Blog Auto Feed Retired

Ellie Rubenstein, an elementary school teacher, is so fed up with the bureaucratic nature of “public” education that she has taken to YouTube to condemn the system and announce her resignation. At age 45, Rubenstein left her job in advertising to pursue her lifelong dream of teaching. While raising two children, she worked full-time and went to school part-time to get her master’s degree in education. It was “exhausting, but worth it,” she said, because she was finally able to pursue a career that was meaningful to her. Over the past fifteen years, however, Rubenstein grew increasingly disillusioned in her job. She witnessed the “depressing gradual downfall and misdirection of education.” She found the government-run schools increasingly “demanding both uniformity and conformity” from students and teachers. Rubenstein says the government stripped her of autonomy and freedom to teach and replaced them with “mandated curriculums, administrative audits, and dictated schedules.” Rubenstein further describes how administrators in the government-run school system “rule as dictators through fear and intimidation.” They suppress constructive dialogue and punish those who dare disagree with mandated policies. “There is nowhere to turn for support, and unless you are a ‘yes-man’ you will soon find out that your only choice is to become one or leave,” she laments. During the last few days of school earlier this year, without any warning, Rubenstein along with three other colleagues were handed letters of “involuntary transfer” to another school, allegedly for fostering a “negative environment.” This move, Rubenstein suggests, was an attempt to silence her—and it is what prompted her to turn to YouTube to tell her story. Unfortunately, Rubenstein’s experiences are not an isolated example of the problems of government schools—they are typical, as C. Bradley Thompson explains in his article, “The New Abolitionism: Why Education Emancipation is the Moral Imperative of our Time.” What is the fundamental source of the problems? The government operates its schools by force: by forcing parents to use them and by forcing taxpayers to finance them. As a consequence, to a large degree parents lack the freedom to hire the teachers who best meet their children’s needs, and teachers lack the opportunities to seek the types of fulfilling jobs that would be available in a free market. As Ayn Rand notes, “force and mind are opposites,” and a system that functions through compulsion necessarily will stifle creativity, independence, and quality education. To free education from the mind-stifling controls of bureaucrats, teachers—no less than parents and students—should demand that education be fully privatized. 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 The Educational Bonanza in Privatizing Government Schools Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-7413" title="coal miner statue" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/Screen-Shot-2013-07-26-at-10.33.10-AM-224x300.png" alt="" width="224" height="300" />When Jimmy Rose <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uALyCLBnv20" target="_blank">performed</a> part of his song “Coal Keeps the Lights On” on <em>America’s Got Talent</em>, he struck a chord with both the audience and the judges.</p> <p>Rose’s lyrics depict a coal miner whose hard work shows in his calloused hands and whose rewards shows in the “sundress on [his] baby girl” and the “food on the spoon of [his] youngin’s mouth.” Coal production “keeps the bills paid” and his hometown thriving.</p> <p>Politicians “went crazy in Washington,” the lyrics <a href=" " target="_blank">continue</a> in the full version of the song, with policies and mine closures that “bleed us all dry.” Rose’s words are particularly poignant given Barack Obama’s “<a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/06/obamas-war-on-energy-producers-and-consumers/" target="_blank">war on coal</a>.”</p> <p>Rose’s criticisms are on target. It is unjust and insane for politicians to penalize the coal industry, an industry that literally “keeps the lights on” across the world.</p> <p>In 2012, consumption of coal <a href="http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/statistical-review/statistical_review_of_world_energy_2013.pdf" target="_blank">grew faster</a> than that of any other fossil fuel. In fact, coal provided the lion’s share of total primary energy consumption: At 29.9 percent, it made the largest contribution to the world energy mix since 1970.</p> <p>In Europe and western Asia, consumption of coal in 2012 increased by 2.7 percent, with Europe’s largest consumer, Germany, burning 3.9 percent more than it did the previous year. The French kept their lights on by burning 20.1 percent more coal.</p> <p><a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp?ref=blog_int" target="_blank"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-6404" title="subscribe-now-por" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/subscribe-now-por.png" alt="" width="220" /></a>In eastern Asia and the Pacific islands, consumption of coal increased by 4 percent, with China’s consumption up 6.1 percent and India’s up 9.9 percent. Japanese consumption increased 5.4 percent after the government closed nuclear power plants there following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami. Japan is expected to consume even more coal in 2013 as utilities switch from burning more-expensive oil to less-expensive coal.</p> <p>Coal fueled the Industrial Revolution, during which life expectancies and standards of living increase dramatically over those of the energy- and technology-impoverished past. As Washington politicians look to gain political points by damning and restricting coal, coal nevertheless remains crucial to human life and prosperity.</p> <p>Rose ends his song by noting that one of the things he is most proud of is that he was involved in the industry that “kept the lights on.” His pride is well-earned. And he and every person and company in the coal industry, past and present, deserve our thanks.</p> <p><iframe width="400" height="225" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/uALyCLBnv20?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/blog/index.php/2011/11/interview-with-alex-epstein-founder-of-center-for-industrial-progress/" target="_blank">Interview with Alex Epstein, Founder of Center for Industrial Progress</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/06/obamas-war-on-energy-producers-and-consumers/" target="_blank">Obama’s War on Energy Producers and Consumers</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/02/scientists-generate-electricity-from-coal-without-burning-it/" target="_blank">Scientists Generate Electricity from Coal Without Burning It</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Creative Commons Image: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rittysdigiez/709172155/" target="_blank">rittyrats</a></p> Link to Original

