises certain and serious economic consequences in the years ahead. Nevertheless, the appointed commissioners remained hopeful, declaring that “the era of deficit denial is over,” despite the narrow defeat of their proposal when put to a vote. Meanwhile, many politicians and commentators praised the newfound willingness of the nation to have an “adult conversation” about the problem with government spending. Commentator David Brooks has argued that there is more willingness to face the realities of such issues now than in the past decade. At first glance, this seems plausible: the attention devoted to reducing the deficit and the warnings of impending consequences suggest that Americans have indeed mentally shifted toward action that in the recent past would have been eagerly put aside for another day, or ignored altogether. So, is something different now? Has America sobered up and resolved itself to contemplate and address what it has been blithely ignoring for decades? There’s good reason to think not: there’s something vaguely unserious and hypocritical about such a sudden willingness to “face the facts.” It’s not simply the relative abruptness, but more importantly the nature of the message. Consider the oft-repeated metaphor of “adult conversation,” which Republicans have used to urge dialog aimed at reducing government spending. It suggests an analogy to parents sitting down with their college-aged son who has naively buried himself in credit card debt. The parents explain the dangerous long-term financial consequences of the behavior, and argue that the prudent decision is to decrease spending and pay off the loans. On its face, this appears to be a sensible analogy. But there’s a critical omission: government spending isn’t the result of naïve or whimsical financial mistakes. The halls of Congress and the federal buildings in Washington are full of economists, accountants, and other financial experts employed solely to construct and fund enormously complex organizations that implement the requirements of legislation drafted in committees, voted on by hundreds of elected officials, and signed by the President. Despite its reputation for impulsiveness, government spending is highly calculated: it is done for specific reasons justified by specific arguments supported by specific ideas and values. Which values underpin today’s government spending? A glance at a pie chart of the federal budget reveals that over 40% (well over a trillion dollars a year) is spent on just three programs: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Many billions more are spent on unemployment benefits, aid to businesses in the form of “stimulus” money, educational subsidies, food stamps, and a myriad of other so-called “entitlement” programs. Thus, the majority of government spending takes the form of personal financial handouts for things like health care, food, school, housing, unemployment, and other living expenses. What is similar between this spending and the expenses familiar to parents who support financially-dependent children? The government has increasingly been charged with the duty of providing a “safety net” for Americans: like parents, it has pledged to provide the nation with with food, doctor visits, housing, school tuition and savings accounts. But parents raise their children to become independent adults. Do government welfare programs? A core value at the heart of today’s government spending is the idea that the role of the state is to provide for the citizens’ daily needs. Why? Because, it is argued, it’s the right thing to do. At the heart of government expansion and spending is a moral question: what should the government do, what is its purpose? The predominant answer today is: to provide for those in need – whether the recipient is somebody without a job, or medical care, or retirement savings. In effect, Washington views Americans as children in need of assistance and guidance, and itself as the surrogate parent morally responsible for providing for our needs. But this is a fundamentally immature philosophy. “Becoming an adult” suggests achieving independence, both in terms of one’s ability to make decisions and to support one’s own life. In maintaining and expanding welfare entitlement programs, our politicians implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) endorse the opposite: that Americans never truly become adults capable of thinking for and supporting themselves, and must always have the support of government—from birth until retirement and beyond. The missing element in the “adult conversation” is a willingness to confront this, the moral question at the center of the issue: should the government treat Americans as independent adults with the freedom that entails, or should we be treated like children and forced to support one another through taxes and debt imposed upon us by Washington? Republicans and Democrats alike remain in denial that according to their own ideologies, providing for those in need is the morally necessary thing to do, and that for them doing the right thing requires taking an enormous amount of money from some Americans and handing it to others. So long as this remains a guiding principle, ever-increasing spending, taxes, and debt are unavoidable. Fortunately, there is a way to avoid this dilemma: to reject this paternalistic policy and the moral outlook that supports it, recognizing instead that human beings are in fact capable of thinking rationally and living self-sufficiently. They do not require a government to provide for their needs, but rather to protect their freedom to provide for themselves. This means that social relationships should be free and mutually beneficial, and that there is no basis for the collective burden imposed upon us by an imagined duty to act as our neighbors’ providers. Perhaps Americans are indeed ready to confront denial, and sense that there is moral denial underlying our fiscal denial. If we’re willing to honestly consider the alternative, that’s truly an adult conversation worth having. Noah Stahl received his BS in Computer Engineering and MS in Information Assurance from Iowa State University. He currently works as an information security engineer in Tampa, Florida. Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  21. Newly-elected Wisconsin governor Scott Walker, buoyed by Republican majorities in both houses of the state legislature, has proposed a dramatic revision to the privileges currently enjoyed by state employees, especially public school teachers. State employees’ unions have responded by staging large-scale protests in the capitol of Madison. It is no surprise that students at the nearby University of Wisconsin, like Sam Stevenson, have weighed in on the controversy. Stevenson argues: By attacking the benefits and pay of the state’s nearly 200,000 public workers, the governor is sending a clear signal to working people across the state that his administration is dedicated to destroying living wage jobs with humane benefits in the interest of providing his business supporters with cheap, easily exploited labor. As concerned citizens and students, we mustn’t allow ourselves to dismiss these attacks as the plight of others; the assault on the working class and public employees is part of a war being waged against the public university and with it the very foundation of our democratic society. . . . The changes being proposed by the Walker administration would drag Wisconsin into a proverbial dark age where working people are deprived of collective bargaining rights and ultimately any agency to improve their lives and contest the dictates of the ruling elite. Given that Wisconsin is facing a $3.6 billion budget deficit in the next two years, what do those like Stevenson think is the alternative to Walker’s proposal? Most critics of Walker contend that the budget shortfall was caused by a package of tax cuts for “business supporters” pushed by the governor in January. Their implication: taxes should be raised to cover the gap. Whether or not it is true that tax cuts were responsible for the current budget shortfall, there is a deeper problem with the alternative of further increasing the burden on taxpayers. Higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy inevitably mean less investment in the private economy. Government employees who demand more from taxpayers are arguing, in effect, that government jobs should take precedence over private prosperity. What makes the Wisconsin protestors think they have a “collective bargaining right” to demand this preferential treatment? Central to state employees’ vision is that, as “public servants,” their work more directly promotes “the public interest.” But it is hard to see why a government school teacher, for instance, provides services that are more important than a private school teacher—unless it is assumed that the state school teacher’s job is privileged morally because state-run schools teach those who might not be able to afford private school. Never mind that most parents could afford to pay for their children’s education if they weren’t taxed by school districts in the first place. Never mind that a government education is of diminishing value as students who graduate cannot find a private sector job. Never mind that the taxpayers could just as logically claim the title of “the public.” These facts are ignored. The trick of the protesters is to claim the title of guardians of the public and extract privileges on that basis. Ayn Rand reminded us that this pressure group warfare is the inevitable result of combining the worship of the amorphous “public interest” with a morality that celebrates sacrifice: Since there is no such entity as “the public,” since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that “the public interest” supersedes private interests and rights, can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others. If so, then all men and all private groups have to fight to the death for the privilege of being regarded as “the public.” The government’s policy has to swing like an erratic pendulum from group to group, hitting some and favoring others, at the whim of any given moment—and so grotesque a profession as lobbying (selling “influence”) becomes a full-time job. If parasitism, favoritism, corruption, and greed for the unearned did not exist, a mixed economy would bring them into existence. Since there is no rational justification for the sacrifice of some men to others, there is no objective criterion by which such a sacrifice can be guided in practice. All “public interest” legislation . . . comes down ultimately to the grant of an undefined, undefinable, non-objective, arbitrary power to some government officials. It is bad enough when politicians claim to represent the “collective” interests of society, and demand individual sacrifice for the sake of this end. It is worse when a permanent political class claims to represent the same—compounding their privileges with the “right” to bargain collectively. Students who pursue education in order to achieve a livelihood for themselves and who believe their hard work shouldn’t put them in debt to the “public interest” should think twice about supporting the teachers who make such demands. Creative Commons-licensed picture by pchgorman on Flickr. Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  22. After the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, some left-leaning commentators were quick to suggest that the shooter must have been a right-wing Tea Partier. When this proved to be baseless, they retreated to the allegation that a vague “climate of hate” generated by right-wing political discourse had somehow created conditions encouraging violence. The charge has echoed through the campus media. A variety of columns in recent weeks have condemned the “polarization” of political rhetoric. Some dwelled on the use of militaristic metaphors by Sarah Palin (such as her now-infamous map of congressional districts with Giffords’ district behind crosshairs), which could arguably be regarded as insensitive if the metaphors involved were not so widespread and cliché. But the examples that others cite, of right-wing positions on policy, reveal not a concern for sensitivity but a desire to silence legitimate political discourse. Writing in Vanderbilt’s Inside Vandy, for instance, Matt Scarano cites as examples of political “radicalization” the following: Republicans just took over the Senate on the platform that they will not compromise with Democrats. On the other side of the aisle, President Obama passed a healthcare initiative through regulation that was previously struck down in Congress. Likewise, Chad Mohammed of the University of Florida’s Alligator listed as sources of this polarization most of the political issues dividing left from right: Over the past couple of years, hot button issues such as immigration and health care reform coupled with a harsh economic climate led to a caustic political environment unseen since the Vietnam War. . . [T]he lion’s share of [the Republican party] is not inclined to calming the language and refraining from using pejoratives such as “Obamacare”, “anchor baby” and “death panels” in order to rouse their base into a frenzy. But if this “caustic political environment” results from disagreement about the very issues that lead to the existence of distinct political parties in the first place, what do these critics want? A country in which nobody disagrees about anything? Writing in 1971, philosopher Ayn Rand observed that when political disagreement is characterized as “polarizing,” those who make this charge might not want to silence all disagreement, but they do want to silence important disagreement. “It is principles,” she wrote, “fundamental principles—that they are struggling to eliminate from public discussion.” It is one thing to bicker about the particulars of health care legislation, these critics might claim. But, they say, it is polarizing to oppose health care regulation altogether (on principle), on the grounds that it represents government abridgment of individual freedom. Contrary to conventional wisdom, disagreement about fundamental principles is precisely what we need to encourage “civil discourse,” the absence of which so many critics of today’s political climate lament. Rand’s case for “intellectual polarization” is compelling: If clear-cut principles, unequivocal definitions and inflexible goals are barred from public discussion, then a speaker or writer has to struggle to hide his meaning (if any) under coils of meaningless generalities and safely popular bromides. . . . He must strive to be misunderstood in the greatest number of ways by the greatest number of people: this is the only way to keep up the pretense of unity. … In its present state, what this country needs above all is the clarifying, reassuring, confidence-and-credibility-inspiring guidance of fundamental principles—i.e., in modern parlance, intellectual polarization. This would bring to our cultural atmosphere an all-but-forgotten quality: honesty, with its corollary, clarity. It would establish the minimum requirement of civilized discourse: that the proponents of ideas strive to make themselves understood and lay all their cards on the table... If today’s political climate is distasteful, it is not because of too much “polarization,” but because of too little of the right kind. What passes for political debate today is usually nothing better than a series of personality attacks, charges and countercharges of hypocrisy, and endless appeals to emotion. What more can we expect when today’s politicians scrupulously avoid naming their position on the fundamental question of politics: whether government exists to protect the rights of the individual or to promote the alleged interests of “society.” Instead of debating which if any political party a deranged shooter might have been inspired by, we should be debating which if any political party is right, and more importantly, what is the correct answer to that fundamental question? To demonstrate why persuasion and not violence is the proper way to transform society, we must rededicate ourselves to exemplifying political persuasion in its purest and most fundamental form: philosophical argumentation. Image from Wikimedia Commons. Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  23. Who voted down The Undercurrent?!? Fools...

