Blog Auto Feed Retired

At a recent press conference, President Obama declared, Quality care is not something that should be a privilege. It should be a right. In the greatest country on earth, we’ve got to make sure that every single person that needs health care can get it. The proper purpose of government, on this view, is to provide citizens with the goods they need in order to live. On its face, this sounds good to some Americans. Who doesn’t want to be healthy? What sick or injured person wouldn’t want assurance that he will obtain treatment? However, to declare that health care is a right is to say that one has a moral claim to it, that it is due him—which implies that others must be compelled to provide it. This is a formula not for a country based on the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—or, as Obama correctly calls America, “the greatest country on earth”—but for a nation of serfs, each bound to the others by their needs. The promise of America is not a “right” to have one’s needs such as health care, education, jobs, and housing provided by the government. Everyone has these needs, and the fundamental way to satisfy them is to use one’s mind, to act in accordance with one’s rational judgment, and to produce and trade as necessary to acquire one’s needs. Compulsion throttles this process because it overrides the individual’s mind, forcing him to act contrary to his own evaluations and conclusions. When the government attempts to provide citizens with goods and services that have to be produced, it does so by forcing some individuals to produce for the sake of others, thereby violating the rights of those who are forced. A correct conception of rights pertains not to the receipt of products but to freedom of action. Genuine rights follow from the recognition that, in order to live and prosper, individuals must be free to think and act according to their own judgment. And, in accordance with this correct conception of rights, the only proper purpose of government is to safeguard such rights. To correct Obama’s false claim: Quality care is something that must be produced; therefore it cannot be a right. In the greatest country on earth, we’ve got to make sure that every single person remains free to think, act, produce, and trade in accordance with his own judgment—including in the realm of health care. We need a president who will say that. And, in order to elect such a president, Americans must embrace this truth themselves. 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 Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

As science writer Matt Ridley reports, Leo James, William McEwan, and other researchers at the Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge have profoundly advanced the understanding of how antibodies work, opening the door to potential advances in how doctors treat infectious diseases. James summarizes his lab’s work on his web page: Despite extracellular adaptive and innate immunity, viral and bacterial pathogens are still able to infect cells. Because of this there must be a way to neutralise pathogens once they are inside the cell. Historically, infected cells have been seen as largely helpless and only able to signal for help. However, there is increasing evidence that cells have their own mechanisms for directly restricting pathogen replication. It is this process of intracellular immunity that my lab is interested in. In a video, James offers more details on his lab’s findings: The immune system responds quickly to viral infections. Antibodies circulating in the bloodstream . . . stick to the surface of the invading viruses. We used to think that antibodies only worked outside the cell and that once a virus had broken into the cell it was too late. Recently, scientists at the MRC [Medical Research Council] Laboratory of Molecular Biology discovered that some viruses take antibodies with them when they infect cells. Inside the cell a protein called TRIIM21 . . . recognises the antibodies. TRIM21 destroys the virus by feeding it into the cell’s recycling system. The latest research shows that when TRIM21 detects antibody-bound viruses and bacteria inside a cell it alerts the immune system that the battle has begun. James notes that his lab’s research “could lead to the design of better vaccines and gene therapies.” Congratulations to James and his associates for improving the understanding of how the body fights disease—thereby paving the way to more effective treatments of disease. Their work serves as yet another reminder of the fundamental role that reason plays in furthering human life. 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: Herman Boerhaave: The Nearly Forgotten Father of Modern Medicine Dr. Jane Wright Has Died, But Her Work Will Forever Save Lives Link to Original

Recently the Justice Department accused Fox News correspondent James Rosen of criminally conspiring to publish sensitive security information about how North Korea might respond to new UN sanctions. In investigating this case, the FBI seized Rosen’s phone and email records. In response, Fox News launched a principled defense of the First Amendment. Executive vice president Michael Clemente issued a bold statement: We are outraged to learn that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job. It fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press. And Roger Ailes, president of Fox News, wrote to his employees: We reject the government’s efforts to criminalize the pursuit of investigative journalism and falsely characterize a Fox News reporter to a Federal judge as a “co-conspirator” in a crime. . . . The administration’s attempt to intimidate Fox News and its employees will not succeed and their excuses will stand neither the test of law, the test of decency, nor the test of time. We will not allow a climate of press intimidation, unseen since the McCarthy era, to frighten any of us away from the truth. . . . I am proud of your tireless effort to report the news over the last 17 years. I stand with you, I support you and I thank you for your reporting with courageous optimism. Too many Americans fought and died to protect our unique American right of press freedom. . . . As Fox News employees, we sometimes are forced to stand alone, but even then when we know we are reporting what is true and what is right, we stand proud and fearless. Thank you for your hard work and all your efforts. Media leaders from numerous publications—including the Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN—expressed support for this letter, now widely known as the “Ailes Manifesto.” Kudos to Fox News for defending the free press. May Clemente and Ailes inspire other journalists to stand strong for the First Amendment. 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 Will TN U.S. Attorney William Killian Clarify that Individuals Have a Right to Criticize Islam? Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

