Blog Auto Feed Retired

In 2011, Dina Galassini of Fountain Hills, Arizona opposed a $44 million bond measure for roads. She emailed 23 friends and asked them to make signs and join her in a street-corner protest, as an Institute for Justice (IJ) media release relates. Under Arizona’s campaign finance laws, her actions were illegal, and the town clerk sent her a letter “telling her to stop speaking until she had registered with the town as a ‘political committee.’” Galassini said, “I was stunned to learn that I needed to register with the government just to talk to people in my community about a political issue. All I could think was, ‘How can this be allowed under the First Amendment?’” Thankfully, on September 30, a U.S. District Court struck down the campaign laws forbidding her to speak about political issues unless she first jumped through a bunch of bureaucratic hoops. The same day, a District Court in Mississippi struck down similar laws there. IJ litigated both cases in support of free speech, and IJ is also litigating a similar case in Florida, which is headed to the Supreme Court. IJ deserves support and gratitude for defending the right to free speech. And the courts (whatever the problems with the judges’ reasoning) deserve praise for having made the right decisions in these cases—decisions that uphold individual rights and Constitutional liberties. 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: Steve Simpson on Continuing Threats to Corporate Free Speech U.S. Government Assaults a Supermarket, Institute for Justice Defends It Image: Institute for Justice Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-7730" title="Planned Parenthood sign" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/Screen-Shot-2013-10-04-at-6.31.21-AM-300x254.png" alt="" width="300" height="254" />Several national organizations, including Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights, have <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/us/rights-groups-and-clinics-sue-texas-over-abortion-law.html" target="_blank">joined</a> with Texas abortion clinics to fight provisions of the outrageous anti-abortion bill <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/us/perry-signs-texas-abortion-restrictions-into-law.html" target="_blank">signed</a> into law in July by Texas Governor Rick Perry.</p> <p>Although the new Texas anti-abortion bill has received widespread attention for its ban on abortions <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/07/texas-anti-abortion-bill-abnegates-rights/" target="_blank">after twenty weeks of pregnancy</a>, other provisions of the bill, which place essentially unfollowable regulations on abortion providers, will dramatically reduce access to abortions at even earlier stages of pregnancy.</p> <p>One of the contested regulations states that all abortion providers in Texas must have admitting privileges at one or more local hospitals—a requirement that cannot be satisfied by many Texas abortion providers because they are visiting physicians who are ineligible for such privileges. Moreover, many abortion clinics in Texas are located in areas where the local hospitals are private institutions that refuse privileges to doctors who perform abortions.</p> <p>Adding insult to injury, conservative Texas legislators have required a specific dosage regimen for medication-induced abortions (apparently assuming that they know more about prescribing medicines than do medical experts). This second disputed regulation stipulates that medication abortions, which account for 20 percent of elective abortions, use a six-hundred milligram dose of the drug mifepristone (the amount used in the <a href="http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2005/020687s013lbl.pdf" target="_blank">thirteen-year-old FDA trial of the drug</a>), even though newer research shows that a two-hundred milligram dose is safe, effective, and has fewer side effects.</p> <p>Although Perry and other Texas conservatives have portrayed the bill as a step to improve women’s health, the content of these provisions is obviously antithetical to that goal. The real goal of these regulations is to place more obstacles in the path of abortion providers and to effectively ban procedures that, according to federal law, cannot be legally banned by the states. Planned Parenthood et al. are right to fight this bill and they deserve our moral support in this battle.</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/abortion-rights.asp" target="_blank">The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/07/texas-anti-abortion-bill-abnegates-rights/" target="_blank">Texas Anti-Abortion Bill Abnegates Rights</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Creative Commons Image: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/65312697@N00/3812663670" target="_blank">Progress Ohio</a></p> Link to Original

The IRS and the Department of Justice recently seized more than $35,000 from Schott’s Supermarket in Michigan, which had done nothing wrong. The government took this action under the civil forfeiture laws, which permit federal and state governments to confiscate property they believe may have been used in a crime—even when they have no evidence that a crime was committed. Fortunately, the Institute for Justice (IJ) is defending Schott’s and its owner, Terry Dehko, against the assault. Civil forfeiture laws proceed from the absurd notion that the government can engage in a legal proceeding against property itself without taking action against its owner. And, as the name implies, the action takes place in civil court, not criminal court, which means the burden of proof is substantially lower. How common is this practice? As IJ attorney Larry Salzman explains in a recent op-ed, “The federal government seized over $4 billion through forfeiture just last year, some of it from people . . . who have done nothing wrong.” Civil forfeiture laws enable governments to circumvent the protections of the criminal justice system and to prosecute people in civil courts on the basis of little or no evidence of wrongdoing. These laws violate rights and are obscenely unjust. Thank goodness for IJ and Mr. Salzman—and best success to them and to Schott’s Supermarket and Terry Dehko in their fight for justice. 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 Institute for Justice Fights Theft by Police Institute for Justice Continues Fight against Occupational Licensure Image: Schott’s Supermarket Link to Original

