Blog Auto Feed Retired

Yesterday a Pennsylvania jury convicted Kermit Gosnell of first-degree murder for killing three babies, of involuntary manslaughter for contributing to the drug overdose of a pregnant woman, and of various other offenses. According to the grand jury report of the case (as cited by the Atlantic), Gosnell “regularly and illegally delivered live, viable babies in the third trimester of pregnancy—and then murdered these newborns by severing their spinal cords with scissors.” According to the grand jury report, Gosnell’s gruesome rights violations were far worse and greater in number than those covered by the convictions. Readers who can stomach the grisly details may see the Atlantic’s article. Unfortunately, though predictably, some opponents of abortion have cited the Gosnell case in their call to outlaw all abortion. Such activists pretend that there is no moral difference between infanticide and early-term abortion (and 88 percent of abortions occur in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, while 98.5 percent occur within the first twenty weeks). They also pretend that there is no relevant distinction between a fetus wholly contained within and dependent upon a woman’s body, and a born infant living independently of and separately from her body—that is, a newborn person. A born infant is an actual person with rights, not merely a potential person. Gosnell ignored this critical distinction and intentionally killed born infants—which is why he richly deserved his murder convictions. The government properly recognizes and protects the rights of born infants, just as it properly recognizes and protects the rights of pregnant women—including their right to seek an abortion. The principle of individual rights clearly illuminates this crucial line. People who are genuinely pro-life uphold this principle and recognize this bright line. 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 Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-7069" title="Ambassador_christopher_stevens" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/Ambassador_christopher_stevens-240x300.jpg" alt="" width="240" height="300" />On September 11, 2012—the anniversary of the Islamist assault on the World Trade Center and other American targets—Islamists assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, murdering four people, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.</p> <p>The response of the Obama administration to this attack has been first to <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/09/benghazi-hall-of-shame" target="_blank">lie</a> about the assault by pretending it was <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/islamists-celebrate-911-by-murdering-more-americans/" target="_blank">precipitated</a> by an obscure video critical of Islam, second to lie about what the administration first claimed about the attack, and third to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/13/obama-calls-benghazi-controversy-sideshow/" target="_blank">dismiss</a> the well-justified concerns about the administration’s handling of security prior to the attack and about its reports following the attack.</p> <p>Just this morning Obama <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/13/obama-calls-benghazi-controversy-sideshow/" target="_blank">referred</a> to controversy over the attack as a “sideshow,” adding, “there’s no there there.”</p> <p>But Stevens’s fate deserves more than to be treated as a “sideshow”—it deserves to be answered with real action to destroy those responsible for the atrocity. The true place where “there’s no there there” is Obama’s ability to tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi or to respond appropriately.</p> <p>Americans should be outraged and should hold this administration’s feet to the fire until the truth comes out.</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-summer/john-david-lewis.asp" target="_blank">Interview with Historian John David Lewis about U.S. Foreign Policy and the Middle East</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/islamists-celebrate-911-by-murdering-more-americans/" target="_blank">Islamists Celebrate 9/11 by Murdering More Americans; U.S. Embassy Demands “Respect” for Islam</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Image: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ambassador_christopher_stevens.jpg" target="_blank">Wikimedia Commons</a></p> Link to Original

The government taxes different corporations radically different amounts and in significantly different ways. A new study by the General Accountability Office (GAO) examined “special exemptions and exclusions, credits, deductions, deferrals, and preferential tax rates” regarding corporate taxes. Some 80 different corporate tax structures are designed to “support federal policy goals” relating to energy, technology, and housing to charity and credit unions. The GAO found that these exemptions, exclusions, and the like “resulted in the government forgoing corporate tax revenue totaling more than $181 billion.” These many structures in corporate tax rates create a wide disparity in the percentage of taxes companies pay. Fortunately, the House Ways and Means Committee is considering ways to lower the corporate tax rate, which is currently 35 percent (the highest in the world), and to simplify corporate tax structures by eliminating some, perhaps even all, of the exemptions, exclusions, and other complexities. According to Reuters, Dave Camp, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, “said that all tax perks potentially were on the chopping block.” In crafting the current reform, the committee would do well to remember the aftermath of the last major tax reform, in 1986, when Congress lowered rates and cut some “tax perks”—but not all of them, leaving the door open for the “tax perk” problem to continue and proliferate again. And, of course, that’s just what happened. “Since then,” notes Reuters, “the code has been larded up with special provisions.” Taxation is a violation of rights and is entirely unnecessary, but as long as the government continues taxing corporations, the system should be as simple, impartial, and transparent as possible. Toward that end, and to pull the exemptions issue off the slippery slope it is currently on, Congress should eliminate all exemptions and the like; ban them on principle; sharply lower not only the corporate tax rate, but also the net tax take; and dramatically cut spending. This would be a step in the right direction. Related: Robert G. Natelson on State-Driven Amendments to Restrain Federal Spending End Tax Favoritism for Wind Energy Creative Commons Image: Michael Jolley Link to Original

