Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Blog Auto Feed Retired

New Intellectual
  • Posts

    499
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

Everything posted by Blog Auto Feed Retired

  1. Twelve years have passed since September 11, 2001, when Islamic terrorists attacked the United States, murdered nearly 3,000 Americans, and tore apart the lives of countless more. During these years, Islamic terrorists have continued plotting, attacking, and killing Americans, not only overseas, but also on American soil, with four “successes” among a total of sixty plots, and counting. The successes to date are, as the Heritage Foundation recounts: (1) the intentional driving of an SUV into a crowd of students at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill in 2006; (2) the shooting at an army recruitment office in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 2009; (3) the shooting by U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood, also in 2009; and (4) the bombings in Boston. What has the U.S government done to eliminate the fundamental cause of 9/11 and these ongoing assaults? Worse than nothing. Having refused to identify as the fundamental enemy the main regimes that fuel such assaults—namely, those in Iran and Saudi Arabia—let alone eliminate them, our government has instead pursued tribes of cave-dwellers in Afghanistan; ousted from Iraq the regime of Saddam Hussein, a major enemy of Iran; gone to war with Libya; spied on American citizens; molested children and grannies in airports; contemplated war with Syria; and engaged in various other activities wholly unrelated to eliminating the fundamental cause of the assaults on America. What do we have to show for these “efforts”? We have 6,668 dead American soldiers (and counting)—plus more than 50,000 wounded soldiers, more than 16,000 of whom are severely wounded, and more than 1,600 of whom have lost one or more limbs—plus the unimaginable pain and suffering of all of their loved ones. What we don’t have for these efforts is even a beginning to the end of the Islamic terrorist assaults on Americans. America has not taken so much as a step in the direction of destroying the regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The problem is not a lack of knowledge that these regimes are the fundamental cause of the assaults. The problem is that America knows that they are the cause yet refuse to do anything about it. Here’s just a little bit of what we know about Iran’s support for terrorism against America: • Iran effectively declared war on the United States in 1979, when Iranian militants seized the American embassy in Tehran and held fifty-two hostages for 444 days, occasionally torturing some of them. From that act of war onward, the Iranian regime has ceaselessly chanted and pursued “Death to America!”—“Death to America!” • Iran funds and supports al-Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist group that, among other things, murdered almost 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001. According to a 2011 report from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world”; a “key [part of] Al-Qa’ida funding and support network”; and a “critical transit point” for the terrorist organization, “allowing it to funnel funds and operatives through its territory.” In sum, according to the report, Iran provides “unmatched support for terrorism.” • Iran funds, supplies, and trains Hamas and Hezbollah, major Islamic terrorist groups that constantly attack America’s ally, Israel, and that have murdered many Americans (see below). According to the U.S. Department of State’s “Country Reports on Terrorism 2012,” Iran provides Hamas with “funding, weapons, and training” and provides Hezbollah with “training, weapons, and explosives, as well as political, diplomatic, monetary, and organizational aid.” • Iran is responsible for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people—including twelve Americans—and wounded thousands more. As the Washington Post reports: Al-Qaeda carried out the attack, but the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the bombings would not have been possible without “direct assistance” from Tehran. . . . “The government of Iran,” Judge John D. Bates wrote in his 45-page decision, “aided, abetted and conspired with Hezbollah, Osama Bin Laden, and al Qaeda to launch large-scale bombing attacks against the United States by utilizing the sophisticated delivery mechanism of powerful suicide truck bombs.” Iran’s assistance was not peripheral to the plot, Bates found. “Al Qaeda desired to replicate Hezbollah’s 1983 Beirut Marine barracks suicide bombing, and Bin Laden sought Iranian expertise to teach al Qaeda operatives about how to blow up buildings,” Bates wrote. “Prior to their meetings with Iranian officials and agents Bin Laden and al Qaeda did not possess the technical expertise required to carry out the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. The Iranian defendants, through Hezbollah, provided explosives training to Bin Laden and al Qaeda and rendered direct assistance to al Qaeda operatives . . . n a short time, al Qaeda acquired the capabilities to carry out the 1998 Embassy bombings, which killed hundreds and injured thousands by detonation of very large and sophisticated bombs.” • Iran is responsible for the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, which killed nineteen U.S. Air Force airmen. • Iran is responsible for the 1983 bombing of a U.S. Marine barrack in Beirut, Lebanon, which killed 241 American soldiers and military personnel. “[T]he terrorist group Hezbollah carried out the attack at the direction of the Iranian government,” CNN reports. And, “in 2004, Iran erected a monument in Teheran to commemorate the 1983 bombings and its martyrs.” • The Iranian regime appears to be producing nuclear weapons, and, whatever its progress, its intention to produce them is clear, and its willingness to use them cannot rationally be doubted. And here are a few representative items regarding what America knows about Saudi Arabia’s support for terrorism against America: • The Saudis have long funded al-Qaeda; they continue funding the terrorist group today; they are al-Qaeda’s largest source of funds; and, according to a 2002 briefing delivered to the Pentagon’s Defense Advisory Board, they are “active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader. . . . Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies . . . [and is] the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent” in the Middle East. • Fifteen of the nineteen Islamic terrorists who hijacked U.S. passenger jets and slammed them into buildings full of Americans on 9/11 were citizens of Saudi Arabia. • The Saudis build and fund mosques and schools in America and across the globe and supply them with terrorist-inspiring materials that specify, among other things, that infidels, Christians, Jews, and all those who “accept any religion other than Islam” have “denied the Koran” and thus “should be killed.” Although the foregoing facts and many more concerning Iran and Saudi Arabia are widely known by U.S. government officials and American citizens, they are rarely if ever integrated into a case for ending these evil regimes. Rather, Americans, by and large, ignore this knowledge and abstain from demanding that our government eliminate these murderers. Why? Only one thing can explain evasion of this magnitude: bad philosophy. America is paralyzed by the dogmas of relativism and religion. Relativists (including many on the political left) are paralyzed by their acceptance of the absurd view that all cultures are morally equal. And religionists (including many who claim to be on the political right) are paralyzed by their acceptance of essentially the same philosophy as our enemy: the notion that there is a “God” whom we must obey and whose existence and laws are known by means of faith. Take them in turn. Relativists can’t name the enemy because, hey, who are we to judge other cultures or to label things to or claim knowledge of the “Truth”? Who are we to claim that a culture of so-called moral rights and political freedom is better than a culture of sharia law and submission to Allah? To make such a claim is elitist and racist! So say the relativists. We can, according to relativism, collectively agree on things, and we can loosely call such agreement the “truth”; but no one can know the real “Truth.” As the relativists’ favorite philosopher, Immanuel Kant, explained long ago, the real Truth is that the real Truth is unknowable. It is inaccessible to reason. The only “truth” we can know is the collectively subjective “truth”—that is, whatever the greater community collectively agrees on. And, on that score, the international community—the greatest community of all!