dianahsieh

In answering the question on doing business with Chinese companies on Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I made an off-the-cuff comment about how China doesn’t have gulags. At the time, I was thinking of massive extermination camps like those of Soviet Russia in the 1940s or the concentration camps of the Third Reich. Today, China doesn’t have anything that extensive, but it’s wrong to say that it doesn’t have gulags. I knew that what I said was wrong the moment that I uttered it.. but the moment slipped away too quickly for a correction. That’s the danger of speaking extemporaneously! The Chinese version of the gulag, still in existence today, is the Laogai. I’ve not read a ton on it, but here are some sources worth checking out: Laogai, the Chinese Gulag by Hongda Harry Wu Gulag Reform: Will China Stop Sending Its Dissidents to Labor Camps? The Chinese Laogai (by the head of the Laogai Research Foundation) Link to Original

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine): 28 Mar: Doctor Shortages Worsening by Paul Hsieh 27 Mar: Hsieh Forbes OpEd: Is Concierge Medicine The Correct Choice For You? by Paul Hsieh 26 Mar: Quick Links: Catron, Scherz by Paul Hsieh 25 Mar: Mead on Medical Breakthroughs And Smart Policy by Paul Hsieh Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter. This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government: 29 Mar: Changing Minds on Gay Marriage: Sunday on Philosophy in Action Radio by Diana Hsieh 26 Mar: Right to Your Body by Diana Hsieh Follow the Coalition for Secular Government on Facebook and Twitter. This week on Mother of Exiles: 28 Mar: Poll: Most Think Undocumented Immigrants Should Be Allowed to Stay by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela Follow Mother of Exiles on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard: 30 Mar: As Some Filipinos Try to Die, One Tries to Live by Ari Armstrong 29 Mar: Erick Erickson and Fellow Republicans Wrongly Pit Same-Sex Marriage against Religious Freedom by Zachary Huffman 28 Mar: What’s Wrong with Stomping on “Jesus”? by Ari Armstrong 28 Mar: Joshua Lipana’s Cancer Has Relapsed and He Needs Our Help by Craig Biddle 26 Mar: GOP Should Reject Ann Coulter’s Collectivist Approach to Immigration Reform and Embrace Individualism by Michael A. LaFerrara 25 Mar: Contra Michael Tanner, Government’s Size is Not the Proper Focus for Advocates of Liberty by Ari Armstrong Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo: 31 Mar: Hsieh Forbes OpEd: Is Concierge Medicine The Correct Choice For You? by Paul Hsieh 30 Mar: Philosophy Weekend: Philosophy in Action by Diana Hsieh 29 Mar: The Paleo Rodeo #155 by Diana Hsieh 28 Mar: Cavebaby Cora Eats Ribs by Diana Hsieh 27 Mar: Vitamin D and Respiratory Infections by Diana Hsieh 25 Mar: one-pot mustard and lemon chicken by Julie Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter. Link to Original

Paul and I have had a fabulous time at past ATLOSCons, and ATLOSCon 2013 will be even better… because Team Perkins (a.k.a Greg and Tammy) will be joining us! Yipee! For those not familiar, ATLOSCon is an Objectivist conference held over Memorial Day every year in Atlanta. This year, it’ll be from May 23rd to 27th. You can find the full list of talks here. Registration will be open soon, I imagine. Team Philosophy in Action will give the following talks: Diana Hsieh: Moral Amplifiers Objectivism upholds seven major virtues as indispensable to our lives. Yet what of other qualities of character — such as ambition, courage, spontaneity, liveliness, discretion, patience, empathy, and friendliness? Are these virtues, personality traits, or something else? Diana Hsieh will argue that such qualities are best understood as “moral amplifiers,” because their moral worth wholly depends how they’re used. She will explain why people should cultivate such qualities and why they must be put into practice selectively. Paul Hsieh: Can’t Stop The Signal: Will Disruptive Technologies Foster Individual Freedom? New “disruptive” technologies allow people to perform end-runs around traditional middlemen, both government and nongovernment. Bloggers now let us receive news and commentary not available via mainstream media, home-schooling parents can teach their kids free from government constraints, and 3D printing may soon empower individuals to create tools (possibly even guns) in their home workshops. What disruptive technologies could dramatically alter our lives in the next 10-20 years? Should advocates of individual freedom and limited government view these technologies as good, evil, or mixed? Greg Perkins: The American Trajectory: A Political Roundtable This session will be a wide ranging discussion of the political events of the year, with a focus on the results of the election and the current state of the economy and culture. We’ll have our own McLaughlin Group! Audience participation is highly encouraged, as this will be a discussion forum for all attendees and not a lecture. I’ll also be on a panel on “American Colleges from the Inside.” On Sunday morning, Greg and I will broadcast Philosophy in Action Radio. That will be only the second time that Greg and I have done the broadcast together, in person… and I’m so looking forward to it! It’s going to be a great time, once again! I hope that you join us! Link to Original

