dianahsieh

I just ran across this passage in an otherwise merely annoying sports column on athletes and steroid use: This past Christmas Eve, my son and daughter made Santa cookies, wrote him a letter, even left four carrots for his reindeer. As we were putting them to bed, I remember thinking, Man, I wish they could always stay like this. And by “this,” I really meant, I wish they could always just blindly believe in things being true despite mounting evidence against them. Oy vey! The “blind belief” of faith is not a virtue — neither in adults not in children. It’s the rejection of reason’s requirements of empirical evidence and logical argument. To the extent that a person lives by faith rather than reason is the extent to which he imperils his life and his happiness. (For more on what’s wrong with faith — including why faith and reason cannot be reconciled — I strongly recommend George H. Smith’s Atheism: The Case Against God.) Interestingly, the sports writer indulges in fairly arbitrary doubts about athletes and steroid use in the rest of the column. Given that kind of irrationality, it’s hardly surprising that he longs to enjoy the comforts of the opposite kind of error. Link to Original

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I will answer questions on the wrong of anti-discrimination laws, Objectivism's potential to save the culture, declining to socialize at work, concern for your attractiveness to others, and more. This episode of internet radio airs on Sunday morning, 10 February 2013, at 8 PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Wrong of Anti-Discrimination Laws: What's wrong with anti-discrimination laws? Most people support anti-discrimination laws, even though such laws violate the freedom of association. Have such laws done genuine good by making racism, sexism, and homophobia unacceptable in the culture? Have such laws had negative side-effects? Should they be abolished – and if so, why? Question 2: Objectivism's Potential to Save the Culture: Can Objectivism save the culture? Advocates of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism often claim that the philosophy is necessary for substantially changing the culture for the better. That seems presumptuous to me. Is it true? Also, is the philosophy capable of saving the culture on its own? Or is more needed? Question 3: Declining to Socialize at Work: How can I politely tell my co-workers that I'm not interested in socializing? I have always struggled with the pressure to form friendships at work. Personally, I don't want to hang out with my coworkers after work. I don't want to chit chat during work. I won't want to celebrate birthdays or other personal events. This is always interpreted as me being snobbish, aloof, and worst of all "not a team player." It's so annoying. I just want to do a good job and then leave, not join a social club. How can I communicate that without being offensive? Question 4: Concern for Your 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? 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. Again, if you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: 10 February 2013. I hope that you join us on Sunday morning, but if you can't attend live, be sure to listen to the podcast later! 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.

In his recent article, Why I’m Canceling my SI Subscription, Andrew Klavan is up in arms about the supposedly hostile leftism of culture — Sports Illustrated in particular. It begins: I am going to let my subscription to Sports Illustrated lapse when it runs out this year. I hope lots of other people will do the same. Like too many other publications, the magazine has become dishonest, dishonorable and even occasionally despicable in its conformist, lockstep left-wing bias. Republican politicians and conservative positions are routinely insulted in articles having nothing to do with either. Yawn-inducing left wing predictability is brought to the discussion of every issue. No SI writer is allowed to disagree with leftism ever. Despite its great photographs and occasionally good athlete profiles, the magazine has remade itself into crap in the name of political conformity. For me, the Super Bowl issue with its smarmy and poorly reported article on religion in football was the last straw. The article was not an offense to God, it was an offense to journalism. Mark Oppenheimer, a left wing anti-religion writer for the left wing New York Times, among other left wing venues, does the left wing hit job on football players of faith. … Despite all that overblown rhetoric, he cites just one one example from the article. Here is the offending quote: It’s clear that for a substantial number of athletes and coaches, there is no tension between being a Christian and being an aggressive athlete. On the contrary, many of them argue that football builds character and thereby makes a man more of a Christian — a commingling of faith and football now accepted by fans. But is that a mistake? Just 50 years ago such coziness between public Christianity and football would have seemed absurd. Athletes were nobody’s idea of good ambassadors for religion; they were more likely to be seen as dissolute drinkers and womanizers — more the roguish Joe Namath than the devout Roger Staubach.The aggressive, violent play preached by coaches of an earlier generation was accepted as natural precisely because sport was pagan, not Christian. Christianity was peaceful, charitable and pious. Sport was bloody, ruthless, impious. In the 1950s and 60s that antagonism began to soften…” That’s it. Not only does that example not support Klavan’s hyperventiliating about left-wing bias, but it also equates public expressions of Christianity by private individuals with conservativism, such that any skepticism about that is nothing but left-wing bias. In fact, (1) most political leftists are Christians, and (2) many devout Christians are uncomfortable with the loud expressions of faith often heard from football players. Are conservative Christians unaware of just how silly this makes them look to anyone outside their echo chamber? Alas, I think not. Lord have mercy on us! Link to Original