Jeff Britting, a composer and curator of the Ayn Rand Archives, has adapted Ayn Rand’s novella Anthem as stage play, which will be presented in New York City by the Austin Shakespeare Theater Company. Under the artistic direction of Ann Ciccolella, the production was originally performed in Austin, Texas in 2011. Rand wrote Anthem in the summer of 1937 during a break she took from writing her novel The Fountainhead. Anthem was published in England in 1938 and in America in 1946. To date, more than five million copies have sold. Anthem’s off-broadway staging coincides with the 75th anniversary of the novella’s publication. The play previews on September 25 at the Baryshnikov Arts Center’s Jerome Robbins Theater (450 W, 37th Street), and it opens there on October 7, running through December 1. Tickets, priced from $50 to $69, are available through www.AnthemThePlay.com or through Ovation Tickets at 866-811-4111. Recently Mr. Britting joined me to discuss the play and the novella behind it. —Robert Begley RB: Hi Jeff, thank you for taking time to discuss the coming off-Broadway production of Anthem. I know readers of TOS Blog are interested to hear about the play and how it came about. JB: Well, thank you. Glad to talk about the show. The idea for Anthem the play began over twenty years ago. I was assisting in the production of another Ayn Rand work, Ideal. I moved to New York and began working on producing the play with my partners. And as a way to raise money to cover some venture debt, we decided to stage Anthem for a limited run at the Lex Theatre in Hollywood. The script was written and directed by Michael Paxton, who had directed the stage debut of Ideal. The run was successful. People responded to the material. Meanwhile, the effort to raise money for an Off-Broadway production of Ideal continued. And my hope was to work on another iteration of the Anthem show. Eventually, the decision to work on it further fell into my lap as my partnership dissolved. And people wanted to move on with other projects. Alas, our effort to mount Ideal was not successful. However, each day in New York City, when I took the subway to work, I thought of Anthem. Sometimes, I stood at the front of the E train, watching the tunnel ahead, imagining what Anthem would look like on stage. Jumping twenty or so years later, Ann Ciccolella, artistic director of Austin Shakespeare, approached me with the idea of staging Anthem. She had heard my film score to Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life. And she said, I want to do Anthem as an oratorio. Well, I figured what she meant was a straight play with music. So, we began from there. That was in 2008. RB: Obviously, to have been motivated to adapt Anthem as a stage play you must have been deeply moved by the story. Would you say a few words about how Anthem the novella affected you? JB: Sure. The work is a coming of age story. And most of Rand’s major characters are already formed at the start of the stories. But Equality 7-2521 was a young boy at the start of the show. And he becomes man by the end of the show. And that transformation intrigued me. RB: When did you decide to adapt Anthem into a play, and what were the major stages involved in developing it? JB: First, I re-read the final, published work. Then I studied the passages cut from earlier versions of the novella. That was a key process. I always thought the story would work in three dimensions—and studying that cut material was very useful. RB: In what ways is the script similar to the novel, and in what ways is it different? JB: Well, there are two major differences. But these are differences within a certain context. The context was to keep the story arc intact and the ideas unaltered. But the goal was to translate the story into the theater. And this required a lot of editing. First, this was mainly cutting and condensing of the language in the book. But, as time when on, I realized that there were certain things in the book that had to step forward. Certain relationships had to be expanded. There is a great love story here between Equality and Liberty 5-3000, the young girl with whom he falls in love. And I found it very moving. RB: Ayn Rand said that Anthem has a story but no plot. Do you agree with that? What is the difference between the two? And does the play have a plot? JB: In the original novel, the story unfolds in the mind of a single character. And this young man, Equality, has a conflict with the world around him, which he recounts in a diary. At the moment he is set to grow as a person, the world around him says: You are not a person and there is nothing to grow into and become. He rebels. But his rebellion occurs largely in his mind. And while there is some envisioning of action—actually, much envisioning of action—there is not a definitive sequence of steps leading from the opening of the story to the discovering of the missing word, which, by the end of the book, the audience is well aware of and realizes is necessary. Maybe that’s why Ayn Rand called the work a poem. The theme and style is paramount—not the plot. Therefore, in the novella, as I understand it, we don’t observe Equality taking the final steps—and there is no sequence connecting the different parts of the story. But my idea for a stage play required that connection. Therefore, I had to add and re-organize things a bit. And this led to some discoveries, which are now a part of the fabric of this play. I won’t tell you what they are. That would ruin the suspense! RB: Will the play be equally accessible to those who have read the book and those who have not? And how helpful would it be for attendees to read or reread the novella before the show? JB: I think a successful adaptation rises or falls on the work presented. If people need to read the book to understand the play, I didn’t complete the job. Was I successful? Well, you should be the judge of that. I certainly did my best to bring the story to life in another medium. RB: Obviously the fully collectivist world of Anthem is quite different from our world today. But do you see parallels between the story and reality? If so, would you say a few words about them? JB: I see a lot of parallels. Each day, I read the New York Times before leaving for the theater. And I have this standing assignment: connect the world of Anthem to the late breaking events of the day. Who can I marry? Where can I live? What kind of career can I achieve? These are just some of the stories breaking with Anthem-like implications. And the ideas crushing the individual are all around us, chipping away at us constantly. RB: Not many script writers are also composers, and I suspect that your being both in this production has lent a special integrity to the play. What was it like to wear both of these crucial hats? And how would you describe the relationship between the script and the music in the play? JB: That is my favorite topic. I really enjoy fusing text and music. Years ago, I learned of a musical technique present among non-musical plays in the late 19th century. The idea presaged film composition. The technique was to underscore the stage action—even dialogue—with music. I love film scores and opera, and I wanted to work in those forms. But theater was more accessible. And no one was doing this in the late 1970s, when I began working in the theater. So, I have written scores for thirteen plays, which are not musicals, but straight plays. The result is that music becomes another prop helping to shape the actor’s performance. Music and text have several commonalities, and one is meter and rhythm. Both spoken word and music have certain regularities, and they can be sub-divided rhythmically. So, after I write a sequence, I just open the script and then sit at the piano keyboard and “play” the script. (And because I also draw and paint, sometimes I sketch out the action as well.) Actually, one Anthem cue is a good example of the process. There is a four-minute sequence of music in Anthem, which underscores a prison sequence, and it lines up with five different, smaller scenes within one large scene. And after I wrote the larger scene, I composed the music. Basically, I composed the musical structure in one pass. The rest was editing and small adjustments. And when the play was read by actors with the music, the sequence timed-out perfectly. Now, not all cues are this easy, but you get the idea. The interplay between text and music makes Anthem a unified stage experience. Also, I collaborated with a brilliant young sound designer named Anthony Mattana, who enriched the sound of the total production with vocal effects, percussive and other sounds. He also mixed the sound effects and the music, using the theater’s first rate sound system to complement the theater’s acoustics. This completed my score. Ayn Rand called her novella Anthem a “hymn to man’s ego.” My approach to Anthem the play was to provide the story a further dimension through music and sound. The work is now larger than a hymn. It’s really “spoken opera.” RB: I understand that you are hosting “talk backs” in which certain audiences participate in discussing the play following the performance. How did this idea come about, and what do the discussions involve? JB: After each performance of an Austin Shakespeare production, audiences are invited to stay for a ten-minute discussion of the work. And this tradition continues in our New York run. On Tuesday evenings, we have commentators joining us from across the thought spectrum—both left and right. After Saturday matinees, our talk backs will feature Ayn Rand scholars. But I stress this is an informal conversation. So far, we’ve had seven previews. And better than half the audience remains in their seats after performance. Typically, among the audience members joining the actors, the director, Ann Ciccolella and myself, about half of these theater goers have read the novel, and half have not read it. That is interesting. RB: Where do you see the play going after the run in New York? Can we expect to see productions in other cities? And is there a way for people to help bring the play to a city near them? JB: If Anthem finds an audience in New York City, my hope would be to see the play transferred to a commercial theatre for an open-ended run. Thereafter, I would love to see productions in other cities—and in other languages as well. But the best way to support this production is to see it yourself. And, if you like it, then speak out. Tell your friends. Let people know that Anthem the play exists! RB: I have seen it and have told my friends, and I will see it several more times. Best success with the production, and thank you again for speaking with me. 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: Transfiguring the Novel: The Literary Revolution in Atlas Shrugged “Best Friends” Ban in UK Schools Mirrors Ayn Rand’s Anthem Images: www.AnthemThePlay.com Link to Original

Because of political wrangling over ObamaCare, the federal government has shut down all so-called “non-essential” functions involving national parks, the National Zoo, NASA, and the like. But no politician at the national level has, to my knowledge, defined the standard by which a government function is properly deemed essential or non-essential. We need a government for one and only one reason: to protect individual rights, including rights to freedom of speech, to control one’s own wealth, to contract freely with others, and so on. We need a government to protect our rights so that each person is free to live his own life for his own goals and by his own judgment. In order to protect rights, the government needs to run an effective military, police force, court system, and the aspects of government necessary to support them. Those, and nothing else, are the essential functions of government. As for government activities that are non-essential and that should therefore be phased out completely, a good place to start is with most of the bureaucracies listed in the “A-Z Index of U.S. Government Departments and Agencies,” which lists such bodies as the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the African Development Foundation, the Agricultural Marketing Service, and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau—and that’s just a few items listed under “A.” Politicians and pundits should quit pretending that the “shutdown” now in effect is anything other than a minor and temporary reduction in activities that, for the most part, the government has no legitimate business performing in the first place. And Americans in general should call for their representatives to begin shutting down all genuinely non-essential functions of government. That would be a “shutdown” to celebrate. 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 Why “Big Government” is Not the Problem Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