“‘Elizabeth,’ he cleared his throat, ‘there’s something I need to ask you.’ She stopped breathing. If this was the question, the timing was odd—but she didn’t care.” These lines set the tension in Quent Cordair’s latest short story, The Match. Frank does not ask the question Elizabeth hoped for. Instead, he asks, “Elizabeth, do you remember how we met?” They met six months prior, when Frank, a detective, was investigating the death of a sheriff’s deputy. Although Frank and Elizabeth have been dating seriously since then, Frank has some unanswered questions about that old investigation, question that involve Elizabeth. And Elizabeth’s explanation of what happened on a cold and lonely night months ago fills most of Cordair’s story. So will Frank end up proposing to Elizabeth—or arresting her? Obviously I can’t answer that question without spoiling the story. But, without giving away too much, I can say that the story involves Elizabeth and her daughter, her clunky old car, and a book of matches. I can also say that the story takes place in the near future, after the government has passed some laws of which Elizabeth disapproves. Cordair spins an intriguing tale with a small cast of well-drawn and believable characters. And he manages to make an interesting and timely political point in the context of a police investigation and a love story. As to what Elizabeth tells Frank, and as to what he does about it, you’ll have to read for yourself. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: Transfiguring the Novel: The Literary Revolution in Atlas Shrugged Review: Lunch Break by Quent Cordair Link to Original

There’s a lot wrong in the world, and, here in the United States, where government is expanding its rights-violating activities, lovers of liberty can easily become pessimistic. But, with a series of 30 charts, Rob Wile of Business Insider promises to “restore your faith in humanity.” The good news he conveys reminds us to appreciate just how great the world has become. Consider a few examples: Whereas nearly three-fourths of the global population was enslaved or held in serfdom in the mid-1700s, today around one-tenth are. That’s profound progress. Whereas, in the late 1800s, people in the United States and other industrial countries worked around 3,000 hours per year, today they work less than 2,000—and during the same time leisure spending has skyrocketed. Life expectancy increased in the United States from 47 in 1900 to 77 in 1998. Gun-related violence in the United States has declined substantially since the early 1990s. Between about 1930 and 1950, the incidence of death in childbirth in the United States declined by about 85 percent. Although several of Wile’s charts are a bit out of date, and although some of them are questionable (for example, his chart showing a decline in illiteracy does not account for degradation of literacy), he offers a welcome reminder that, in myriad ways, the world we live in is the best that anyone has ever lived in. As we work for better futures, let us not take for granted how good life is in most ways for most of us. 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 British Industrial Revolution: A Tribute to Freedom and Human Potential Norman Borlaug: The Man Who Taught People To Feed Themselves Link to Original

Now this promises to be a world-changing development: Google plans to launch blimps and other “high-altitude platforms” above sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia to bring the internet wirelessly to a billion or more additional people, the Wall Street Journal reports. With what will these people access the internet? Google is also working to make low-cost smartphones available in these markets. Why would Google pursue these goals? Because of its huge business success and massive wealth creation, the company has the resources to pursue this magnificent project, and in the process to significantly improve life for many of the world’s poorest people. But the core motivation seems to be, appropriately, to turn a profit. The Wall Street Journal reports: Connecting more people to the Web world-wide creates more potential users of its Web-search engine and other services such as YouTube and its Google Play media and app store. . . . More Internet users, in turn, would drive online advertising on many of Google’s services. The company currently derives 87% of its annual $50 billion in revenue from selling online ads. Godspeed to Google as it develops these new internet platforms and helps welcome hundreds of millions of people into the networks of global capitalism. And may Google ultimately profit enormously from this ambitious undertaking. 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: Apple’s App Revolution: Capitalism in Action Is Africa the Next Beneficiary of the Industrial Revolution? Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

On June 4, Becky Gerritson, a founder of the Wetumpka Tea Party in Alabama, testified before congress about the IRS’s abusive practices toward Tea Party groups. Her poignant words deserve repeating. Gerritson began by explaining what motivated her to become involved in the Tea Party movement: In order to paint a clear picture, I need to explain how the Wetumpka Tea Party came into being. My husband and I had never been involved in politics before 2008. We’d always been patriotic and deeply proud of our country. We’ve always felt that the United States is the greatest country in the world. In September 2008, when we had our first $700 billion “bailout,” we along with millions of Americans were very concerned. That bailout was confirmation that our government was out of control. . . . We were worried, and we knew we had to do something to sound the alarm. . . . The government was mortgaging America’s future. And we knew that Washington wasn’t going to stop by itself. Then Gerritson lambasted the government for discriminating against Tea Party groups: In Wetumpka, we are patriotic Americans. We peacefully assemble. We petition our government. We exercise the right to free speech. And we don’t understand why the government tried to stop us. I am not here as a serf or vassal. I am not begging my lords for mercy. I’m a born free American woman, wife, mother and citizen. And I’m telling my government that you’ve forgotten your place. It’s not your responsibility to look out for my well-being, and to monitor my speech. It’s not your right to assert an agenda. Your post, the post that you occupy, exists to preserve American liberty. You’ve sworn to perform that duty. And you have faltered. I would likely disagree with Gerritson on various issues. But, hearing these courageous words in defense of liberty, I can only thank Gerritson for speaking them to Congress—and urge Congress to 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: To Help Save America, Tea Partiers Must Fully Embrace Individual Rights Should Tea Partiers Abandon or Embrace Ayn Rand? Link to Original