—is against the idea that America has a “right” to attack the sovereign nations that allegedly “attacked” or sought to “harm” Americans. For relativists, that is the end of the debate. Religionists, for their part, can’t name the enemy either—at least not in terms of essentials—because the enemy is precisely people who regard faith as a means of knowledge and take religion seriously. What can Jews or Christians say to Muslims who have faith that their God commands them to kill infidels and who take their religion seriously? “Look, we know you have faith in Allah and that He commands you in your religious scripture to kill infidels and others who violate His law, but you can’t take religion so seriously. Our God says in our scripture that we must kill for Him too, but we ignore those parts. You have to judge what God says. You have to use some common sense. You can’t just have faith that He is always right.” You see the problem. If today’s Jews or Christians took their religions seriously, they too would murder for God. But Judaism and Christianity have been tempered by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, rendering today’s Jews and Christians essentially unserious about their creeds. Although few Jews or Christians will openly admit that they do not take religion seriously, most of them, in fact, do not take it seriously. Rather, they cherry-pick from their scriptures, judging what they regard as palatable and not palatable, and they (largely) throw out the parts where God calls for murdering people or violating rights. Thank goodness. Islam, unfortunately, has not been tempered. Many Muslims around the world aim seriously to “live” and die by Islamic law—and to force everyone else to do so too. This is the explicit goal of Muslims who take their religion seriously—because it is the central commandment of Islam: Muslims must submit to Allah, spread Islam, and, ultimately, make the whole world submit to Allah. “Islam” means “submission to Allah.” “Muslim” means “one who submits.” And “unbeliever” (a.k.a. “infidel” or “kafir”) means “one without faith” or “one who does not submit” and who therefore must be converted or killed. This is the nature of the enemy that has declared war on us. This is what Muslims who take their religion seriously believe and do. And Americans, by and large, know it. Yet the relativists among us will not judge Islam as evil, and the religionists among us cannot judge it as evil—at least not in fundamental terms. Consequently, few Americans are willing and able to call (credibly) for the eradication of the Muslims and regimes that seriously embrace Islam and thus seek to convert or kill us. Now, this is not to say that relativists and religionists won’t advocate or support war, even war against an Islamic state. They will advocate war—so long as the war is essentially self-sacrificial rather than self-interested. One thing relativists and religionists agree on is that being moral consists in sacrificing for others. Relativists believe it because the community tells them to believe it, and religionists believe it because religious scripture tells them to believe it. “Self-sacrifice is a virtue”—“You are your brother’s keeper”—“You must help the poor, the downtrodden, the unfortunate, the oppressed, the suffering”—all of this is accepted as unquestionably true by both relativists and religionists. And to what kind of foreign policy do such ideas lead? Unsurprisingly, they lead to a foreign policy of self-sacrifice. This is why, for instance, the Bush administration, with the blessing of the American people, deployed American soldiers to bring “freedom” and “democracy” to Iraqis, which was not in America’s self-interest, yet refused to drop bombs on Tehran and Qom, which would have been in America’s self-interest. It’s also why the Obama administration, with the blessing of many Americans, sent troops into Libya to help the “oppressed” there, when America had no national interest in doing so—and why the Obama administration seeks to deploy the U.S. military to help the “oppressed” rebels in Syria, when America has no national interest in doing so—yet neither the Obama administration nor many Americans would dream of terminating the regime in Riyadh, which would be in America’s self-interest. Granted, some relativists and religionists argue vaguely that we should at least have some interest in a war if we are going to enter it—but they don’t and can’t say unequivocally that we have no moral business sacrificing American wealth or soldiers to serve others. After all, what would the “international community” say? And what would Jesus do? The net effect of the widespread acceptance of relativism and religion in America is that America (a) refuses to selfishly identify and eliminate our primary enemies—and ( continues to engage in selfless wars that sacrifice American lives, limbs, and loved ones. What to do? Revolt against relativism and religion. It is time for Americans to demand of themselves and of their fellow Americans that they first-handedly face the facts before their eyes, reject the dogmas of relativism and religion, realize that our enemies in this war are our enemies because they take religion seriously, and demand that our government demonstrate to our enemies that America the Beautiful is greater than Allah the Nonexistent. How can we demonstrate this? We can demonstrate it by ending the main regimes that take Islam seriously and thus continually threaten America: the regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Fortunately, in this case, we can kill two regimes with one campaign. First, we must declare war on Iran and take out the current regime. This does not require bombing everything or killing everyone in Iran. Far from it. Many Iranians are good people who want to be freed from the theocracy; thus, the war should be wage not on the general population, but specifically on the assets and people who directly support the existing regime. A proper campaign would target all known Iranian military assets, government buildings, mosques, madrasahs (colleges in which students are trained to be jihadists), and the residences of the regime’s leaders, imams, clerics, and officials. As always in war, there would be some innocent casualties, such as Iranian children and advocates of liberty. So it is important to bear in mind the principle that the deaths of all innocents in war are the moral responsibility (a) of those who initiated force and thus necessitated retaliatory measures—and ( of those who evade the relevant facts, drop context, and attempt to muddy the waters on such issues, thus delaying justice and necessitating the deaths of even more innocents. Iran initiated force against America and has sustained the assault for decades; thus the deaths of any innocents resulting from our use of retaliatory force against the Iranian regime are solely on the hands of the regime and its apologists. Once the Iranian regime is gone and the Iranian people are free to begin establishing a secular, rights-respecting republic, the U.S. government must turn to Saudi Arabia and inform the current regime there that it can either immediately step down and make way for a secular, rights-respecting republic—or opt for the Iranian alternative. They will step down. Next, the U.S. government must announce to the world that, henceforth, this is how America will deal with any and all foreign threats to our citizens’ rights or national security. Having just earned credibility, our government will have credibility. Of course the Obama administration would not do any of this even if 100 percent of the American people including Congress demanded it. But that’s not the point. The point is that this is the right thing to do and that no administration is ever going to do the right thing unless Americans demand it and begin supporting politicians who will do it. And the only way a substantial number of Americans are going to demand what’s right and support politicians who will do what’s right is if a courageous minority of independent thinkers rise up, openly and articulately repudiate relativism and religion, embrace a philosophy of reason and self-interest, and actively encourage others to do the same. There is no other way. Please be part of that minority. 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 War on Syria is Not the Means to Credibility and Security; War on Iran Is Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original
  2. It is unclear whether the Obama administration will proceed with an “unbelievably small” military strike against the Syrian regime or plead with Bashar al-Assad to surrender its chemical weapons. One thing that is clear, however, is that to pursue military action in Syria as a means of stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program—as former national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley proposes in a Washington Post article—would be idiotic. Hadley writes, “Only internal pressure and the threat of U.S. military action will cause [iran’s] Khamenei to accept a nuclear deal,” and he claims that U.S. credibility with respect to Iran will suffer if the Obama administration does not follow through on threats to retaliate over Assad’s use of chemical weapons. If the United States wants to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and from financing and aiding Islamic terrorism against America—which we certainly should do—then we should not fight a proxy war with Syria to gain “credibility” or to someday maybe threaten military action against Iran. Rather, the U.S. military should destroy Iran’s theocratic regime, along with its capacity to develop nuclear weapons. That way America would achieve both credibility and security. 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 Obama Administration’s Foreign Policy: Intentionally Ineffective Image: Wikipedia Link to Original
  3. Tonight I’ll join Andrew Bernstein and Arshak Benlian on “Objectively Speaking” to discuss 9/11, Islam, what America must do to solve our terrorism problem. The show airs live from 8 to 9 PM Eastern Time, and the call-in number is 347-855-8824. I hope you’ll join us! Creative Commons Image: Alonso Javier Torres Link to Original