What? The government can’t systematically violate the rights of patients, doctors, and insurers without wreaking havoc on health care? The Los Angeles Times reports: The doctor can’t see you now. Consumers may hear that a lot more often after getting health insurance under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. To hold down premiums, major insurers in California have sharply limited the number of doctors and hospitals available to patients in the state’s new health insurance market opening Oct. 1. A proper government does one thing: It protects people’s rights, including their rights to keep and use their wealth as they judge best and to contract with others—including insurers and doctors—voluntarily. ObamaCare (and various other federal laws pertaining to health care) violate this moral principle—and, in so doing, violate individual rights by forcibly prohibiting people from acting on their own judgment and for their own interests. That this harms people should surprise no one. If Americans care about health care, they had better start caring about about individual rights. 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: Review: Why ObamaCare is Wrong For America, by Grace-Marie Turner et al. How to Protect Yourself Against ObamaCare Dr. Josh Umbehr on the Concierge Medicine Revolution Creative Commons Image: Steve Jurvetson Link to Original

E. W. Jackson—a candidate for lieutenant governor in North Virginia—recently said: There is no other means of salvation but through Jesus Christ, and if you don’t know him and you don’t follow him and you don’t go through him, you are engaged in some sort of false religion. Jackson miraculously misses the obvious fact that some people reject all religion. More to the point, though, with respect to practitioners of other religions, Jackson has no leg to stand on. How does he deem any religion true or false? He does so according to religious faith—that is, he believes it without reason. (On the same grounds, he believes, among other niceties, that the minds of homosexuals “are perverted.”) Jackson “justifies” his belief by pointing out that, according to the Bible, “Jesus said” that his religion is the correct one. Does Jackson not know that the scriptures of other religions say that their religion is the correct one? It would seem so. Virginians are considering this guy for lieutenant governor? 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: Religion Versus Morality On the Anniversary of 9/11, Relativism and Religion Still Paralyze American Self-Defense Image: Wikipedia Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-7702" title="tile" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/tile-300x232.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="232" />Suppose your lost keys could send you a signal to tell you where they are. An innovative new product called Tile <a href="http://www.thetileapp.com/#faq" target="_blank">promises</a> to enable your keys to do just that by communicating with your digital phone via Bluetooth technology. And the Tile works not only with keys but with purses, computers, bicycles, pets, children—anything to which you can attach the small device.</p> <p>Even more interesting is that, although a Tile has a communication range only of a few dozen feet, Tiles can communicate with other Tiles and with a Cloud network, meaning that other people’s Tiles can help locate your Tile and tell you where it is. This would be useful, for example, if someone steals something of yours in which you’ve hidden a Tile.</p> <p>Although it’s too early to tell whether Tiles will take off in the marketplace, this is just one small but wonderful example of entrepreneurs working on a life-enhancing idea and bringing their product to market. If the company that produces Tiles (Reveal Labs) is successful, its owners will make oodles of money, its employees will gain security in their jobs, and its customers will live better lives.</p> <p>Congratulations to these capitalists for developing this innovative product.</p> <p><iframe width="400" height="225" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/pqDm3gZNZPM?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/2012-winter/apples-app-revolution.asp" target="_blank">Apple’s App Revolution: Capitalism in Action</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/09/helium-lifted-craft-and-other-advances-promise-better-living-and-spiritual-fuel/" target="_blank">Helium-Lifted Craft and Other Advances Promise Better Living and Spiritual Fuel</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Image: <a href="http://www.thetileapp.com" target="_blank">Tile</a></p> Link to Original

When someone does something evil, does the devil make him do it? Most Americans believe that’s possible, as the Washington Examiner reports. According to a poll recently conducted by YouGov, 57 percent of Americans believe the devil exists. For some groups, the percentage is even higher: 72 percent of blacks and 64 percent of southerners believe the devil exists. A full 86 percent of “born again” Christians believe the devil is real. Seventeen percent of Jews do too. And most Americans believe the devil can play an active role in human life. A slim majority (51 percent) believes “someone can be possessed by the devil or some other evil spirit,” and a large minority (46 percent) believes that exorcism can “drive the Devil or evil spirits out of a person” (19 percent said that’s not possible, and 36 percent said they don’t know). It is hard to believe that, in this day and age, Americans accept such irrational, mystical, dangerous nonsense. Historically, beliefs in demonic possession have led (among other things) to “witches” being burned at the stake and children being killed during “exorcisms,” efforts to extract “demons” from their souls. Recently a Florida man imprisoned his girlfriend and tried to exorcise the devil from her. In Africa belief in demonic possession is widespread, and “exorcism” often involves the torture and murder of alleged witches. In modern-day America, where we witness the fruits of reason all around us every day—and where a fully rational, observation-based philosophy is available for all to learn and live by—belief in the devil or ghosts or the like is insanity. It is not the devil but mysticism that America needs to cast out. And we need to replace it with an unwavering commitment to reason. 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: What is Objectivism? The Role of Religion in the Scientific Revolution Creative Commons Image: Bob Jagendorf Link to Original

Some enterprising immigrants succeed in the United States despite laws that violate their moral right to seek employment and the rights of potential employers to hire them. A recent Los Angeles Times article describes how some illegal immigrants have turned to entrepreneurship to deal with the problem: Although federal law prohibits employers from hiring someone residing in the country illegally, there is no law prohibiting such a person from starting a business or becoming an independent contractor. As a result, some young immigrants are forming limited liability companies or starting freelance careers—even providing jobs to U.S. citizens—as the prospect of an immigration law revamp plods along in Congress. Of course, entrepreneurship isn’t for everyone. And Congress should change the laws to respect and protect immigrants’ and employers’ rights. But it is good to see that at least some illegal immigrants are finding ways to live the American dream despite the un-American laws. Best success to them all! 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: Immigration and Individual Rights Review: Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders, by Jason L. Riley Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

Although some of Ted Cruz’s views and positions are contrary to the principle of individual rights and thus wrong, he deserves great credit for his stand on defunding ObamaCare—and high praise for speaking all night last night, urging both Democrat and Republican senators to do the right thing and defund this monstrosity. (ObamaCare should not merely be defunded; it should ultimately be repealed—along with all the other laws interfering with medicine.) Cruz quoted Ayn Rand at length during his speech (see for instance markers 13:58:00 and 14:12:50 in the C-Span video), including some highly relevant passages on productive work and on morality. One passage from Atlas Shrugged he did not quote (at least not to my knowledge) is also appropriate in this context. In the novel, a surgeon named Dr. Hendricks says: I quit when medicine was placed under State control some years ago. Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I could not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything—except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the “welfare” of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, but “to serve.” That a man’s willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards—never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness at which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind—yet what is it they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? ObamaCare puts not only doctors but insurers and patients increasingly under the control of politicians and bureaucrats. It violates the conscience and stifles the mind of everyone who would rather decide for himself how to provide or seek health-related services and how to contract with others for that purpose. Kudos to Cruz for drawing attention to these crucial principles and to Ayn Rand’s vital ideas. 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: Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand’s Morality of Egoism ObamaCare v. the Constitution Harry Reid Confesses Truth About ObamaCare Creative Commons Image: Gage Skidmore Link to Original