Sarah Murnaghan is a 10-year-old girl suffering from cystic fibrosis. If she does not get a lung transplant, she will die, likely within weeks. But so far she has been unable to receive a lung transplant because a federal agency—the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—has decided that children under 12 must be placed on the bottom of the waiting list for an adult lung, and because a child lung is highly unlikely to become available. Why is the federal government involved in a matter of organ transplantation? As an HSS web page explains, Congress passed the National Organ Transplant Act in 1984, creating the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), an organization subject to HHS oversight. Many are asking whether the secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, has legal authority to make an exception to the HHS-approved rules. Sarah’s family says that Sebelius has “very clear authority under the law to intervene and mandate a variance that would help save Sarah’s life.” Congressman Tom Price says that Sebelius possibly could save Sarah’s life by “signing a paper” permitting her to join the adult transplant list. Sebelius, however, declined to intervene on the grounds that changing the rules for one person would be unfair to others on the transplant list. She has called on OPTN to review the transplant rules related to children, but any change would come too late for Sarah. It is not even clear that Sebelius could intervene in Sarah’s case if she wanted to, as Brett Norman writes for Politico. Although the extent of Sebelius’s authority remains unclear, what is clear is that the HHS, through its transplant rules, effectively operates as a death panel, deciding who may live and who will die—and that the federal government is in the business of rationing organs. Not only does the federal government ration organs; it also actively reduces the supply of available organs by prohibiting “financial incentives for selling an organ.” Because the government forbids people to arrange for the sale of their organs upon their death—which would selfishly benefit their heirs—relatively few people offer their organs for transplant. Consequently, fewer people who need organs get them, and more people die—by government mandate. The spectacle of a federal bureaucracy deciding who will and who will not receive organs is obscene. The government has no moral right to dictate any such thing. The moral right to make such decisions lies with private individuals, hospitals, and donation networks interacting voluntarily. The only proper role of government in this regard is to protect people’s rights and to enforce legitimate contracts. In the present case, we can probably do little more than hope that Sarah, the brave little girl who declares, “I’m never going to quit, never, never,” will receive the transplant that may save her life. But for future Sarahs or Johnnys or the like—who could be our own children or someone we love—we can fight to extricate government from the transplant process so that more people have a fighting chance 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: Health Care and the Separation of Charity and State Altruism: The Morality of Suffering and Death (Exhibit 347R: Organ Donation) Time for the Ethics of Organ Donation to Catch Up with the Heroics of Dr. Joseph E. Murray Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

The cost of college is skyrocketing and students are graduating with record levels of debt in order to meet the expense. Since 1978, college tuition and fees have increased by 1,120 percent––outpacing inflation four times over and racing past other core consumer costs such as medical expenses and food. In 2010, national student loan debt surpassed the total level of U.S. credit card debt, and, in 2011, passed the one trillion dollar mark. Because of rising costs, the average U.S. college student now graduates with nearly $27,000 in student loan debt. This debt, coupled with a 16.1 percent unemployment rate for Americans under the age of 30, is wreaking havoc on the lives and futures of college students and graduates. The student debt crisis is now a fiery hot topic in Washington as the interest rate on federally subsidized student loans is set to double from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent on July 1. The possible interest rate increase naturally has many future college students worried about having to pay even more in long-term student loans, and many students are demanding a “solution” from Congress. Although legislators have proposed new measures to tweak the way government handles student loans, the solution to the student debt crisis is not further government tweaks. Government intervention in the higher education market is precisely the reason college has become so expensive. Through a complex system of government-backed student loans, grants, tax credits, and regulations, the federal government has massively subsidized or manipulated students, banks, and colleges in an effort to make college education more “affordable.” But these policies have had the exact opposite effect on the price of higher education. With respect to student loans, the pattern is as follows: Washington legislates artificially low, fixed interest rates—universities respond by raising their tuitions and fees—and students respond to that by taking out more and larger student loans to cover the costs. The solution to this clearly government-caused problem is to remove government from the equation; to recognize the rights of students, banks, and colleges to contract in accordance with their own judgment; and to let the free market do what it does so well: set prices in accordance with supply and demand. In a free market, colleges would have incentives to offer better degrees for less money; banks would have incentive to make education loans at rates students are willing and able to pay; and students would have incentive to pay back their loans, as bad credit is not good for one’s life. Students are right to demand a “solution” from Congress, but that solution should be to get government out of the way. 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 Government’s Assault on Private-Sector Colleges and Universities Student Loan Scheme Just Another Rights-Violating Bailout The New Abolitionism: Why Education Emancipation is the Moral Imperative of our Time Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