I posted these remarks on World War II to Facebook yesterday. The ensuing comments were quite interesting, so I thought I’d share my initial remarks here too. Now that I’ve gotten to the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact in “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” I have a question… I’ve heard various people (of the non-interventionist bent) claim that Britain, France, and the United States should not have allied with Soviet Russia. Undoubtedly, even if that alliance was necessary to win the war, turning over eastern Europe to the Soviets at the end of the war was a major, major evil. (The alliance did not necessitate that, from what I’ve read. Instead, FDR appeased the Soviets as much as Chamberlain did Hitler.) I’ve also heard such people say that we should have allowed the Nazis and the Soviets to destroy each other. But what does that mean? It seems to mean that when Germany attacked Russia, the Allies should have left Russia to fight its own war, without any coordination with them. In that case, given how close Hitler came to Moscow, wouldn’t it be very likely that he would have defeated Russia, such that the Allies would have faced a much, much greater threat from Hitler — perhaps an undefeatable threat — even with help from the United States? I’m sure that I’ll come to my own answers as the narrative progresses, but I still want to understand this “we should not have allied with the Soviets” view better. Right now, it seems wildly unrealistic to me. I’m enjoying The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (paperback, kindle, or audible) so much more than I thought I would. It’s an intensely detailed history. I’ve seen some people criticize it as “journalistic,” but I vastly prefer such fact-rich histories to those light on facts but heavy on interpretation. When the author draws conclusions, I want those conclusions to be overwhelmingly supported by the evidence drawn from primary sources. To be clear, I don’t merely dislike interpretation-heavy histories when the underlying ideology is, say, pro-Marxist. Such histories are so unreliable as to be useless. Rather, I dislike any interpretation-heavy histories — even when the underlying ideology is Objectivist. I don’t trust anyone to come to conclusions for me, even when we share the same basic philosophic principles. While I’d be interested to hear what an Objectivist historian would say, ultimately, I want to make my own integrations and draw my own conclusions. I’ve got my own brain, and I’m not interested in any convenient pre-packaged history. Perhaps my college years in St. Louis rubbed off on me. I’m a one-woman “Show Me State” … and darn proud of it too! Link to Original

Hooray! Registration for SnowCon 2013 is now open! I’ve worked hard to keep the price low — just $50 for the whole shebang or $40 for just the events in Denver. Plus, if you’re one of the first 35 people to register, you’ll get an additional $5 off. For those who don’t know, SnowCon is an informal annual conference of snow sports, lectures, and socializing for fans of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism in mid-March in Colorado. SnowCon 2013 begins on Tuesday, March 12th with snow sports and relaxed fun in the Colorado Rockies, based in Frisco. It shifts to metro Denver on Friday, March 15th for lectures and social gatherings. It concludes on Sunday, March 17th. In Frisco, we’ll ski, snowboard, snowshoe, soak in the hot tub, chat, and relax during the day. In the evenings, we’ll have dinner, and then enjoy chat and games in the condo (a.k.a. the “SnowCondo”). Some of us will arrive at the SnowCondo as early as Monday evening. We’ll drive back to Denver on Friday afternoon. In Denver, we’ll have an informal gathering with food and drinks on Friday night, at a location to be determined. Lectures will be held during the day on Saturday in Sedalia. On Sunday, we’ll have brunch, perhaps take an easy hike, and then gather for coffee as people depart. Friday, March 8th is the last day to register. For more information and to register, visit: SnowCon 2013. Link to Original