In what appears to be a desperate attempt to garner attention, Rolling Stone magazine featured a cover and article about the Boston Marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The cover depicted this Islamic terrorist as a doe-eyed sex symbol. Seeking to mitigate backlash, Rolling Stone’s editors inserted the following text before the article: “Our hearts go out to the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, and our thoughts are always with them and their families.” The article then proceeds to gush sympathetically over Tsarnaev, quoting friends who describe him as “a beautiful, tousle-haired boy with a gentle demeanor [and] soulful brown eyes“ and “‘just a normal American kid’ who liked soccer, hip-hop, [and] girls.” But Rolling Stone can’t have it both ways. They can either have sympathy for a Muslim terrorist—or for his victims. The cover and the article make their choice clear. Fortunately, some businesses such as CVS and Stop & Shop have taken a moral stand and refused to carry this issue in their stores. And the Facebook page “Boycott Rolling Stone Magazine for Their Latest Cover” has over 170,000 likes. Tsarnaev is a murderer. He deserves nothing but contempt and condemnation and death. And Rolling Stone is glamorizing this murderer. They deserve nothing but contempt for showering this Islamic terrorist with the attention normally allotted to rock stars. This cover should be the downfall of this filthy rag. Spread the word and help Rolling Stone to sink like a rock. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: Great Islamic Thinkers Versus Islam There Are no Values Through Islam Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

Despite George Zimmerman’s acquittal by a jury of all charges in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin—and despite the Fifth Amendment’s assurance that no person shall be “twice put in jeopardy” legally for the same offense—the Obama administration has decided to employ its political machinery to persecute Zimmerman. “Florida authorities have delivered all evidence related to the George Zimmerman investigation to federal officials, who are weighing whether to pursue a civil rights case,” CNN reports. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are pursuing this case despite the fact that Zimmerman was already tried and acquitted in the matter, and despite the fact that no significant evidence indicates the shooting was racially motivated. (Indeed, in 2011 Zimmerman protested the abuse of a black man, which strongly indicates that he was not racially motivated to harm blacks.) Note that the question of whether Zimmerman was guilty of committing a crime is entirely separate from the question of whether he acted appropriately leading up to his confrontation with Martin. (I agree with with Paul Hsieh and Wayne Laugesen that Zimmerman needlessly provoked a confrontation with Martin even after the police asked him to stand down.) The federal government’s pursuit of Zimmerman is not about justice—that was already served in a Florida courtroom. What, then, is it about? It is about politics. Consider a few of the ways in which this is so: Rather than deal forthrightly with the many scandals involving the Obama administration—the IRS’s persecution of conservative groups, the NSA’s troubling expansion of its domestic spying powers, the lingering questions about the terrorist murders at the Benghazi consulate, and the U.S. arming of Islamists abroad, to name a few—Obama and Holder would rather pour gasoline on racial tensions. Rather than forthrightly acknowledge the facts that around half of all homicides in the United States involve black victims and that “from 1976 to 2005 . . . black victims were killed by blacks 94% of the time,” Obama would rather pretend that the most pressing issue pertaining to violence is Zimmerman and his conservative supporters. Holder misleadingly tied the Zimmerman case to Florida’s “stand your ground” laws pertaining to self-defense, despite the fact that “stand your ground” was clearly irrelevant to Zimmerman’s trial. A major reason the case became national news is that Obama and his supporters used it to advocate federal gun-restriction laws. Obama, Holder, and their underlings should quit playing national politics with what should be a local criminal matter. And the rest of America should heed the warning implied in Thomas Sowell’s comments about the case: The only real heroes in this trial were the jurors. They showed that this is still America—at least for now—despite politicians who try to cheapen or corrupt the law, as if this were some banana republic. 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: Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice Justice Department and Congress Commit Massive Act of Injustice against Apple, Et Al. Creative Commons Image: Ryan J. Reilly Link to Original

The June 2013 BP Statistical Review of World Energy reported “that 2012 had the largest single-year increase in US oil production ever recorded.” Of all countries, the United States attained the “highest growth in production of both oil and natural gas,” an achievement made possible by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking). U.S. oil producers increased output by 14 percent from 2011 to 2012, to 8.9 million barrels per day, accounting for 9.6 percent of the total oil produced in the world. This increase in production exceeded the world’s total growth in oil consumption by more than 15 percent—and July 2013 oil production numbers are the highest since 1992. Likewise, U.S. natural gas production rose by 4.7 percent from 2011 to 2012, accounting for 20.4 percent of the 3,364 billion cubic meters produced worldwide. Think about those numbers. Then celebrate the cause. The combined technologies of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) are implemented commercially only in North America, where they have attracted huge investment and generated enormous economic activity. These technologies are commercially used together to any significant degree only in North America, because that is the only place producers have been (relatively) free to develop and use them. Other countries have the potential to increase energy production in this same way—but, to do so, they must free producers to implement these innovative 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: Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company France Forbids Shale Gas Exploration, Will “Prosper” Accordingly Link to Original