Tomorrow night the American Muslim Advisory Council will host a meeting in Manchester, Tennessee, themed “Public Discourse in a Diverse Society.” The two featured guest speakers are William Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division. A report from the Tullahoma News claims, “Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.” Given that this report easily can be read to imply that the federal government will crack down on free speech critical of Islam, it is understandable that the newspaper story has raised the hackles of various writers: Byron Tau of Politico writes, “A U.S. attorney in Tennessee is reportedly vowing to use federal civil rights statutes to clamp down on offensive and inflammatory speech about Islam.” Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit writes, “A top Department of Justice lawyer warns that posting offensive material on Islam will have legal repercussions.” A headline for Judicial Watch blares, “DOJ: Social Media Posts Trashing Muslims May Violate Civil Rights.” Robert Spencer of Front Page Magazine describes the meeting as the “Obama Administration’s latest assault on the freedom of speech.” Although I know of no instance of Killian actually stating that he intends to use federal law to clamp down on speech critical of Islam, if the line about inflammatory speech is true, then there is certainly cause for concern. However, there are some reasons to doubt that Killian plans an assault on free speech. The line from the Tullahoma News about “inflammatory” speech is a paraphrase, not a direct quote. The newspaper provides some important context: A local county commissioner, Barry West, “showed a picture of a man pointing a double-barreled shotgun at a camera lens with the caption saying, ‘How to Wink at a Muslim.’” Killian was responding, at least in part, to this case. Killian also released a statement (forwarded to me by his office) in which he specifically refers to threatening speech: This community forum is an educational effort to inform the community about civil rights laws as they play into the exercise of religious freedom. Our purpose is to simply facilitate discussion towards the goal of greater tolerance, understanding and peaceful community relations, as well as to inform the public about what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are for violating them, including what speech is protected and what speech could be considered a threat under the law. Although Killian rightly draws a distinction between threatening and non-threatening speech, his otherwise utterly vague language hardly instills confidence in readers concerned with free speech rights. Perhaps some of Killian’s critics have been too quick to cast him as an enemy of free speech. Whether he is or isn’t, we will find out in short order. In any event, Killian has been too slow to articulate his commitment to recognizing and protecting the right to freedom of speech, including when that speech offends Muslims. 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: Drawings of Mohammed, In Defense of Human Life Great Islamic Thinkers Versus Islam Link to Original

Dr. Jane Wright, a pioneer of chemotherapy—the medical treatment that uses drugs to destroy cancer cells—has died. Wright made her key discovery after observing the symptoms of patients, including her father, who were being treated for exposure to mustard gas during World War II. These patients, she noticed, had low white blood cell counts, in contrast to sufferers of leukemia whose white blood cell counts were unusually high. From this she reasoned that some of the chemicals found in mustard gas—a deadly and, ironically, carcinogenic chemical—might be useful in the treatment of leukemia. This spurred Wright’s interest in chemotherapy, which was then a new and relatively unsophisticated field, and she proceeded to develop the technique of testing potential cancer drugs on cultures of human tissue in a petri dish, a process that made drug testing faster and more reliable. She also pioneered the use of the drug methotrexate in chemotherapy, which is now widely used in the treatment of breast and skin cancers. Although cancer treatments, including chemotherapy, cannot always cure the disease and can induce terrible side effects, they have cured cancer in many patients and have prolonged the lives of many more. Here’s to the life, thought, and work of a great scientist, researcher, and hero, Jane Wright, whose life-giving work will live forever. 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: Herman Boerhaave: The Nearly Forgotten Father of Modern Medicine Robert Edwards, Creator of Life, Has Died Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

For decades in California, oil producers have successfully used hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to extract vast quantities of oil from the earth, and recent technological advances could unlock orders of magnitude more oil from California’s Monterey Shale. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the shale may hold 15.4 billion barrels of oil, twice the total estimated oil in Texas’s Eagle Ford Shale and North Dakota’s Bakken combined. Unfortunately, that potential has riled the state’s powerful anti-industry groups, which have successfully disrupted development of much of this oil—their success being due largely to the fact that the federal government controls much of the land in question. In April, in response to a lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club, the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) halted an oil company’s plans to develop 2,500 acres it had leased in 2011. Despite the fact that tens of thousands of wells have been safely drilled and fracked in the United States in the past few years, a federal judge barred any drilling on the 2011 leases and required another environmental review, which would also be subject to litigation. (The plaintiffs had requested that the government cancel the leases entirely.) This month, fearing expensive subsequent litigation, the BLM postponed two auctions involving the possible lease of 3,300 acres in California to oil explorers. BLM spokesman David Christy said, “The agency is concentrating its limited resources on enforcement on existing leases and other priorities, such as granting renewable energy permits.” The result is that these “public” lands are now closed to oil and gas development. Unlike the situation in Texas and North Dakota, many of California’s oil-related resources are controlled by the federal government. Consequently, environmental groups are able to lobby government officials, force expensive and time consuming litigation on oil producers, and ultimately to impose their anti-industrial agendas on these “public” lands. In states where the majority of resources are held by private individuals, environmentalists have more difficulty throttling producers. The principle is simple: When property is “owned” by the government, it is controlled by those who wield the greatest political influence. If Californians want to unleash their region’s productive potential, they must demand that the federal government begin the process of converting federal lands and minerals to private property—thereby taking it out of the hands of both government and anti-industrial environmental groups. And they must demand that property rights be upheld. 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: Deeper Than Kelo: The Roots of the Property Rights Crisis Investment in Fracking Results in Dramatic Production Growth Across Seven States Creative Commons Image: Jamie Grant Link to Original