Leftist publications including PBS and Slate are jumping all over themselves to publish or review the work of Mariana Mazzucato, who claims (writing for Slate) that “the state, not the private sector, [is] the most decisive player” in developing “pioneering technologies.” It’s easy to see why leftists want to promote her work: It fits perfectly with leftist dogma that the government should continually tax and spend more money, and that the collective not the individual is properly the unit of moral and political concern. She helps provide the academic backing for Barack Obama’s “You didn’t build that!” Mazzucato claims that because government has subsidized various businesses (including Apple in its infancy) and has financed scientific research (including some technology behind the Internet, touch screens, and new drugs), the government is primarily responsible for major technological innovations, including the iPhone. But Mazzucato’s case falls apart in the slightest breezes of logic and history. To begin with, government is not like Santa Claus who showers free wealth on people. Every cent the government spends it first seizes from productive citizens. This obvious fact is somehow lost on Mazzucato. Further and related, Mazzucato commits the fallacy that Frédéric Bastiat exploded in 1848: She recognizes what is seen—the government spending—but she ignores what is not seen—all the technological advances that did not take place because government confiscated the resources that otherwise would have funded them. For example, every year the government confiscates billions of dollars from Apple—wealth the company would otherwise be free to spend on technological advances. Mazzucato’s “argument” could just as well be used to say that “the state, not the private sector, [was] the most decisive player” in developing “food-production technologies” in Soviet Russia. What would have happened if the Soviet regime had gotten out of the way and let the private sector produce and distribute food? Never mind that! If Americans were taxed at 100 percent—if the government took every last cent of wealth and financed everything—then, on Muzzacato’s logic, we could say that “the state, not the private sector, [is] the most decisive player” in everything. Isn’t there a word for that? The point of Mazzucato’s claims is to convince Americans that greater government involvement in the economy is not a bad thing but a good thing for production. Were this true, the USSR would have outproduced the United States, East Germany would have outproduced West Germany, and mainland China would outproduce Hong Kong—yet in each case the opposite is true. If Mazzucato were correct, the U.S. Post Office and government-run schools would perform excellently at low costs—yet the opposite is true. If Mazzucato were correct, the government would be able to conceive, manufacture, and market iPhones better than Steve Jobs and his team at Apple did—yet that’s ridiculous. If we look at the world around us, it is obvious that private enterprise drives technological innovation. The government didn’t build the automobile; Henry Ford and other entrepreneurs did. The government didn’t build the jet airplanes that take us around the world; the Wright brothers pioneered aviation technology and today commercial plane manufacturers build modern jets. The government didn’t develop the oilfields of America; John D. Rockefeller and other businessmen did. The government didn’t create the revolution in hydraulic fracturing responsible for one of the most vibrant and productive industries of the modern American economy; George P. Mitchell and other businessmen did. The pattern holds in every major field (the military aside, and even the military relies fundamentally on private contractors). Even in those rare cases when government “investment” in technology yields impressive results (e.g., the moon landing as against the failed Solyndra solar-cell project), these results come at the expense of the people who earned the wealth seized by the government and who therefore are not able to spend it on their own goals and lives. If Americans want to unthrottle the economy and unleash producers so that they can reach their full potential in building their businesses and developing the technologies that extend and enrich our lives, we must recognize that people have a moral right to keep and invest their wealth as they see fit. We must recognize that government interference in the economy—including confiscation and redistribution of people’s wealth—is impractical because immoral. Only then will Americans have the moral confidence to correct Mazzucato’s ridiculous claim and to say with certainty that the free individual, not the state, “is the most decisive player” in developing “pioneering technologies.” 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 “You Didn’t Build That”—Obama’s Ode to Envy Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

“House Republicans Slash Food Stamp Funding,” screamed news headlines across the country last Friday. “What [Republicans] are saying is that in America it’s OK for people to go hungry,” said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, chair of the Democratic National Committee. Harry Reid called the House bill “hateful, punitive legislation.” The hullabaloo relates to a bill passed September 19 to cut funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by tightening eligibility standards. The bill hardly represents a “showdown” over SNAP funding. Leftist hysteria notwithstanding, Republicans support the program but want to run it “better.” The Washington Post reports that Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor “said the deep cuts enacted Thursday were necessary because while most SNAP recipients need the assistance, there are too many people ‘that choose to abuse the system.’” And USA Today notes: Agriculture Committee member Mike Conaway, R-Texas, said Thursday “we are not talking about eliminating the SNAP program.” The goal of the bill, he said, is to “limit the public assistance program to those who qualify and close loopholes that have allowed people to game the system.” The changes will help “keep the safety net intact for qualified families,” he said. What “deep cuts” would the House bill entail if passed into law? Currently, according to USA Today, the federal government spends about $75 billion per year on food stamps, which are doled out to about 48 million recipients. This is up dramatically from the $15 billion and 17 million recipients in 2001. The bill passed by the House would cut $39 billion and three million recipients from SNAP over the next ten years, or an annual reduction of roughly 5 percent in expenditures and 6 percent in recipients. Of course, the possibility of the House bill passing in the Democrat-controlled Senate is nil. And, as Fox News reports, “President Obama threatened to veto any bill that made deeper cuts than the Senate version”—which proposes to cut a mere $4.5 billion from SNAP. So what is the relevance of this dead-end House bill? Although Republicans are posturing as though they have taken some kind of a principled stand on the matter, they have done nothing of the sort. They are quibbling with Democrats over details while disastrously agreeing with them on the fundamental: the question of whether such a program should exist at all. Both sides want to preserve and perpetuate SNAP, which morally should be abolished. SNAP is not merely too large or inefficiently run; it is an immoral program. It forcibly takes money from people who earned it and redistributes that money to people who did not earn it. It violates people’s rights to keep and use their income as they see fit. SNAP should not merely be tweaked or made more efficient—it should be phased out of existence. That way, the rights-violations involved in the program would come to an end, and those who currently receive food stamps would regain the natural incentive to be self-responsible, self-sufficient individuals who earn the money they spend on food—while, of course, retaining the alternative of turning to private charity insofar as they need handouts. If America is ever again to become the rights-respecting republic it is supposed to be, Americans must come to see why SNAP and all such coercive wealth transfer schemes are immoral—and we must demand that our representatives end them. 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 Senator Menendez Dishonestly Equates Private Food Bank with SNAP Members of Congress Misrepresent Food Stamp Program and Ignore Its Injustice Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

In this episode of Reason at Large, Craig Biddle answers a question from Jeff: “What is ’social justice’? Is it a legitimate term? If so, what does it mean? If not, why not?” In answering, Biddle discusses the purpose behind “social justice,” defines and concretizes justice, compares and contrasts instances of justice with the aims of “social justice,” and shows that “social justice” is what Ayn Rand called an anti-concept: an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. Finally, Biddle provides a clear, concise definition of “social justice” and encourages listeners to bear the definition in mind whenever they hear the term, and to provide the definition to advocates of “social justice” so that they will know that we too know what they are talking about and calling for. 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: Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand’s Morality of Egoism Contra Occupiers, Profits Embody Justice What the Poor Owe the Rich Link to Original

The Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative groups for “special treatment”—this we already know. But newly discovered details about the case show that the IRS’s assault is even more shocking. USA Today reports: Newly uncovered IRS documents [from 2011] show the agency flagged political groups based on the content of their literature, raising concerns specifically about “anti-Obama rhetoric,” inflammatory language and “emotional” statements made by non-profits seeking tax-exempt status. Why do tax agents care about whether an organization uses “anti-Obama rhetoric” (or “pro-Obama rhetoric” for that matter)? As Steve Simpson explains in “The Roots of the IRS Scandal” (TOS, Fall 2013), after the Supreme Court struck down parts of the campaign finance laws on the grounds that they violated the right of free speech, “supporters of campaign finance laws went apoplectic” and called for increased reporting of political activity. Simpson summarizes the results: The government had both the motive and the means to go after the loudest and most effective groups. The motive came from the premise underlying the campaign finance laws—the notion that influencing voters, elections, and candidates is bad, and anyone who does it well is worse. The means ultimately did not come from the campaign finance laws themselves, because the courts had struck down some of those laws, and the critics of campaign spending were unsuccessful in getting additional disclosure mandates passed. So critics turned to the IRS to “do something,” and, not surprisingly, it did. It investigated Tea Party groups for doing what everyone already thought was bad—spending too much money on political speech. It just did so under a different set of laws—the tax laws—and based on a slightly different rationale—that nonprofits get a special gift under the laws that they must pay for, either by avoiding political speech or by disclosing their donors. To learn the details of what happened and why the case illustrates a major threat to free speech, see Simpson’s article. Even though the IRS is currently on the defensive for targeting conservative groups, the laws under which it acted remain in effect. If we Americans want to protect our rights to freedom of speech, we must demand that our representatives work to overturn these laws and to get the government entirely out of the business of monitoring and restricting political speech. 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 Roots of the IRS Scandal IRS Violates Americans’ Rights Every Day Link to Original

Within hours of the September 16 massacre at the Washington Navy Yard, various commentators and politicians were calling for more restrictive gun laws—on the theory that the government should respond to murders committed by a psychotic man by further restricting the liberties of rights-respecting Americans. How absurd. There is a valid political lesson to be drawn from this massacre, however: The government has a responsibility to protect people’s rights by (among other things) appropriately responding to threats and acts of violence. Had the government done so with respect to this murderer—Aaron Alexis—the massacre at the Navy Yard never would have occurred. Consider why this is so. In 2004, Alexis intentionally shot out the tires of a car belonging to construction workers, the Washington Post reports. At the time, he lived in Seattle, and local police arrested him for the act. However, the Post notes, he was not prosecuted for the crime because government officials lost the relevant paperwork. (TPM verifies this account and adds additional details.) Had Alexis been convicted of this crime, he almost certainly would not have been issued security clearance at the Navy Yard. In 2010, when Alexis lived in an apartment in Fort Worth, Texas, he began harassing his upstairs neighbor, calling the police over her alleged noise and confronting her in a parking lot. While the neighbor was home, Alexis fired a shot that went through her floor and ceiling. The victim told police that “she is terrified of Aaron and feels that this was done intentionally.” Although this case involved at the very least gross negligence (more likely, attempted murder), “the county district attorney’s office said . . . that there was not enough evidence to pursue the case,” the Washington Post reports. Just weeks ago, Alexis’s roommate filed “a criminal mischief complaint” and told police that Alexis had vandalized his car by pouring something into the fuel tank, Fox News reports. This was prior to Alexis receiving security clearance for his contract position at the Navy Yard. Last month a civilian police officer warned naval station police that Alexis was psychotic, Fox News reports. Alexis had told police that he was hearing voices and that “people were following him and sending vibrations into his body.” The government prohibits most members of the military from carrying defensive guns on military bases. One soldier at the scene of the murders told CNS.com that, had more soldiers there been armed, they could have stopped the murderer much sooner. (Police officers armed with AR-15 rifles eventually stopped him.) To review: The government knew that Alexis was a psychotic and violent criminal, yet the government failed to prosecute him for his crimes, failed to act on clear warnings about his psychosis, granted him security clearance at a U.S. military installation, and disarmed U.S. soldiers in the crime area thus giving the murderer ample time to fire away. The government’s proper purpose is to protect people’s rights, and it should do so robustly and effectively. In this case, the government failed to protect people’s rights on multiple counts. This massacre and others like it demonstrate that we need our government to do its job. Such massacres also demonstrate something we emphatically do not need. We do not need more laws that divert government resources from dealing with violent psychotics, such as Alexis, to tracking and harassing rights-respecting Americans. 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 Review: The Truth about Gun Control, by David B. Kopel Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

The phrase in vogue today with advocates of minimum wage laws—laws forcing employers to pay employees more than they otherwise would—is “living wage.” But, apart from laws mandating a minimum wage, this phrase has no referent in reality. And laws dictating minimum wages are immoral. To get a sense of how widespread are calls for a so-called “living wage,” consider some recent news stories: Some fast-food workers are “demanding $15.00 per hour” for their work, and recently many such workers walked off the job to show they’re serious. Some call that rate a “living wage.” California legislators recently passed a bill raising the state’s minimum wage from $8 per hour to $10 per hour by 2016. In this case, that is the so-called “living wage.” “The Milwaukee County Board will take up a living-wage ordinance this fall”—the rate in this case would fluctuate according to “federal poverty guidelines.” The District of Columbia considered (and rejected) a bill to force “Wal-Mart and other large retailers . . . to pay their employees a ‘living wage’ of at least $12.50 an hour.” The fact that no one can agree on what a “living wage” is—is it $10, $12.50, $15, or some other number plucked from the air?—indicates that the phrase is totally arbitrary. If the phrase means anything in literal terms, it would have to mean a subsistence wage. But no advocate of the so-called “living wage” wants to forcibly reduce wages to that required for mere subsistence. Instead, everyone who advocates a “living wage” wants to force employers to pay workers more than they currently do. (Although minimum wage laws would be immoral in any case, the fact is that most people who earn the minimum wage don’t supply the sole income on which their household is living, anyway.) What advocates of a “living wage” are really after is an arbitrarily set wage floor—a legally mandated minimum that employers must pay employees regardless of all relevant facts pertaining to their businesses. The economic case against the minimum wage is well-known and easy to grasp (see, for example, recent articles by David Boaz and Thomas Sowell). If the government forces employers to pay employees more than their work is worth to employers, then employers will either refrain from hiring the potential employees or fire those who don’t provide value in excess of the legally mandated minimum wage. Thus, one consequence of minimum wage laws is that many people—particularly the young and inexperienced—end up out of work completely and, of course, are therefore unable to gain work experience and earn higher wages in the future. Moreover, when the government forces up the costs of doing business, affected businesses must either scale back their operations or pass along the costs to their customers. This means, among other things, that wage controls force people (including the poor) to pay more for the food, clothes, medications, and other goods and services they consume. But the economic harms that minimum wages impose do not stop advocates of such laws or even give them pause. Why? People who advocate minimum wage laws do so not because of their economic beliefs but because of their moral beliefs. The (allegedly) moral premise behind minimum wage laws is altruism, the notion that being moral consists in sacrificing for others. On this premise, employers have a duty to sacrifice their own interests for the benefit of their employees—and government has a responsibility to force employers to act in accordance with this duty. According to altruism, business owners who act to maximize their profits thereby act immorally and must be forced to operate their businesses (at least in part) in accordance with the duty to sacrifice. But, as a matter of demonstrable moral fact, business owners do not have a duty to sacrifice their interests for the sake of their employees, and they should not be forced to do so. The owner of a business, having built it or bought it, owns the business; he has a moral right to run it in accordance with his own judgment; and he has a moral right to hire employees on voluntary terms that make sense to both parties given their needs, goals, and circumstances. Of course, to run their businesses successfully, employers must offer competitive wages that attract, keep, and motivate quality workers. Likewise, to keep their jobs and earn higher wages over time, employees must provide their employers with value for value received. Thus, voluntarily agreed upon wages create a win-win, virtuous cycle in which both employer and employee can profit more and more over time. If at any time either the employer or the employee thinks that the relationship is no longer in his best interest, he is properly free to terminate it (in accordance with the terms of their agreements). If an employee wants to earn a higher wage, it is his responsibility to gain the skills required to negotiate a higher wage in a competitive market. An employee should not seek a higher wage through government force; he should seek it by earning it, by trading value for value. The main thing standing in the way of an unskilled employee gaining the work experience necessary to earn an entry level wage, and then a mid-level wage—and so on, as high as his skills can carry him—are the clearly crippling minimum wage laws. Far from being raised, all minimum wage laws should be condemned as immoral and abolished. 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 Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand’s Morality of Egoism Minimum Wage Laws: Economically Harmful Because Immoral Link to Original