  4. What is the Obama administration’s mission in Syria? Secretary of State John Kerry recently spelled it out: We will be able to hold Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war. That is exactly what we are talking about doing—[an] unbelievably small, limited kind of effort. In other words, the purpose of the Obama administration’s proposed involvement in Syria—something that at a minimum will cost America substantial resources and put the lives of U.S. soldiers at risk—is not to topple the brutal Assad regime, not to prevent the deaths of civilians, and not to further America’s interests in the region. The purpose—if it can be called that—is to put on an empty military show in response to Assad purportedly crossing an arbitrarily drawn “red line” regarding the means by which he slaughters Syrians. Unfortunately, given the Obama administration’s general approach to foreign policy, the smallness and ineffectiveness of the proposed Syria strike is all too believable. 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 Assad’s “Moral Obscenity” Does Not Justify Obscenity of Sacrificial Military Intervention Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original
  5. If you purchased ebooks from select publishers, the government is offering to force those publishers to send you “settlement” funds as part of the government’s antitrust action against them. As a matter of justice, you should refuse those funds—as I have done. To accept them would be to sanction the government’s legalized extortion of those businesses. First consider the background. On August 31, I received an email from Amazon stating: [Y]ou are entitled to a credit for some of your past Kindle book purchases as a result of legal settlements between several major book publishers and the Attorneys General of most U.S. states and territories. We wanted to let you know that two more publishers have since settled with some State Attorneys General and Class Plaintiffs and these new settlements may increase the amount of the credit you will receive. But why do these ebook publishers (allegedly) owe anyone anything? Through freely negotiated contracts, they and book sellers agreed to the asking price for books, and customers willingly purchased (or declined to purchase) books at that price. No force or fraud was involved. These sales were free-market transactions similar to those we engage in every day for a multitude of products and services and with a multitude of businesses. The publishers should not be punished; they should be thanked for providing such wonderful products in exchange for so little. But the government is not content with these free exchanges made by willing participants. Acting on the inherently ambiguous antitrust laws, the government deemed that various publishers, along with Apple, set prices other than what government bureaucrats felt best. Now, the government wishes to countermand the terms by which willing participants sold and purchased ebooks and force publishers to send out “settlement” funds—on threat of further government reprisals. In other words, the government is forcing these publishers to hand over money to people to whom they do not morally owe anything. The government’s action here is legalized extortion. (Despicably, Amazon praises the government’s actions in this case—actions that harm Amazon’s competitor in the digital sales market, Apple.) Fortunately, customers who willingly purchased the ebooks in question can decline to participate in the government’s extortion racket. A government web page devoted to the case makes available an “exclusion request,” which, if you fill out and mail in, means “you will not receive any money from the settlement(s)” in question. That the government requires a tedious filing of paperwork to exclude yourself from the government’s extortion is a travesty on top of an atrocity, but it is worth the time in that excluding yourself from the extortion makes clear that you regard it as morally wrong and that you refuse to participate in the government’s assault on these producers. 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: Antitrust with a Vengeance: The Obama Administration’s Anti-Business Cudgel The Government’s Obscene Assault on Apple States Join Extortion Racket Against Book Publishers Link to Original
  6. The History Channel’s “reality” television show Pawn Stars not only reveals interesting facts about eclectic household items, it also demonstrates the value of pawn shops, how this business works, and, in so doing, the nature of trade in general. The pawn shop owners and their customers negotiate deals that, in every instance, constitute a gain (or at least an expected gain) on the part of both parties. The show features a family owned pawn shop in Las Vegas, Nevada, whose customers come in to sell or pawn anything from Civil War memorabilia to video games to custom-made motorcycles. When a customer brings in an antique or an unusual item, the shop owners reach out to experts such as museum curators or specialty retailers, who often explain how they determine the authenticity or value of the objects. Of course, determining the value of rare items is not an exact science. As the show reveals, pawn shops assume the risk that they will ultimately be unable to sell unclaimed collateral items at a profit—just as all businesses assume the risk that they will be unable to sell or continue selling their products at a profit. Pawn Stars illustrates the basic way in which all businesses work. In one episode, shop owner Rick Harris explains that he and his “dad started this pawn shop in ‘88, because [they] wanted to make more money, and lots of it.” While haggling, the shop owners regularly let their customers know that they have to buy items at a price that is low enough for them to make a profit when reselling them. The show is also quite humorous. When one gentleman accuses Rick of trying to take the food out of his wife’s mouth, for instance, Rick playfully replies, “Yeah, and put it in mine.” The two eventually make a deal, and both walk away having gained from the trade—no food having been taken from anyone’s mouth. Pawn Stars shows how pawn shops earn their profits by providing a valuable service that people choose to take advantage of. In so doing, as Rick points out, the show beautifully counters Hollywood’s incessant vilification of such businesses. The show even goes into some fascinating history of the business model. Rick and his father explain that, until the 1950s, “pawn shops were the number one source of consumer credit in the United States.” And they show that pawn shops remain an important source of credit. For example, one small business owner pawns his Big Dog Custom Chopper so that he can make payroll. Another man, in the business of antique restoration, pawns a commercial table saw so that he can expand his business. In addition to being highly entertaining, Pawn Stars illustrates the virtue of negotiating on the basis of one’s values, of trading value for value, and of earning a profit in the process. In short, it illustrates the beauty of capitalism. Long live pawn shops—and Pawn Stars! 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 Exalted Heroism of Alistair MacLean’s Novels His Dark Materials Trilogy by Philip Pullman – Reviewed by C. A. Wolski Review: Mr. Jekyll and Dr. House, by Gena Gorlin Creative Commons Image: Out.of.Focus Link to Original
  7. California raisin farmers Marvin and Laura Horne decided to sell all of the raisins they produced—and thereby ran afoul of the law. As NPR reports, the Raisin Administrative Committee (RAC) dictates what percentage of his raisin crop a California producer is permitted to sell each year. The RAC—backed by the force of law—takes the “excess” raisins from the producer, without compensation, and puts them in a “raisin reserve.” The RAC’s edicts are subject to the approval of the U.S. Department of Agriculture—which typically approves them—and, with that approval, carry the weight of law, as authorized by the Truman-era Federal Raisin Marketing Order Part 289. The purpose of this statist folly is to prop up the prices of California raisins. For decades, the Hornes complied with the raisin control laws. Then, in 2002, the RAC dictated that a whopping 47 percent of the farmers’ raisin crops would be sent to the “reserve.” For the Hornes, that was the last straw. They decided to fight back, taking advantage of a “loophole” they thought they saw in the law. They reorganized their business to function at 100 percent capacity, ignored the RAC’s quotas, started selling all of their raisins, and challenged the USDA in court. Now, a decade later, the Washington Post reports, the Hornes are potentially on the hook for “at least $650,000 in unpaid fines [and] 1.2 million pounds of unpaid raisins”—enough to bankrupt them. Their case, Marvin D. Horne, et al. v. Department of Agriculture, worked its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Happily, as the Post reports, the high court issued its ruling and gave Horne a partial victory. A lower court had rejected Horne’s challenge of the law. Now, the justices [unanimously] told that court to reconsider it. “Horne,” notes the Post, is “trying to do one of the hardest things in American politics. He is trying to kill a law, by breaking it.” The RAC is, as Daniel Sumner (director of the University of California’s Agricultural Issues Center) told the Post, essentially a government-backed cartel. The RAC and its dictates violate producers’ rights. Raisin growers have a moral right to sell their raisins according to their own judgment, and no one—including the government and its henchmen—has a moral right to dictate otherwise. Marvin Horne told the Post: “I believe in America. And I believe in our Constitution. And I believe that eventually we will be proved right.” Presently, the Hornes—dubbed by the media “raisin outlaws”—await the outcome of their challenge. Best success to them in their fight to protect their rights to produce and market their raisins as they see fit. 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: A Brief History of U.S. Farm Policy and the Need for Free-Market Agriculture Government Killed Buckyballs, Now Seeks to Destroy CEO, Too Link to Original