This article — Disruptions: Digital Era Redefining Etiquette — raises some fascinating questions about the evolution of manners with the rise of the internet, social media, and other new technology. It begins: Some people are so rude. Really, who sends an e-mail or text message that just says “Thank you”? Who leaves a voice mail message when you don’t answer, rather than texting you? Who asks for a fact easily found on Google? Don’t these people realize that they’re wasting your time? Of course, some people might think me the rude one for not appreciating life’s little courtesies. But many social norms just don’t make sense to people drowning in digital communication. For me, the burden of online communications doesn’t come from the mere inflow per se: I’m good at reviewing, then deleting or archiving my incoming mail. (Hence, I do send those little thank-yous, as I like to acknowledge receipt and express appreciation.) The major burden lies in what I need to do in response to some email — not just replying (which often requires a bit of research), but also making decisions, updating projects, and the like. The problem is compounded when I receive the information by some means other than email — such as a Facebook message, tweet, or text message. Those venues are perfect for quick replies, and I prefer them to email for that. But I never use them as storage, as I do my email inbox. So if I can’t reply right away, then they’ll just be forgotten. (That’s not always a bad thing!) I expect that managing my online communications will always be something of a struggle. Yet over the last few years, I’ve done better in two ways. I improved my implementation of Getting Things Done, thanks to some tips that Andrew Miner offered in this interview. I don’t have projects masquerading as tasks any longer. I don’t use artificial deadlines. Instead, I’ve gotten in the habit of making progress on critical areas of focus by just reviewing my projects and tasks, then buckling down to get some stuff done. (Amazingly, that works!) I’ve developed the habit of writing very short emails. I almost never discuss anything other than logistics via email: if I want to have a serious conversation, that must be done in person or via the phone. Or, if a person has a philosophic question, that should be submitted to the queue. I engage in substantive discussion in Facebook comments pretty regularly though. That’s because others chime in with interesting remarks, the medium encourages short comments and dialogue, and I can simply drop out when I get busy. At this point, I wonder what I can and should do to function better. So… what have you done over the past few years that has helped you better manage your digital communications? Link to Original

I wrote this damn fine essay on why protecting your privacy doesn’t require dishonesty back in 2002 for an email list. I recently dug it up to include in the Philosophy in Action Newsletter, and I was so impressed with it that I thought I should blog it! So… here you are! Privacy Lies [Person X] wondered how to overcome the presumption of guilt that naturally emerges with “none of your business” responses to privacy-invading questions. For example, imagine that Lucy’s friend and co-worker asks her whether she is sleeping with the new boss. If Lucy has been willing to answer questions about her lovers in the past, then refusing to answer the question this time is in itself revealing. Replying “none of your business,” in such cases, will not protect privacy. In other words, there is no right against self-incrimination in everyday life, for refusal to answer is generally (and often reasonably) considered positive evidence of guilt. In isolation, these sorts of examples certainly do give the impression that dishonesty is often necessary to protect privacy. But there is no need to choose between honesty and privacy if we take a long-term, full-context approach to these apparent dilemmas. First and foremost, the majority of these examples are compelling only because the individual has done little or nothing in the past to protect privacy — in which case, privacy is not likely the real value at stake. Looking back at Lucy’s dilemma, she was perfectly willing to reveal information about her love life to this friend and co-worker in the past, so her problem is not in revealing private information in answering honestly. Rather, her problem is that an honest answer might reveal her wrongdoing of an inappropriate relationship with the boss. So for Lucy, like in so many of these alleged dilemmas, the goal a lie would not be the preservation of privacy but rather the concealment of wrongdoing. Lies to conceal wrongdoing have rather pernicious effects upon moral character, as I discussed in my paper False Excuses: Honesty, Wrongdoing, and Moral Growth. Of course, people do face legitimate dilemmas about how to effectively protect privacy without lying. For example: Parents of multiples are often queried by total strangers as to how their children were conceived. Neighbors might ask how much you paid for your house or how much you make. Relatives might press an infertile couple about when they are doing to have children. Co-workers might ask what the boss said to you in your yearly evaluation meeting. A competitor in business might inquire as to the status of a client’s account. And so on. Such situations do not require dishonesty in order to protect privacy. Rather, they require a bit of forethought and some simple skills of etiquette. First, we need to invest a bit of thought into what information we wish to keep private from whom. And then we need to consistently refuse to answer questions we consider to be invasive, whatever our answer would be. So if Lucy genuinely wanted to keep her love life private, she ought to have refused to answer any questions about the identity of her lovers, rather than trying only to weasel out the unpleasant question about the boss. In other words, we need to create and enforce our own zones of privacy. We need to take responsibility for our privacy preferences before we get stuck on the horns of a privacy-honesty dilemma. Second, we need to cultivate the etiquette skills of deflecting inappropriate and invasive questions. After all, there are many more ways of refusing to answer a question than simply saying “None of your business.” We might just casually say “Oh, I don’t answer questions about that” or perhaps exclaim in shock “Oh dear! That’s private!” or jokingly reply “Now why would I tell you that?!?” In egregious cases of strangers asking personal questions, glaring and walking away is a good option. In her excellent book The Right Thing to Say, Judith Martin (aka Miss Manners) discusses a wide variety of methods of deflecting inappropriate questions. These are skills of etiquette that no person should be without. Interestingly enough, we can quickly develop these skills of deflection into easy habits by fully committing to honesty, but we lose that opportunity if we allow ourselves to slide into lies when the going gets rough. So we can protect our privacy without sacrificing our honesty. Additionally, by being honest, we avoid all the usual risks of lying: the slippery slope of lies, the distractions of creating and maintaining lies, and the risk of damaging trust in our relationships and reputation within the community. Those risks are substantial. Perhaps most interesting, however, is the way in which openly refusing to answer privacy-invading questions serves an important positive function in our relationships. In our relationships, we communicate in a background way all the time through what we choose to reveal to and conceal from the other person. For example, a woman might be willing to tell co-workers that her dog died, but be unwilling to discuss the painful details or the emotional upheaval. By revealing some information and concealing other information, she is implicitly communicating that her relationships with her co-workers are moderately intimate. So when someone asks a privacy-invading question, honestly refusing to answer implicitly communicates “Hey wait, the relationship isn’t that close!” Lying, of course, provides no such information. So speaking abstractly, honesty about private matters is an important means of indirect communication about the intimacy of a relationship. Speaking practically, if we don’t want people to ask privacy-invading questions, then we need to let them know what constitutes an invasion of privacy for us. Again, we do this by honestly refusing to answer invasive questions, not by lying. So we can dramatically reduce the frequency of these apparent privacy versus honesty dilemmas by honestly communicating and upholding our preferences for privacy. In short, adopting a policy of lying to protect privacy can too easily turn into vicious circle, where a person doesn’t have a clear understanding of his preferences for privacy, doesn’t have the skills to effectively and benevolently deflect questions, and doesn’t communicate his preferences to privacy to others. That’s not a good situation for anyone to be in. Speaking more personally, I wouldn’t jump down a person’s throat for lying to protect legitimate privacy. But I would recommend that the person reflect in a deep way upon the situation to see if honest alternatives were available. If so, then the next step is to train the brain to serve up those honesty alternatives before the dishonest ones, particularly when time is tight. I have yet to find a genuine, irresolvable privacy versus honesty dilemma. Link to Original

On Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I answered questions on being someone’s extramarital affair, epistemic effects of government controls, the boundaries of art, and more with Greg Perkins. The podcast of that episode is now available for streaming or downloading. You’ll find it on the episode’s archive page, as well as below. Remember, you can automatically download podcasts of Philosophy in Action Radio by subscribing to Philosophy in Action’s Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Podcast: Extramarital Affairs, Government Controls, Art, and More Listen or Download: Duration: 9:25 Download: MP3 Segment To comment on these questions or my answers, visit its comment thread. Conclusion (1:07:51) Be sure to check out my blog NoodleFood and to submit and vote on questions for upcoming episodes. About Philosophy in Action Radio Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives. Remember, with every episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, we show how rational philosophy can help you find joy in your work, model virtue for your kids, pursue your goals effectively, communicate with respect, and advocate for a free society. We can’t do that without your support, so please remember to tip your philosopher! Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on being someone's extramarital affair, epistemic effects of government controls, the boundaries of art, replying to intrusive inquiries, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 24 March 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: Being Someone's Extramarital Affair: Is it wrong to have a romantic relationship with a married person? In Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," Dagny Taggart had an affair with Hark Rearden, knowing that he was married. How should those actions be judged in real life? Clearly, Hank's cheating was dishonest and wrong. Was Dagny wrong to pursue the affair? What should she have done instead? Or, imagine that Dagny didn't know that Hank was married until after they'd slept together. What should she have done in that case upon finding out the truth? Should she stop the affair? Should she inform the wife about the cheating? Should she apologize to the wife? Also, if your answer is different than Dagny's, how do you reconcile that? Question 2: Epistemic Effects of Government Controls: How do government controls encourage short-range thinking in business? In your discussion of the principle of sustainability in December 2011, you said that government controls encourage people to think short-range – to grab what they can and run with it – including in business. Why is that? What are some examples? Question 3: The Boundaries of Art: What counts as art? Ayn Rand defined art as "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments." What does that mean? If art is a selective re-creation of reality, does that mean that anything can be art – such as a shoe or my kitchen trash? If art involves metaphysical value-judgments, does that mean that all art is implicitly a kind of philosophy? Question 4: Replying to Intrusive Inquiries: How should a person respond when pressured to reveal private information? Some people think themselves entitled to know about the private lives of their co-workers, acquaintances, family, or friends. They won't take a hint, and they might even demand the information in front of other people or in a public forum. How should a person who wishes to protect his privacy respond to such invasive inquiries? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Extramarital Affairs, Government Controls, Art, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Here’s a fascinating and horrifying story: “A surrogate’s unimaginable dilemma.” I wish that I could share a relevant tidbit, but alas, it’s the kind of story that you just have to read from beginning to end… and it’s very well-told. (The story raises all kinds of thorny questions about abortion rights in the context of surrogacy, and I hope that someone submits a question on the topic to Philosophy in Action’s queue.) As a matter of morality, I think that to inflict a life of pain, suffering, and incapacity on a helpless infant is very wrong. The pregnancy could have been terminated when the abnormalities were discovered, and doing so would not have harmed any person or violated the rights of any person. That’s because the fetus is not an independent person with rights or interests until born, as Ari Armstrong and I argued in our policy paper, The “Personhood” Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception. I value human life, deeply. I’m nothing but delighted by and supportive of people who value their future children while still in the womb. When a culture denies the value of human life — as Nazi Germany did — the results are horrifying. Yet I cannot relate to people seek to “value life” by prolonging any form of existence by any means possible. Such people seem to value life in some kind of abstract or formalistic way, without regard for the kind of life lived, including the suffering inflicted by the attempts to sustain that life. That’s not the way that a rational and responsible adult values life, in my view. It’s emotional self-indulgence… or religious dogmatism… or duty ethics. Mostly, I’d say, it’s nothing good. Link to Original

