Blog Auto Feed Retired

When a professor at Florida Atlantic University asked students to stomp on the name of “Jesus” written on a piece of paper, a Mormon student objected. Although the university first threatened to sanction the student, in the face of widespread criticism the university relented and apologized for the exercise. (For details, see Todd Starnes’s report for Fox.) Surely there is something very wrong with this assignment. But what exactly is the problem with it? Some might argue that, hey, it’s just a piece of paper with ink patterns on it. So what if the name “Jesus” is written on the paper. That name also refers to a large number of people living in Latin America. Would we be offended if “Bob” were written on the paper? What’s the big deal? To zero in on what’s the big deal, consider the language of the assignment: We all recognize that intentionally stepping on something in such a context, or spitting on it, or burning it, is a sign of disrespect of the person or thing symbolized. There is of course nothing wrong with showing disrespect toward a person (or institution) who deserves it and for whom one legitimately holds contempt. For example, Hitler, Stalin, and comparably evil figures are worthy of nothing but contempt. And TOS published images of Mohammed that Muslims find offensive; but this was in response to Muslims assaulting and murdering people for exercising the right to freedom of speech.The problem with the exercise at Florida Atlantic University is that it asked students to show disrespect toward a figure they likely personally admire. The assignment did not argue that Jesus was a bad person or that Christianity is a bad religion; nor was the assignment a response to something horrific or irrational that Christians had done in the name of Jesus. Rather, this assignment asked students to personally stomp on a symbol representing a religious figure for whom they likely hold great reverence. The purpose of the assignment was to make them assault their own values. It was an exercise in moral nihilism. This—not the mere fact that it offended some Christians—is what was reprehensibly wrong with it. (As to whether Christianity is right or wrong, good or bad, that is an entirely separate debate.) Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: Debate: Christianity: Good or Bad for Mankind? Religion Versus Morality Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

<p><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/Joshua-Lipana.png"><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-4739" title="Joshua Lipana" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/Joshua-Lipana-244x300.png" alt="Joshua Lipana" width="244" height="300" /></a>I am devastated to report that Joshua Lipana’s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lymphoblastic_lymphoma" target="_blank">lymphoma</a> has returned. (If you’re new to Joshua’s situation, see my earlier posts <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/joshua-lipana-diagnosed-with-cancer-prognosis-is-promising/" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/help-joshua-lipana-fight-cancer/" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/help-joshua-lipana-fight-cancerupdate/" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/help-joshua-lipana-fight-cancer-update-2/" target="_blank">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/01/joshua-lipana-his-doctors-and-modern-technology-beat-cancer/" target="_blank">here</a>.)</p> <p>Although just two months ago CT Scans showed remarkable improvements and indicated that Joshua’s cancer was in remission, a recent bone marrow biopsy shows that it has relapsed. He is now in a <a href="http://vrp.com.ph" target="_blank">hospital in the Philippines</a> with pneumonia; and, before his doctors can begin treating the cancer, they need to perform an operation that Joshua cannot afford.</p> <p>Because Joshua’s veins have worn thin from earlier chemotherapy treatments, in order for the doctors to deliver the necessary medications they need to insert a port-a-cath; but the hospital won’t permit them to perform the operation until Joshua pays $2,500 to cover certain expenses from his new hospital stay to date and the cost of the operation itself. Given the emergency, I have emailed the hospital and offered to pay the $2,500 immediately via credit card. As soon as the hospital replies with a way to accept payment, I will cover that. But Joshua’s total new expenses are already in excess of $6,000 and will continue mounting rapidly (chemo and related expenses are extremely expensive). To cover the costs and beat this wretched disease, <a href="http://www.gofundme.com/w6lkk" target="_blank">he needs our financial help</a>.</p> <p>Physically and spiritually, Joshua is better prepared now to fight the lymphoma than he was when it first surfaced. As he writes in an email, “I’m now in a much better position to beat this thing, since I don’t have a 5-inch tumor and a liter of fluid in my lungs.” In addition to being physically stronger, he is psychologically more prepared because he knows the hell that is coming (many sessions of chemo), and he knows that he can get through it. But, to beat this thing, <a href="http://www.gofundme.com/w6lkk" target="_blank">Joshua needs our financial assistance</a>.</p> <p>Please help this heroic young man defeat this killer. Joshua’s goal is to get back to living—which, for him, means <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/author/jlipana/" target="_blank">fighting for your and my rights</a>. Seen in this light, our donations are <em>investments</em>.</p> <p>If you’ve not yet made a contribution to help Joshua, <a href="http://www.gofundme.com/w6lkk" target="_blank">please consider making one today</a>. If you’ve already made a donation and can afford to make another, <a href="http://www.gofundme.com/w6lkk" target="_blank">please do</a>.</p> <p>Our <a href="http://www.gofundme.com/w6lkk" target="_blank">original goal</a> was to raise $25,000, and we’ve almost reached that. But all the funds we’ve raised to date have gone toward Joshua’s prior medical expenses. With this relapse, his expenses will continue mounting very rapidly. <a href="http://www.gofundme.com/w6lkk" target="_blank">Donations of any size help</a>.</p> <p>Thank you for your consideration.</p> <p>—Craig Biddle</p> <p><a href="http://www.gofundme.com/w6lkk" target="_blank">Donate Now</a></p> <p>P.S. If you’d like to donate directly to Joshua’s PayPal account, you can do so by sending money to joshualipana (atsign) yahoo (dot) com. If you’d prefer to mail a check, please make it out to “The Objective Standard,” write “Donation for Joshua” on the memo line, and mail the check to: The Objective Standard, P.O. Box 5274, Glen Allen, VA 23058.</p> <p><object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" width="258" height="338" title="Click Here to donate!" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="movie" value="//funds.gofundme.com/Widgetflex.swf" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="flashvars" value="page=w6lkk&template=2" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed allowScriptAccess="always" src="//funds.gofundme.com/Widgetflex.swf" quality="high" flashVars="page=w6lkk&template=2" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="258" height="338"></embed></object></p> Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6393" title="Ann Coulter" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/6874338435_c348d416c2_z-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" />Lately, many Republicans have become <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/us/politics/gop-opposition-to-immigration-law-is-falling-away.html" target="_blank">sympathetic</a> to the idea of giving legal status to illegal immigrants. But not Ann Coulter. She labels all such plans “amnesty” and harangues Republicans who support it.</p> <p>Amnesty, in this context, means relieving current undocumented aliens of the legal penalties associated with breaking immigration laws, including related offenses such as obtaining falsified drivers licenses and Social Security cards. Although not all immigration reform proposals include amnesty, one major bipartisan <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/28/fancy-footwork-immigration-framework-calls-multi-s/" target="_blank">proposal</a> would “give all illegal immigrants instant legal status.”</p> <p>Coulter recoils at the thought of such proposals. As she <a href=" " target="_blank">said</a> at the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, “If amnesty goes through, America will become California, and no Republican will ever win another national election. . . . I see why Democrats would want amnesty,” but, for Republicans, it’s “suicidal.”</p> <p>Observe the collectivist essence of Coulter’s view. According to her, immigrant groups will always vote a certain way no matter what; Hispanics, for example—the dominant <a href="http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/op/OP_301HJOP.pdf" target="_blank">immigrant group</a> in California—will always vote Democrat; they are somehow predisposed to do so.