  8. Less than a year ago, Koni Dole, a high school football player from Montana, broke his leg in the final game of the season. The injury resulted in the loss of his lower right leg. One might reasonably assume that this injury ended Dole’s football career. But it didn’t. As KAJ18.com reports, when doctors “informed Dole he had the choice of keeping his lower leg attached or amputating, which could improve his chances of continuing an athletic career,” Dole chose amputation, because “his dream was still to play football for Montana State.” Last Friday, Dole returned, contributing to his team’s opening season victory with some outstanding defensive play—and two touchdowns. He said that stepping onto the field for the first time since his injury gave him “just an indescribable feeling.” Cheers to Koni Dole for his triumphant return to high school football, and best success to him in achieving his dream of playing for Montana State. His courage and determination is an inspiration. Cheers also to the scientists, engineers, and businessmen who have advanced the designs and practical applications of prosthetics such that an athlete who lost a limb can nevertheless shine in a rough contact sport such as football. Reason and determination are beautiful things. 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: Born to Run, by Christopher McDougall An Olympian Congratulations to Kirani James, Oscar Pistorius—and Össur Kristinsson Link to Original
  9. Is health care a right? For decades, American politicians have enacted laws on the presumption that it is and that government therefore has a responsibility to provide it to individuals who cannot or choose not to buy it themselves. These laws, which include Medicare, Medicaid, and now ObamaCare, have resulted in runaway health care spending and massive government intervention in medicine. In a newly published essay, “There is No ‘Right’ to Healthcare,” the late historian John David Lewis challenges this presumption at its core. The essay appears in the textbook, Medical Ethics, 2nd Edition, edited by Michael Boylan of Marymount University. Lewis describes two basic and conflicting views of rights in America today. One is the idea of rights as entitlements to goods and services. The other is the idea of rights as moral prerogatives to freedom of action. The first view holds that if a person has an unmet human need—a need that could be satisfied by some good or service—then it is incumbent upon others who are able to satisfy that need to do so. In other words, needs impose duties. Lewis explains that this view fails in two important ways. First, because human needs are boundless, the consistent application of the notion that needs impose duties would lead to The other main problem, Lewis explains, is that imposing duties upon one person in the name of satisfying the unmet needs of another inescapably violates the rights of the first person. Applying this to health care, Lewis writes, “There is no right to medical care because there is no right to coerce medical professionals to provide it.”The correct conception of rights, Lewis explains, is that rights define the scope of an individual’s freedom of action against which others may not infringe. Health care cannot be a right because health care consists of goods and services that are provided by medical professionals—people who have a right to think and act in pursuit of their own happiness and values just as anyone does. “To claim a right to medical care,” explains Lewis, “is to claim nothing less than a right to run the lives of those who must provide the care.” In discussions of today’s health care crises, many people, especially politicians, often engage in dithering economic deliberations and societal cost-benefit analyses. Lewis’s “There is No ‘Right’ to Healthcare” brings the fundamental issues back into focus, and provides a clear and morally certain solution to our health care problems: Reject the false “right” to health care, and protect each individual’s actual right to pursue health care on strictly voluntary terms. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care” No, Edolphus, Health Care is Not a “Right” or a “Privilege” Link to Original
  10. In late June, a coalition of religious leaders fighting against ObamaCare’s contraception mandate, which forces employer health insurance plans to provide birth control coverage, rejected the Obama administration’s “final compromise” on the issue. The proposed “compromise” consists of a range of administrative changes, but these tweaks hardly satisfy the religious opposition. As Fox News reports, one religious leader, Reverend Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptists’ public policy arm, ridiculed the compromise as “word games and accounting tricks.” The religious coalition, Fox News reports, includes “leaders of the Roman Catholic church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals, [and] the Assemblies of God and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, among others.” The coalition is calling on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “to exempt ‘any organization or individual that has religious or moral objections’ to the so-called contraception mandate in ObamaCare.” In an “open letter to all Americans,” the coalition points out the larger threat to liberty posed by the contraception mandate: While the mandate is a specific offense, it represents a far greater breach of conscience by the federal government. Very simply, HHS is forcing citizen A, against his or her moral convictions, to purchase a product for citizen B. Citing the First Amendment, the letter broadens its message: “Free exercise [of religion] includes the freedom to order one’s life, liberties, and pursuits in accordance with his or her convictions.” Driving home the point, the coalition asks: If the federal government can force morally opposed individuals to purchase contraception or abortion-causing drugs and devices for a third party, what prevents this or future administrations from forcing other Americans to betray their deeply held convictions? The coalition concludes, “Any policy that falls short of affirming full religious freedom protection for all Americans is unacceptable.” The coalition’s letter is commendable. People have a moral right to seek (and insurers have a right to offer) the kind of health insurance that best suits their needs and values. Catholics have a right to seek insurance that does not cover birth control—and so do atheists, who may not even use birth control or who may prefer to pay for it out of pocket. As a matter of principle, everyone has a right to seek (or not to seek) whatever kind of insurance suits his needs, context, and values. Unfortunately, the coalition undercuts its own “uncompromising” position by failing to apply the same principles to the question of the propriety of ObamaCare—a law that entails, among many other rights violations, a mandate that everyone purchase health insurance. Many religious groups—notably including the Catholic Church—support ObamaCare along with its insurance mandate. But if people have a right not to buy health insurance that covers birth control—and they do—then they also have a right not to buy health insurance at all. Even so, if the religious coalition wins on the narrow issue of the birth-control mandate, it will have achieved a step in the right direction and for the right reason—despite the fact that the coalition itself does not uphold the principle at hand as a principle. For our part, we advocates of genuine, principled liberty can support this step as an example of the many more principled steps that morally must be taken to reinstate freedom in America. And, for what it’s worth, we can point out to those who are ignoring the fact that the principle is a principle, that they are being, well, unprincipled. 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 How the Catholic Church Paved the Way for the Birth Control Mandate Link to Original
  11. Tonight, I’ll be joining Andrew Bernstein and Arshak Benlian on their new Blog Talk Radio show, “Objectively Speaking.” We’ll be discussing the life and achievements of Steve Jobs. The show airs live from 8 to 9 PM Eastern Time, and the call-in number is 347-855-8824. Tune in, call in, tell your friends! Related: The Patience of Jobs Review: Steve Jobs, by Walter Isaacson Steve Jobs’ Philosophy of Life Creative Commons Image: Alonso Javier Torres Link to Original