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ranks North Dakota’s 3.3 percent unemployment rate as the lowest in the country. Its cities of Bismark, Fargo, and Grand Forks rank first, second, and seventh on the list of U.S. cities with the lowest levels of unemployment. The key driver of the relatively high employment in these regions is private investment in the exploration and production of oil and gas. There are currently 174 active drilling rigs in the North Dakota. How substantial is this? All of Europe has 133 rigs, and the entire resource-rich continent of Africa has 115. While the bureaucracies of Europe and Africa discuss possible development, North Dakotans continue to expand their productive capacity. What distinguishes North Dakota from all of the countries and regions on those continents? One key difference is that North Dakotans have developed their contract law governing private property and mineral rights into a relatively pro-business legal and regulatory framework that attracts investment. Convinced that investing will yield returns, explorers and producers have invested billions in the region, building infrastructure and attracting the service and support companies that provide the advanced technology necessary to produce oil. In Europe, by contrast, there is no recognition of private mineral rights. Minerals are legally state owned; thus, there is no profit-seeking owner with the incentive to oversee the productive development of these resources—and, to use them in any way, developers must curry favor with politicians and bureaucrats rather than contract with private property owners. Any state or region that wants to pull itself out of an economic rut would do well to emulate North Dakota’s (relative) recognition of property rights and its system of pro-business contract law. These are what unleashed reason and technology in the region’s oil industry and enabled the goods to flow. 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 Estimated Oil in the Bakken Region Doubles Creative Commons Image: Lindsey Gee Link to Original

A recent post by Ari Armstrong about the wonders of 3D printing applied to the field of medicine concluded, “What’s next we can only imagine.” Now, just a few weeks later, we have an indication. Researchers are on course to print functional, customized human tissues and organs. On May 3, researchers from the University of Wollongong (Australia) announced that they are likely only a few years away from printing custom body parts and about a decade away from printing organs. Gordon Wallace, director of the University of Wollongong’s ARC Centre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science stated: Within a few years, we believe it will be possible to manufacture living tissues like skin, cartilage, arteries and heart valves using cells and biomaterials. Using a patient’s own cells to create this tissue avoids issues of immune rejection. By 2025, it is feasible that we will be able to fabricate complete functional organs, tailored for an individual patient. On another front, Organovo, a medical company specializing in 3D printing, has successfully printed liver tissue that reacts to certain treatments in the same way real liver tissue does. Researchers at Organovo believe such tissue can be used to test new drugs and thus reduce the time required for the drug testing process. And, although Organovo has made great strides in research and drug testing, its larger goal is to build human tissues for transplantation. These recent announcements follow news from the University of Pennsylvania, where researchers developed a new way to build circulatory systems to feed lab-created tissues. Using RepRap, a relatively inexpensive 3D printer, these researchers created a sugar-based lattice mold. Once living cells grew around the mold, researchers dissolved the sugar and used the resulting network of vessels to infuse the tissue with nutritive fluid. This research could pave the way for providing blood flow to manufactured organs. With the help of 3D printing technology, scientists, engineers, and businessmen are quickly advancing the field of medicine and options in transplants. Expect to see customized printed tissues and organs in the not-too-distant future—offering hope and life to those awaiting transplants. Cheers to the men and women of science! 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: Walt Disney’s EPCOT: The City of Tomorrow that Might Have Been The Burgeoning Micro-Production Revolution Image: University of Wollongong Link to Original

Many widely used phrases and bromides—including “mother nature” and “living in harmony with nature”—imply that nature is a benevolent and loving place. Yet natural disasters, such as the recent California Springs fire, show that nature can be lethal and that we need the products of industrial civilization to protect ourselves from its dangers. Tragically, this particular fire damaged fifteen homes and injured eight firefighters. Had area residents not been blessed with the fruits of industry the damage would have been far worse. Imagine organizing and implementing an evacuation without televisions, Internet connections, telephones, radios. Imagine fleeing the area on foot with what you could carry in your hands, as “mother nature” intended, rather than by automobile with your precious possessions piled in the seats and trunk. Imagine seeing the fire approach a house made of “natural” logs and shingles rather than man-made fire-retardant siding and roofing. Imagine clearing away brush and grass by hand rather than by means of gasoline powered tools and tractors. Untouched nature does not give us this technology; men and women who produce and run modern mass-production industrial facilities do. “Nature” does not act like a loving mother. It acts like nature. At best, it leaves people naked, cold, hungry, and vulnerable; at worst it kills people with utter indifference. Natural disasters, such as the California Springs fire, remind us that we should thank our real guardians: the men and women of industry and science. 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 Freedom and Human Potential Does a Big Storm Require Big Government? HuffPo’s Sanghoee Uses Tragedy of Sandy to Smear Ayn Rand Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