</p> <p>Reality to Coulter: Groups don’t vote. Individuals do. And every individual has his own independent mind and free will. Further, only citizens can vote; and not every legal immigrant will or should achieve American citizenship, which is an entirely separate issue from that of immigration.</p> <p>If Republicans embraced individualism rather than collectivism, they would not only see the absurdity of views such as Coulter’s on immigration; they would also be able to grasp the fundamental solution to all political problems: recognition and protection of individual rights.</p> <p>If Republicans embraced the principle of rights, they would stop supporting and start rejecting the welfare state—including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and government-run schools. And if they unwaveringly rejected the welfare state, they wouldn’t have to worry about the power lusters and parasites who continued to advocate it (whether newly arrived immigrants or lifelong U.S. citizens). A principled stand against the welfare state and for individual rights on the part of Republicans would render the socialist aspect of the Democratic party utterly feckless.</p> <p>If Republicans want to solve immigration “problems”—and all the rest of the political problems we face (real or imagined)—they must reject Coulteresque collectivism and embrace American individualism. It worked to found this country. It can work to fix it.</p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-spring/immigration-individual-rights.asp" target="_blank">Immigration and Individual Rights</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2010/08/the-right-to-immigrate-and-the-legitimacy-of-an-objective-screening-process/" target="_blank">The Right to Immigrate and the Legitimacy of an Objective Screening Process</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-winter/let-them-in.asp" target="_blank">Review: <em>Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders</em> by Jason L. Riley</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-winter/margaret-hoover.asp" target="_blank">Review: <em>American Individualism: How a New Generation of Conservatives Can Save the Republican Party</em> by Margaret Hoover</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Creative Commons Image: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/6874338435/" target="_blank">Gage Skidmore</a></p> Link to Original

Writing for National Review Online, the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner argues that “much of the debate over future policy boils down to a question of the size of government.” However, as Eric Daniels points out in his most recent TOS article “Why ‘Big Government’ is Not the Problem,” size is not the essential characteristic determining the legitimacy of a government or any aspect thereof. True, as Tanner points out, the U.S. government’s deficit spending, debt, and unfunded liabilities create huge problems for financing government. Tanner also argues that they interfere with economic growth, foster government corruption, and interfere with the ability of individuals to spend their own wealth. But treating the size of government as the fundamental concern fails on two crucial counts: It offers no moral foundation for the reformation of government, and it offers no clear guidance on how to reform it. One problem Tanner’s article does not even consider is what should be measured. Tanner suggests that total spending is the relevant measure, but why should it not be spending as a percent of national product, total government labor force, or some other measure? Even if one selects a way to measure government, how might one determine the “right” size? For example, if one thinks the amount of government spending is what matters, then how should we decide what amount is proper? Is a billion dollars the right amount? Half a trillion? Ten trillion? Or is smaller always better, in which case anarchy is best? Subscribe to the Journal for People of ReasonTanner (like many other libertarians and conservatives) fails to offer any fundamental reason why government should be made smaller. His critics argue that poorly functioning government projects can and should be reformed—and even expanded—to be made more effective. And, they say, any problem resulting from government programs—whether reduced economic growth or reduced individual choice—are worth the benefits of helping the needy, financing education, supporting scientific research, and the like. If not the size of government, what should be the focus? As Daniels argues: Daniels is right: Only when we focus on the proper function of government—the recognition and protection of individual rights—can we clearly define what precisely government should do, what programs should exist, and what is the appropriate size for a given program. For example, by the standard of individual rights, the proper size for welfare programs is zero, whereas the proper size of the military is whatever size is necessary to robustly defend Americans and their allies from foreign aggressors. Daniels describes myriad additional problems involved in focusing on the size of government rather than on the goal of protecting individual rights. If free-market advocates wish to effectively make their case for reforming government, they should carefully read and absorb the lessons from Daniels’s important essay. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: Why “Big Government” is Not the Problem Mises on Government: Size Doesn’t Matter Creative Commons Image: WisPolitics.com Link to Original

Verlin Stoll operates a no-frills funeral parlor in St. Paul, Minnesota. As the Miami Herald’s Glenn Garvin notes, Stoll’s fees start at “just $250, about one-tenth the city’s going rate. No hearse, no chapel, just simple service for working-class folks who can’t afford to spend a lot of money to die. His no-frills business has been so successful that he wants to expand, opening a second parlor.” The problem is that state law requires Stoll’s new parlor to include an embalming room, even though he outsources embalming procedures and thus doesn’t need such a room. Building the useless room would cost $30,000 and require Stoll to raise his fees. Stoll sued the state to get the embalming room requirement overturned. But he has powerful opposition—including the Minnesota Funeral Directors Association, which is “incensed at Stoll’s price-cutting.” Fortunately, Stoll has some powerful backing of his own—the Institute for Justice, “a Washington D.C.-based public interest law firm that defends not just free speech but free markets as well,” notes Garvin. “Sadly,” writes Garvin, the Institute “has no shortage of cases”; Stoll’s predicament is part of a much larger, and growing problem in America: The economic destructiveness of occupational licensure—including reduced competition, higher prices, lower quality, and fewer businesses and jobs—is a consequence of the immorality of the state requiring businessmen to obtain permission to pursue a living in the occupation of their choice. As I noted in a previous post, accreditation can and should be handled by private agencies; the government has no legitimate business in the field of occupational accreditation. Good luck to Verlin Stoll in his fight to overturn Minnesota’s embalming room requirement, and a hearty thank you to the Institute for Justice for tirelessly fighting for free markets. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty It’s Time to End Occupational Licensure Image: Institute for Justice Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6381" title="Image_With_Source" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/Image_With_Source-300x225.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="225" />Since the 2008 financial crisis, U.S. petroleum consumption and imports have declined. Simultaneously, domestic oil production has increased. On Wednesday March 20, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) <a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10451&amp;src=email" target="_blank">ran</a> the headline “U.S. crude oil production on track to surpass imports for first time since 1995.”</p> <p>The expectation is that imports will sink to their lowest volumes since 1995, while crude production for the fourth quarter of 2014 will increase to levels not seen since 1988. According to the EIA, “This projected change is primarily because of rising domestic crude oil production, particularly from shale and other tight rock formations in North Dakota and Texas.”</p> <p>This bounty is made possible by the widespread implementation of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and, more fundamentally, by oil companies and land and mineral owners who employ the technology in pursuit of profits.</p> <p>Here’s to fracking and to those who get rich by means of it. Our lives are richer because of them.