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview former Republican congressional candidate Stephen Bailey about "Limiting Government." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 20 March 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. Could an amendment to the US Contitution provide an effective check on government power? Stephen Bailey, a Republican congressional candidate in 2010, has a proposal that deserves consideration. Stephen Bailey was the Republican candidate to represent Colorado's 2nd congressional district in 2010. Since November of 2010, Stephen has been analyzing the U.S. Constitution, contemplating its flaws and searching for a path to a restoration of individual rights and personal liberty. To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Stephen Bailey on Limiting Government. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A25VgNZDQ08: Like many, many people, I’m pretty upset that Google Reader is shutting down. I’ve used Google Reader for years — not just to read blogs, but also to manage The Paleo Rodeo. So I’ve got some extra work to do thanks to this unexpected demise of Google Reader, and I’m not enthused about that. More, to shut down the most popular RSS reader seems like a really idiotic decision for Google. If they’re not making money on feeds, that’s because Google closed AdSense for Feeds back in September 2012. Plus, they shut down the sharing functions of Google Reader with the launch of the utterly useless Google Plus, thereby killing their sole social media platform that actually worked. With the murder of Google Reader, I’m sure that Google will shut down the awesome FeedBurner soon too, which will be another huge problem for me and tons of other people. That’s even more frustrating. Overall, Google has going downhill lately, in my view. I’ve had ever-more problems with their offerings, and I’ve heard ominous news about the exodus of the best engineers from people who work in the industry. That sucks, because I love Google. If you’re looking for an alternative to Google Reader, check out Old Reader. You can easily download your data from Google Reader, then import everything into Old Reader. (They have a backlog of 50,000 imports right now though, so you’ll have a wait a few days.) You’ll be able to find what I share here. Link to Original

The Holocaust Just Got More Shocking: Thirteen years ago, researchers at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum began the grim task of documenting all the ghettos, slave labor sites, concentration camps and killing factories that the Nazis set up throughout Europe. The researchers have cataloged some 42,500 Nazi ghettos and camps throughout Europe, spanning German-controlled areas from France to Russia and Germany itself, during Hitler’s reign of brutality from 1933 to 1945. The researchers have cataloged some 42,500 Nazi ghettos and camps throughout Europe, spanning German-controlled areas from France to Russia and Germany itself, during Hitler’s reign of brutality from 1933 to 1945. The figure is so staggering that even fellow Holocaust scholars had to make sure they had heard it correctly when the lead researchers previewed their findings at an academic forum in late January at the German Historical Institute in Washington. The knowledge of these camps is not merely important to fill out the historical record. The existence of so many camps calls into doubt the claims made by so many Germans after the war that they were ignorant of what the monstrous evils of the Third Reich: Dr. Dean, a co-researcher, said the findings left no doubt in his mind that many German citizens, despite the frequent claims of ignorance after the war, must have known about the widespread existence of the Nazi camps at the time. “You literally could not go anywhere in Germany without running into forced labor camps, P.O.W. camps, concentration camps,” he said. “They were everywhere.” In my readings on the Holocaust, survivors and soldiers often report that the Nazis suddenly vanished after Germany’s surrender: everyone claimed that they were secretly opposed to the Nazis, even long-time party members. Yeah, right. Based on what I’ve read, the Germans (and the peoples of occupied nations) had ample reason to believe that Germany was inflicting terrible evils on some people, particularly the Jews. They might not have known the particulars, but if they didn’t imagine something abysmal, that’s only because they refused to think about such unpleasant matters, time and again. However, based on this new research, perhaps the Germans (and others) were not even as ignorant of those particulars as we might have imagined. The evasion of one person can be dangerous, if not deadly. The mass evasion of a whole people… nothing good will ever come from that. Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on universalization as an ethical test, regretful parents, online privacy, disruptive kids in public school, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 10 March 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: Universalization as an Ethical Test: Are arguments of the form "what if everyone did that" valid or not? Often, people will claim that some action is wrong on the grounds that not everyone could or should act that way. For example: it’s wrong for a couple not to have children because if no one had children, civilization would collapse. Or: it’s wrong for you not to donate to charity for the poor because if no one donated, lots of innocent unfortunates would die. Or: it’s wrong for any doctor to offer better concierge service to fewer patients because if every doctor did that, most people would not have access to medical care. What’s right or wrong with this kind of argument? Question 2: Regretful Parents: What should parents do if they regret ever having children? In 2008, Nebraska permitted parents to abandon children of any age without penalty. As a result, quite a few older children were abandoned before the state changed the law. That shows that some parents deeply regret ever having children, and surely many more parents have major regrets, even though they'd never abandon their children. What should a parent do if he or she realizes that having kids was a mistake? What should prospective parents do to ensure that they'll not regret having kids? Question 3: Online Privacy: What kinds of privacy can people reasonably expect online? Online privacy is an increasing concern in the media and the culture. The FTC is working on redefining what companies are and are not allowed to do with data they collect online. But given that the internet functions by sending your data through lots and lots of different systems, what rights and/or reasonable expectations should people have concerning their privacy online? Question 4: Disruptive Kids in Public School: How should a public school teacher discipline unruly students? Since school attendance is mandatory, what is the proper and moral way to handle discipline in class? I'm a Spanish teacher in public school, and I hate to threaten or punish the few unruly kids. But for the sake of students who are truly interested to learn Spanish, I have to resort to methods like assigning detention and taking away phones for students who are not interested in Spanish. They are in my class only because they are pressured by their counselors. How can I deal with disruptive students in a way that respects their rights? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Universalization, Regretful Parents, Online Privacy, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives. — Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) Philosophy in Action