On May 5, President Obama delivered the commencement speech at Ohio State University. Invoking the Founders, he implored graduates to embrace the “quintessentially American value of optimism; altruism; empathy; tolerance; a sense of community; a sense of service”—and to reject a “society that celebrates individual ambition above all else.” It is a “sense of civic duty,” according to Obama, the notion that “we are bound to one another,” that is at the heart of America. We have “rights,” he admits, “but with those rights come responsibilities—to ourselves, and to one another, and to future generations.” But Obama’s message is the exact opposite of America’s founding ideals. The fundamental principle of the United States is individual rights—the idea that each individual has an inalienable right to his life, liberty, the products of his efforts, the pursuit of his own happiness. There is no “but” about these rights; they are not conditional on service to others. So long as a person does not violate the rights of others, he is properly free to act in whatever ways he chooses. The American spirit is not, as Obama would have us believe, about “civic duty” through which “we are bound to one another.” Rather, it is about individual rights and freedom from one another—freedom to act on our own judgment for our own goals and happiness regardless of what others need or want. The essence of America is not that the individual should selflessly serve the community (that’s the essence of North Korea). The essence of America is the radical, profoundly selfish idea that every individual is sovereign and must be free to live his life as he sees fit. In saying “this country cannot accomplish great things if we pursue nothing greater than our own individual ambition,” Obama dismisses the purpose and history of the United States, and the very concept of liberty. America was not formed so that “this country” could accomplish great things; it was formed so that individuals could accomplish great things. And unfettered individuals, peaceably pursuing their goals and cooperating with others when and as they choose do accomplish great things—as the history of America is testament. How did Rockefeller revolutionize the energy industry? How did the Wright Brothers launch the aviation industry? How did Sam Walton revolutionize retail? These men and countless others did great things by thinking and acting independently and by cooperating voluntarily as their judgment dictated. In fact, genuine cooperation among men—which Obama imagines as conflicting with “individual ambition”—is possible only when individuals are free to deal with each other voluntarily. Freedom, not compulsory service, unleashes men’s minds. Hopefully, some of the Ohio State University graduates recognized the deeply un-American meaning of Obama’s address (not to mention his chilling plea to “reject these voices” that warn of encroaching tyranny). These young Americans should pursue futures not of sacrifice and duty, but of value achievement and personal happiness. That is what America is all about. 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 What to Celebrate on Independence Day Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

When members of Congress can gain financially by supporting, blocking, or rigging legislation that affects their investments, they have an unacceptable conflict of interests. Last year, Barack Obama signed a law intended to solve or at least mitigate the problem—the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act. A major provision of the Act required “electronic reporting and online availability” of information concerning the investments of members of Congress and government employees. So much for that. Last month, Obama signed a new law specifying that information on these investments would be kept in the basement of a building in Washington D.C., and that anyone seeking to examine these investments would physically have to visit that basement to do so. When members of Congress can line their pockets by passing, blocking, or rigging certain laws, corruption unsurprisingly ensues. In his 2011 book Throw Them All Out, Peter Schweizer details many cases of suspicious congressional investments. For example, in 2003 Senator John Kerry helped to write the health care legislation that became the Medicare Prescription Drug Modernization Act; that same year he and his wife made a total of 103 stock purchases and eight stock sales involving insurance and pharmaceutical companies. The Kerrys made millions in profits on those investments. In 2009, Congressman John Boehner purchased volumes of shares in five health insurance companies days before he helped kill ObamaCare’s so-called “public option” for health insurance. The relationships between Nancy Pelosi’s Visa investments and congressional rulings in 2008 are too complex to explain in a blog post; I refer you to Schweizer’s book for details on her dubious multi-million dollar gains. Given that in our current political system congressmen can pass laws to manipulate the economy and profit thereby, it is abundantly clear that we need laws requiring full transparency of all investments made by such officials. It’s also clear that in the age of the Internet, when congressmen can make their investments online, citizens should be able to view those records online and should not have to travel to D.C. to do so. But laws mandating such transparency and accessibility are only short-term solutions, and the more politically savvy congressmen will likely find ways around such laws anyway. What’s the long-term solution? The long-term solution is a government limited to its proper purpose—the protection of individual rights. Under such a government, Congress would be constitutionally forbidden from passing laws that interfere with business in any way—whether to harm or “help” them. Achieving this state of affairs, of course, would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. What might that amendment say? Toward the end of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, Judge Narragansett writes a sentence that is likely sufficient: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade.” That should do it. 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 Pull Peddling Intensifies in Washington Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