</p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-summer/original-alternative-energy-market.asp" target="_blank">Energy at the Speed of Thought: The Original Alternative Energy Market</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2013-spring/fracknation.asp" target="_blank">Review: <em>FrackNation</em></a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Image: David Biederman, based on data from the <a href="http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/data.cfm#crude" target="_blank">U.S. Energy Information Administration</a></p> Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6377" title="harry_reid" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/harry_reid2-234x300.jpg" alt="" width="234" height="300" />Yes, the national debt is a huge problem. But the proper way to address it is to cut federal spending, not increase taxes. As CBS reports, the senate instead <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57575942/senate-oks-first-budget-in-4-years-in-pre-dawn-vote/" target="_blank">passed</a> a budget plan asking for $975 billion in net tax increases over the coming decade. The plan also includes more so-called “stimulus” spending: “Shoehorned into the package is $100 billion for public works projects and other programs aimed at creating jobs.”</p> <p>The senate’s plan would not only further violate people’s rights to keep and use their own wealth, it would further damage the economy and impede growth. When the government takes money from people by force, it stops them from spending their wealth on projects and economic activities that serve their own goals and values. The government spends in some sectors only by forcibly taking people’s wealth, thereby preventing them from spending their own money in other sectors. This coercive reallocation does not stimulate the economy; rather, it siphons money from the economy into the government, where much or it is spent for administrative and other wasteful purposes, and then places the remainder back into the economy precisely where wealth creators in the private sector had decided it should not go. This is foolishness of the highest order.</p> <p><a id="callout-subscribe-blog-int-l" title="Subscribe to the Journal for People of Reason" href="/subscriptions.asp?ref=blog_int">Subscribe to the<br />Journal for People of Reason</a>Likewise, with “public works” projects, the government creates jobs for some only by violating rights and destroying jobs and prosperity for others. So far as infrastructure spending goes, as long as the government owns roads, bridges, and the like (why all such things should be privatized is the topic for another day), the government must maintain them. But government should never spend money merely to “create jobs,” for that violates the rights of those from whom the funding was taken and destroys economic activity where it otherwise would have flourished.</p> <p>The Senate has called for tax hikes on the premise that they are necessary to deal with the problem of out-of-control federal spending. But that premise is false. The proper way to deal with out-of-control federal spending is to cut the spending. This would decrease rather than increase rights violations, and it would strengthen rather than further cripple the economy.</p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-winter/purpose-of-government.asp" target="_blank">The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/03/dont-expand-sales-taxes-abolish-them/" target="_blank">Don’t Expand Sales Taxes, Abolish Them</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Creative Commons Image: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/krcla/3220410231/" target="_blank">Korean Resource Center</a></p> Link to Original

Just days ago the eurozone and the International Monetary Fund pressured the government of Cyprus to blatantly steal up to ten percent of the savings accounts of everyone with money in the country. Reuters reports the results: “People rushed to banks and queued at cash machines that refused to release cash as resentment quickly set in.” A proposal to modify the plan to exempt the accounts of less-wealthy holders did not mollify protesters, and yesterday the nation’s politicians rejected the plan, the AP reports. But why would anyone ever seriously consider such an absurd, rights-violating plan? The AP summarizes: In other words, Cyprus “needs” to steal its own citizens’ money so that other European governments will steal their citizens’ money in order to subsidize the financial irresponsibility of Cyprus’s bankers and politicians. Obviously ripping off savers will not solve Cyprus’s long-term problems: It will instead cause people to mistrust Cyprus’s government and banks and to redirect their money accordingly. What the government of Cyprus should do instead is begin the morally correct yet politically difficult process of correcting the wrongs that caused the problem to begin with. The government should begin eliminating the banking regulations that promoted irresponsible lending, and begin phasing out the welfare state. In short, the government should begin recognizing and protecting the rights—including the property rights—of its citizens. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty Europe Needs Real Liberty, Not Fake “Austerity” Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-full wp-image-1939" title="Alex_Epstein" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/Alex-Epstein2.jpg" alt="Alex_Epstein" width="245" height="185" />It’s only March, and <a href="http://www.statisticbrain.com/new-years-resolution-statistics/" target="_blank">statistics show</a> that by now many people have abandoned their New Year’s resolutions. If you haven’t lived up to yours, you may be able to get back on track. Alex Epstein (of the <a href="http://industrialprogress.net/" target="_blank">Center for Industrial Progress</a>) has a short video course which, if followed, can make success in resolutions inevitable.</p> <p>In <em><a href="http://industrialprogress.net/" target="_blank">Resolution Revolution</a></em>, Epstein teaches how to take advantage of what he calls “high-leverage actions”—actions that are quick and easy but have a huge positive impact on your life—to make your resolutions more successful. An example of a high-leverage action is starting out the morning by listing your three priorities for the day—a relatively simple action that takes mere minutes but reaps enormous benefits by orienting you towards accomplishing your most important goals. There are many more examples in the video.</p> <p><a id="callout-subscribe-blog-int-l" href="/subscriptions.asp?ref=blog_int"<br />title="Subscribe to the Journal for People of Reason">Subscribe to the<br />Journal for People of Reason</a>Epstein’s most distinctive advice concerns involving other people in your resolutions. He recommends that you hold a pre-scheduled,10–15 minute daily telephone meeting with an “inevitability partner.”</p> <p>I have been following Epstein’s <em>Resolution Revolution</em> method since January to help me with my goal of going to bed earlier (so I can get up and go to the gym in the morning). Using an inevitability partner has made it extremely easy to adopt this new habit, and following Epstein’s other advice has made me substantially more productive at work.</p> <p><em>Resolution Revolution</em> is <a href="http://industrialprogress.net/" target="_blank">available</a> for purchase at the Center for Industrial Progress website. Productivity Secrets, another short video lecture that expands on the productivity advice from Resolution Revolution, is available as well. I highly recommend both.</p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-summer/david-allen.asp" target="_blank">Review: <em>Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity</em> by David Allen</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/11/interview-with-alex-epstein-founder-of-center-for-industrial-progress/" target="_blank">Interview with Alex Epstein, Founder of Center for Industrial Progress</a></li> </ul> Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6355" title="400px-Thomas_Friedman_2005_(5)" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/400px-Thomas_Friedman_2005_5-200x300.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="300" />In his article “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/friedman-no-to-keystone-yes-to-crazy.html " target="_blank">No to Keystone, Yes to Crazy</a>,” <em>New York Times</em> columnist Thomas Friedman damns the Keystone oil pipeline but says he’s willing to accept its existence in exchange for “systemic responses to climate change.”</p> <p>How might environmentalists facilitate such a deal? Friedman encourages the likes of “Bill McKibben and his 350.org coalition [to] go crazy” by chaining themselves to the Whitehouse fence, stopping traffic at the Capitol, and the like—that is, by breaking the law, squandering tax dollars spent on law enforcement, and interfering with people’s lawful use of tax-funded roadways.</p> <p>Why does Friedman advise this? What problem will it solve? The main problem, Friedman says, is that “carbon-free energy” hasn’t taken off because American energy producers have developed hydraulic fracturing to radically expand the supply of inexpensive, less-polluting natural gas.</p> <p>What sort of “systemic responses” does Friedman have in mind? He proposes a carbon tax, a presidential demand that coal plants reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25 percent, a federal policy to “foster” (by what means he does not specify) less energy use in homes and businesses, and more tax spending on nature preserves.