From February 2010 to February 2013, onshore oil production (including the production of crude oil and liquid hydrocarbons called “lease condensate”) within the Lower 48 States increased by 64 percent, driven largely by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Seven states achieved particularly high increases: North Dakota, 198 percent; Texas, 105 percent; Colorado, 64 percent; Oklahoma, 51 percent; New Mexico, 46 percent; Utah, 45 percent; and Wyoming, 23 percent. Natural gas production also increased. Shale wells made possible by fracking now account for more than 30 percent of total gas produced in the United States. From 2009 to 2011, the number of shale wells in the United States increased from 5,531 to 10,173. From 2010 to 2011, shale drilling expenditures increased by 87.6 percent, totalling $65.5 billion. In an April 2013 report, Hazem Arafa, the Director of Statistics for The American Petroleum Institute (API), states that “Shale drilling . . . now accounts for an estimated 23 percent of all wells drilled in the United States.” The North American shale revolution continues to radically expand domestic energy production as businesses invest more in the practices and technologies that make it possible. Kudos to those who, through their commitment to technological innovation and the pursuit of profit, have advanced and continue advancing this life-serving industry. 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 Recognition of Property Rights is the Key to Bakken Development Link to Original

The themes of various horror films notwithstanding, “de-extinction”—the revival of extinct species—holds enormous promise for humans. The founders of Ark Corporation, Robert Lanza and George Church, plan to pursue de-extinction primarily as a means of improving the commercial breeding of farm animals and pets. Ark’s key technology involves “induced pluripotent stem cells” (iPS cells). To make iPS cells, researchers take an ordinary skin cell and, by modifying it or adding certain chemicals, turn it into a potent stem cell that’s able to grow into any other tissue of the body, including eggs and sperm. Because iPS cells can be made using frozen or recovered cells, this technology makes de-extinction possible. Lanza and Church first plan to revive the Spanish mountain goat and the passenger pigeon, to test the technology and gain publicity. Then they aim to use the technology to improve the commercial breeding of livestock and to engineer pets with longer lifespans. Lanza envisions “a dog that lives 20 years.” In addition to providing everyone with better and cheaper meat and dairy products, this technology could make a huge difference in the lives of people who rely on pets for physical assistance or companionship. Church says that although Ark does not itself plan to apply this technology in the area of human reproduction, other scientists might be able to use Ark’s research to help infertile couples conceive. The use of such technology on humans is, unfortunately, controversial, and the patent application was not drafted to include such use. Church expressed it this way: “It’s not part of the company. And if it were, we wouldn’t be saying it.” Even so, such possibilities are profound. Other possibilities include zoos filled not only with animals from different places on Earth, but from different periods in Earth’s history. Imagine visiting your local zoo and seeing a dodo bird or a Tasmanian tiger! Congratulations to Lanza and Church for helping to develop this astonishing life-serving technology, and best success to them in their venture. Here’s to a fabulous future! 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: Darwin and the Discovery of Evolution Stem Cell Research Offers New Hope for Repairing Brain Damage Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

Businessmen and researchers continue advancing the boundaries of 3D printing. Scott Summit, founder of Bespoke Innovations, asks us to “wonder what would happen if an industrial designer had a go at making prosthetic legs, things that are beautiful [and] . . . don’t neglect the esthetics.” Summit’s company makes fairings, “specialized coverings that surround an existing prosthetic leg.” One type of fairing, for example, enables soccer players to control the ball as they could with a natural leg. Summit indicates his background and passion: My background is originally from a machine shop; I like making stuff with my hands. And also I have a degree in industrial design, so my love is really making beautiful products of all kinds. Not surprisingly, given his devotion to beautiful design, Summit once worked at Apple: “Once you go through the Apple world . . . from that day forward, you really can’t do anything that you’re not absolutely, obsessively proud of.” So 3D printers can handle prosthetic limbs, but what about pizza? Anjan Contractor, a mechanical engineer and founder of Systems & Materials Research Corporation, is working on 3D food printing for NASA. International Science Times explains, Contractor’s 3D food printer prototype is based on the open-source RepRap printer. In a similar spirit, Contractor will make his software open-source as well. The software will include “recipes” that tell the 3D printer how to mix powdered and liquid ingredients, and in which order to print the food layers. Although I doubt such technology will replace much conventional food preparation anytime soon, it could soon play an important role in specialized applications from feeding astronauts to designing intricate wedding cakes. As for its long-term potential, causality is the limit. Congratulations to Summit for producing beautiful and practical fairings, and best wishes to Contractor as he seeks to advance 3D food printing. These types of advances will continue to make the world a better, more interesting, more beautiful, and more productive place 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: Review: Crashing Through: The Extraordinary True Story of the Man Who Dared to See by Robert Kurson Innovative Doctors Save Infant’s Life with 3D Printing Creative Commons Image: Phil Whitehouse Link to Original

This March, North Dakotans overcame brutal winter storms and produced a record 782,934 barrels of oil per day, a 35 percent increase over production last March. This increase was made possible largely by a 26 percent expansion in the number of wells, with 1,712 wells added over the year. What enabled this expanded production? In North Dakota, private individuals own the “mineral” rights to these raw materials, so they have a vested interest in making their property more productive. In total, 82 percent of the mineral rights and 89 percent of the surface rights in the state are privately owned. This May, Lynn Helms, director of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources, testified at a congressional committee, “It is this private ownership in a rural setting and the protections afforded private contracts in our state constitution that have made the development of the Bakken possible.” Helms noted that a drilling permit on federal lands “typically involves approval from more than one federal agency and [takes] over six months compared to a drilling permit on private land that involves one state agency and 20–30 days.” The result of private ownership is that, since 2007, oil production has increased by 700 percent, real gross domestic product is up 40 percent, and employment within the state has grown by 22 percent. Unfortunately, most governments around the world fail to recognize private property rights regarding oil (and other raw materials) in the ground. Government-owned entities control 88 percent of the world’s oil reserves. North Dakota offers a rare glimpse of the productive potential possible to people with private mineral and property rights. Left free, North Dakotans have chosen to be highly productive. Might there be a lesson here? 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 Alex Epstein, Founder of Center for Industrial Progress Estimated Oil in the Bakken Region Doubles Creative Commons Image: Lindsey Gee Link to Original