Looking for a platform to chastise House Republicans for excluding the federal food stamp program from its farm bill, New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez recently visited the state’s largest food bank, the Hillside chapter of the private Community FoodBank of New Jersey (CFBNJ), “to highlight his support for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program” (SNAP). But there is a fundamental moral difference between a voluntary private charitable organization and a coercive government program. Every person has a right to spend his money according to his own judgment, including whether, when, and in what capacity to help others. The CFBNJ is funded privately and voluntarily, consistent with this principle; it in no way violates rights. SNAP is funded coercively, by taxation, and thus violates rights. Menendez’s effort to cloak the rights-violating SNAP program in the moral legitimacy of a private charity is dishonest. That CFBNJ itself lent its name to Menendez, and that its founder has supported coercive government programs “aimed at reducing hunger in the state,” doesn’t mitigate the moral corruption involved. Menendez’s equivocation is morally offensive and should be identified as such. 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: After the Welfare State, edited by Tom G. Palmer Members of Congress Misrepresent Food Stamp Program and Ignore Its Injustice Creative Commons Image: Kris Krug Link to Original

French president François Hollander recently stated, “As long as I am president, there will be no shale gas exploration in France. The debate on shale gas has gone on for too long.” The debate is whether France, Europe’s second largest energy consumer, will maintain its moratorium on oil and gas exploration and leave one of Europe’s largest shale gas resources undeveloped. Despite France’s heavy reliance on nuclear energy, fossil fuels remain the main source of energy for the country. In 2012, France’s energy use consisted of 39.2 percent nuclear; 33 percent oil; 15.6 percent natural gas; 5.4 percent hydroelectric; and 4.6 percent coal. (The smidgen of a balance came from other so-called “renewable” energies, including wind and solar.) The French consume a huge amount of natural gas—and their consumption is only increasing. In 2012, it increased by 3.8 percent over the previous year, totaling 42.5 billion cubic meters. France satisfies its enormous demand for natural gas by importing it; around 80 percent flows through pipelines from Norway, the Netherlands, and Russia. The rest is shipped as liquid natural gas from Algeria, Nigeria, Qatar, and Egypt. Among the many ways France has thwarted energy development, in 2011 the state revoked the permits previously granted to energy developers. Consequently, the French pay around three times what North Americans do for their natural gas. Industrial progress requires freedom to explore and to innovate, particularly in the field of energy. A nationwide ban on an important form of energy development is a policy aimed at economic hardship and decline. Mon frère, vous a demandé. 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 Freedom and Fracking Fuel Investment in Texas Creative Commons Image: Jean-Marc Ayrault Link to Original

Today, July 20, is the 44th anniversary of Neil Armstrong’s historic walk on the moon and his famous proclamation, “That’s one small step for a man. One giant leap for mankind.” The success of the Apollo space program required the dedicated effort of thousands of individuals, including Armstrong, who earned the job of first stepping foot on the moon in part because of his confident leadership and soft-spoken manner. Armstrong also had the perfect background for the role, having studied engineering and pursued a career as a fighter pilot in the Korean War and then as a test pilot—roles that exemplified both courage and spectacular mind-body coordination. Although Armstrong’s moon walk made him the most famous man on Earth, he never sought publicity but did take pride in his professional accomplishment. Upon his death, Armstrong’s family suggested a suitable way to remember him: “Honor his example of service, accomplishment and modesty, and the next time you walk outside on a clear night and see the moon smiling down at you, think of Neil Armstrong and give him a wink.” Heroes like Neil Armstrong inspire us to overcome obstacles that might seem insurmountable. On this day let us dedicate ourselves to reach for the seemingly impossible dream, to grab hold of it, and then give Armstrong a knowing wink. 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 Curious Life of Richard Feynman SpaceX Founder Musk Envisions Mars Colony: Potential Value is Immense Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

In this episode of Reason at Large, Craig Biddle discusses what the so-called poor owe the rich, focusing on several of the many things for which the poor should thank the rich, including the goods and services they produce, the jobs they make possible, the legitimate aspects of government they fund, and the example they provide of how great wealth is and how to achieve it. Biddle then emphasizes that the poor owe the rich moral support in their pursuit of wealth, that the poor should strive for a society in which being rich is recognized as a good thing, and that they should advocate the protection of rights—especially property rights—so the rich and non-rich alike can keep, use, and dispose of the product of their effort, enabling everyone to become ever richer. 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 Why Choose to Live? Link to Original