</p> <p><a id="callout-subscribe-blog-int-l" href="/subscriptions.asp?ref=blog_int"<br />title="Subscribe to the Journal for People of Reason">Subscribe to the<br />Journal for People of Reason</a>In other words, Friedman wants the federal government to expand violations of the rights of business owners to control their property and run their businesses as they judge best, to extend control of vast tracts of land and land use per the environmentalist agenda, to confiscate more wealth from the American people, to further discourage energy use, and to expand the already bloated welfare state.</p> <p>The alternative to Friedman’s self-professed craziness and his rights-violating “responses to climate change” is to restore the government to the function of protecting individual rights—and thus to free energy producers so that they can do what they do so well: take raw materials from the earth and convert them into the energy that fuels, advances, and improves human life.</p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-winter/energy-producers.asp" target="_blank">The Assault on Energy Producers</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/03/keep-the-lights-on-and-shine-em-on-environmentalist-nonsense/" target="_blank">Keep the Lights On—and Shine ‘Em on Environmentalist Nonsense</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Image: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Friedman_2005_(5).jpg" target="_blank">Wikimedia Commons</a></p> Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6352" title="tape worm" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/iStock_000020997073XSmall-213x300.jpg" alt="" width="213" height="300" />Need to diagnose an intestinal worm infection? Yeah, <a href="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/257629.php" target="_blank">there’s an app for that</a>. In fact, it’s the built-in camera app in the iPhone 4S!</p> <p>Dr. Isaac Bogoch, a physician specializing in infectious diseases at Toronto General Hospital, and his associates have managed to transform the iPhone 4S into a basic microscope by taping an inexpensive lens onto the phone’s camera. They were then able to tape a microscope slide (containing some stool sample from a patient) to the camera lens, back-light the slide using a small, battery-powered flashlight, and visualize the parasite eggs using the iPhone’s “zoom” function.</p> <p>In side-by-side comparisons with a standard compound light microscope, the iPhone microscope was able to detect 84 percent of giant roundworm infections, 54 percent of roundworm infections, and 14 percent of hookworm infections detected by the standard microscope, the current gold standard method diagnosing worm infections. Bogoch says that “[t]here’s been a lot of tinkering in the lab with mobile phone microscopes, but this is the first time the technology has been used in the field to diagnose intestinal parasites.”</p> <p>Although the microscope is not quite ready for use as the sole diagnostic test in clinical scenarios, its early success is enough to get excited about. When fully developed, mobile phone microscopes can provide clinicians with simple and portable means of diagnosis in resource-poor regions and provide scientists with a more convenient means of conducting field research in epidemiology and microbiology.</p> <p><a id="callout-subscribe-blog-int-l" title="Subscribe to the Journal for People of Reason" href="/subscriptions.asp?ref=blog_int">Subscribe to the<br />Journal for People of Reason</a>As if one “win” against worms wasn’t enough, another group of scientists has logged a potential <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-tapeworm-idUSBRE92C1I820130313" target="_blank">victory against tapeworms</a>. Systemic cystic tapeworm diseases, such as cysticercosis and echinococcosis, are dangerous infections in humans and in livestock (in the latter, they cause $2 billion in losses per year). Fortunately, scientists Matthew Berriman, Klaus Brehm, and their colleagues have just <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12031.html" target="_blank">de-coded the genomes</a> of four species of infectious tapeworm.</p> <p>The resulting genome maps have enabled these enterprising scientists to scan for currently available drugs that might be better than the most common treatments for tapeworm infections. Their goal is to find promising, already-existing drugs because doing so will save time needed for research, development, and approval of brand-new drugs. The group has already found a few candidate drugs, mostly anti-cancer and anti-virus medicines, that might fit the bill; and Dr. Brehm is already at work testing these drugs against tapeworms.</p> <p>It’s been a good week in the fight against infectious worms, with two research groups publishing new life-enhancing discoveries. Kudos to Drs. Bogoch, Berriman, Brehm and their associates!</p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-winter/apples-app-revolution.asp" target="_blank">Apple’s App Revolution: Capitalism in Action</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/fda-violates-rights.asp" target="_blank">How the FDA Violates Rights and Hinders Health</a></li> </ul> Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6348" title="Skyline_of_Gush_Dan,_Tel_Aviv,_Israel_(2003)" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/Skyline_of_Gush_Dan_Tel_Aviv_Israel_2003-300x199.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="199" />In his recent <em>New York Times</em> article “<a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/on-questioning-the-jewish-state/" target="_blank">On Questioning the Jewish State</a>,” University of Massachusetts philosophy professor Joseph Levine attempts to make the case that we should question whether Israel has a right to exist.</p> <p>Levine’s main argument is that only certain kinds of groups of people have the right to form a nation. He draws a distinction between ethnic groups (e.g., Jews), which are defined by common heritage, and civic groups (e.g., Israelis), which are defined by common residence in a geographic area. Having drawn this distinction, he contends that the right of a people to form a state “can apply only in the civic sense” and that ethnic groups do not have the right to create a nation because this would violate the rights of other ethnic groups in that area. He thus concludes that Israel does not have a right to exist as a Jewish nation.</p> <p>But neither ethnicity nor geography is the proper determining factor regarding the legitimacy of a government. The legitimacy of a government depends on whether it adheres to or deviates from the proper purpose of government, which is to protect the individual rights of its citizens. To the extent that a government protects rights, it is morally legitimate; to the extent that a government violates rights, it is morally illegitimate.</p> <p>By this standard, Israel is a shining example of a moral state. It is the only (relatively) free nation in the region of the Middle East and Northern Africa, protecting the rights of all citizens regardless of gender, sexuality, religion, or race. Although Israel does not protect rights flawlessly, when comparing the state to the other regimes in the area, one is tempted to use that word. Whereas Israel in its core functions protects individual rights, many of its neighboring states not only routinely and obscenely violate the rights of their own citizens; they also seek to destroy Israel.</p> <p>Since its formation in 1948, Israel has had to defend itself against a constant rain of attacks from surrounding Arab nations. Any valid evaluation of Israel’s actions must account for this fact. Levine, however, manages to not mention it once. On the contrary, he asserts that Israel expelled Palestinians in 1948 and occupied Arab lands in 1967 as a means of maintaining its illegitimate Jewish character. This is a complete inversion of the well-known fact that, in both cases, Israel was defending itself in wars initiated by neighboring states.</p> <p><a id="callout-subscribe-blog-int-l" title="Subscribe to the Journal for People of Reason" href="/subscriptions.asp?ref=blog_int">Subscribe to the<br />Journal for People of Reason</a>Although it is collectivistic and irrational for Israel to identify itself by reference to a race or religion, this flaw is certainly not what motivates Israel’s enemies to wipe if off the map. Observe that Israel’s enemies have no qualms about identifying themselves ethnically, nationally, or religiously. Among myriad examples, the Islamic Republic of Iran, which openly seeks to destroy Israel, is a full-fledged Islamic theocracy.</p> <p>Israel’s government is not perfect. One of its most glaring violations of rights is compulsory military service (from which, ironically, Arab citizens are exempt). And Levine is right that Israel should not promote itself as a Jewish state. (It should promote itself as a rights-protecting state—the point Levine misses entirely.) But Israel’s labeling itself a Jewish state has no bearing on its right to exist. Israel is a bastion of freedom in a region of barbarism, and that fact alone justifies its existence.