  12. As I wrote last December, the U.S. government’s Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) forced out of business Maxfield and Oberton, the producers of the adult toys Buckyballs—small powerful magnets that can be arranged in intricate designs. I summarized: ecause a few parents irresponsibly let their toddlers eat Buckyballs, and because a few teenagers stupidly stick them in their mouths or noses despite the warning labels, Maxfield and Oberton is forbidden to sell Buckyballs and we are forbidden to buy them—regardless of whether the company issues clear and explicit warnings with each package, regardless of whether would-be customers are willing to purchase and use the toys in accordance with their own best judgment, and regardless of whether would-be customers have children in their home or office. Now, not satisfied with destroying Maxfield and Oberton, the CPSC is seeking to destroy the company’s former CEO, Craig Zucker—who led a spirited although ultimately unsuccessful public campaign against the CPSC’s actions. Sohrab Ahmari provides the details in an August 30 article for the Wall Street Journal. Ahmari describes how Zucker and his partner launched the Buckyballs business, then how the CPSC intimidated numerous retailers into dropping the product and ultimately forced Zucker out of business. Then, Ahmari writes, n February the Buckyballs saga took a chilling turn: The commission filed a motion requesting that Mr. Zucker be held personally liable for the costs of the recall, which it estimated at $57 million, if the product was ultimately determined to be defective. This was an astounding departure from the principle of limited liability at the heart of U.S. corporate law. In his conversation with Ahmari, Zucker pointed out the idiocy of the CPSC forcing his product off the market: “Like any other product in your house, if it’s used in an unintended way by an unintended consumer, it of course has the ability to create an injury.” Zucker named as examples household cleaners, knives, power tools, detergent pods, and balloons. (The CPSC itself warns that “[o]f all children’s products, balloons are the leading cause of suffocation death.”) Zucker strongly defended his moral right to sell such products: “It’s not the government’s place to say what has value and what doesn’t in a free society.” Zucker also warned about what will happen if the CPSC’s oppressive controls expand: “[Y]ou won’t have a free market anymore—you end up with a place where adults aren’t choosing which products they can own.” Americans concerned with preserving liberty and the rule of just law should praise Zucker for courageously fighting for his moral right to produce and sell the product of his choice. And we should condemn the unelected bureaucrats of the CPSC for their immoral and senseless persecution of Zucker—a persecution that can easily be expanded to any other American at any time. Buckyballs are dead; long live the spirit that created them and that fights for producers’ 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: The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty Government Destroys Buckyballs, Assaults the Mind Creative Commons Image: Jared Wong Link to Original
  13. While many Americans turn their attention to the start of the NFL football season, others anticipate a lesser-known but intensely exciting competition gearing up in the San Francisco bay: the 34th America’s Cup. In this great sailboat race, competitors showcase their engineering prowess, mental and physical training, and skill at piloting some of the fastest sailboats on the water. Two teams compete for the America’s Cup, the defender and the challenger. As the winner of the last cup, Oracle Team USA defends. The challenger, Emirates Team New Zealand, won its shot at the America’s Cup by winning the Louis Vuitton Cup, a series of races among potential challengers. This year, the competitors will race on a new class of boat, the AC72. Each competitor designs its own boat within rules of the class. By employing a thirteen-story sail, a catamaran configuration, and—most significantly—foils that lift most of the seven tons of the boat out of the water, these boats can exceed 50 miles per hour on wind power alone. Both teams have spent tens of millions of dollars designing and building their boats and training to operate them. According to Russell Coutts, CEO of Oracle Team USA, the new format for the race is “meant to test the best sailors in the world” in an “extreme” and “active” environment. Sailing at this level requires top mental and physical performance as well as top-notch design. The engineers and designers compete to create the fastest boat they can within the confines of the rules. The tacticians watch the course for any advantage in faster wind or tide. The sailors keep themselves in top physical condition so they can perform the rigorous tasks involved in maneuvering these remarkable vessels. The America’s Cup combines the kind of high-tech mechanics involved in auto racing, the kind of physical demands inherent in more-traditional sports, and the kind of strategic elements involved in chess. It is a competition that showcases the very best of man. Let the sails rise, let the wind blow, and may the best team win! 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: Born to Run, by Christopher McDougall Sasha DiGiulian: The Sight of an Achievement What’s So Super About the Super Bowl? Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original
  14. A federal antitrust class action lawsuit has been filed against the companies that supply the pressure pumping equipment, fluids, and personnel essential to the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) revolution underway in the United States. The lawsuit alleges that the three largest suppliers, Halliburton, Baker Hughes, and Schlumberger, have “colluded to restrict and manipulate supply in order to increase prices and market share.” Oil industry experts are baffled by the investigation because it has come during a time of increased competition and declining prices, and because the combined market share of these three companies has decreased from 85 percent a decade ago to 63 percent in 2012 to an estimated 43 percent today. Industry consultant Alex Robart remarked: “With 54 frack players in the U.S. market, probably half of which are new entrants in the last five years, the idea of a non-competitive market is absurd.” And industry consultant Richard Spears stated: It’s a big industry, it has lots of competition, and right now the price of a frack job is as cheap as its been in the last three years. . . . I can’t speculate what they’d be looking for or what they would find. But a brief glance at the purpose and history of antitrust laws will explain the apparent puzzle. Antitrust laws are tools for harassing and punishing successful businesses, and they have been used against producers in the oil industry since the Sherman Act was used to break up Standard Oil in 1911. As Alex Epstein points out in “Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company,” antitrust law explicitly denies businesses the freedom to associate with other businesses and with customers on terms of their choosing; it means that any voluntary arrangement deemed by the government to be in “restraint of trade” can be stopped and punished. In this latest case involving Halliburton, Baker Hughes, and Schlumberger, the claimant—Cherry Canyon Resources—entered into a voluntary contract for hydraulic fracturing services. Now, after services have been rendered and fees paid, Cherry Canyon seeks treble damages for alleged collusion under “Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 . . . which prohibits conspiracies or combinations in restraint of trade or commerce.” What exactly are “collusion” and “restraint of trade”? You will search in vain for clear definitions. Antitrust laws are utterly vague and intentionally so. The laws are written such that they enable government to attack any business at any time. As Ayn Rand succinctly put it: Under the antitrust laws, a man becomes a criminal from the moment he goes into business, no matter what he does. If he complies with one of these laws, he faces criminal prosecution under several others. For instance, if he charges prices which some bureaucrats judge as too high, he can be prosecuted for monopoly or for a successful “intent to monopolize”; if he charges prices lower than those of his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “unfair competition” or “restraint of trade”; and if he charges the same prices as his competitors, he can be prosecuted for “collusion” or “conspiracy.” The purpose of antitrust law is to enable government to cut down any business (or group of businesses) that—by means of voluntary, non-coercive production and trade—stands tall and thereby makes envious competitors feel small. These laws violate the rights of some businessmen to act on their own judgment so that other businessmen can appear to “achieve” greater success than they actually achieve. Americans should be outraged at this latest assault on the good for being good. Halliburton, Baker Hughes, and Schlumberger supply materials and personnel that are essential to production of the energy on which our lives depend—and they do so solely by means of voluntary, contractual exchange. They deserve not punishment but praise. Shame on Cherry Canyon Resources et al. for filing this vile suit—shame on the U.S. government for perpetuating rather than repealing the antitrust laws—and condolences to the great producers who are being assaulted because they are great. 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 The Government’s Obscene Assault on Apple Creative Commons Image: Norsk olje og gass Link to Original