Tomorrow (Friday) is your last chance to register for SnowCon! You can find the full schedule — including events, times, and locations — here: SnowCon 2013. If you’re local, don’t miss these lectures on Saturday: Ari Armstrong on “Who Needs ‘Assault Weapons’ or ‘High-Capacity’ Magazines?” Diana Hsieh on “Why You Don’t Want to Be Lucky” Howard Roerig on “Frac’ing: What It Is and Why We Should All Embrace It” Paul Hsieh on “Concierge Medicine: The Last Bastion of Health Care Freedom” Pablo Romero on “What on Earth Is Opera?” In addition to Friday’s gathering at the newly remodeled Chez Hsieh, we’ll have dinner at Rio Grande in Lone Tree on Saturday night, and we’ll be going to the Denver Art Museum on Sunday. If anyone wants to squeeze in after Friday, I might be able to accomodate that, but you’ll have to email me. (It will cost extra too!) Link to Original

Amanda Collins was a concealed carry permit holder, but due to university regulations at the time, not permitted to carry on campus. She was raped on campus. She testified against the proposed law that would ban concealed carry on campus in Colorado, and here, you can watch the reaction of a Republican and a Democratic state senator: As much as I hate on Republicans — particularly our Colorado Republicans — they’re 100% on the side of the angels on this issue. Link to Original

I got a chuckle out of this: I would have written “ignorance” instead… because wow, the most vocal advocates of gun control often seem to be woefully ignorant of the basic nature and workings of weapons, let alone the law and demands of self-defense. It’s just as embarrassing as seeing a creationist rant about how mere randomness couldn’t have created an eye. But, as my friend Monica noted in reply to my remark: Sometimes it’s ignorance, sometimes it’s stupidity, sometimes it’s because people really don’t believe the public can be trusted with weapons, and sometimes it’s because people don’t *want* the public to have weapons. I recently was involved in a thread in which a former military member rambled on about how much he loves operating rocket launchers but your average redneck shooting watermelons from the back of his truck simply can’t be trusted to operate firearms safely. That sort of attitude is fairly uncommon among members of the military, but it exists, and it has nothing to do with ignorance. It has to do with prejudice. I believe such a person belongs in the third or fourth category listed above (I’m honestly not sure which). Indeed, I’ve definitely seen that kind of prejudice too. That’s part of why I think it’s so important for respected and trusted people to speak out to their friends and neighbors about guns, self-defense, and gun rights. Also, you might want to listen to — and share — tonight’s interview with Ryan Moore on How Guns Save Lives! Link to Original