</p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/boaz-arad.asp" target="_blank">Interview with Boaz Arad on the Israeli Freedom Movement</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2008/06/israel-and-the-front-line-of-civilization/" target="_blank">Israel and the Front Line of Civilization</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Image: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skyline_of_Gush_Dan,_Tel_Aviv,_Israel_(2003).jpg" target="_blank">Wikimedia Commons</a></p> Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6340" title="bp" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/bp-229x300.jpg" alt="" width="229" height="300" />It’s been a little over a year since BP, once one of the world’s leading solar power companies, announced that it was exiting the solar power market. According to the <a href="http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9025019&amp;contentId=7046515" target="_blank">company’s website</a>, “BP Alternative Energy is focusing on those sectors of the energy industry where we can profitably grow our business.”</p> <p>After almost forty years of research, hundreds of millions of shareholder dollars, and an eleven-year marketing campaign to rebrand the company “Beyond Petroleum,” BP’s CEO Bob Dudley <a href="http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2885/bp_the_latest_to_give_up_on_solar_power" target="_blank">stated</a>, “We have thrown in the towel on solar,” adding, “Not that solar energy isn’t a viable energy source, but we worked at it for 35 years, and we really never made money.”</p> <p>Companies, such as BP, that extract and refine fossil fuels provide more than 80 percent of the energy that fuels human life today. Because of the abundance of energy these businesses deliver, people today—the largest population in history—enjoy the greatest standards of living in history. BP’s owners, managers, and employees should be proud of what they do; and they should profit handsomely for doing it.</p> <p>Kudos to BP for taking a step in the right direction. Now if only the company would re-label itself “Forward with Petroleum.”</p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company.asp" target="_blank">Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/11/interview-with-alex-epstein-founder-of-center-for-industrial-progress/" target="_blank">Interview with Alex Epstein, Founder of Center for Industrial Progress </a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Creative Commons Image: <a href="http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/883114" target="_blank">Keith Edkins</a></p> Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6340" title="bp" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/bp-229x300.jpg" alt="" width="229" height="300" />It’s been a little over a year since BP, once one of the world’s leading solar power companies, announced that it was exiting the solar power market. According to the <a href="http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9025019&amp;contentId=7046515" target="_blank">company’s website</a>, “BP Alternative Energy is focusing on those sectors of the energy industry where we can profitably grow our business.”</p> <p>After almost forty years of research, hundreds of millions of shareholder dollars, and an eleven-year marketing campaign to rebrand the company “Beyond Petroleum,” BP’s CEO Bob Dudley <a href="http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2885/bp_the_latest_to_give_up_on_solar_power" target="_blank">stated</a>, “We have thrown in the towel on solar,” adding, “Not that solar energy isn’t a viable energy source, but we worked at it for 35 years, and we really never made money.”</p> <p>Companies, such as BP, that extract and refine fossil fuels provide more than 80 percent of the energy that fuels human life today. Because of the abundance of energy these businesses deliver, people today—the largest population in history—enjoy the greatest standards of living in history. BP’s owners, managers, and employees should be proud of what they do; and they should profit handsomely for doing it.</p> <p>Kudos to BP for taking a step in the right direction. Now if only the company would re-label itself “Forward with Petroleum.”</p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company.asp" target="_blank">Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2011/11/interview-with-alex-epstein-founder-of-center-for-industrial-progress/" target="_blank">Interview with Alex Epstein, Founder of Center for Industrial Progress </a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Creative Commons Image: <a href="http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/883114" target="_blank">Keith Edkins</a></p> Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6333 no-border" title="Girl With Gun" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/woman_gun-300x199.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="199" />As a slew of intrusive gun bills wind their way through the Colorado legislature, some of the discussion about those bills raises fundamental questions about the proper function of government.</p><p>Last week, a woman who was the victim of a rape testified against a bill banning the concealed carry of handguns on state college campuses. (The bill did not pass.) In response, state senator Evie Hudak (who happens to be my state senator) <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22721762/colorado-senators-comments-rape-victim-drawing-criticism" target="_blank">said</a>:</p><blockquote><p>I just want to say that, actually statistics are not on your side even if you had a gun. And, chances are that if you would have had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you. The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that for every one woman who used a handgun to kill someone in self-defense, 83 were murdered by them.</p></blockquote><p>As the <em>Denver Post</em> <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22733244/colorado-sen-evie-hudaks-concealed-carry-stats-dont" target="_blank">reported</a>, Hudak’s claim was an outright fabrication; she was misinterpreting 15-year-old data from the anti-gun Violence Policy Center. But even the original statistics are bogus, as the relevant measure of defensive gun use is not the number perpetrators killed. Usually, defensive gun use involves brandishing rather than firing a gun—often a criminal flees when his would-be victim pulls a gun. And, even when someone shoots a criminal, usually that injures but does not kill him.</p><p>But the problems with Hudak’s statistical claims run far deeper, as they reveal her collectivist standard for proper government action.</p><p>Even if it were true that, on average, a woman is less safe rather than more safe by carrying a gun (and the fact that it is not true is a topic for another day), that would have no bearing on whether a woman should be legally free to carry a gun.</p><p><a id="callout-subscribe-blog-int-l" title="Subscribe to the Journal for People of Reason" href="/subscriptions.asp?ref=blog_int">Subscribe to the Journal for People of Reason</a>The proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights. The government has no right to violate an individual’s rights—even on the pretext that others may not handle their liberty effectively or responsibly. Should government outlaw large sodas on the grounds that some people sugar themselves to death? <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/03/judge-properly-tosses-new-york-city-soda-ban/" target="_blank">Of course not</a>. And the same reasoning applies here.</p><p>The fact that some women carry a gun without proper training or maintain relationships with abusive men (a major factor in the statistics cited by the Violence Policy Center) is no justification for punishing or violating the rights of those who train effectively and avoid abusive relationships.</p><p>Hudak’s claim is factually wrong. But her fundamental error is that of calling for legislation by a collectivist standard, specifically, by reference to group averages.</p><p>When the government violates individual rights on the pretext that some people exercise their rights ineffectively or irresponsibly—or on any other pretext—then the greatest threat to our health, our liberty, and our lives becomes the government itself.</p><p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p><p><strong>Related:</strong></p><ul><li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights.asp" target="_blank">Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society</a></li><li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/01/gun-restrictions-punish-the-rational-and-responsible-for-acts-of-the-irrational-and-irresponsible/" target="_blank">Gun Restrictions Punish the Rational and Responsible for Acts of the Irrational and Irresponsible</a></li><li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/01/interview-linn-armstrong-on-self-defense-and-guns/" target="_blank">Interview: Linn Armstrong on Self-Defense and Guns</a></li><li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/07/thoughts-on-the-aurora-murders-and-armed-citizens/" target="_blank">Thoughts on the Aurora Murders and Armed Citizens</a></li></ul> Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6330" title="drink" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/sodadrink1-213x300.jpg" alt="" width="213" height="300" />Today New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578354543929974394.html" target="_blank">blocked</a> the New York City soda ban, pointing out that it is “arbitrary and capricious.” The ruling significantly restricted the ability of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, acting through the city’s Board of Health, to regulate people’s consumption of foods.