As part of a larger website migration underway, TOS has transferred its email lists from an old server to a new one at MailChimp. If you subscribe to our free TOS commentary & announcements list, you likely received a newly formatted email through that list last Monday. (If you subscribe to the list and didn’t receive that email, please contact us at [email protected] and we’ll make sure you receive emails in the future.) Subscribers to our commentary & announcements list receive weekly TOS Blog commentary, announcements regarding the publication of our quarterly journal (The Objective Standard), and announcements about TOS conferences and events. If you have already subscribed to this list and wish to update your email address or other information, simply click “update list preferences” at the top or bottom of any TOS email, and make your changes through MailChimp. If you’ve not yet subscribed to TOS commentary & announcements, you can do so by entering your email address below and responding to the confirmation email. To subscribe to The Objective Standard, which is the source for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, click here. Subscribe to our mailing list Email Address Link to Original

A seventy-year-old southern Italian man has been fined 1,000 Euros (nearly $1,300) for the so-called crime of “scorn against the nation.” The first version of the law was introduced as part of the “crimes against the State’s character” in 1889 and was kept on the books after Mussolini’s fascist takeover. Even after the 1948 Constitution was established and Italy became a democratic republic, the law remained—although since 2006 it no longer imposes the punishment of imprisonment. You can be fined for displaying scorn toward the republic, the president of the armed forces, the Supreme Court, the nation’s flag, religion, or foreign nations or flags. The elderly man was stopped in 2005 for driving a car with a broken headlight. When officers approached and said they would fine him, the man answered angrily, suggesting the officers were wasting their time. He also let slip the words “in this sh*t country Italy.” The officers wrote up a report and turned it in. On April 26, 2012, after years of trial, the man was convicted. He had tried to appeal the Court’s decision by invoking the right to “free expression of thought” but was unsuccessful. “Expressions of injury or hate that offend the prestige or the honor of the national collective” cannot be allowed, said the Court. This enforcement of an anti-free-speech code is a troubling reminder of Italy’s fascist past—and a frightful indicator of what may be in store for the country if its government and people do not check such blatant assaults on individual rights—especially the final pillar of a semi-free society: the right to freedom of speech. Individuals have a moral right to say whatever they want about their nation or government (a few exceptions such as revealing military secrets aside), and the proper job of the Italian government, or any government, is to recognize and protect this and other rights. By convicting a man for his speech, the Italian government has demonstrated that it richly deserves scorn from everyone who recognizes and cares to defend 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: Steve Simpson on Continuing Threats to Corporate Free Speech The Egalitarian Assault on Free Speech Link to Original

The Objective Standard aided and abetted lawbreaker Jonathan Hoenig for more than a year—but we are now in the clear. Hoenig, a.k.a. “Capitalist Pig,” has purchased a back-cover advertisement with The Standard since the summer of 2012 to promote his hedge fund business. But, as Peter Sterne reports for the New York Observer, from 1933 until July 10 of this year, hedge funds were “prohibited from advertising to the general public.” Sterne explains: The Securities and Exchange Commission voted . . . to let hedge funds advertise to the general public, and hedge funders are cheering—none more so than Jonathan Hoenig. Mr. Hoenig, an outspoken Objectivist—a follower of Ayn Rand’s philosophy—and the manager of Capitalistpig Asset Management, believes the SEC’s restrictions on hedge fund advertising were unfair. “For 80 years, pornographers, cigarette companies and firearms manufacturers could advertise, but not hedge funds,” he told The Observer in an email. . . . Last year, his Capitalistpig Hedge Fund became the first fund ever to run an advertisement, with a full-page ad in Crain’s Chicago Business. The fund also placed ads in The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal of Objectivist philosophy. Of course, these ads were technically illegal, but the SEC ignored Mr. Hoenig’s civil disobedience. Jeff Macke interviewed Hoenig on the topic for Yahoo’s Breakout blog. Congratulations to Hoenig for this vital victory. And godspeed to him as he fights other regulations of his business—so that he can make massively more money for his clients and himself. 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: Economics in Atlas Shrugged Toast the Re-Legalization of Homebrewing Image: CapitalistPig.com Link to Original