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the value of happiness, being an atheist in a religious school, the value of privacy, incest between adults, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 3 March 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Value of Happiness: Is happiness overrated? Recently, I had a conversation in which the other person told me that "happiness is overrated." Basically, the person claimed that people should spend less time thinking about their own personal happiness. Instead, people should focus on acting rightly, and then take whatever pleasure they can in that. Is that view right or wrong? Question 2: Being an Atheist in a Religious School: How can an atheist teenager maintain his integrity in a religious school? A few years ago, I read Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" for the first time. After a year of struggling between faith and reason, I chose reason. Unfortunately, I am a teenager, and I am forced to attend church and a religious school. For a time, I was fine coexisting with religious people. However, in the next academic year, I will have to take a class entitled "Christian Apologetics" in which I will have to pretend to be a Christian theologian. Now my integrity is at stake. How should I confront my religious family about my atheism? How can I persuade them to enroll me a different school? Question 3: The Value of Privacy: If a person isn't doing anything wrong, should he care to protect his privacy? Defenders of intrusive government programs (and other forms of meddling) often assume that only guilty people would object to granting others access to their private information. What, after all, does an honest and decent person have to hide? Or these people assume that everyone is guilty, and that's what justifies monitoring everyone. What's wrong with these arguments? Should an honest and innocent person object to government inquiries into his private life? Question 4: Incest Between Adults: Why is consensual incest between adults morally wrong? Should it be outlawed? What constitutes incest? What's the root problem – genetics, family relationships, or something else? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: The Value of Happiness, Atheist Student, Privacy and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Forbes published my latest OpEd, “Freedom, Not Fertility, Is The Key To A Thriving Economy” (2/27/2013). I respond to some conservatives fretting about America’s low birth rate, and discuss why it’s not the government’s job to promote any specific lifestyle (e.g., single vs married or childless vs. multiple-child marriage). Link to Original

It’s a myth that rational egoism means pursuing money above all else. Other goals can and often should mean more to a person… even when millions are at stake. For example, given what a great coach Belichick is and what a great organization the Patriots are, Tom Brady is wise to forego a few million for the opportunity at another SuperBowl win, I think: Tom Brady took a huge step today to ensure he’ll retire a Patriot, agreeing to a three-year contract extension that will keep him under center for New England through the 2017 season, when he will be 40 years old. For the second time in his illustrious career, Brady is doing something players in this day and age simply do not do: As he did in 2005, Brady, a league source told SI.com, is signing a contract with New England that will pay him significantly less money than the market will bear, in large part to help the Patriots stay competitive for the next five seasons. Amazingly, according to the source, the deal is for an eye-poppingly conservative $27 million, which is less than half his worth by any measure. That’s a man who knows what’s important to him… and it’s not sitting back in his final years of play to rake in a few more million. He wants to win! Go Tom! Link to Original

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview paleo endurance athlete Nell Stephenson about "Paleo for the Endurance Athlete." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 27 February 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. What kind of training and nutrition is required for endurance competition? What's wrong with the standard methods of training and nutrition for athletes? Can the paleo diet work for endurance atheletes? Nell Stephenson is the author of Paleoista: Gain Energy, Get Lean, and Feel Fabulous with the Diet You Were Born to Eat and the co-author of The Paleo Diet Cookbook. She studied Exercise Science at USC, followed by culinary school. She now owns and operates her paleo nutritional counseling business online with clients around the globe. Nell discovered paleo after contracting a parasite during an Ironman race in 2004. To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Nell Stephenson on Paleo for the Endurance Athlete. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to Philosophy in Action's Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on spiritual values, advancing liberty through a new political party, welfare reform versus immigration reform, declining a friend's plans for business partnership, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 24 February 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: Spiritual Values: What are "spiritual" values? In your 27 January 2013 discussion of "Materialism in Marriage," you talked about the importance of "spiritual values." However, I found that confusing, since I've always associated "spirituality" with religion, often of the woozy variety. So what are spiritual values? How are they different from material values? Why are they important? Question 2: Advancing Liberty Through a New Political Party: When would creating a political party advance the cause of liberty? At the moment, creating a new political party might not make sense in the United States because the Republicans and Democrats dominate the elections and the media. But when would be the right time to do so, if ever? In other countries, even tiny parties are discussed in the news, and they can win a few seats. Under those circumstances, does it make sense to create a political party advocating for individual rights? If so, what would be a good name for such a party? Question 3: Welfare Reform Versus Immigration Reform: Is the welfare state a good reason to restrict immigration? Conservatives – and even some Objectivists – claim that immigrants are flocking to the United States for our welfare benefits. They claim that immigration must be restricted until the welfare state is curtailed. Doesn't this view amount to punishing would-be immigrants for our own welfare state? Question 4: Declining a Friend's Plans for Business Partnership: How can I say no to a friend's request to become a business partner? Over the past several years, I developed a home craft business. Now that it is successful, one of my friends wants to be involved. She sends messages asking to get together to discuss ideas for new products and expanding the business. However, I am not interested in having a partner. How can I let her know that I don't want a partner – without coming across as mean or hurting her feelings? Also, since I want to support and encourage my friends' interests, I'm struggling with guilt for saying "no." How can I overcome that? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Q&A: Spiritual Values, Political Parties, Immigration, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to our Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