</p> <p>Kudos to Judge Tingling for tossing the ridiculous ban, which obviously violates individual rights.</p> <p>The fact that such a ban was proposed in the first place, that it was supported by many New Yorkers (and others), and that the city’s attorney has vowed to appeal Tingling’s ruling, illustrates how far many U.S. citizens and political leaders have strayed from the principle of individual rights.</p> <p>Hopefully citizens will champion Tingling’s ruling sufficiently enough to pressure elected officials and courts to begin throwing out all the other “arbitrary and capricious” government rules and laws that violate the rights of individuals to live their own lives by their own judgment.</p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-winter/purpose-of-government.asp" target="_blank">The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/06/hats-off-to-mcdonalds-and-coca-cola-for-protesting-soda-ban/" target="_blank">Hats Off to McDonald’s and Coca-Cola for Protesting Soda Ban</a></li> </ul> Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6325" title="charles_chase" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/charles_chase-257x300.jpg" alt="" width="257" height="300" />Nuclear fusion has long been the holy grail as a source for energy. Consider that one kilogram of natural gas will light a one-hundred watt light bulb for six days, but one kilogram of nuclear fuel will light it for one hundred and forty years.</p> <p>Unfortunately, there is some truth to the old joke that fusion power is ten years away—and has been for fifty years. Major government-funded projects such as the giant International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) under construction in France lend credence to this adage. The ITER is thirty meters tall, weighs twenty-three thousand tons, and has one million parts. With an original budget of $6.6 billion footed by seven participating countries, the cost is now estimated at $21.4 billion, and will certainly continue to rise through completion.</p> <p>Construction on ITER began in 2010 and is scheduled to be completed in 2019. The goal of the ITER project is to produce five hundred megawatts of power for one thousand seconds—that’s a little over sixteen minutes. Not exactly a practical and efficient power generating station.</p> <p>ITER won’t produce any marketable electricity; its only purpose is to demonstrate the ability to generate heat energy. Some two hundred government-funded reactors of similar design have been built to date throughout the world. Not one of these has generated more energy than it takes to run it.</p> <p>Now, however, Skunk Works Advanced Development Center at Lockheed Martin has announced a radically new fusion reactor design that promises to break the jinx of that old joke. Charles Chase, Senior Program Manager at Skunk Works, <a href="https://www.solveforx.com/moonshots/ahJzfmdvb2dsZS1zb2x2ZWZvcnhyEAsSCE1vb25zaG90GNKGAww/solve-for-x-charles-chase-on-energy-for-everyone" target="_blank">appeared</a> recently on Google’s Solve For X program to talk about the reactor’s design.</p> <p><a id="callout-subscribe-blog-int-l" title="Subscribe to the Journal for People of Reason" href="/subscriptions.asp?ref=blog_int">Subscribe to the<br />Journal for People of Reason</a>This one-hundred megawatt reactor can fit on a flatbed truck for transport wherever power is needed, and can be operational as a prototype by 2017. Production units can be available by 2022. A Skunk Works fusion reactor of this size provides enough electricity to power a small city of fifty thousand people. The reactors can be manufactured rapidly on a production line, as against the tens of years needed to design and build one of today’s coal- or natural gas-fired power plants. The reactors do not generate any long-life radioactive waste; they don’t require weapons-grade plutonium or uranium; they cannot melt down; and, if they fail, they automatically and safely shut down.</p> <p>Such reactors hold great promise to provide cheap, safe, and abundant energy anywhere it’s needed—or, as Chase puts it, “Energy for Everyone” (the title of his talk). With these reactors in mass production, the capacity and vulnerability of the power grid would no longer be a concern. Environmental thugs, such as those who demand that 95 percent of our fossil fuel usage be eliminated, would have to make up some new fiction to maligne the new life-serving advancement. And life-loving people would live better, safer, healthier lives.</p> <p>Cheers to the brilliant men and women at Skunk Works. And godspeed to you in mass marketing this magnificent product.</p> <p><iframe width="400" height="225" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JAsRFVbcyUY?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2009-summer/original-alternative-energy-market.asp" target="_blank">Energy at the Speed of Thought: The Original Alternative Energy Market</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/02/scientists-generate-electricity-from-coal-without-burning-it/" target="_blank">Scientists Generate Electricity from Coal Without Burning It</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-spring/laura-j-snyder.asp" target="_blank">Review: <em>The Philosophical Breakfast Club: Four Remarkable Friends Who Transformed Science and Changed the World</em></a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Creative Commons Image: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/8459949298/" target="_blank">Steve Jurvetson</a></p> Link to Original

Here is the introduction to Richard Salsman’s article “The End of Central Banking, Part I,” from the forthcoming (Spring 2013) issue of The Objective Standard: Also in the Spring issue of The Objective Standard: “Christianity: Good or Bad for Mankind?”—a debate between Dinesh D’Souza and Andrew Bernstein; “Why ‘Big Government’ is Not the Problem” by Eric Daniels; an interview with Robert G. Natelson on “State-Driven Amendments to Restrain Federal Spending”; plus movie reviews, book reviews, letters to the editor, and much more. Subscriptions to TOS start at just $29, and all subscriptions provide full access to six years’ worth of in-depth articles and reviews from an Objectivist perspective. Subscribe now! Link to Original

Here’s a taste of the full transcript of the debate between Dinesh D’Souza and Andrew Bernstein, “Christianity: Good or Bad for Mankind?” which will be published in the forthcoming (Spring) issue of The Objective Standard. The debate is laden with such gems—and the journal is at press, so if you’re not yet a subscriber, subscribe today and ensure receipt of your copy. Also in the Spring issue: “The End of Central Banking, Part I” by Richard M. Salsman; “Why ‘Big Government’ is Not the Problem” by Eric Daniels; an interview with Robert G. Natelson on “State-Driven Amendments to Restrain Federal Spending”; plus movie reviews, book reviews, letters to the editor, and much more. Subscriptions to TOS start at just $29 (that’s 8¢ a day!), and all subscriptions provide full access to six years’ worth of in-depth articles and reviews from an Objectivist perspective. Philosophic journalism of this scope and calibre is not available anywhere else at any price. Subscribe now. It’s rocket fuel for the intellect. Related: Religion Versus Morality The Tragedy of Theology: How Religion Caused and Extended the Dark Ages Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6313" title="6685805075_7906c24a35" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/6685805075_7906c24a35-300x199.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="199" />In his TOS article “<a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-winter/new-abolition.asp" target="_blank">The New Abolitionism: Why Education Emancipation is the Moral Imperative of our Time</a>,” C. Bradley Thompson argues that the “‘public’ [i.e., government] school system is the most immoral and corrupt institution in the United States of America today, and it should be abolished.” Those not yet persuaded by his thesis should consider a few of the recent headlines regarding the government schools:</p> <ul> <li>“Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system,” <a href="http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/officials-most-nyc-high-school-grads-need-remedial-help-before-entering-cuny-community-colleges/" target="_blank">reports</a> CBS New York.</li> <li>“An Ohio high school teacher who claims to have a phobia of young children is suing a school district for discrimination” following her resignation, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/13/ohio-teacher-files-discrimination-suit-over-fear-young-children/" target="_blank">reports</a> FoxNews.com. She worked at her school with this “phobia” for over a decade.