Teenager Zach Sobiech recently died of a rare form of cancer, osteosarcoma. His premature death is tragic; however, the enthusiasm and joy with which he lived his final years, even knowing he had a terminal illness, is inspiring. As documented by the media company SoulPancake, Sobiech pursued a loving romantic relationship, enjoyed his family and friends, took pleasure in such things as driving a sports car, and pursued a career as a musician. Sobiech’s song “Clouds” earned over five million YouTube views, and, with his friend Sammy Brown, Sobiech recorded an album. Sobiech’s girlfriend said of him, He’s shown me that it’s not all about the grades you get or how cool you are in high school; it’s about doing what makes you happy, and, no matter when you’re going to go, to live life to the fullest every day. Sobiech offered some wisdom that any of us would do well to embrace: “Life is really just beautiful moments, one right after the other. . . . I want to be remembered as a kid who went down fighting—and didn’t really lose.” 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: Making Life Meaningful: Living Purposefully Joshua Lipana Fought Until He Could Fight No More Link to Original

It is a parent’s nightmare: Your infant has severe breathing problems—intermittently ceasing to breathe and then breathing again—and there seems to be no way to fix the problem. This was a horror that April and Bryan Gionfriddo faced when their six-week-old son, Kaiba, temporarily quit breathing due to a collapsed bronchus and thereafter had daily problems breathing. As his mother recounts, “Quite a few doctors said he had a good chance of not leaving the hospital alive.” Two doctors said otherwise. Using a 3D printer, Glenn Green and Scott Hollister of the University of Michigan created a tracheal splint made of biologically compatible plastic. “The splint was sewn around Kaiba’s airway to expand the bronchus and give it a skeleton to aid proper growth.” Green said, “It was amazing. As soon as the splint was put in, the lungs started going up and down for the first time and we knew he was going to be OK.” Congratulations not only to Green, Hollister, and their team, but also to the engineers who developed the 3D technology. Their devotion to science and use of reason saved Kaiba’s life, and their achievement portends of more great advances in the future. 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: Objective Moral Virtues: Principled Actions Scientists Advance 3D Printing Toward Fabrication of Living Tissues and Functional Organs Image: University of Michigan Link to Original

Todd Starnes of Fox News recently ignited a firestorm of controversy when he reported: Religious liberty groups have grave concerns after they learned the Pentagon is vetting its guide on religious tolerance with a group [the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, or MRFF] that compared Christian evangelism to “rape” and advocated that military personnel who proselytize should be court martialed. Also in the Fox article, the president of the Family Research Council commented on the recent Pentagon meeting with the MRFF, stating, “It threatens to treat service members caught witnessing as enemies of the state. Non-compliance, the Pentagon suggests, even from ordained chaplains could result in court-martialing on a case-by-case basis.” Conservative media quickly seized on the story to criticize the Pentagon’s policy and to suggest that it was part of “an agenda to destroy any vestiges of Christianity in our military.” However, Starnes failed to report important details of the story, and the claims of a deliberate Christian purge are patently unwarranted. Had Starnes quoted the most relevant portion of the comments of Pentagon spokesperson Lt. Cmdr. Nate Christensen, readers would have learned the following: The Department of Defense places a high value on the rights of members of the Military Services to observe the tenets of their respective religions and respects (and supports by its policy) the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs. The Department does not endorse any one religion or religious organization, and provides free access of religion for all members of the military services. The policies in question can be found in sections 2.11 and 2.12 of an official document of Air Force Standards drafted last year, making them existing policy that the MRFF had no role in “vetting.” The document states: Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual’s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. For example, they must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion. . . . All Airmen are able to choose to practice their particular religion, or subscribe to no religious belief at all. You should confidently practice your own beliefs while respecting others whose viewpoints differ from your own. As if that were not clear enough, the Pentagon released another statement in which it clarified the specific meaning of its ban on religious proselytization: “Service members can share their faith (evangelize), but must not force unwanted, intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith to one’s beliefs (proselytization).” As part of the federal government, funded by taxpayers, the U.S. military is both morally and constitutionally correct to forbid religious proselytization and to discipline military personnel who violate this policy. As the Supreme Court emphasized in 1947, the establishment clause of the First Amendment means (among other things) that the government is forbidden to prefer one religion to another. . . . In the words of [Thomas] Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.” . . . That wall must be kept high and impregnable. Military personnel are both individual citizens and parts of the government. As individuals, they have a right to freedom of religion (or non-religion). As parts of the government, they have no right to push their religion on anyone. That is the policy of the U.S. military, and, in contrast to Starnes’s rabble-rousing report, it is fair and balanced. By taking an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, all military service members are honor bound to uphold America’s “wall of separation between church and State”—not Christianity’s Great Commission. Any prospective service member who is unwilling to accept this legal and moral obligation is free to seek employment elsewhere. 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: The Godless Constitution: A Moral Defense of the Secular State by Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore Debate: Christianity: Good or Bad for Mankind? Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