Here’s some very bad news from North Dakota, particularly for couples suffering from infertility: North Dakota’s Senate approved two anti-abortion bills on Monday that would ban the destruction of human embryos and outlaw abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the disputed premise that at that point a fetus can feel pain. Senators voted 30-17 to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. The measure is a challenge to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion up until viability, usually at 22 to 24 weeks. The embryo measure narrowly passed 24-23, with the full Senate present. The measure’s aim is to prohibit the intentional destruction of embryos and to regulate in-vitro fertilization, in which a woman’s egg is fertilized outside her body. The bill defines a human being as “an individual member of the species homo sapiens at every stage of development.” For more on what’s wrong with such “personhood” laws, read The “Personhood” Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and myself. Also, worse might be coming from North Dakota: The North Dakota House this month also passed a bill that would ban doctors from performing an abortion if a fetal heartbeat were detected. The House also has passed a bill would prevent women from having abortions based on gender selection or a genetic defect, such as Down syndrome. Every restriction on abortion means forcing the burdens of pregnancy — and likely motherhood — on unprepared, incapable, and unwilling women. That’s a violation of their right to life, and it’s a serious moral evil. Link to Original

Hooray! I’ve finally announced the lectures for SnowCon 2013. These lectures will be held on Saturday, March 16th in Sedalia from about 10 am to 5 pm. One quick note, before I tell you about the lectures. If you plan to attend SnowCon 2013, please register as soon as you can. I need to have a rough idea of the head count for the Denver portion in order to make plans for Friday and Saturday dinners. You can register here. Remember, you can join us for the whole enchilada, just the Denver portion, just the Saturday lectures, or any individual days or events. Now, without further ado, here are the lectures: Ari Armstrong on “Who Needs ‘Assault Weapons’ or ‘High-Capacity’ Magazines?” What is an “assault weapon?” Do people “need” to own such a gun? Is there a basis for government regulation to restrict or ban (for non-police civilians) their manufacture, sale, or possession? This talk covers the basic history of “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines–along with the moral and political considerations surrounding them. Ari Armstrong is an assistant editor for The Objective Standard, where he blogs regularly. He is also the author of Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles. Dr. Diana Hsieh on “Why You Don’t Want to Be Lucky” Many people view their lives as driven by luck, such that they seek to maximize their good luck and minimize their bad luck. This view of luck, however, is based on a faulty understanding of the nature of luck and its role in human life. This lecture will unpack some common wrong views of luck, then present a rational alternative. We will see that people often shortchange themselves by accepting false views of luck — and that we can enjoy more success in their endeavors by adopting a more rational, purposeful approach. Diana Hsieh received her Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2009. She now focuses on the application of rational principles to the challenges of real life. Her radio show, Philosophy in Action Radio, broadcasts live over the internet on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. Her work can be found at PhilosophyInAction.com. Howard Roerig on “Frac’ing: What It Is and Why We Should All Embrace It” Hydraulic fracturing (frac’ing) is a widely discussed and frequently misunderstood term in the news today. In this lecture you will learn what frac’ing is, how it is done, the many benefits it offers, and the facts and science to dispel the many popular myths about its use in the oil industry. This is a technology that is critical to our everyday life, and one that everyone should better understand. Howard Roerig is a small business owner in the Denver metro area, and lives in the mountains west of Sedalia. He has been involved in Objectivism for fifty years, and is one of the founding members of Front Range Objectivism. With the rise of the environmentalist movement and the many controversies over energy, he has developed a strong personal interest in the role energy plays in our lives. Dr. Paul Hsieh on “Concierge Medicine: The Last Bastion of Health Care Freedom” As the ObamaCare health law is phased in, patients will be increasingly subjected to government controls dictating what care they can receive and when. Fortunately, many doctors are responding by moving into various type of “concierge medicine” and “direct pay” practices where they can still treat patients according to their own best judgment relatively free from such government constraints. This talk will discuss the rapidly growing field of concierge medicine, the various concierge models, why many patients can benefit from it, how to evaluate a concierge practice, and how and why patients can help defend the morality of concierge medicine. Paul Hsieh, MD, is a physician and advocate of free-market health care reforms. He is co-founder of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine), and writes regularly on health care policy for Forbes and PJ Media. Link to Original

On Wednesday's Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview documentary producer Chris Mortensen about "Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged." This episode of internet radio airs at 6 pm PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET on Wednesday, 20 February 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. Chris Mortenson directed the excellent documentary, "Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged." How did that project get started? What was required to make it a reality? How was it received? What's next? If you haven't yet seen the documentary... don't delay! It's available on NetFlix streaming and Amazon streaming. You can also buy the new book: it has the full text of the interviews, including material not included in the documentary. Chris Mortensen is an award winning writer, producer and director has in the last fifteen years produced more than 100 hours of documentary and reality programming. His programs have appeared on History Channel, A&E, Discovery, TLC, BET, VH-1, TV-One, Lifetime Network, Fox Sports, ESPN, Travel Channel, Versus. GSN, TNN, Spike, and more. His latest project is "Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged," a feature length documentary film that examines the resurging interest in Ayn Rand's epic and controversial 1957 novel and the validity of its dire prediction for America. To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Chris Mortensen on Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged. It will be posted on Thursday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to our Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Wednesday evening... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in this topic! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