</li> <li>“A former Los Angeles elementary school teacher who taught for more than 35 years has been arrested on accusations he sexually abused 20 students and one adult,” <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/24/los-angeles-area-school-teacher-accused-sexually-abusing-up-to-1-kids/" target="_blank">reports</a> FoxNews.com.</li> </ul> <p>Although a few horror stories do not by themselves prove that government-run schools are inherently corrupt, Thompson argues that such problems often arise because of the nature of the schools. To remain in existence, government schools force parents to finance the schools and to send their children to the schools; accordingly, the schools are not accountable to parents or students or anyone—except the government, of which the schools are a part. Because government schools exist by means of force and are thus unaccountable, such schools tend to produce incompetence in teachers, administrators, students, and everyone else involved, and sometimes shockingly immoral behaviors by teachers and students.</p> <p><a id="callout-subscribe-blog-int-l" title="Subscribe to the Journal for People of Reason" href="/subscriptions.asp?ref=blog_int">Subscribe to the<br />Journal for People of Reason</a>The alternative to the coercion and corruption of government schools is a free market in education, in which businessmen, educators, and parents decide what they will offer, how they will teach, and where they will and will not send their children for education. Although a free market would not end every problem in education, it would empower those who use and finance schools to reward competent and healthy schools and withdraw their support from incompetent and corrupt ones. Observe that most private schools today offer a much better education than do the government schools.</p> <p>In education, as in all other areas of life, the moral is the practical—respecting people’s rights to control their businesses, their careers, their their wealth, and their children’s education would promote great schools that educate students and prepare them for successful living.</p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-winter/new-abolition.asp" target="_blank">The New Abolitionism: Why Education Emancipation is the Moral Imperative of our Time</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/03/education-activist-michelle-rhee-is-courageous-but-no-radical/" target="_blank">Education Activist Michelle Rhee is Courageous, but No “Radical”</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Creative Commons Image: <a href="[link]" target="_blank">Maryland GovPics</a></p> Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6307" title="hire me" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/iStock_000009706834XSmall-300x199.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="199" />Free market economists and conservative activists point out that minimum wage laws harm the very people they are supposedly intended to help: unskilled workers. A recent article from the conservative Heritage Foundation, for example, <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2013/03/05/busting-5-myths-about-the-minimum-wage/" target="_blank">makes</a> this point.</p> <p>The economics is straightforward: Employers are not willing to pay people more than what they are worth to the company. If someone is worth only $5 per hour to a business, the employer will not pay him $7.25 or $10 per hour. The real minimum wage is zero, and that is precisely what many unskilled workers end up getting due to the intrusive wage-control laws.</p> <p>As an indication of the problems created in part by minimum wage laws, last November the Associated Press <a href="http://thegrio.com/2012/11/02/unemployment-rate-rises-slightly-but-hiring-stronger/" target="_blank">reported</a> that 14.3 percent of blacks—and 40.5 percent of black teens—were unemployed.</p> <p><a id="callout-subscribe-blog-int-l" title="Subscribe to the Journal for People of Reason" href="/subscriptions.asp?ref=blog_int">Subscribe to the<br />Journal for People of Reason</a>As significant and as clear as the economic problems caused by minimum wage laws are, however, the economic problems are not the fundamental issue. The economic harms are a consequence of the immorality of the minimum wage laws: The laws violate individuals’ rights to property and contract. Employers have a moral right to run their businesses as they see fit, free from government interference, so long as they do not violate the rights of others by force or fraud. Both employers and prospective employees have a moral right to negotiate their terms of employment, free from government interference. Minimum wage laws violate the rights of both parties.</p> <p>So long as most Americans believe it is moral for the government to prohibit the free negotiation of wage rates in order to “help” the poor, the economic observation that minimum wage laws throw many low-skilled workers out of a job will not alter the policy. Only when Americans recognize that the minimum wage laws are immoral—immoral because they violate people’s rights—will Americans come to oppose these laws deeply enough to call for their abolition. Only then will justice and economic sanity prevail.</p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-winter/capitalism-moral-high-ground.asp" target="_blank">Capitalism and the Moral High Ground</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/03/subway-founder-fred-deluca-decries-the-regulatory-state/" target="_blank">Subway Founder Fred Deluca Decries the Regulatory State</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Image: iStockPhoto</p> Link to Original

Michelle Rhee—a former Baltimore teacher who gained national attention as Washington DC’s first public schools chancellor, and founder of StudentsFirst—has acquired a reputation as an aggressive education reformer unafraid to challenge entrenched ideas, including those of her own Democrat Party and its constituents. In describing “My Break With the Democrats,” Rhee recounts her 2007–10 stint with the DC public schools. Her “strong ideas” about school reform included support for charter schools, which were “anathema to teachers’ unions.” Another area where Rhee broke with Democrat dogma is school vouchers. Though “adamantly” opposed to vouchers at first, she eventually reversed course. The reversal came when she had to take a stand on the district’s existing Opportunity Scholarship voucher program, which was up for renewal. “As a good Democrat,” she says, “My inclination was to say no. . . . However, “People went nuts,” she says. “Democrats chastised me for going against the party.” Other policies advocated by Rhee, such as “the ability to reward good teachers and fire bad ones,” notes Leonard Pitts, encountered fierce opposition from the teachers union, which “fought Rhee with bitter tenacity, seeking to block her at every step.” Rhee, whose mantra is “fighting to put students first,” describes herself as a “radical.” But, “radical” implies fundamental change, and, despite her courageous efforts, Rhee’s agenda is actually superficial and solidly in the camp of the disastrous status quo. The mission of Rhee’s StudentsFirst, which she formed after leaving DC, is to “transform public education.” It calls for a “better” public education system, “one that puts students’ needs before those of special interests or wasteful bureaucracies.” But, as long as tax dollars fund education—whether directly or through vouchers—special interests and wasteful bureaucracies will stand in the way of students, parents, and innovative educators. Given the government’s current stranglehold on education, working for genuinely radical change means first identifying the fundamental problem—namely, government involvement in education, which violates the rights of parents, teachers, students, and everyone else who is in any way coerced by government in this sphere—and then working to reduce government involvement, with the ultimate goal of ending it altogether. Subscribe to the Journal for People of ReasonEliminating government interference in education would enable businessmen, educators, and parents—driven by love of money, love of their work, and love of their children—to create schools, develop curricula, and decide for themselves what is best for their schools, their classrooms, their kids. Imagine Rhee operating in a fully free market, where no government education establishment exists to seize people’s money, give it to “educators” who can’t be fired, and force children into its “schools.” Rather than battle coercive unions and government officials, she could direct her energies and resources, free of political obstacles, toward creating or expanding private schools that implement her ideas. Sadly, Rhee is no radical; she does not advocate a free market in education. Rather, she advocates superficial tweaks to the rights-violating and consequently disastrous status quo. And, insofar as Rhee succeeds in her current mission, she will only further entrench that status quo. “Radical” is the right approach, Ms. Rhee; but, to effect positive change, you must be genuinely radical. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: The New Abolitionism: Why Education Emancipation is the Moral Imperative of Our Time Toward a Free Market in Education: School Vouchers or Tax Credits The Educational Bonanza in Privatizing Government Schools Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