What is morally outrageous about Apple’s highly publicized tax avoidance is not that Apple (legally) avoided paying taxes—for that, Apple should be praised. Rather, what is outrageous is that the government is harassing Apple for legally avoiding taxes—and that various commentators are smearing Apple for it. The root injustice is the government’s confiscation of corporations’ hard-earned wealth. As the Wall Street Journal points out, the United States sets the corporate tax rate at 35 percent (although, fortunately, many corporations manage to pay less than that through various tax breaks). In 2012, the federal government confiscated $6 billion of Apple’s earnings and distributed the vast majority of it to illegitimate government programs. Apple and all producers have a moral right to keep and use the product of their thought and effort as they judge best. As a practical matter, had Apple been able to invest that $6 billion in its business operations, the company could have provided even more and better goods and services to its customers and even more and better jobs to prospective employees. The government’s harassment of the country’s most productive businesses violates rights, impedes economic recovery, and showcases the immorality of taxation. Of course no one argues that Apple did anything illegal. The Wall Street Journal summarizes, “Apple used technicalities in Irish and American tax law to pay little or no corporate taxes on at least $74 billion over the past four years,” according to the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Yet the Denver Post (among others) slammed Apple despite the fact that the company complied with the law, complaining that Apple “legally [!] dodged taxes.” Not only is it perfectly moral to legally “dodge” taxes, every corporation does so to whatever extent its accountants and attorneys can manage. Americans who want to advance a rights-respecting government should praise Apple for attempting to legally minimize the government’s confiscation of the company’s wealth—and they should demand that the government begin reducing its unjust wealth confiscations by radically lowering corporate tax rates across the board. 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: Apple’s App Revolution: Capitalism in Action Justice Department Unjustly Attacks Apple The Patience of Jobs Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

“The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible.” Ayn Rand pointed out this fact in her 1963 essay, “Man’s Rights,” and it is increasingly obvious regarding the relationship of speech to property. Congress has infringed people’s right to free speech by infringing their right to property—such is the essence of the campaign finance laws. In 2010, the Supreme Court struck down a large portion of the campaign finance laws with its Citizens United ruling. Now, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to strike down a wider portion of those laws when it hears McCutcheon v. FEC. A media release from the Committee for Justice (CFJ) reports: This week, the Committee for Justice filed an amicus curiae brief in McCutcheon v. FEC, the next big campaign finance case before the U.S. Supreme Court. CFJ’s brief supports the Republican National Committee and individual plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon in their First Amendment challenge to the aggregate contribution limits imposed by McCain-Feingold. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case this fall. . . . The aggregate limits being challenged in McCutcheon restrict the total amount of political contributions a donor can make over a two-year election cycle, even if the donor’s individual contributions comply with McCain-Feingold’s base limits—for example, the $2,600 per candidate per election limit. The aggregate limits specify that no one can give more than $48,600 to all federal candidates combined over the election cycle. . . . Similarly, there is a two-year aggregate limit of $74,600 on contributions to non-candidate committees. . . . Let’s hope the Supreme Court will recognize to a greater degree people’s right to use their wealth and resources as they see fit—including in speech and in political advocacy. Kudos to CFJ for taking up this important matter and for defending the right to free speech and the right to property on which it depends. 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: Curt Levey on the Supreme Court and the Presidential Race Steve Simpson on Continuing Threats to Corporate Free Speech Citizens United and the Battle for Free Speech in America Creative Commons Image of Russ Feingold: Gage Skidmore Link to Original

A promising new medical device for detecting electromagnetic disturbances in the brain can rapidly screen patients for intracranial swelling or bleeding. The medical journal PLOS ONE depicts the helmet-like apparatus as a safe, portable, and relatively inexpensive tool to determine whether patients require further imaging with CT (computed tomography) or MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). Credit for this invention goes to Boris Rubinsky, a professor in the department of mechanical engineering at UC Berkeley, and Cesar Gonzalez, a professor at the Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Escuela Superior de Medicina in Mexico, who have collaborated for several years. The technology is known as “Volumetric Electromagnetic Phase Shift Spectroscopy” or “VEPS,” and the device is brilliantly simple. It is essentially two coils that are placed around the head; the “inductor coil” produces an electromagnetic field, which is detected by the second “sensor coil.” When the conductivity of the brain tissue is at a normal level, the device signals a healthy brain. When the conductivity of the tissue varies from the normal level, whether due to swelling (edema) or bleeding (hematoma), the device indicates the problem. Among the values and potential values of this tool, ruling out pathology could greatly reduce unnecessary CT scans and thus reduce medical costs and radiation exposure. (The device itself emits negligible radiation.) In countries and regions with limited access to CT and MRI, improved triage and earlier diagnosis could save many lives. An initial pilot study with the device was small, and larger samples are necessary to establish the full accuracy of the device. But the technology is already clearly promising. Kudos to the researchers and businessmen responsible for conceiving and developing this remarkable 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: Herman Boerhaave: The Nearly Forgotten Father of Modern Medicine Scientists Advance 3D Printing Toward Fabrication of Living Tissues and Functional Organs Link to Original