In his Salon article “Ayn Rand Could Have Learned from the Arizona Firefighters,” Robert Reich presumes that the nineteen firefighters who lost their lives June 30 while battling a wildfire in Arizona chose their dangerous profession based on “something other than rational self-interest”: Like the first-responders to 9/11 and other emergencies, and members of the armed forces, they put themselves in harm’s way (or chose a job that did so) because they wanted to serve. Reich asserts that what motivates such service is “want[ing] to be part of something larger than themselves.” And he claims that Rand’s philosophy of selfishness amounts to the idea that “the aggregation of great wealth and maximization of profit is the only justifiable motive.” Clearly, Reich has not read Rand. Or, if he has, he’s pretending that she said something other than what he knows she said. It is true that Rand rejected the notion that people should strive to be “part of something larger than themselves.” She held that the individual is an end in himself and that his own happiness is the proper, moral purpose of his life. But she did not hold that money is the only justifiable motive, which is why Reich did not and could not point to where she ever said such a thing. Although Rand certainly saw financial profit as a noble motive, her morality of rational selfishness provides a far richer account of values and motivations—and this is unmistakably evident in every one of Rand’s books and essays in which she addresses this subject. Rand held that one should choose a career for a variety of selfish reasons, including not only financial rewards but also spiritual rewards, such as purpose, self-esteem, pride, and joy. Howard Roark, the hero of Rand’s novel The Fountainhead, for instance, turned down huge sums of money in order to preserve his vision of great architecture and pursue a career in which he would thrive not only materially but also spiritually. Roark also spent much time visiting and socializing with his mentor, Henry Cameron, and his friends, such as Gail Wynand—through which he gained the selfish spiritual values of friendship, admiration, love. And then there was Dominique, Roark’s romantic interest . . . But all of this is too difficult for Reich to see as possibly being of any selfish value to a person, because there is no money involved. (One wonders about Reich’s friendships, not to mention his sex life. Does he get no selfish enjoyment from them?) As for the self-interested nature of firefighting, the fact is that many firefighters thrive on the physical and mental challenges of their work—the excitement, the high stakes, and the life-protecting nature of the job. As one career-oriented Web page notes, “Firefighting—especially wildland firefighting—is an attractive career for those who enjoy an adrenaline rush and want to protect other people.” It is true that firefighters “serve” others in the sense that they receive payment for doing a job that benefits others—as does every productive worker in a market economy. But that doesn’t mean a firefighter sacrifices his personal values for others. It doesn’t mean that a different career would really be better for his life and happiness but he chose this one instead to be selfless. Perhaps some firefighters make their career choice based on that depraved thinking, but there is no reason to disparage the entire profession and everyone in it by assuming that all firefighters do. Could Reich be more presumptuous—or more rude? As for the high risks involved, a variety of professions in addition to firefighting or working for the police or the military involve higher-than-normal risks—including farming, mining, fishing, logging, carpentry, landscaping, and driving a bus. There is no inherent clash between accepting the risks involved in a career and selfishly pursuing its financial and spiritual rewards. Firefighters properly pursue their own selfish values in pursuing their career. They help others—because they love the work and thrive on it. Perhaps not all firefighters regard their work as in their rational self-interest, but certainly many do. And the selfish heroism of those who do is what merits admiration and respect. 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 The Beauty of Ayn Rand’s Ethics Image: Joseph Kellard Link to Original

In a July 8 episode of The 700 Club, Pat Robertson rejected civil rights, which, he conceded, underpinned the recent Supreme Court rulings concerning homosexual marriage. And for some reason now the Supreme Court has said homosexuality is now a constitutional right and homosexual marriage, this decision that was handed down recently by the majority, glorifies this activity and talks about the civil rights and all this. Well, the Bible didn’t talk about civil rights. It talked about this was an offense against God and the land. Robertson is correct that the Bible does not talk about civil rights. Nor does it mention any kind of rights. Instead, the Bible calls for believers to obey an alleged God’s myriad commands, including to kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13) and to permit slavery (Leviticus 25:45). Even where the Bible offers decent advice, such as don’t commit murder (Exodus 20:13), it is not concerned with logically justifying the dictates. The fundamental of religion is that people must accept the validity of an alleged God’s commandments on faith—which means, in the absence of logical support. Neither Christianity nor any other religion can support the principle of individual rights. The principle of rights rests not on faith but on the factual, logical requirements of human life. The principle of rights is the recognition of the fact that in order to live as human beings, we must be free to act on our own judgment and to keep and use the product of our effort—these being the fundamental requirements of human life. And “free” in this context means “free from physical force”—including governmental force forbidding homosexuals from enjoying consensual adult sex or engaging in marital contracts or in any other way living as human beings. (For a detailed explanation of the source and nature of rights, see “Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society.”) At least in this case Robertson is refreshingly direct and partially correct: “The Bible didn’t talk about civil rights.” That much is true. If only he would stop talking about the Bible as though it were the proper foundation of government. 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 Message to Gov. Christie and His Critics: Gay Marriage is a Moral Right Gay Marriage and Rights vs. Democracy Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