Had the satirical publican The Onion existed during America’s founding era, this is the sort of story it might have run: In New York City, it is a crime to serve dinner in your home for a fee. The “criminals” involved could have their kitchens shut down by the city’s health inspectors and be fined thousands of dollars for the “offense.” America’s founders, who declared their independence from Britain in part because the Crown “sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people,” would have scoffed at the idea that consenting parties could not freely negotiate dinner arrangements on private property. If you’re not free to invite the people of your choice over for dinner on mutually agreed terms, then no liberty is secure. But in today’s world, the fact that the government outlaws private dinner parties is widely regarded as acceptable. As as Reason points out, a CBS affiliate even sent a reporter undercover to investigate these “crimes.” The city’s health department told CBS: In New York City, people who offer meals to the public for money are considered food service establishments and need permits. The city does not allow meals to be served to members of the public in someone’s home. Properly, the government exists to protect people’s rights—which means, in part, that it enforces criminal codes against violating people’s rights. But inviting people over for dinner does not violate anyone’s rights, regardless of whether the host charges for the meal. The only rights violation in this case—the only moral crime—is the government’s use of force against rights-respecting New Yorkers. It would astonish America’s founders to hear that the Land of Liberty has moved so far in the direction of tyranny that people can’t say “dinner is served” without fearing a raid by government agents. But that’s where we are. It is time for Americans to learn what rights are and what they mean in practice. This is the only way to reverse the trend toward tyranny. 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: Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society Judge Properly Tosses New York City Soda Ban Link to Original

Perhaps we should expect no better from the magazine that published a sycophantic tribute to the Boston bombers. Still, it is disappointing to see Rolling Stone smear Alex Epstein, a contributor to The Objective Standard, president of the Center for Industrial Progress, and outspoken defender of the use of fossil fuels. Calling Epstein one of “Global Warming’s Denier Elite,” Rolling Stone falsely claims that Epstein denies that warming has occurred. In an article for Forbes, Epstein sets the record straight: I am an outspoken global warming affirmer. I recognize that in the last 150 years the average temperature around the globe has trended upward rather than downward. I recognize that human CO2 emissions make a contribution to warming through the mechanism of the “greenhouse effect.” At least Rolling Stone’s blurb about Epstein correctly indicates that he defends the use of fossil fuels. That one’s position on global warming does not logically imply one’s position on the beneficence of fossil fuels is apparently lost on Rolling Stone’s contributors and editors. Epstein moves the discussion in a useful direction: The real point of contention is not whether there is some global warming and whether human beings have some climate impact, but a) whether warming is a problem and whether fossil fuel energy should be restricted. My answers are a) “No” and “No!” As Epstein points out, practically no one denies that global warming has taken place in the last century—just as it has taken place many times throughout Earth’s history. Unfortunately, many people—apparently including those involved with this smear piece at Rolling Stone—wrongly ignore or deny the fact that the use of fossil fuels has dramatically improved human life. Early industrialists burned coal to power ships, trains, and factories. To this day, industrialists burn coal to produce much of the electricity people need to power their appliances, cool and heat their homes, run their electronics, and so on. We burn petroleum to ship goods and services and move ourselves from place to place. A huge percentage of the goods we produce and use are made of petroleum. Thanks to the revolution in hydraulic fracturing, we increasingly use natural gas to generate electricity, run our furnaces, and so on. Rolling Stone mocks Epstein for telling oil producers, “Thank you for producing the lifeblood of civilization.” But producing the lifeblood of civilization is precisely what the producers of oil and other fossil fuels do—and should be thanked for. Kudos to Epstein, and shame on Rolling Stone. 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: Energy at the Speed of Thought: The Original Alternative Energy Market Interview with Alex Epstein, Founder of Center for Industrial Progress Rolling Stone Should Sink Like a Rock for its Sympathy for Islamic Terrorist Link to Original

Denbury Resources has announced the startup of the first oil production project in Montana that uses the “enhanced oil recovery” technique of carbon dioxide (CO2) flooding. In this process, CO2 is pumped underground into an oil-bearing rock formation. The CO2 mixes with the oil, releasing it from the surrounding rock, and the pressure from the injection pushes the oil up through a well (i.e., steel pipe) to the surface. After more than $300 million dollars in investment and three years of development, the company expects to extend the life of Montana’s Bell Creek Oilfield by decades and to produce more than 30 billion barrels of additional oil there. Engineers are now injecting CO2 4,500 feet below the surface into tiny oil-filled pores of a forty-foot thick section of rock called the Muddy Sandstone. The pressure used to pump the CO2 into the ground moves the resulting mixture into adjacent wells (called “producers”), where it travels to the surface. On the surface, a facility separates the CO2 from the oil, sending the oil to a pipeline, and re-injecting the CO2 back into the ground where it separates more oil from rock. The CO2 supply comes from the Lost Cabin natural gas processing plant in Wyoming. The gas plant began operation in 1995 and originally vented waste CO2 into the atmosphere. In 2011, the plant operators began upgrading the facilities with CO2 capture technology, which now collects this previously useless exhaust for sale to oil producers. Prior to the advancements enabled by Denbury Resources, the Bell Creek Field was producing 975 barrels of oil per day. With the advancements, Bell Creek is expected to increase production to more than 10,000 barrels per day. Congratulations to the innovative scientists, engineers, and businessmen of Denbury Resources. May they profit handsomely from this remarkable, life-serving technology. 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: Energy at the Speed of Thought: The Original Alternative Energy Market Oil Developers’ Innovative Technology Breathes New Life into Legendary Oilfield Link to Original