Should municipal and county government be permitted to own and operate local high-speed internet systems—Community Broadband Networks (CBNs)? Timothy Karr of Freepress.net and Gerry Smith of Huffington Post (among other writers) argue that governments should be permiitted to own and opperate CBNs because this provides “competition” against big internet service providers (ISPs) such as AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, and Verizon. But such arguments ignore the crucial distinction between government and private institutions. Government has a legal monopoly on the use of physical force. Unlike private companies, government can use its taxing powers to prop up its “businesses” by subsidizing rates and capital costs—or use its regulatory powers to hamper “competing” private companies. Private companies are legally forbidden to use physical force against anyone. To suggest that competition is possible between two adversaries—one armed (the government) and one not (private companies)—is absurd. Genuine competition is possible only between private entities operating on the free market principles of voluntary trade and equality before the law. Government CBNs also pose a major threat to First Amendment rights. By owning networks, government has the power to control content. What does this mean for freedom of speech and of the press? (Recent events should cause extra alarm on this count.) As for claims that government involvement is “needed” because some communities are “underserved”: The government is not justified in violating the rights of some in order to meet the alleged needs of others. If “need” means that people want the services, then their desires constitute some degree of incentive for existing private companies to offer the services or for new companies to capitalize on the opportunity. If the incentive is not enough, then it’s not enough. There is no right to broadband. A government that “competes” with private business violates our rights to control our own wealth and to contract voluntarily with others. Thankfully, government-owned CBNs are now legally restricted or banned in twenty states. The rest of the states should follow suit. If we value our economic liberty and our right to speak freely, we must fight to keep government out of the broadband business. 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: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet Net Neutrality Means an Unfree, Slow, and ‘Stupid’ Internet Link to Original

The Freedom from Religion Foundation recently threatened to sue public schools in the town of Muldrow, Oklahoma, if they refused to remove plaques inscribed with the Ten Commandments from classrooms. Unfortunately, when Republican State Representative John Bennett weighed in on the controversy in his district, he upheld the popular yet false view that the Ten Commandments—and, more broadly, Biblical morality—are necessary in order to teach children the difference between right and wrong. Although Representative Bennett conceded that “the superintendent and local school board has no choice but to remove the plaques if they want to avoid a lawsuit,” he also warned of ominous consequences: “A nation that refuses to allow educators to teach children right from wrong will become a corrupt nation, where sin prevails, evil abounds and everyone does as they please.” Surely children need to be taught the difference between right and wrong, and schools necessarily play some part in this aspect of children’s education. But educators should not turn to the Ten Commandments or to any other religious scripture for this purpose. Students should learn that stealing, lying, committing murder and the like are wrong not because the Bible says so but because such actions are contrary to the requirements of successful living. Such lessons should be taught through the reading and discussion of literature, history, and science—not by posting contextless commandments on the wall. As for having no other gods before the Judeo-Christian God, keeping the Sabbath holy, and the like, these ideas have no place in publicly funded schools. Of course, parents have a right to inflict such dogma on their own children (at least until the children reach adulthood), but they have no right to force religious dogma on other children or to have government force others to fund its dissemination. Bennett should rest easy: Removing the Ten Commandments from the schools will in no way interfere with the ability of teachers to teach or students to learn rational moral lessons in school. It will only free them from some of the irrational ones. 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: Teaching Values in the Classroom Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand’s Morality of Egoism Religion vs. Subjectivism: Why Neither Will Do Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-7075" title="751px-Tea_Party_sign_-_Taxpayer_March_on_Washington" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/751px-Tea_Party_sign_-_Taxpayer_March_on_Washington-300x239.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="239" />News that the Internal Revenue Service <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/15/double-standard-irs-targeted-conservative-groups-despite-spike-in-applications/" target="_blank">targeted</a> Tea Party and conservative groups for extra scrutiny rightly has blown into a major scandal.</p> <p>But the scandal points to a deeper question: Why are most Americans not outraged by the IRS’s daily violations of individual rights?</p> <p>Consider the main abuses. The IRS serves as the collection agency for the government’s programs of unjust wealth confiscation: The agency forcibly collects some <a href="http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/total" target="_blank">$2.7 trillion</a> per year in taxes, <a href="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_total_spending_pie_chart" target="_blank">transferring</a> vast amounts of wealth from productive Americans to the unproductive. This clearly violates people’s rights to keep and use their wealth and property as they judge best.</p> <p>Part and parcel of this coercion are the IRS’s demands that Americans turn over reams of personal information, ranging from details about their employment to their business expenses to their mortgage payments. And now, the IRS will <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/100711119" target="_blank">enforce</a> key provisions of ObamaCare, giving the agency access to details about our personal health as well.</p> <p>Of course Americans should be outraged that the IRS has harassed select groups for ideological reasons. Americans should also be outraged by the IRS’s violations of virtually all Americans’ rights on a daily basis.</p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-winter/purpose-of-government.asp" target="_blank">The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-summer/how-would-govt.asp" target="_blank">How Would Government Be Funded in a Free Society?</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Image: <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tea_Party_sign_-_Taxpayer_March_on_Washington.jpg" target="_blank">Wikimedia Commons</a></p> Link to Original