  15. Allison Benedikt’s article for Slate, “If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person,” is morally atrocious. Benedikt argues that parents should intentionally subject their children to a poor-quality education in the government’s “public” schools for the sake of attempting to make those schools better for some distant future generation. That is, Benedikt calls on parents to sacrifice their own children’s welfare for the sake of an alleged “common good.” Benedikt’s piece is so ludicrous that it’s hard to believe it’s not a spoof. She says she’s not comparing parents who send their children to private schools to murderers—thereby making precisely that comparison. She then says she doesn’t support “banning private schools”—thereby raising the possibility of doing so. And she proceeds to tell parents that their child’s education doesn’t matter much, writing, “You want the best for your child, but your child doesn’t need it. . . . [C]hances are that your spawn will be perfectly fine at a crappy public school.” To “illustrate” this last point, Benedikt mocks the idea that children need to read great literature or the like, and she makes clear what she feels kids really need: Reading Walt Whitman in ninth grade changed the way you see the world? Well, getting drunk before basketball games with kids who lived at the trailer park near my house did the same for me. In fact it’s part of the reason I feel so strongly about public schools. You can’t make this stuff up. If you did, the left would scream, “hyperbole!” But here you have it. Benedikt is calling for parents to intentionally send their children to “crappy” schools where they can booze it up rather than read, for the sake of ensuring that future generations will have the opportunity to follow suit. And Slate chose to publish her prescription. Benedikt and Slate are beyond contempt for peddling such evil. A good education is crucial to a child’s life, his success, and his happiness. And a good private education is, how shall I say it, better than a “crappy” government one. Even if it were possible for a parent to marginally improve the “crappy” government schools by sacrificing his child’s mind and future (and it is not possible), for a parent to do so would be unspeakably evil. But, of course, the idea that anyone would ever prescribe such a thing or that any media outlet would ever promote such an idea is just hyperbole. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: The New Abolitionism: Why Education Emancipation is the Moral Imperative of our Time Interviews with Innovators in Private Education The Educational Bonanza in Privatizing Government Schools Link to Original
  16. On August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous speech, “I Have a Dream,” in which he reaffirmed the principles and promises of the Declaration of Independence. Noting that “One hundred years [after Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation] the life of the Negro is still badly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination”—manacles and chains entrenched by law—King said: In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men—yes, black men as well as white men—would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Here, King stood on the shoulders of the Founding Fathers and called for consistency to the principles on which they established America. “I have a dream,” he said, “that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’” King recognized that the architects of our republic, however incompletely they instituted their ideals in their day, had paved the ideological road that could lead to full and equal liberty for every individual, and he drew on those ideals in support of the civil rights movement. King insisted that the equal application of the country’s founding principles to all Americans was a matter of justice: [W]e refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so we’ve come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and security of justice. King, like most American leaders and intellectuals, didn’t understand the full meaning of the concepts of justice, rights, freedom, and the like, so his political prescriptions often clashed with his professed reverence for such ideals. But the overarching message King delivered fifty years ago today is that the path to a just and fully free America consists in embracing those ideals. Although King at times advocated some highly objectionable ideas, he also spoke some of the most important truths on which civilized society depends—and did so with great eloquence. His “I Have a Dream” speech is an instance of the latter. Have a listen. 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: Martin Luther King Jr. and the Fundamental Principle of America Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights Individualism vs. Collectivism Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original
  17. Secretary of State John Kerry is right that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s use of nerve gas against the Syrian population is a “moral obscenity”—but he is wrong that this moral obscenity justifies U.S. military intervention. As Reuters reports, the evidence indicates Assad used “rockets or missiles . . . to disperse a nerve agent in the worst chemical attack in a quarter of a century.” As one British military analyst told Reuters, “the idea is to drop these things on a population, kill lots of people very quickly, and then your own forces can go in [after the gas has dispersed] without suffering consequences.” In response, Kerry “strongly implied that the United States is ready to embark on direct military action” against Assad, the Los Angeles Times reports. But Assad’s assault on Syrians does not justify military action by the United States, whether direct or indirect. Syria is embroiled in a civil war, with Assad’s brutal totalitarian regime pitted against rebels, many of whom may have equally totalitarian aims. A Reuters report refers to “al-Qaeda’s growing role” among the rebel forces and to “the growth of radical Islamists in rebel-held areas.” Employing military action against Assad’s regime certainly will not bolster the security of America or of Americans. The proper purpose of U.S. military action is not to sacrifice American lives, safety, munitions, and wealth for the sake of oppressed peoples (much less barbarians such as al-Qaeda) throughout the world; the proper purpose of U.S. military action is to protect the security of America and the rights of Americans. That the Assad regime terrorizes and kills Syrians, including, no doubt, many innocent people (e.g., children), is indeed a moral obscenity. But ending this moral obscenity is not the moral responsibility of the U.S. military. The Syrian conflict is a civil war—the outcome of which has no discernable bearing on U.S. security. For the U.S. government to sacrifice the safety of American soldiers and the wealth of the American people by engaging in this conflict would stack obscenity upon obscenity. This is not America’s war. 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 Obama’s “Tough Talk” Regarding Syria’s Membership in UNESCO Body is Immorally Inadequate Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original
  18. Rebecca Cullers of Adweek claims that marketer and so-called “consumer advocate” Alex Bogusky has a “foolproof way of bringing back 1 million U.S. jobs.” Bogusky says in a YouTube video, “It’s as simple as this: Every time you buy something, ensure it was made in America.” He immediately backs off of that absurd claim and urges people to spend “just 5 percent more on things made in America.” Either way, his plan is rooted in faulty economics and corrupt morality. The economic fallacies inherent in Bogusky’s plan are known to anyone who has taken an introductory economics class or read Henry Hazlitt’s Economics In One Lesson or a similar work. These fallacies involve ignoring crucial economic facts, such as: When Americans purchase imported goods and services for less than the American-made alternatives, they have more money left to buy other things they want and need. This is not bad for Americans; it’s good for them. When people in foreign nations sell more goods and services to Americans, they also buy more goods and services from American exporters. This too is good for Americans. Bogusky’s plan would, among other things, destroy export-related jobs. That would be bad for Americans. When people produce what they’re best at producing and then trade with others, they create more total wealth than they would if they produced something else. The relevant economic principle is “comparative advantage,” a major component of which involves location. For example, people grow bananas commercially in the the tropics of central and south America, not in Colorado or Quebec; and they develop computer technology in Silicon Valley and Tokyo. If people tried to grow bananas in Silicon Valley or build computers on banana farms, they would produce far less. Bogusky’s plan would destroy wealth by reducing aggregate productivity and trade. This would be bad for Americans. The United States is a giant, 314 million-person (relatively) free trade zone. It makes no more sense to cut off or reduce trade with other nations than it does to cut off or reduce trade with other states. For a Californian to purchase leather goods from Mexico is no different in principle than for a Navadan to purchase wine from California. In each and every such case, goods (or services) travel both ways, and each party to the trade is better for the exchange. As foolish as Bogusky’s proposal is, the fact that American businesses move overseas does, in some cases, indicate a real problem—although, judging from his video, Bogusky has no idea what it is. The problem is that some businesses move overseas, not because they can operate more efficiently by doing so, but because rapacious taxes and regulations drive them overseas. The solution to this problem, however, is not for Americans to spend more of their money on comparable goods and services produced at home; the solution is for the government to reduce its coercion (zero is ideal) and stop driving American businesses away. Unfortunately, many Americans will accept Bogusky’s proposal despite the fact that it would be economically harmful to them. This is because many Americans accept the altruistic premise that individuals should sacrifice their own interests for the sake of others. Bogusky asks Americans to sacrifice their wealth by paying more for comparable goods and services, allegedly for the sake of “creating jobs” for others. (At times he suggests that spending more money without gaining more or better products isn’t really a sacrifice, but that’s ludicrous.) Well, if Americans morally should sacrifice for others, what difference does it make that they will be economically harmed by doing so? If it’s the right thing to do, then it’s the right thing to do. The fact is, however, that it is not the right thing to do. Economics is not in conflict with morality. The two sciences are in unison. What is economically good for Americans is so because it is morally correct for them. Gains are good and losses are bad in both economics and morality. Although Bogusky is worse than clueless when it comes to economics, at least he has unintentionally offered a good opportunity to point out that the moral is the practical. 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 Why “Sacrifice” Means Loss, Not Gain Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original