<p><img class="alignright size-medium wp-image-7043" title="spaceshiptwo" src="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/_files/spaceshiptwo-300x168.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="168" />Terrorism at home, chemical warfare abroad, continued economic problems most everywhere . . . The bad news can be overwhelming. It is important, then, to keep an eye on the good news, both as an act of justice toward the rational and productive people who inspire the headlines, and as spiritual fuel for our own lives and efforts.</p> <p>Here are a few such stories recently in the news:</p> <ul> <li>On April 29, Virgin Galactic “<a href="http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/virgin-galactic-breaks-speed-of-sound-in-first-rocket-powered-flight-of-spaceshiptwo/" target="_blank">completed</a> the first rocket-powered flight of its space vehicle, SpaceShipTwo.” Richard Branson, the company’s founder, <a href="http://youtu.be/HLDmcjeDohc" target="_blank">said</a>, “Now we’ll be ramping up the building of spaceships. . . . We’ll be ramping up the building of rockets. It’s going to be the start of a whole new era of space travel. It’s going to be tremendously exciting—everything is possible, I think, after today.”</li> <li>In <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/2-year-old-girl-gets-windpipe-made-stem-cell" target="_blank">South Korea</a>, “A 2-year-old girl born without a windpipe now has a new one grown from her own stem cells.” This technology may eventually lead to doctors growing a variety of organs in a lab for patients.</li> <li>Last month researchers at the University of Southampton in England <a href="http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/fiber-cables-made-of-air-move-data-at-99-7-percent-the-speed-of-light/" target="_blank">announced</a> progress in creating “fiber cables that can move data at 99.7 percent of the speed of light.” Rather than send data through silica glass—through which data moves at “only” 69 percent of the speed of light—the new cable sends it through a hollow-core fiber, achieving the massive increase in speed. This technology could lead to essentially light-speed supercomputing and, if researchers can solve problems of data loss over long distances, a radically improved global internet.</li> <li>Swedish inventor Christian von Koenigsegg is <a href="http://www.core77.com/blog/transportation/christian_von_koenigseggs_camshaft-free_free_valve_engine_smaller_more_powerful_more_efficient_24576.asp" target="_blank">working on</a> a new type of “camshaft-free” combustion engine that may lead to a more powerful and more efficient engine. Koenigsegg and his team project their engine will soon provide 30 percent more horsepower while burning 30 percent less fuel.</li> </ul> <p>Congratulations to these scientists and researchers for advancing technology in ways that dramatically improve human life—and for providing such powerful fuel for the soul.</p> <p>As Ayn Rand <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452011876/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;tag=theobjestan-20&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=0452011876" target="_blank">said</a>, “the sight of an achievement [is] the greatest gift that a human being could offer to others.”</p> <p><iframe width="400" height="225" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HLDmcjeDohc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p> <p><em>Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/mailing-list.asp" target="_blank">weekly digest</a>. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal,</em> <a href="https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/subscriptions.asp" target="_blank">The Objective Standard</a>.</p> <p><strong>Related:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-winter/apples-app-revolution.asp" target="_blank">Apple’s App Revolution: Capitalism in Action</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/05/estimated-oil-in-the-bakken-region-doubles/" target="_blank">Estimated Oil in the Bakken Region Doubles</a></li> </ul> <p style="font-size: 10px;">Image: <a href="http://www.virgingalactic.com/news/item/virgin-galactic-breaks-speed-of-sound-in-first-rocket-powered-flight-of-spaceshiptwo/" target="_blank">Virgin Galactic</a></p> Link to Original

Fox News host Steve Doocy recently invited Christian activist Penny Nance to comment on the so-called “Day of Prayer.” In response to Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx’s call for a “Day of Reason,” Nance denigrated reason: Nance is not claiming merely that moral relativism and the Holocaust followed the Enlightenment chronologically; she is claiming that the Enlightenment, by elevating human reason over religious faith, led to the Holocaust. Andrew Bernstein answered just this sort of claim during his debate with Dinesh D’Souza: As for what the Enlightenment actually led to, Bernstein addressed that as well: Bernstein broadened his point: Nance has chosen her side in that struggle. It is up to each of us to decide what we stand for: reason or unreason.Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: Debate: Christianity: Good or Bad for Mankind? Pope Absurdly Blames Unemployment on Profit Image: CWA Link to Original

American energy producers keep finding and developing more usable oil and natural gas. Recently the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) increased its estimate of the recoverable oil in the Williston Basin spanning parts of Montana and the Dakotas—the region famous for Bakken shale. The USGS’s new estimate of 7.34 billion barrels is twice that of its 2008 estimate. And its 2008 figure was 25 times higher than that of 1995! What about natural gas? From 2008 to now, the USGS expanded its estimate of recoverable natural gas from 1.85 to 6.72 trillion cubic feet. As for “natural gas liquids,” the USGS bumped its figures from 148 to 527 million barrels. Energy producers have achieved these astounding advances by using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to drill more than 4,000 new wells in the Williston Basin since 2008. And they increased their technological know-how as they went. For example, rock and fluid specialists applied new information about subsurface geology to develop additional layers of shale beneath the Bakken—shale previously deemed useless. Kudos to these producers for discovering new ways to draw oil and natural gas from previously useless rocks buried deep underground—thereby offering for sale life-serving forms of energy. 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 North Dakotans Building First Oil Refinery in 57 Years Creative Commons Image: Lindsey Gee Link to Original

Last Friday, after a week of public outrage over widespread flight delays and cancellations, Congress passed legislation granting the FAA $253 million to restore its air traffic control staff to pre-sequester levels. While the bill may have quelled public unrest and ensured congressional members a timely flight home for their springtime recess, the legislation merely provided a bandage to hide a much larger problem: the federal government’s monopoly on air traffic control. Rather than recognize the moral rights of airlines and airports to choose their desired air traffic control providers in a competitive and free market, the federal government protects its inefficient, taxpayer-subsidized, rights-violating system by erecting legal barriers to entry, preventing competition. The government’s monopoly quashes what would otherwise be natural, market incentives encouraging air traffic controllers to serve their actual customers. As Reason Foundation scholar, Robert Poole explains: Even though the air traffic system is there to benefit those who fly planes and pay aviation user taxes to support it, that’s not how the FAA operates. The “customer” the FAA has to keep satisfied is Congress, not aircraft operators or travelers. That’s because it is Congress that provides the FAA with its budget. And Congress loves to assert its control—in the name of protecting taxpayers’ money, of course. In a free market, in which government protects rather than violates the rights of airlines and airports to freely contract with willing traffic control providers, air traffic controllers would, of necessity, provide better service at lower cost. Fifty-one nations have made the move to privatize air traffic control, and many—including Canada, Great Britain, and Spain—have reported successful results. The United States should follow their rational example. 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: America’s Unfree Market Privatize the Postal Service: Protect Rights, Save Money, Improve Service Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