The Department of Labor recently estimated that U.S. employers added 195,000 jobs during the month of June, which prompted excitement from the White House and spurred a rise in stock prices. But the full set of figures hardly points to a strong economy. Consider: The overall unemployment rate remained steady at 7.6 percent. The unemployment rate for young workers (ages 18–29) rose to 16.1 percent. So far this year, only 136,000 full-time jobs have been added to the U.S. economy, compared to 557,000 part-time jobs. The number of workers employed in part-time jobs for “economic reasons” (i.e., those who would prefer to work full time if the jobs were available) increased by 332,000—leaving a total 8.2 million Americans working part-time who would prefer to work full-time. What is the cause of the job market’s malaise? The broad answer is that, in recent years, the federal government has pursued various policies that have harmed economic growth and the U.S. job market. As just a sampling of these policies: The Bush and Obama administrations massively increased government spending, resulting in a national debt of more than $16.3 trillion; The Federal Reserve under Ben Bernanke increased production of fiat money, thus decreasing the value of Americans’ savings (and thus their ability to invest), and kept interest rates artificially low, thereby throttling market incentives for lending; The government added more than 38,000 new regulations, retarding businessmen’s ability to produce and trade; And Congress passed ObamaCare, forcing all Americans to act against their judgment with respect to their health care “choices.” In these and many other ways, the federal government violated people’s rights to keep and spend their money as they see fit and to produce and trade freely. One consequence of these policies is that the job market has remained anemic. If Americans want to see a better job market—and a better standard of living in general—they must demand that government cut spending, reduce taxes, slash regulations, and generally move in the direction of protecting rather than violating people’s 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: Economics in Atlas Shrugged Don’t Delay Obamacare—End It Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-7313" title="781px-EIA_Map_of_Eagle_Ford_Shale_Play" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/781px-EIA_Map_of_Eagle_Ford_Shale_Play1-300x230.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="230" />In April, I <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/04/fracking-in-south-texas-generates-61-billion-annually-in-economic-activity/" target="_blank">highlighted</a> the enormous wealth being generated in the Texas Eagle Ford shale. Now that April’s oil production numbers have been made public, there is even more to celebrate. Oil production was 54 percent <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-06-20/eagle-ford-output-rises-54-percent-to-more-than-530-000-barrels-a-day" target="_blank">higher</a> than it was the previous year.</p> <p>This enormous increase in productivity was achieved by drillers and hydraulic fracturers (frackers) who increased the region’s total number of oil wells from 40 in 2008 to 1,262 in 2012.</p> <p>The commissioner of the state’s oil and gas regulatory agency <a href="http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/commissioners/porter/reports/Eagle_Ford_Task_Force_Report-0313.pdf" target="_blank">stated</a>, “The Eagle Ford Shale has the potential to be the single most significant economic development in our state’s history”—a claim backed up by substantial evidence.</p> <p><a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp?ref=blog_int" target="_blank"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-6404" title="subscribe-now-por" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/subscribe-now-por.png" alt="" width="220" /></a>In 2010, oil production in the shale <a href="http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/05/energy-fact-of-the-day-eagle-ford-shale-sets-new-oil-output-record-in-march-with-a-77-increase-from-a-year-ago/" target="_blank">represented</a> roughly 1 percent of Texas’s total oil output. By February 2013, the shale accounted for 22 percent of Texas’s total output and 7 percent of the nation’s crude oil production. Today, fracking in the shale is responsible for Texas recording its <a href="http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/07/10/texas-oil-surges-to-highest-level-since-1984/" target="_blank">highest</a> oil volumes since 1986.</p> <p>Enrolment in petroleum training courses at a regional college increased from 46 students in 2008 to 1,086 in 2012; still, a local Petroleum Engineering firm <a href="http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/03/27/small-texas-towns-big-paychecks/" target="_blank">stated</a> that it is “next to impossible” to find enough employees.</p> <p>The shale development in this region is a beacon of progress in a country where the economic environment is often stagnant if not in decline. Life-loving Americans should celebrate and support this energy revolution.</p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company.asp" target="_blank">Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/07/oil-developers-innovative-technology-breaths-new-life-into-legendary-oilfield/" target="_blank">Oil Developers’ Innovative Technology Breaths New Life into Legendary Oilfield</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Image: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EIA_Map_of_Eagle_Ford_Shale_Play.jpg" target="_blank">Wikimedia Commons</a></p> Link to Original

Japanese scientists at the Riken BioResource Center have discovered a way to clone mice from cells drawn from circulating blood, the BBC reports (and as Mikayla Callen mentions here). Scientists took blood cells from the tail of a donor mouse and used them to make viable clones in the lab. This advance is crucially important because it enables scientists easily to reproduce research mice, which often become infertile. Prior to this advancement, mice were substantially more difficult to clone, and the process was inefficient. With older techniques, scientists use blood cells drawn from the lymph nodes, bone marrow, or liver, and, in addition to these methods sometimes resulting in damaged DNA, they also require the euthanization of the donor mouse. The new process does not run the risk of damaged DNA, and, because it enables scientists to clone mice from a single drop of blood drawn from the mouse’s tail, the donor mouse remains alive and can be used repeatedly. This, of course, means that scientists can substantially accelerate research involving mice toward the improvement or creation of medical treatments for men. Congratulations to the men and women of reason at the Riken BioResource Center for this profound advance in cloning 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: Robert Zubrin on the Scourge of Antihumanism Celebrating Dolly’s Birthday: Advancements in Cloning Technology Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

Do we properly have freedom from religion? Some say no. In June, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed new legislation permitting displays of religious expressions in tax-funded schools. He rationalized the law by saying, “Freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion.” And Roy Costner IV, the high school valedictorian who recited the Lord’s Prayer during his speech at his school’s graduation ceremonies in violation of school rules, told a Fox News reporter, “We are not in a country where we have freedom from religion. We have freedom of religion.” Such statements are conceptually and morally wrong. Properly understood, the right to freedom of religion means not only the right to embrace your own religious (or non-religious) principles, but also the right not to have others’ beliefs forcibly imposed on you and the right not to be forced to support or disseminate religious ideas—as when government seizes your wealth to finance the propagation of such ideas. Without freedom from religion, you can’t have freedom of conscience. In a political context, freedom means the absence of initiatory physical force or coercion. Those who promote the idea that there is no freedom from religion undermine the First Amendment, reject the separation of church and state, and seek to impose their religious beliefs through government force. If freedom of conscience is to continue in America—which means: if America is to continue being even semi-free—Americans must understand and embrace the principle that freedom of conscience entails and requires freedom from religion. 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 vs. Free Speech Teach Rational Morality, Not Religious Dogma Valedictorian’s Speech Highlights Problems Inherent in Government Schools Creative Commons Image: InSapphoWeTrust Link to Original