  19. In a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece, “Targeting the Wealthy Kills Jobs,” T. J. Rodgers, founder and CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, addresses some causes and consequences of today’s culture of envy. “The American dream has traditionally been one of individual success that is rewarded and admired,” writes Rodgers. “But we are now urged to become a zero-sum society in which those achieving the American dream are envied and even resented.” Rodgers notes that popular language about “income disparity,” “haves and have-nots,” and “fair share” are used as justification for the government seizing wealth from some people and handing it to others. He notes that American producers are demonized by promoters of envy, from Obama claiming, “You didn’t build that,” to radio show callers asking, “How much more do the rich need?” In making his case, Rodgers lucidly points out that rich businessmen create businesses that produce jobs. He notes that his own $1.2 million investment in a lakefront restaurant in Oshkosh, Wisconsin “now permanently employs 65 people at an investment of $18,000 per job, a figure consistent with U.S. small businesses.” He then asks, If progressive taxation in the name of “fairness” had taken my “extra” $1.2 million and spent it on a government stimulus program, would 65 jobs have been created? According to recent Congressional Budget Office statistics on the Obama administration’s 2009 stimulus program, each job created has cost between $500,000 and $4 million. Thus, my $1.2 million, taxed and respent on a government project of uncertain duration, would have created about one job, possibly two, and not the 65 sustainable jobs that my private investment did. This is an excellent and beautifully illustrated point that Americans need to grasp. When businessmen are free to invest their money as they see fit, they create and grow businesses and thereby produce jobs. Unfortunately, Rodgers does not anchor his argument in the moral right of the individual to act on his own judgment, to keep and use his own property, and to live and work for his own sake. He doesn’t even mention rights. Rather, he rests his defense on the altruist notion that service to others is what justifies one’s choices and actions. For example, in answering the question, “How much more do the wealthy need?”—he replies, “How much more do I need? How many more jobs do you want?” Such an answer implies that the reason Rodgers should be free to use his wealth as he sees fit is so that he can provide more jobs for others. But the reason a producer should be free to keep and use his wealth is not that this will enable him to create jobs for others. Of course, it will—but that’s not the justification. The justification for a producer’s freedom to keep and use his wealth is that he has a moral right to keep and use it, a right grounded in the fact that he produced the wealth through his own thinking and effort—and the fact that he, like all individuals, is morally an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others. Even so, Rodgers should be commended and admired for defending the American dream against the purveyors of envy. Hopefully more CEOs and businessmen will follow his example. Even more hopefully, some will anchor their arguments in moral 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: Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society Review: The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure, by John Allison Image: Cypress Semiconductor Link to Original
  20. Peter Dinklage, an actor known for his work in the 2003 film The Station Agent and now the television series Game of Thrones, worked for years to build his career before reaching commercial success, as the New York Times detailed earlier this year. When talking with the Times, Dinklage initially said, “I feel really lucky.” But then he reflected on his choice of words and added: Although I hate that word—“lucky.” It cheapens a lot of hard work. Living in Brooklyn in an apartment without any heat and paying for dinner at the bodega with dimes—I don’t think I felt myself lucky back then. Doing plays for 50 bucks and trying to be true to myself as an artist and turning down commercials where they wanted a leprechaun. Saying I was lucky negates the hard work I put in and spits on that guy who’s freezing his ass off back in Brooklyn. So I won’t say I’m lucky. I’m fortunate enough to find or attract very talented people. For some reason I found them, and they found me. Dinklage is right to attribute his success to his effort and integrity, not luck. (We might say of his acting career, “He built that.”) Although obviously Dinklage took advantage of opportunities he discovered—including his meetings with people he later worked with—his efforts led to those opportunities, and his efforts turned the opportunities into successes. Congratulations to Dinklage for building a successful acting career—and for properly recognizing that he owes his success to his own efforts and integrity. 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: My Lucky Life In and Out of Show Business: A Memoir, by Dick Van Dyke Anne Hathaway’s Hard Work is No Sacrifice Creative Commons Image: Gage Skidmore Link to Original
  21. Seeking to rid the nation’s politics of ambiguous language that clouds the true meaning of politicians’ plans and government’s policies, a team of UK government employees has created an official style guide for both internal communications and public statements, reports the Independent. The goal is to require government officials to use clear, precise terminology so that citizens can understand what exactly their government is saying and doing. As the Independent relays: Out goes ‘deliver’. Pizzas and post are delivered, it points out, not abstract concepts like ‘improvements’ or ‘priorities’. Officials can no long ‘drive’ anything out (unless it is cattle) or ‘foster’ (unless it is children). Tackling is also banned (unless Sir Humphrey or Terri Coverley are playing rugby or football) while the ‘key’ should always be in the lock. Overall more than 30 terms of jargon that have crept into Government announcements and policy documents over the years have been placed off-limits. The message to politicians and government officials is: Be clear and say what you mean. Whether this directive will have any effect is yet to be seen, but it is good to see the British working to make their government and politicians speak and write understandably and honestly. This is an example that the United States should follow—and that both countries should extend to the formulation and evaluation of laws. Unclear laws, riddled with non-objective wording, leave citizens in the lurch as to whether a given action is legal or illegal. Antitrust laws, for instance, outlaw “anti-competitive” behavior. What does that mean? No one knows, and no objective definition can be formulated. So how is it enforced? Government bureaucrats and government-paid lawyers decide ad hoc what they feel is “anti-competitive” in a given situation, and they prosecute companies accordingly. The meaning of the law is unclear, so the implementation of the law is arbitrary. Likewise, insider trading laws forbid the exchange of securities based on “too much” knowledge. What constitutes too much knowledge? This is to be decided after the fact by bureaucrats, lawyers, and courts. Again, the law is unclear, so its enforcement is arbitrary. Were clarity of meaning a requirement of law, neither antitrust laws nor insider trading laws—nor countless other non-objective laws—would be passed or permitted to remain on the books. (Clarity is, of course, not the only aspect of objective law, but is is a key aspect.) So, bravo to the Brits for their attempt to require their government to be clear. Perhaps Americans will follow suit and begin cleaning up the muck in U.S. politics. 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 NSA Domestic Spy Program Clearly Violates Citizens’ Rights Creative Commons Image: Martin Fisch Link to Original