In a recent interview in the New York Times, comedian Louis C. K. turned the questions on interviewer David Itzkoff to tease out the cause of C. K.’s success: DI: Does it matter that what you’ve achieved, with your online special and your tour can’t be replicated by other performers who don’t have the visibility or fan base that you do? LCK: Why do you think those people don’t have the same resources that I have, the same visibility or relationship? What’s different between me and them? DI: You have the platform. You have the level of recognition. LCK: So why do I have the platform and the recognition? DI: At this point you’ve put in the time. LCK: There you go. There’s no way around that. There’s people that say: “It’s not fair. You have all that stuff.” I wasn’t born with it. It was a horrible process to get to this. It took me my whole life. Louis C. K. is admirably forthright and correct. He earned the platform he has through many years of hard work; he earned the fans he has by making them laugh; he earned his millions by making himself an expert in his field. Kudos to Louis C. K. for naming and defending the cause of his success. Whatever you think of his crude humor, you’ve got to like his unapologetic style. 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 A Few Words for Hugh Jackman from Richard Feynman The Justice of Income Inequality Under Capitalism Inigo Montoya on “Overnight Success” Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

This morning, the new head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis, sent the following Tweet: “My thoughts turn to all who are unemployed, often as a result of a self-centred mindset bent on profit at any cost.” The Pope has this exactly wrong. The profit motive is responsible not for causing unemployment, but for facilitating all the jobs that people do have. A business owner hires an employee because he hopes to expand production and make more money, and the employee accepts a job in order to gain the financial and spiritual rewards of performing the work. That is, employer and employee negotiate terms of employment precisely so that both parties can profit. What, then, causes unemployment? Leaving aside the small amount of normal turnover in the job market, the cause of chronically high unemployment is government coercion that deters or forbids individuals and businesses from profiting by freely negotiating terms of labor. Such coercion includes payroll taxes, employment mandates, and wage controls. If Pope Francis wishes to condemn those responsible for causing chronic unemployment, he should first remove the plank from the eye of the Catholic Church, which, in various ways supports the coercion in question. As just one example, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops proclaims, “Catholic bishops have supported increasing the minimum wage over the decades.” The Catholic Church lends its faithful and political support to (among other employment-throttling policies) laws forbidding the free negotiation of employment contracts—laws that have crushed employment opportunities particularly among minority youths. If Pope Francis does not wish employers to gain a profit by hiring employees, what does he wish them to gain? A loss? And how long does he expect business owners to continue providing jobs if they operate at a loss? Perhaps he expects a miracle. 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 Tragedy of Theology: How Religion Caused and Extended the Dark Ages How the Catholic Church Paved the Way for the Birth Control Mandate Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

The proposed federal Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA) grants states the authority to compel online and catalog retailers (“remote sellers”), no matter where they are located, to collect sales tax at the time of a transaction—exactly like local retailers are already required to do. The issue the bill purportedly aims to address is the need of equal protection under the law. Currently, a state can compel a retailer to collect sales taxes only if the retailer has a physical presence in the state. This state of affairs, the MFA’s supporters claim, renders in-state retailers “at a competitive disadvantage” relative to out-of-state retailers. The MFA, they say, would “level the playing field.” Granted, the MFA would “level the playing field” in a certain respect: It would cripple businesses that are not currently being crippled, thus rendering all businesses equally crippled by sales taxes. A sales tax violates rights, harms businesses, and increases costs for consumers. The MFA, if passed into law, would harm all and financially ruin many internet businesses. The moral way to level the playing field is not to increase the extent to which rights are violated, but to decrease it. Sales taxes should not be expanded; they should be eliminated. Of course, from the perspective of state governments, the MFA is a pragmatic means to financing their spending sprees. The MFA’s official website states explicitly that the act is intended to “help the many states now facing significant budget shortfalls.” The Marketplace Fairness Act is a rights-violating, statist gimmick being pushed under the guise of “fairness.” Americans had better open their eyes, see it as such, and reject it wholesale. Once something like this is passed, there is usually no turning back. 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: Don’t Expand Sales Taxes, Abolish Them The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty Link to Original