Today U.S. District Judge Denise Cote ruled against Apple in an antitrust suit, claiming that the company “conspired to raise the retail price of e-books,” NPR reports. What did Apple allegedly do wrong? Bloomberg summarizes: The U.S. sued Apple and five of the biggest publishers in April 2012, claiming the maker of the iPad pushed publishers to sign agreements letting it sell digital copies of their books under a model that raised prices and harmed consumers. In that so-called agency model, publishers, not retailers, set book prices, with Apple getting 30 percent. In other words, Apple and book publishers voluntarily agreed to terms for the sales of ebooks, which customers could then choose to buy or not to buy. Every aspect of this so-called “conspiracy” involved the voluntary exchange of these books on the part of sellers and purchasers. The claim that the pricing agreements “harmed consumers” is absurd. Nothing that Apple or the publishers did harmed any consumer in any way. Offering a book for sale harms no one. If a customer agrees to buy the book, then the customer, the publisher, and the retailer all benefit from the exchange; if the customer does not agree to buy the book, then none of the parties thereby imposes any harm. Moreover, the only kind of harm the government has any legitimate business stopping is that caused by physical force, including fraud, extortion, and the like. Voluntarily trading products involves no such force. Whether the pricing agreements in question resulted in higher prices for certain ebooks—which, incidentally, means higher profits for publishers and a resulting greater ability for publishers to pay writers to produce more texts—is irrelevant from the perspective of legal justice. Book publishers and retailers have a right to seek to maximize their profits and to associate voluntarily with other parties in that aim. Although the competition that results when government consistently protects individual rights often leads to lower prices for better products, there is nothing immoral about sellers raising prices when they judge that to be in their interests. And there is no legitimate grounds for making it illegal. In this case there is only one party guilty of violating people’s rights, and that party is the federal government, which is violating the rights of Apple and book publishers—and, by extension, their customers—to freely negotiate their terms of business. Shame on the Department of Justice, the agency responsible for bringing this rights-violating suit, and shame on Congress for sustaining the immoral, rights-violating antitrust laws on which the suit is based. 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 Antitrust Suit Against Microsoft is Immoral and Un-American Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

A short video from a twelve-year-old boy in Egypt is going viral on the Web, approaching two million views on YouTube. Assuming the translation is accurate, the boy condemns the Muslim Brotherhood and its attempt to impose sharia law. “We didn’t get rid of a military regime to replace it with a fascist theocracy,” he says. When the interviewer asks who taught him these things, he answers, “I listen to people a lot, and I use my own brain. Plus I read newspapers, watch TV, and search the Internet.” The new constitutional draft, he says, states that “women are equal to men in all matters, except in matters that contradict Islamic law, but then Islamic law allows men to discipline [i.e., beat] their wives.” He says “this cannot work in society . . . it’s outrageous.” The boy’s thinking on this matter is remarkably astute, and would be even for an adult. Although he uses a few illegitimate ideas (e.g., “social justice”), he gets the situation essentially right. Let’s hope this courageous young man’s use of his own brain will inspire many others in the Arab world to not conform to religious dogma and to keep sharia law out of Egypt’s constitution. 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: Interview with Historian John David Lewis about U.S. Foreign Policy and the Middle East Interview with Cynthia Farahat on Growing Up in Egypt, Discovering Ayn Rand, and Fighting Islamists Creative Commons Image: Takver Link to Original

In this episode of Reason at Large, Craig Biddle answers the question, “Why do you sometimes use the term ‘Islamist’ rather than ‘Muslim’ to refer to Muslims?” In answering, Biddle points out that some Muslims take their religion seriously and thus seek to convert or kill unbelievers, and some Muslims don’t—and that this is true not only of Muslims but also of Christians and Jews. He explains that we need to capture this distinction in the language we use and that the historic means of doing so is by using modifiers, such as “radical” or “fundamentalist” (e.g., “radical Christian”). The term “Islamist,” Biddle says, serves the same purpose, but it should always be used with a brief explanation of its meaning—such as, “by Islamist, I mean a Muslim who takes his religion seriously and thus seeks to convert or kill unbelievers.” 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: Morally Judging Muslims and Other Religionists Great Islamic Thinkers Versus Islam Link to Original