Fred Deluca, founder of Subway restaurants, recently noted that “If I started Subway today, Subway would not exist.” Recalling the early days of Subway, he said, “I had an easy time of it in the ’60s when I started,” but today “I just see a continuous increase in regulation.” CNBC reports: Subway is now a worldwide company operating in ninety-eight countries—from the United Kingdom to Israel to Iceland to Singapore—providing dining, enjoyment, employment, and franchise opportunities for millions of people. How many would-be Subways—how many value-creating companies—are being nipped in the bud by business-thwarting regulations? How many would-be Fred Deluca’s are unable to start businesses or to succeed because of government interference? Subscribe to the Journal for People of ReasonDeluca and every aspiring entrepreneur should be completely free to start and run businesses as they see fit, so long as they do not engage in rights-violating force or fraud. Such freedom is a moral right; government has no moral right to violate it. And the moral is the practical: When and to the extend that rights are recognized and protected, Deluca and other entrepreneurs are able to produce goods and services that make our lives great. Cheers to Fred Deluca for creating a monumentally successful business—and for speaking out against the growth of the regulatory state. Would that more entrepreneurs were willing to do the latter. Related: Capitalism and the Moral High Ground The Fruits of Capitalism Are All Around Us Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

These are shocking statistics: Among Americans ages 18-29, people tend to have a negative view of capitalism and a positive view of socialism. As Pew reported in 2011, people in this age group saw capitalism negatively by a margin of 47 to 46 percent, and they saw socialism positively by a margin of 49 to 43 percent. This is despite the fact that, to the degree governments have allowed it to exist, capitalism has brought the people of the civilized world vastly more wealth and vastly better and longer life—and despite the fact that socialist governments have slaughtered scores of millions of people. Overall, people saw capitalism positively only by a margin of 50 to 40 percent. Why does the greatest force for human advancement in the history of the world get such mixed marks among its beneficiaries? Today many people confuse capitalism with the cronyism of bank bailouts, corporate welfare, and special government privileges forcibly limiting competition. But such schemes are utterly contrary to capitalism, and it is illogical and unjust to blame capitalism for programs it explicitly opposes. Capitalism is the political-economic system of individual rights and free markets. Under capitalism, government protects individuals’ rights to control their own property and interact with others voluntarily. Capitalism forbids fraud, theft, government bailouts, and force of every kind. When people think of capitalism, they should not think of bank bailouts or the like; rather, they should think of the relatively free aspects of our society and markets, such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the relative freedom of the computer industry that has brought us such wonders as remarkably inexpensive yet high-quality laptops, Androids, and iPhones. Another illustrative example is the modern grocery store. Although the government interferes with the operation of such stores in myriad ways ranging from wage controls to taxation to antitrust actions to food subsidies, in large part grocery stores operate freely, in accordance with the best judgment of their owners and managers. The result is that anyone in the civilized world can quickly and easily purchase goods—including myriad varieties of fresh produce—imported from around the world. Subscribe to the Journal for People of ReasonMy grandmother, who early in life did not have electricity or even indoor plumbing, spoke of getting an orange for Christmas, and of that being such a delightful treat. Fresh oranges were so rare in those days that they they were once-a-year splurges for many families. Today most people take for granted our ability to purchase once-exotic foods from around the world as well as from nearby farms—not only oranges but kiwis, pineapples, pomegranates, coffee and tea in endless varieties, leafy greens, various grains and seeds including quinoa and buckwheat, many types of peppers, many types of meats, various cheeses, and on and on. The American grocery store even helped bring down Soviet Communism, as Chris Anderson relates in his book The Long Tail. While visiting the United States, some 50,000 Soviet citizens witnessed, first-hand, American abundance. After visiting a Houston supermarket, Boris Yeltsin, the first president of post-Soviet Russia, said: It is also terrible to think of an America following the same socialist path to ruin. To damn capitalism is to damn prosperity, abundance, and, ultimately, life itself. If you want to know what capitalism has done for you lately, take a walk to the nearest grocery store, and open your eyes. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: Capitalism and the Moral High Ground The Justice of Income Inequality Under Capitalism Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6286" title="jack_andraka" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/jack_andraka-300x199.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="199" />Jack Andraka is not your typical cancer researcher. His first research project resulted in a non-invasive, simple, sensitive, and effective test for detecting pancreatic cancer. His test is</p> <ul> <li>168 times faster than any currently available test;</li> <li>26,000 times less expensive (that is not a typo);</li> <li>potentially 100 percent accurate;</li> <li>and capable of producing a diagnosis before the cancer becomes invasive.</li> </ul> <p>It will come as no surprise that Andraka’s project <a href="http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-05-24/news/bs-ar-student-intel-winner-20120523_1_top-prize-grand-prize-intel-science-fair" target="_blank">won</a> the 2012 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair (Intel ISEF) Grand Prize ($75,000). It may come as a big surprise that Andraka is 16 years old. He won the Intel ISEF when he was 15.</p> <p>According to a recent article at <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Jack-Andraka-the-Teen-Prodigy-of-Pancreatic-Cancer-179996151.html" target="_blank">Smithsonian.com</a>, and a <a href=" " target="_blank">TEDXTalk</a> by Andraka, pancreatic cancer is non-symptomatic, meaning that it cannot be detected until very late in the course of the disease. And with late detection comes a very high mortality rate. Only 5 percent of diagnosed patients will live for five years, with the average lifespan after detection only three months. Forty thousand people die of pancreatic cancer each year. And yet, with early detection, survival could be close to 100 percent.</p> <p>Andraka’s test uses a strip of filter paper treated with a mixture of carbon nanotubes and antibodies that are sensitive to mesothelin, a protein produced by the pancreatic cancer. A single drop of blood and subsequent measurement of the electrical resistance of the paper strip is all that is required for a definitive result. The cost is 3 cents. The time needed is five minutes. And the test can readily become a standard part of a routine physical exam.</p> <p>Compare Andraka’s test with the current gold standard of protein detection: a sixty year old technique that misses 30 percent of cancer victims, costs $800 per test, and is not covered by insurance.</p> <p><a id="callout-subscribe-blog-int-l" title="Subscribe to the Journal for People of Reason" href="/subscriptions.asp?ref=blog_int">Subscribe to the<br />Journal for People of Reason</a>Although much work remains to be done, Andraka has discovered a technique that can be applied to many forms of cancer, waterborne and airborne viruses, and blood pathogens such as AIDS and STDs. His current test has already proven effective on both ovarian and lung cancer.</p> <p>Thanks to Andraka’s brilliant use of scientific methods, his hard work, and his dedication to an idea, we may soon enjoy a world in which far fewer people suffer and die from disease. Not only will we and our loved ones be able to live longer, happier lives; we will also benefit from future Steve Jobses, Patrick Swayzes, Henry Mancinis, Sally Rides, and Wernher Von Brauns, who, rather than succumbing to wretched diseases will continue living and filling our world with wonderful, life-serving values.</p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2010-fall/herman-boerhaave.asp" target="_blank">Herman Boerhaave: The Nearly Forgotten Father of Modern Medicine</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/05/heroic-scientists-achieve-major-advancement-in-battle-against-cancer/" target="_blank">Heroic Scientists Achieve Major Advancement in Battle Against Cancer</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Creative Commons Image: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/intelfreepress/8252212719/" target="_blank">Intel Free Press</a></p> Link to Original