On Sunday's Philosophy in Action Radio, Greg Perkins and I will answer questions on the value of marriage, misuse of antibiotics, concern for attractiveness to others, semi-automatic handguns, and more. This episode of internet radio airs at 8 am PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET on Sunday, 17 February 2013, in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can always listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Value of Marriage: What is the value of marriage? What is the value of marriage? How is it different from living with a romantic partner in a committed relationship? Is marriage only a legal matter? Or does it have some personal or social benefit? Question 2: Misuse of Antibiotics: How would antibiotic misuse be handled in a free society? It may be possible that antibiotic-resistant bacteria acquire such resistance by exposure to low doses of antibiotics. Such low doses may come from misuse of antibiotics, for example when taken to combat a cold or flu, which are viral infection against which antibiotics do nothing, or by not completing the full course as prescribed by a doctor. Antibiotics are indeed awesome drugs which have saved millions of people. But resistant bacteria pose a serious health problem, often causing serious and difficult-to-treat illness in third parties. What would be the proper way to address this problem in a free society? Question 3: Concern for Attractiveness to Others: Should you care whether other people find you attractive? I’ve heard some people say they don't care what other people think of their physical appearance: they only care about their own judgment. To care, they say, is second-handed. Is that right? It is wrong to be pleased when someone compliments you on your clothes or hair? Question 4: Semi-Automatic Handguns: Are semi-automatic handguns more dangerous than revolvers? In the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, many of my friends claim that semi-automatic firearms should be banned. They think that people should only be permitted to own revolvers. What are the differences between these two kinds of handguns? Do those differences matter to public policy debates about gun rights and gun control? After that, we'll tackle some impromptu "Rapid Fire Questions." To join the live broadcast and its chat, just point your browser to Philosophy in Action's Live Studio a few minutes before the show is scheduled to start. By listening live, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask us follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: Marriage, Antibiotic Resistance, Guns, and More. It will be posted on Monday morning, if not sooner. You can automatically download that and other podcasts by subscribing to our Podcast RSS Feed: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe via iTunes or another podcast player I hope you join us on Sunday morning... and please share this announcement with any friends interested in these topics! Philosophy in Action Radio applies rational principles to the challenges of real life in live internet radio shows on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. For information on upcoming shows, visit the Episodes on Tap. For podcasts of past shows, visit the Show Archives.

On Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Radio, I’ll answer a question on antibiotic misuse — particularly “How would antibiotic misuse be handled in a free society?” By happenstance, some very alarming reports on drug-resistent tuberculosis have been emerging from South Africa. Here’s the opening of a US News article, Doctors Struggling to Fight ‘Totally Drug-Resistant’ Tuberculosis in South Africa: In a patient’s fight against tuberculosis–the bacterial lung disease that kills more people annually than any infectious disease besides HIV– doctors have more than 10 drugs from which to choose. Most of those didn’t work for Uvistra Naidoo, a South African doctor who contracted the disease in his clinic. For those who contract the disease now, maybe none of them will. A new paper published earlier this week in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Emerging Infectious Diseases journal warns that the first cases of “totally drug-resistant” tuberculosis have been found in South Africa and that the disease is “virtually untreatable.” Like many bacterial diseases, tuberculosis has been evolving to fend off many effective antibiotics, making it more difficult to treat. But even treatable forms of the disease are particularly tricky to cure; drug sensitive strains must be treated with a six-month course of antibiotics. Tougher cases require long-term hospitalization and a regimen of harsh drugs that can last years. Naidoo, then an avid runner, says he continued training for months with the disease, which affects more than 389,000 South Africans annually (about one fourth of Africa’s cases), according to the World Health Organization. It wasn’t until he went to visit his family in Durban (he had been working with TB patients in a pediatric clinic in Cape Town) that his family noticed he had lost more than 30 pounds. “I had flu symptoms and chest pains, but I was still running so I didn’t think anything was wrong,” he says. But when he went in for an X-ray, doctors found that his entire right lung had filled with fluid. Within weeks, he was on his deathbed as his body wasn’t responding to the most commonly prescribed antibiotics. “One night I nearly passed away–it didn’t look good,” he says. His father, also a physician, suggested that he may have had an emerging MDR, or a multi drug-resistant strain of TB. The emergence of MDR and its even more dangerous cousin, XDR (extremely drug-resistant TB), have pushed tuberculosis cure rates in the country from a high of 73 percent in 2008 down to 53 percent in 2010. Naidoo survived the night and doctors eventually found a treatment regimen that worked, but he was in and out of the hospital for three years, and the drugs’ side effects were almost unbearable, he says. He developed Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, a complication that causes layers of skin to separate from each other and can be deadly. He regularly bled from his eyes. He fell into a deep depression. “The TB doesn’t feel like it’s killing you, but the drugs do. I am a doctor and was informed that the drugs you take make you feel worse,” he says. “My case was three years long. I don’t think the average patient has that kind of patience.” The whole article is worth reading, so go check it out. I was particularly fascinated to hear about the New York hospital where 32 patients caught drug-resistent tuberculosis in the early 90s. While drug resistance has certainly emerged for other infectious diseases, tuberculosis seems to be the canary in the coal mine, given that the treatment is long-lasting, expensive, and painful. So what can and should be done about such drug resistance? Well, for that, you’ll have to listen to that episode! Link to Original