Allan Gotthelf—a philosopher and author best known for his scholarship on Aristotle and Ayn Rand—died August 30, 2013 of of cancer at the age of seventy. Gotthelf knew Rand, discussed philosophy with her on multiple occasions, and participated in her workshops on epistemology, transcripts of which were later published. His obituary in the New York Times indicates the impact he and Rand had on each other: Gotthelf met Ayn Rand in 1962, in connection with lectures on her philosophy that he attended. Rand took an active interest in philosophy students, and over the next 15 years, he had the opportunity for long philosophical discussions with her. Gotthelf is one of two friends whose expressions of interest Rand said prompted her to write Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, which has become one of history’s best-selling works on epistemology. Gotthelf was an active participant in Rand’s famous 1969–71 Workshops on that book, an edited transcript of which now appears as an appendix to the book’s second edition (Plume, 1990). Gotthelf was a founding member of the Ayn Rand Society, a group affiliated with the American Philosophical Association, and he held the Society’s highest office from 1990 until his death. I attended his memorial service on September 7, where many of his friends, colleagues, and loved ones shared stories about his constantly cheerful attitude, his quick wit, and his love of many things, including the baseball Negro League, Bruce Lee, fine restaurants, and Frank Lloyd Wright’s architecture. His close friends Harry Binswanger and Michael Berliner referred to Gotthelf as “an ambassador for Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism” because he worked so diligently and effectively to introduce Rand’s ideas in academia, where he broke through barriers that appeared impenetrable. Gotthelf is buried at Kensico Cemetery in Valhalla, New York, his epitaph reads: Allan Gotthelf, December 30, 1942—August 30, 2013 What better life—some precious loves aside—than to have spent my time with the minds of Aristotle and Ayn Rand . . . And to have brought their wisdom to the world! 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: Who is Ayn Rand? Ayn Rand: America’s Comeback Philosopher Link to Original

We live in an amazing age, filled with astounding, life-serving technological advances. And, in addition to the material goods involved in these advances, we can gain spiritual fuel from them by explicitly recognizing and celebrating them and the great producers who bring them about. Here are some recent examples: The California company Aeroscraft has test-flown an updated version of the old Zeppelin, a rigid-bodied craft filled with light gas capable of lifting heavy loads with vertical takeoff. Unlike the ill-fated, hydrogen-filled Hindenburg Zeppelin that crashed and burned in 1937, the Aeroscraft uses non-flammable helium. Aeroscraft explains that the craft “compresses helium into large storage tanks to become heavier than air; the helium is released back into the envelope to become lighter-than-air. No helium is lost during the process, and no helium cleaning is required.” Elizabeth Holmes is working to revolutionize medical testing, the Wall Street Journal reports. Theranos, the company Holmes founded in 2003 after dropping out of Stanford, is developing “devices that automate and miniaturize more than 1,000 laboratory tests, from routine blood work to advanced genetic analyses,” the Journal notes. The tests promise fast, inexpensive, and accurate results from mere drops of blood. Easton LaChappelle, a Colorado teenager, “has used 3D printing to create a robotic prosthetic arm that costs less than $500 and is fully functional,” International Business Times reports. The user controls the arm with a headband using wireless technology. These innovators, in pursuing careers they love and applying reason to the problems and possibilities they meet, produce life-enhancing products and technologies and provide spiritual fuel for everyone to boot. Congratulations and “thank you” to these and to all men of the mind. 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: Review: Steve Jobs, by Walter Isaacson Sony’s Video Headsets Radically Improve Surgeons’ Ability to See Inside Patients Image: Aeroscraft Link to Original

Astonishing as it is that we must argue for the principle that the U.S. military should be deployed exclusively in service of America’s self-interest, we must. As Craig Biddle explained on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, many Americans, including our politicians, advocate a foreign policy that sacrifices American security, wealth, and lives for the sake of others. (As to why so many Americans advocate such a policy, see Biddle’s article.) Thankfully, though, some outspoken Americans are calling for a policy of self-interest. Jonathan Hoenig and Wayne Rogers (actor, investor, Navy veteran) recently appeared on Fox’s Cashin’ In, and, on the question of whether the United States should enter the Syrian civil war, both men unequivocally and unabashedly advocated a policy of selfishness. Hoenig said: Americans, I think, would gladly pay any price, whether its in their lives or their treasure, for American interests. But to sacrifice American kids [and] American treasure for these savage Islamists is . . . treasonous. . . . Our soldiers are not sacrifices; they’re rational, they’re self-interested. And to send them off in any element of harm’s way for al Qaeda’s children I think is criminal. Rogers added: Hezbollah is with Assad; we know that. And al Qaeda is with the rebels; we know that. So why not let them shoot each other? We have no selfish interest there to protect. This is what Americans should be saying to our politicians. This is the kind of policy that makes sense for a country founded to protect its citizens’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is the language of a genuinely American policy on the use of military force. Thank you, Mr. Hoenig and Mr. Rogers—and please keep speaking the moral truth loudly and clearly. 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: “No Substitute for Victory”—The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism On the Anniversary of 9/11, Relativism and Religion Still Paralyze American Self-Defense Image: Wayne Rogers Link to Original

The National Research Council (NRC) recently published a study concluding that—contrary to claims made by industry opponents—crude oil from the Canadian Oilsands is no more likely than other oil to cause pipeline leaks. Diluted bitumen, the kind of oil that would be transported through the Keystone XL Pipeline if it were built, has been imported safely into the United States for more than thirty years. So why was legislation passed in 2012 demanding “proof” of the oil’s relative safety? Fred Upton, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, says that it was simply “an attempt to block the pipeline’s construction.” Rather than requiring the accusers bring evidence to support their unsubstantiated charge that diluted bitumen is more likely to cause pipeline leaks, Congress passed legislation under the 2011 “Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Jobs Creation Act,” which commissioned the NRC committee to assess the validity of these claims. The results of the study were unequivocal. As the committee chairman put it: “There’s nothing extraordinary about pipeline shipments of diluted bitumen to make them more likely than other crude oils to cause releases.” Pipeline construction has not always been thwarted by arbitrary allegations buoyed by legislative interference. The age of modern pipeline development began in 1815, when William Murdock invented the coal-gas burning lamp system. To illuminate the city of London, he joined together old discarded musket barrels. This was such a success that inventors raced to create more and better pipes, and by 1819, 288 miles of pipeline fueled 51,000 lamps, bringing the city’s inhabitants light in place of darkness, thereby improving their quality of life in myriad ways. In the early 1820s in New York state, two wooden pipelines were built to transport natural gas that naturally bubbled up to the surface along Canadaway Creek and the shores of Lake Erie. These pipelines fueled various burners, including Barcelona Lighthouse, the first natural gas burning lighthouse in the world. In 1865, the first oil-transporting pipeline made out of wood was built in the United States. The nine mile pipeline lowered shipping costs, helping to usher in the new age of fast and efficient fluid transport. Americans enthusiastically embraced the use of pipeline to transport oil. By 1900, businesses had laid over 6,800 miles of it in the United States. Today, these lines extend more than 55,000 miles. Unlike the pipelines of the aforementioned pioneers, the lines of the proposed Keystone XL will be made of 36-inch extra-thick corrosion-resistant steel. Before the piping is lowered deep into the ground and buried, each weld will be scanned for integrity by independent contractors using x-ray or ultrasonic technology. Detected imperfections will be repaired, ensuring that leakage, if there is any at all, will be minimal and insignificant. In addition to these stringent and high-tech construction measures, the Keystone XL pipeline design incorporates more than 20,000 embedded pressure sensors which will relay information via satellite to the TransCanada control center. If a problem is detected, pipeline operators will engage remotely controlled shut-off valves, stopping flow as necessary until any problem can be corrected. According to the Department of State, approval of the Keystone XL “would result in a project that would have a degree of safety over any other typically constructed domestic oil pipeline system under current code.” Yet with all these safety measures and many more, and after four years of safety reviews, the Keystone XL remains unbuilt, and unnecessary studies based on unsubstantiated claims (like the one above) continue to consume businessmen’s and engineers’ time and resources. Opponents of this oil-transportation technology, using government force, have brought this incredibly safe delivery mechanism for the lifeblood of civilization to a halt. Consequently, they have dramatically retarded energy production, increased the costs of oil and thereby of all other goods and services, and harmed our standard of living in countless ways relative to what it would otherwise be. Americans who want to support the production of energy on which our lives and prosperity depend must demand that our government stop aiding anti-development groups and stop passing laws based on their arbitrary claims. 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: Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company Antitrust Assault on Halliburton, Baker Hughes, and Schlumberger is Obscene Image of Old Pipeline: David Biederman Link to Original