  22. The Energy Information Administration’s annual survey of domestic oil and gas reserves reports: In 2011, oil and gas exploration and production companies operating in the United States added almost 3.8 billion barrels of crude oil and lease condensate [types of liquid hydrocarbons] proved reserves, an increase of 15 percent, and the greatest volume increase since the Energy Information Administration (EIA) began publishing proved reserves estimates in 1977. The EIA defines a proved reserve as “estimated volumes of hydrocarbon resources that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions.” The major factor contributing to this incredible increase in oil availability is the implementation by energy producers of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking). These combined technologies first gained prominence early this century as natural gas producers used them to tap shales and similar formations. The result was nine years of continued increases in U.S. natural gas reserves. In 2009, oil companies operating primarily in Texas and North Dakota began to emulate the success of natural gas producers by refining these technologies to work in tight oil formations, and the results have been extraordinary. Oil production in 2010 increased by 2.4 percent from the previous year. In 2011, U.S. oil production increased another 3.3 percent despite a 23 percent drop in offshore production in the Gulf of Mexico due largely to “the lingering effects of the drilling moratorium” there. Perhaps even more amazing is that the increase in proved reserves dramatically outpace that of oil extracted from the ground. In 2011, proved reserves increased by 5.82 billion barrels, whereas producers extracted only 2.07 billion barrels. Those working in the field of hydraulic fracturing are heroes of production, exemplifying the spirit of American innovation, exploration, and freedom that made this country the wealth-generating, life-enabling wonder it is today. History shows that fracking has brought tremendous abundance and prosperity to this country—and everyone who champions abundance and prosperity should celebrate this technology and its purveyors. Here’s to fracking and frackers! 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: Nuclear Energy: The Safe, Clean, Cost-Effective Alternative Freedom and Fracking Lead To Record Increase in U.S. Oil Production Link to Original
  23. The U.S. government is increasingly seizing control of elementary and secondary education, and all Americans who care about education should be up in arms. The federal government is rapidly expanding its coercive reach by means of a program called Common Core, a set of government-issued educational standards in language and mathematics. Common Core effectively imposes a uniform, nationwide, government-approved curriculum for students from kindergarten through high school. Forty-five states plus the District of Columbia have adopted the standards, which are set to take effect next year. Flush with $4.35 billion of taxpayers’ money from the 2009 “stimulus” bill, the Department of Education lured cash-strapped states to compete for shares of the booty. To win these grants, states had to agree to adopt the Common Core standards. In addition, the Obama administration is issuing conditional waivers to states that would otherwise be penalized next year for not meeting the Bush administration’s “No Child Left Behind” goals. The condition? The states must adopt the Common Core standards. The Common Core standards dictate what will be taught in the classrooms—not in every detail, but in general. As a set of “standards,” they set the standard for content and thus dictate what is and is not permissible in curricula. Correspondingly, the federally funded organizations that create tests for nationwide educational assessment are now designing their tests to measure students’ knowledge of curricula that meet the Common Core standards. There is no getting around the meaning of Common Core: The federal government is seizing control of what American children are being taught in government-run schools. But the federal government has no right to do so. Just it has no right to dictate what children are taught in Sunday school or science camp, so the federal government has no right to dictate what children are taught in so-called “public” schools. Although state and local governments have no moral right to control education, either, these mandates from Washington intensify the statist nature of government-run schools by adding coercion where it should be removed. The mandates do this not only by increasing the extent to which politicians and bureaucrats dictate curricula, but also by increasing the extent to which taxpayers are forced to fund the rights-violating monstrosity euphemistically called “public education.” Americans concerned with moral rights and quality education should demand that their representatives (a) repeal the Common Core standards and ( work to end all government involvement in education. The time for this revolution is now. 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 Creative Commons Image: Medill DC Link to Original
  24. As ObamaCare bears down on us, how do we, as consumers of medical services, avoid getting caught in the vicegrip of bureaucratic, politically controlled medicine? How do we find doctors motivated to help their patients maintain their long-term health—rather than to appease health bureaucrats and the insurance companies the government increasingly controls? Josh Umber, a family-practice doctor working in Wichita, Kansas (whom I interviewed for the Fall TOS), offers his patients a way to purchase and use health services that is radically different from the practices found in most other doctors’ offices—and that will help patients escape the worst aspects of ObamaCare. And Umbehr is actively promoting his style of “concierge” medicine nationwide, offering a model he hopes will revolutionize medicine in the United States. How is Umbehr’s practice different? Most general-care doctors see a large number of patients each day for short visits (sometimes only a few minutes), leave it too their nurses and physicians’ assistants to deliver most of the health services provided, and bill everything through insurance—which requires a large staff to process the mountains of paperwork and which, in many cases, involves insurance agents second-guessing a doctor’s work. Umbehr limits his total patient load to six hundred patients, and, for a low monthly fee—starting at just $50 for adults—he will see patients as often as they like for meetings lasting as long as they need. He doesn’t accept insurance for any of his services—enabling him to keep only a single nurse on staff to support three doctors—and he provides many drugs and tests to his patients at cost. Such a practice enables Umbehr to remain focused solely on helping his patients optimize their long-term health—rather than on filing insurance claims with bureaucrats and government-controlled insurance agents looking over his shoulder. TOS has made Umbehr’s entire interview available for free—so please read it, then share the web page or the free pdf with your friends and doctors. I greatly enjoyed speaking with Umbehr; following are some of my favorite quotes of his. Regarding his brand of concierge medicine: Concierge medicine is a win-win-win-win model. Employers who sign up for a group plan are able to get their employees better care for less money; insurers are able to insure a healthier group of people with less risk and thus higher profit margins based on lower premiums; doctors are able to make more money while seeing fewer patients and providing better care; and patients are able to get a more predictable product at a better value and a lower cost. Regarding ObamaCare: ObamaCare is barreling down upon us, and it’s going to be expensive. It promises expensive insurance that covers most everything. . . . As the Massachusetts insurance laws illustrated, we can require insurance to cover everything, but then no one can afford the insurance. So even under the ObamaCare mandate, the most viable option for affordable insurance and care is catastrophic insurance and a direct primary care model like AtlasMD [umbehr’s practice]. Many people may find it in their financial interests to absorb the ObamaCare penalties, get less-expensive, non-approved insurance, and sign up for an AtlasMD-style practice. Just because ObamaCare is coming down doesn’t mean you have to have ObamaCare-approved insurance. We do not have to be victims of ObamaCare. . . . ObamaCare is driving physicians out of practice. We’re going to lose up to a third of our family-medicine workforce because of all the hassles and red tape of insurance. You want to see the system crumble? That’s how it could crumble. Not because more doctors are seeing fewer patients, but because more doctors are seeing no patients. Regarding the ability of concierge doctors to meet their patients’ needs: Patients want this. They want better care for less money. They want better value. They want more time with their doctors. They want quality and convenience and accessibility and all the things that we’re not offering to them right now. They want their doctors to answer the phone. They want their doctors to supply their medicine. They want their doctors to sit down and spend half an hour or an hour with them and not worry about what insurance is going to pay for or not pay for. Umbehr offers profoundly important advice for patients as well as doctors and insurance executives. I encourage you to read the article and share the web page or the pdf far and wide. 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: Dr. Josh Umbehr on the Concierge Medicine Revolution How to Protect Yourself Against ObamaCare Link to Original
  25. Tonight, I’ll be joining Andrew Bernstein, Arshak Benlian, Robert Begley, and C. Bradley Thompson on Dr. Bernstein and Mr. Benlian’s new Blog Talk Radio show, “Objectively Speaking.” We’ll be discussing our respective efforts in intellectual activism toward the establishment of a culture reason, individual rights, and capitalism. The show airs live from 8 to 9 PM Eastern Time, and the call-in number is 347-855-8824. Tune in, call in, tell your friends! Creative Commons Image: Alonso Javier Torres Link to Original
×
×
  • Create New...