Dr. Beth Haynes makes a surprising but warranted claim in her recent article for Huffington Post: “Very few Americans have health insurance . . . because what people call health insurance really isn’t insurance at all.” Real insurance, Haynes explains, covers high-cost, catastrophic events, not routine care. What usually passes for health insurance today is actually “prepayment of medical expenses.” Unfortunately, Haynes notes, ObamaCare makes this problem worse by mandating that “insurance” cover various types of routine care such as “health maintenance checks.” Haynes points out the absurdity of this: “It’s like having a law requiring homeowner’s insurance to pay for lawn care, house painting and water heater replacement.” The consequence, Haynes notes, is that insurance companies have less money to cover truly catastrophic events; thus, “when we are at our most vulnerable, we are less protected.” Because the federal government requires insurance companies to spend more on routine care, that money is not available for emergencies or catastrophes. The government’s solution to the problem? To heck with the emergencies! Haynes offers the example of the American Academy of Pediatrics, “under pressure” to declare fewer premature infants eligible for treatment and to restrict the amount of care that insurance will cover for them. Haynes admirably describes some of the key problems with ObamaCare and insurance mandates, and she identifies part of the solution: “We have to allow our health coverage to conform to the requirements of true insurance.” But I would like to emphasize the moral principle that ObamaCare and all such mandates violate: the principle of individual rights. Insurance providers have a moral right to offer insurance packages they deem best for business, and customers have a moral right to seek the type of insurance that best meets their needs. Because the federal government increasingly violates the rights both of providers and consumers of health insurance to freely negotiate terms according to their own judgment, the government increasingly throttles people’s ability to serve their own interests. Kudos to Dr. Haynes for pointing out some of the destructive consequences of government interference in health insurance. Let’s demand an end to this rights-violating practice. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: Moral Health Care vs. “Universal Health Care” How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability Government-Run Health Care vs. the Hippocratic Oath Image: Wikimedia Commons (Elizabeth Cromwell) Link to Original

As Ayn Rand observed, “There is a fundamental conviction which some people never acquire, some hold only in their youth, and a few hold to the end of their days—the conviction that ideas matter . . . that knowledge matters, that truth matters, that one’s mind matters.” Joshua Lipana was one of the few. He held this conviction from the core of his soul, and it radiated on the world with his every deed. In this portrait of Joshua, which was commissioned for me by Linda and Quent Cordair, Bryan Larsen captures this aspect of Joshua’s character—and, consequently, his independence, his confidence, his love of life. This is Joshua. Thank you, Bryan, Linda, and Quent. I will cherish this portrait forever. —Craig Biddle Link to Original

Although you’re far more likely to die in a car crash than at the hands of a mass murderer, you face some risk of a criminal assault or a terrorist attack, especially when our government is failing on multiple fronts to eliminate the threat of terrorism. So it is worth learning at least the basic principles of how to deal with such situations if they arise. Knowing a few essential tactics can radically improve your chances for survival. The main point to grasp is that action often is possible even when facing horrific violence. In some cases of a shooter attempting to commit mass murder, the intended victims take no action against the perpetrator, and the crime ends only when police (men with guns) arrived on the scene—usually too late. In other cases, the intended victims do take action and manage to stop the perpetrator. And the actions of a single individual can spur others to action. For example, after the perpetrator of the 1993 Long Island rail murders emptied two gun magazines, killing six and injuring another nineteen, someone finally yelled “grab him,” and three other passengers tackled the criminal. Had passengers taken such action earlier, they might have saved more lives. The New York Times reports on the work of researchers at Texas State University, who looked at 84 mass shootings from 2000 to 2010. According to the Times: In 16 of the attacks studied by the researchers, civilians were able to stop the perpetrator, subduing him in 13 cases and shooting him in 3 cases. In other attacks, civilians have obstructed or delayed the gunman until the police arrived. As one of the researchers, J. Pete Blair, told the Times, “You’re not helpless and the actions you take matter.” That is precisely the attitude behind the production of a new video, Active Shooter Survival, produced and directed by Alon Stivi of Direct Measures International. (I’ve taken gun classes with Stivi, and Stivi has worked with my father, Linn Armstrong, in western Colorado to train police and administrators at schools in security and response tactics.) The 75-minute video combines classroom discussions by Stivi and live demonstrations of tactics. The scenarios involve an assault on a classroom or an office where the intended victims do not have guns. Stivi summarizes the basic options early in the video: Either escape, evade, disengage; or barricade, hold your ground; or, if absolutely necessary, and there’s no other way, engage the active shooter. [That’s] better than just being shot. Stivi demonstrates a variety of tactics: barricading a door, hiding if circumstances permit, safely exiting a room or building, and taking down the perpetrator if there is no other option. In one particularly poignant segment, Stivi has participants play out two different scenarios. In one, having heard “shots” down the hall, all the intended victims crawl under their desks before the perpetrator enters the room. The result is that the criminal has all the time he needs to murder everyone in the room. In another scenario, after hearing “shots,” the participants assume defensive postures. When the attacker enters the room, the intended victims grab the attacker’s arms, tackle him at the knee, and then pile on top of him, subduing him. Near the end of the video, Stivi discusses the prospect of physically confronting a criminal: Once again, this is a last-resort survival measure. We trust and we hope that we will never have to . . . do something like that. But if we do, this is better than just being shot under a table and dying. And as you can see, this is not rocket science. It’s simple tactics that you could teach or translate to [other] people—those who want to do something, not those who have the victim mentality. The victim mentality is the problem; [if you want to survive] you can’t have it. [And] not everybody does [have it]. So you find those in the classroom [or elsewhere] who are willing to fight for survival. You coordinate their efforts, and your chances of survival are good—if you know what you’re doing. If we want to deter criminals from attacking people in a public setting, the best thing we can do, if we find ourselves in such a situation, is to take action to save our lives. If no other option is available, that may involve taking down the attackers and pummeling them until they surrender. If so, their mangled faces can serve as a deterrent to other potential attackers by showing that some people refuse to be victims. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: “No Substitute for Victory”—The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism Interview: Linn Armstrong on Self-Defense and Guns Image: ACTCert.com Link to Original