In the August 1920 edition of Oil and Gas News, an excited reporter wrote about a region that “is attracting much attention due to the good [oil] wells that are being brought in.” Oil had been discovered on the Bertha Hickman farm in Oklahoma, a discovery that started the industrial music of the North Burbank Oil Field. Ninety-three years and 319 million barrels of oil later, energy producers in the region are using an “enhanced oil recovery” technology that promises to extract enormous amounts of oil that are otherwise unreachable. The July 1, 2013 edition of Oil and Gas Journal reports that Chaparral Energy has begun injecting carbon dioxide through “injection wells”—with the expectation of producing an additional 88 million barrels of oil. This ingenious method of oil extraction uses carbon dioxide, which in this case is collected from a fertilizer manufacturing plant in Coffeyville, Kansas. (Prior to this development, the plant vented this carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as waste.) Sixty million cubic feet per day of this exhaust gas is now collected and pumped by a 23,500 horsepower compressor station, through 68 miles of 8 inch diameter pipe, to Oklahoma’s historic oilfield. Once there, it is injected deep into the ground where it pushes crude oil through the rock and into production wells, which transport the oil to the surface. The company estimates that this technology will extend the producing life of the field by 30 years! The independent and entrepreneurial spirit that drove the discoverers of 1920 exists today and can be seen in these heroic innovators who are pushing the boundaries of the science and technology of oil production. 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: Freedom and Fracking Fuel Investment in Texas Energy at the Speed of Thought: The Original Alternative Energy Market Creative Commons Image: Jonathan Wheeler Link to Original

Seven-month-old Brandon Schaible died from bacterial pneumonia, severe dehydration, and strep—while his parents watched and prayed and, in accordance with their religious beliefs, refused to provide the child with medicine. Herbert and Catherine Schaible of Philadelphia now await trial, facing third-degree-murder charges for Brandon’s death. The atrocity is magnified by the fact that Brandon was the second Schaible child to die in this same way—from bacterial pneumonia and religiously motivated lack of medical treatment. At the time of Brandon’s death, the Schaibles were still on probation for involuntary manslaughter in the preventable death of their two-year-old son Kent in 2009. The terms of their ten-year probation required them to seek medical care for any of their other children who might become sick. The Schaibles are members of First Century Gospel Church, which teaches parishioners to place absolute faith in “God” in all aspects of life. The church’s online statement of beliefs includes: Our commitment to God means that we trust God alone for physical healing without the use of medicine, drugs, prescriptions, pills, or human remedies. Jesus said to the woman (Matthew 9:22) ‘ your faith has healed you;’ and the apostle reminded those listening (Acts 3:16) ‘ It is Jesus’ name and the faith that comes through him [faith being the condition] that has given this complete healing.’ [emphasis in original] Herbert Schaible responded to Brandon’s death by telling Philadelphia homicide detectives: We believe in divine healing, that Jesus shed blood for our healing and that he died on the cross to break the devil’s power. Medicine is against our religious beliefs. Catherine Schaible told police that when Brandon’s breathing became labored two days before his death, they called an assistant pastor to anoint and pray over their son. When Brandon stopped breathing, the Schaibles continued to pray for a miraculous revival before contacting the funeral home. In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, the head pastor of their church blamed the untimely deaths of Brandon and Kent on a “spiritual lack” in the Schaibles’ lives: They [Herbert and Catherine Schaible] realize they must get back to God, to seek wisdom from him, to find where the spiritual lack is in their heart and life . . . so this won’t happen again. The pastor got one thing right. The Schaible’s children suffered and died because of a spiritual lack on the part of their parents. But the lethal deficiency was not a lack of faith; it was a lack of reason—man’s only means of knowledge and only proper guide to action. Nor was the lack innocent. It was chosen. The Schaibles chose to ignore their knowledge that medicine could heal their child. They chose to pretend that prayer could heal him. And they chose to do so twice. If found guilty of withholding medicine from and and thus effectively causing the death of a second child, the Schaibles deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law. In any event, everyone who embraces faith or prayer as efficacious should take note of yet another instance of the disastrous consequences of such irrationality. 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 Religion vs. Subjectivism: Why Neither Will Do Penny Nance’s Strange Bedfellows Link to Original

In this episode of Reason at Large, Craig Biddle answers a question from Eric: “Objectivism holds that morality presupposes the choice to live. But why should I choose to live?” In answering, Biddle discusses the nature of the question, the reason the questioner doesn’t really need an answer to the question, and the profound nature of Ayn Rand’s principle that the only reason people need values—including answers to questions—is in order to live. 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: America’s Comeback Philosopher Is Objectivism a Cult? Link to Original

In this episode of Reason at Large, Craig Biddle answers the question, “You’ve argued that people should be intolerant of Islam. How does this apply to individual Muslims, not all of whom truly or fully embrace Islam?” In answering, Biddle discusses the need to account for the context of a given Muslim (or other religionist) and the degree to which he acts in accordance with the tenets of his religion; and he explains why all religionists should be judged as immoral precisely to the extent that they embrace faith as a means of knowledge, renounce their rational and thus moral faculty, and turn to “authorities” for moral dictates. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: Great Islamic Thinkers Versus Islam Don’t Tolerate Islam, Condemn It Link to Original