  24. Congratulations to our 2010 Distribution Story Contest winners! Each winner will receive an Amazon.com gift card and free copies of our February 2011 edition. You can view the top three entries below. Thank you to everyone who participated! This contest gives us a better perspective of our distribution process, and is rewarding for everyone at The Undercurrent, from the writers, to the donors and staff members. Hearing about the great ways in which the paper is being distributed lets us know how we are reaching young minds. The Undercurrent will hold another Distribution Story Contest in the Spring 2011 semester. Send us your anecdotes and pictures about distributing TU for another chance to win free copies of the paper and Amazon.com gift cards! More details about the Spring 2011 contest will be coming soon. Krista from LOGIC shows off copies of TU ready to be distributed First Place – Arthur Zey Every summer, LOGIC (the UCLA Objectivist Club) participates in the Enormous Activities Fair, where almost all thousand-something clubs set up tables on one of UCLA's large fields and advertise their clubs for the upcoming academic year. In Summer 2010, in addition to distributing some 360 copies of Atlas Shrugged, we also gave out a large stack of The Undercurrent, which helped us to get several hundred signups on our email list. Although I am an alumnus, I still maintain a membership at the John Wooden Center, UCLA's gym. After an hour of lifting, I often enjoy relaxing in the gym's sauna, and I always bring in a copy of The Undercurrent from the stack I keep in my locker for this purpose. (It's also convenient to have a stash readily available on campus, should any need arise!) Late in November 2010, while I was still in the sauna, a student came in and picked up the copy that I had left on the bench. For the next 10-15 minutes, he read Noah Stahl's front-page article, "You're Not Welcome Here", with great interest. Needless to say, I was quite pleased! Second Place – Daniel Reeves For the past year, I've been distributing The Undercurrent on my school's campus and wanted to share my experience. When the issues come in I bring them with me to class, and it takes me literally 15 minutes to leave stacks around campus at various hot spots. For the fall issue this year, I was walking through the Nursing building three weeks after distributing it and I spotted someone sitting there reading a copy. It put a smile on my face and definitely renewed my determination to keep distributing The Undercurrent. A few bucks and 30 minutes of my time each year for supporting Ayn Rand's ideas on campus? That's hard to beat for a return on your investment. (My personal distribution trick w/ bonus points for irony: Put a few copies of The Undercurrent under a popular newspaper stand stack.) Third Place – Jack Crawford My favorite tactic, when distributing The Undercurrent at tea parties, is to approach a lady and say, "Are you a college student?" Invariably they smile and say no, because there are very few college students at the tea parties that I have been to. Then I say, "Maybe you know some college students. I'm handing out a college-level newspaper that is distributed nationwide." Most of the time they will take it. Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
  25. Writing for Rutgers’ Daily Targum, Cody Gorman comes to a conclusion about the WikiLeaks controversy that is starkly different from the position we articulated two weeks ago: All in all, Assange idealizes what this country is founded on — checking the power of elected officials to protect against abuse. When even that ability is blocked and condemned by the governments, action is necessary. . . . For the United States, and other global actors alike, to actually take strides in acting unilaterally, the liars and schemers in government must be exposed and voted out. It is time to embrace Julian Assange for the hero that he is. While WikiLeaks may have released some documents that expose government corruption, we cannot ignore the fact that it has also released information that is sensitive to American security interests and the lives of American operatives and troops. Sadly, this fact does not lead Gorman to reevaluate Assange: Basically, blaming Assange is like blaming the deaths of murder victims on the inventor of the gun. Assange was simply the producer of the means to allow the leaks, not the actual "leaker" himself. He has, however, admirably stood by what he believes to be the right thing to do. But Assange is not just a WikiLeaks web programmer. He is an active supporter of the site’s ongoing mission, serving as its media representative, editor, and fundraiser. He is not just the “messenger”: he and his organization consciously chose to deliver a message— a stolen message its authors wanted kept confidential. Theft of property—especially of confidential material that endangers American security and the lives of American servicemen—is properly treated as a crime, and Assange and his cohorts are clearly aiding and abetting that crime. In another article in the Targum, Ehud Cohen goes so far as to say that the WikiLeaks revelation is protected by the freedom of speech. But freedom of speech does not include the right to scream “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or anything else that endangers the rights and lives of others (such as compromising methods the military uses to detect explosives). If we are to worry about the freedom of speech, we should speak up in defense of those journalists who are being targeted with death threats by the same Islamic totalitarians whom the WikiLeaks releases enable. But cowardly Western governments—and other journalists—have failed to come to their defense. Defending an illusion of free speech—in the person of Assange—will do nothing to assuage their guilt. Image from Wikimedia Commons. Cross-posted from the multi-author UnderCurrent feed
×
×
  • Create New...