At the 5th annual Tax Day Tea Party in Chicago, Jonathan Hoenig delivered an excellent speech on the principles of Americanism and the need to return to them. Focusing on what made America unique in history, he pointed out what it means to be free and what it means to be enslaved, and he made one crucial point after another with crystal clarity. For example, regarding the meaning of freedom: In a free nation, the government does not regulate citizen’s lives. It doesn’t tell you what type of health insurance you have to buy, it doesn’t tell you what type of light bulb you have to put in your home, it doesn’t tell you what size soda you have to buy. You’re free to make those decisions on your own. And regarding what we should fight against and what we should fight for, Hoenig accentuated the positive: We should fight against taxes. We should fight against regulation. But what we should fight for is Americanism: individual rights, the rebirth of the self-interested, individualistic American principle that regards each of us, not as sacrifices for “the greater good,” but as sovereign individuals, each with our own life, our own liberty, and our own happiness. If this country is to survive, that is the Americanism we must fight to revive. Watch Hoenig’s speech below, and share it with your freedom-loving friends. This is a message everyone should hear. 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: An Interview with a “Capitalist Pig” Jonathan Hoenig: Hopeful and Fearful about the Future Image: CapitalistPig.com Link to Original

As the New York Times’s Suzanne Daley recently reported, Denmark’s massive welfare state imposes “the highest marginal income-tax rates in the world” in order to subsidize “able-bodied” Danes with “no intention of taking a demeaning job.” Consequently, the nation faces massive and growing unemployment; “only 3 of Denmark’s 98 municipalities will have a majority of residents working in 2013,” compared to 59 in 2009. One need not be a professional economist to understand that when government punishes those who work in order to reward those who do not, the result is that fewer people work. Denmark’s economic problem is a consequence of its moral problem. Its government violates the rights of its citizens by forcing them to finance the welfare state—and the government does this because Danish citizens regard selfless service to others as moral. Denmark will not restore economic sanity until its citizens recognize the individual’s right to keep and use the fruits of his labor according to his own judgment. And they won’t recognize that right until they come to see that self-interest—thinking and acting on one’s own behalf, keeping and using the fruits of one’s own effort, and leaving others free to do the same—is moral. 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 How Would Government Be Funded in a Free Society? Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

During a pre-game ceremony at Fenway Park last weekend, the Boston Red Sox commemorated the city’s return to normalcy following the capture of the Boston Marathon bombers. Addressing the crowd, and on live television, popular Red Sox slugger David “Big Papi” Ortiz shouted, “This is our f***ing city, and nobody is going to dictate our freedom.” This (ironically) violated the rules of the Federal Communications Commission, which precisely dictates what Americans may and may not say on television. Fortunately for Ortiz and the Red Sox organization, the FCC decided not to take action against them. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski wrote on the agency’s official Twitter account, “Ortiz spoke from the heart. . . . I stand with Big Papi and the people of Boston.” On the surface, the FCC’s decision not to take action in this instance is good news. This was a heated moment in the wake of a terrorist attack that murdered and maimed Americans. Moreover, the government should not punish anyone for speaking his mind anyway (unless doing so incites violence or violates rights in some other way). But the leniency here is also chilling, as it highlights the arbitrary nature of the agency’s political power. Indeed, while the FCC is letting the Red Sox off the hook, the agency may proceed to punish CBS for Joe Flacco’s exuberant use of the same f-word after the Super Bowl earlier this year. Surely Flacco “spoke from the heart,” too. But whether the FCC will “stand with” him or against him depends on the preferences of the agency’s bureaucrats. Although the informal tone and manner of Genachowski’s absolution of Ortiz conveyed support for the city, its underlying message is ominous. The fact that the FCC made an official statement at all serves as a reminder that speech in the United States is broadcast not by right but by permission. For an indication of why this issue is crucially important to a free and civilized society, ask yourself a simple question: Given that the FCC is empowered to arbitrarily decide when people may and may not use certain words, what is to stop the agency from arbitrarily deciding when people may and may not refer to Muslim terrorists as Muslim terrorists? There is no place in a free country for an agency that regulates speech. Decisions about the content of broadcasts properly belong to private individuals and businesses who are free to deal with each other (or not) as they see fit. If a broadcaster chooses to permit profanity, a viewer who is offended by such speech can exercise his prerogative in a manner consistent with freedom: He can change the channel. 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 Indecency of FCC Censorship Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev once said, complaining about American culture, “There are no values anymore.” What his actions demonstrate is that there are no values through Islam, the religion to which he turned for guidance and meaning. According to the FBI, “in early 2011, a foreign government” informed the Bureau that Tsarnaev “was a follower of radical Islam [i.e., he took the religion seriously] and a strong believer.” What “values” did he then embrace? An indication can be found on YouTube, where Tsarnaev created a “terrorists” playlist and “liked” a video proclaiming that “no one can stop jihad.” Further indication of his “values” can be seen in his terrorist actions at the Boston Marathon. Tsarnaev turned to Islam for “values,” and what he got was murderous rage against the United States, against Americans, against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Contrary to Tsarnaev’s faith-based assertion that there are no values in America, our culture and citizens are rich with values. The Boston marathoners value physical health, friendly competition, and personal achievement. Parents, siblings, and friends of the runners value (or valued) their loved ones and the spectacle of seeing them strive to accomplish their goals. People across America value their careers, romance, education, and innumerable other things that sustain and enrich their lives. These are the kinds of values—live-serving values—that Tsarnaev’s religion forbade him to recognize as values. Tsarnaev, embracing the anti-life religion of Islam and taking it seriously, sought to destroy life-loving Americans and their life-serving values. And he achieved some measure of success in his vile, faith-based pursuit. He even achieved his own death—the ultimate goal of a consistent Muslim. “There are no values anymore?” At his own personal level, Tsarnaev got that right. That’s what he gets for embracing a religion that worships death. 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 The Ground Zero Mosque, the Spread of Islam, and How America Should Deal with Such Efforts Image: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