With this week’s DVD release of Star Trek into Darkness, now is a good time to evaluate or reevaluate the oft-stated Star Trek claim, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” (or “the one”). This claim is made in various scenes in the films, including in the latest one. Let’s first consider some instances and the relevant contexts. In The Wrath of Khan (1982), Spock says, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Captain Kirk answers, “Or the one.” This sets up a pivotal scene near the end of the film (spoilers follow). With the Enterprise (ship) in imminent danger of destruction, Spock enters a highly radioactive chamber in order to fix the ship’s drive so the crew can escape danger. Spock quickly perishes, and, with his final breaths, says to Kirk, “Don’t grieve, Admiral. It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh . . . ” Kirk finishes for him, “The needs of the few.” Spock replies, “Or the one.” In the next film, The Search for Spock (1984), the crew of the Enterprise discovers that Spock is not actually dead, that his body and soul survive separately, and that it may be possible to rejoin them—which the crew proceeds to do. Once restored, Spock asks Kirk why the crew saved him. Kirk answers, “Because the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.” This is, as Spock might say, a fascinating reversal of the message in the previous film. How can these ideas be reconciled? We find an answer in the next film, The Voyage Home (1986). At the beginning of this film, Spock’s mother, who is human (his father is Vulcan), asks him whether he still believes that, by logic, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. He says yes. She replies, “Then you are here because of a mistake—your friends have given their future to save you.” (The crew had broken the law and had gone on the run in order to rescue Spock.) Spock says that humans are sometimes illogical; his mother answers, “They are, indeed!” Later in the film, when crewman Chekov is in trouble, Spock insists that the crew save him, even at risk of jeopardizing the crew’s vital mission to save Earth and everyone on it. Kirk asks, “Is this the logical thing to do?” Spock answers, “No, but it is the human thing to do.” Although Spock reaffirms his claim that the needs of the many logically outweigh the needs of the few, he suggests that sometimes we must do the “human” thing, not the logical thing, and put the needs of the few (or the one) first. So Spock, Kirk, and Spock’s mother have affirmed the idea that acting logically and acting “human” can be at odds—and that acting logically means always putting the needs of the many first. This is the alleged reconciliation of the apparently conflicting ideas with which we started. But this logically is not a reconciliation at all. In logic, (a) there can be no divide between acting logically and acting human, and ( as Ayn Rand discovered and explained, the needs of the individual are what gives rise to the need and possibility of value judgments to begin with. Our capacity to use logic, to integrate the evidence of our senses in a non-contradictory way, is part of our rational faculty—the very faculty that makes us human. Obviously we also have the capacity to be illogical, but that is because our rational faculty also entails volition, the power to choose to think or not to think. We also have the capacity to experience emotions, which are automatic responses to our experiences in relation to our values. (Various other species have an emotional capacity as well, but our values are chosen, so even on this score we are substantially different.) Our emotions, though real and important, are not a means of knowledge; they are automatic reactions to experiences in relation to our value judgments. Our means of knowledge is reason, the use of observation and logic. In regard to the Star Trek example, the reason Kirk was right to help Spock is not that doing so was “human” as against “logical”; rather he was right to help Spock because, given the immense value that Spock is to Kirk, both as a friend and as a colleague, and given that the mission to help Spock was feasible, helping him was the logical and thus human thing to do. In this case, Kirk’s emotional ties to Spock aligned with his logical evaluation of Spock’s value to him. It is possible for a person’s values to be out of line with his rational judgment, but in such cases his rational judgment remains his means of knowledge, and his emotions should take a back seat until he reassesses his values and brings them back into line with his logical assessment of the facts. Once we see the relationship and potential harmony between reason and emotion, we can see that Spock’s claim that being logical is (or can be) at odds with being human makes no sense. What of Spock’s claim, “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”? Logic requires that some evidence be offered in support of such a claim—but Spock offers no evidence in support of this. He just asserts it. Which “many”? Which “few”? “Outweigh” on whose scale? For what purpose? To whose benefit? Why is his or their benefit the proper benefit? Spock does not address such questions; he simply asserts that logic clearly dictates his conclusion. But it doesn’t. Far from being an expression of logic, Spock’s claim that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few is an arbitrary assertion and a restatement of the baseless moral theory known as utilitarianism, which asserts that each individual should act to serve the greatest good for the greatest number. (For a critique of utilitarianism, see my essay on the moral theory of Sam Harris, TOS Winter 2012–13.) What logic actually dictates is that if human beings want to live and achieve happiness, they must identify and pursue the values that make that goal possible. As Ayn Rand points out, life makes values both possible and necessary. We need to eat—in order to live and prosper. We need to wear protective clothing and find shelter—in order to live and prosper. We need to pursue a productive career to gain goods and services—in order to live and prosper. The principle holds true in more complex cases as well. We need to build friendships to gain a wide variety of intellectual, psychological, and material benefits—in order to live and prosper. We need to experience great art to see our values in concrete form—in order to live and prosper. The pattern holds for all our values. Logically, the only ultimate reason we need to pursue any value is in order to live and prosper. (See Rand’s essay “The Objectivist Ethics” for her derivation of this principle.) How does this principle apply in the Star Trek examples? In the case of Kirk’s dangerous mission to help Spock, Kirk logically concludes that, given the full context of his values, saving his dear friend is worth the risk involved. What are we to make, then, of Spock’s final actions in The Wrath of Khan? Does he sacrifice his own life and values in order to serve the needs of the many? No. Khan, piloting a damaged ship, sets off a device that will soon cause a massive explosion that will destroy his own ship along with the Enterprise and its entire crew. Captain Kirk says to his chief engineer, “Scotty, I need warp speed in three minutes or we’re all dead.” It is at this point that Spock leaves the bridge, goes to engineering, and enters a radiation-filled room in order to repair the ship’s warp drive. As a result of Spock’s actions, the Enterprise speeds away to a safe distance from the explosion—but Spock “dies.” Spock does consider the needs of his friends and shipmates in making this move. But he does not thereby sacrifice his own values or even his own life. His only alternative is to die with the ship anyway. Instead of dying and having all of his shipmates and friends die too, he chooses to uphold and protect the values that he can and to uphold his commitment to serve as a Star Fleet officer—a position that he chose knowing and accepting the risks involved. Although in this case Spock must pick the least-bad of two bad options, he makes the choice that best serves his interests and thus his life. The only principle consistent with logic and thus with humanity is that if we want to “live long and prosper” (as Vulcans often say) we must use logic and pursue our life-serving values. Fortunately, contrary to Spock’s occasional illogic, this is what he actually does. And this is why so many people love him. It’s only logical. 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: Review: Star Trek: The Original Films William Shatner’s Tweet and the Power of Art Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original