Events last week surrounding the hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers were instructive regarding the contradiction that is anarchy. Anarchy, the absence of government, leaves political justice to the will of the general public. How would that have played out in this instance? Had there been no government—that is, no police, no law, no final arbiter restricting what people may do—how would these killers have been identified and apprehended? By individual citizens investigating and prowling around on their own? By multiple private “defense agencies,” each working for different individuals or groups and following their own favored practices regarding the use of force? Over the course of that week, how many people were wrongly identified as “suspects” by the police, by professional journalists, by random citizens and people on social media? Without force being subjugated to the rule of law and due process, how many innocent people would have been assaulted and possibly slain? Shudder to think of it. The hunt for and apprehension of these terrorists illustrates why the use of retaliatory force (outside of immediate self-defense) must be placed under objective control—that is, control of pre-established legal processes enacted by a government strictly limited to the protection of individual rights. Yes, government can violate rights, as illustrated throughout history and by our current government’s myriad uses of initiatory force to interfere in people’s peaceful choices. But the solution is not to eliminate government. The solution is to strictly limit government to its only legitimate function—that of protecting individual rights and of using retaliatory force only in compliance with rights-protecting law. 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 How Would Government Be Funded in a Free Society? The Problem of Gary Johnson’s Libertarian Affiliation Image of Murray Rothbard: Wikimedia Commons Link to Original

My dear friend, and assistant editor of this blog, Joshua Lipana died this morning after a heroic, nine-month battle against cancer. To know Joshua was to love him. To know him well, as I did, was to love him like another self. Joshua loved life with a contagious passion. He thought at levels well beyond his years. He wrote with an eloquence few writers ever acquire. And he laughed with a joy earned only through perfect virtue. His death is a monumental loss not only for those of us who knew and adored him, but for every person on Earth who values human ability, rationality, freedom, flourishing. I’m too devastated to say more now. Good by, my good friend. What I would give to laugh with you again. Link to Original

As reported by the AP, doctors have successfully used a novel device to treat chronic heartburn. Whereas heartburn, or acid reflux, is familiar to many as an occasional, fleeting pain, in some individuals it occurs chronically and can cause real harm. Such chronic heartburn is called gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and its more serious effects include difficulty sleeping, ulcers, difficulty swallowing, and increased risk of esophageal cancer. GERD is caused by a failure of the pyloric sphincter, a doughnut-shaped muscle found at the entrance to the stomach. Normally, this muscle holds the entrance closed, keeping stomach acids where they belong, in the stomach. As one swallows, it relaxes momentarily, allowing food into the stomach, then closes the entrance again. When it fails to close the entrance completely, stomach acids may rise into the esophagus, causing heartburn or GERD. The device, called LINX, is made by Torax Medical Inc. and is ingenius in its simplicity. It consists of a set of magnets arranged on a flexible ring, much like a child’s bracelet made of beads on an elastic string. It is surgically implanted around a defective pyloric sphincter. As food passes, the magnets are forced apart, the ring expands, and the food enters the stomach. Then the magnets pull the ring smaller, closing the entrance to the stomach and preventing acid reflux, just as the muscles of a functioning pyloric sphincter would do normally. This is yet another example of how reason, science, and human ingenuity can transform raw materials—in this case metal dug from the earth—into a life-improving or even life-saving invention. Here’s to people of reason. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: Herman Boerhaave: The Nearly Forgotten Father of Modern Medicine Swiss Scientists Create Wireless Implant to Monitor Blood Sugar, Heart Problems, and More in Real Time Link to Original