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I will answer questions on the value of studying personality, the golden rule, yelling at employees, atheism as religion, and more. This episode of internet radio airs on Sunday morning, 3 February 2013, at 8 PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Value of Studying Personality: What is the value of understanding personality differences? You've become increasingly interested in personality theory lately. What are the major practical benefits of better understanding personality? Is understanding personality differences as important – or perhaps more important – than knowing philosophy? Question 2: The Golden Rule: Is the Golden Rule a valid and useful principle of ethics? In past podcasts, you've mentioned that you consider the Golden Rule – meaning, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" – as flawed. What are some of the problems with this rule? Does it have any value? Question 3: Yelling at Employees: Is yelling at and shaming an employee ever justifiable? Imagine that a product at work must be shipped by a certain deadline – and if it's late, the company will suffer a major loss. All the workers involved know that, yet as the deadline approaches, one worker works slowly, seemingly without concern for the deadline. When reminded, he acknowledges the deadline, yet his work continues to be as slow as ever. In such cases, might yelling at that worker – even shaming him in front of co-workers – be just what he needs to motivate him to get the project done? If not, what else should be done? Question 4: Atheism as Religion: Is atheism just another form of religion? I often hear from religious people that atheism is just another form of religion – and just as much based on faith as Christianity and the like. Is that right or wrong? 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. Again, if you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: 3 February 2013. I hope that you join us on Sunday morning, but if you can't attend live, be sure to listen to the podcast later! 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 the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview former Arizona prosecutor William E. Perry about "What It's Really Like to Be a Prosecutor." This episode of internet radio airs on Wednesday evening, 30 January 2013, at 6 PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can listen to the podcast later. Here's a bit more about the show: What is the work of a prosecutor really like? In this interview, former Arizona prosecutor William E. Perry will discuss the cases he prosecuted and various issues in criminal law – including the role of juries, standards of evidence, the drug war, confessions, and plea bargaining. William E. Perry was a lawyer for 34 years. He spent seven years as a defense attorney and one year as a temporary judge. Most of the rest of the time he was a prosecutor for the Navajo Nation and four counties in Arizona. Mr. Perry supervised the criminal prosecutors in Arizona's third largest county. He was was a major fraud and public corruption prosecutor, and then a homicide prosecutor, in Maricopa County. (That county includes Phoenix, Arizona and the surrounding area. It was the sixth largest county in the United States at the time.) He is now retired. 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. Again, if you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: 30 January 2013. I hope that you join us on Wednesday evening, but if you can't attend live, be sure to listen to the podcast later! 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.

I’ve never seen a better commentary on modern art than this painting. The expression on her face says … everything! The photo was posted here, with the following comment: “Another Spanish artist I like a lot, Cayetano de Arquer Buigas. Not on Facebook, but you can find more of his work online.” More of his work can be found here. It looks to be mostly pastels, and many are well worth a look! Link to Original

This short commentary raises an excellent question about the “if you have sex, you’re consenting to pregnancy” argument against abortion rights. According to many pro-lifers, when women consent to sex, they thereby consent to (and commit themselves to) bearing any resulting children. And so, in deciding to having sex, these women have in effect voluntarily waived their right to get an abortion. Now, I find this pro-life claim utterly baffling: consent to sex is clearly different from consenting to anything further, many women deliberately use birth control to avoid pregnancy, many women plan on getting an abortion if they should end up pregnant, etc. According to this pro-life claim, it seems, we are supposed to interpret the act of consensual sex itself as involving some sort of mysterious tacit consent and occult commitments that are not only morally significant, but so overwhelmingly morally important as to completely override the actual preferences of the woman. I don’t think actions carry occult commitments, and this all seems like superstition to me. But here’s my question. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that actions do carry occult commitments. Even granting this, we still need a way of telling what those commitments are. Without a method of interpretation, we’re utterly in the dark. For example, a typical pro-lifer might say that the act of consensual sex carries the commitment to bear the child, waiving one’s right to an abortion. But a more radical pro-lifer might say that the act of consensual sex carries the commitment to bear and raise the child, waiving one’s right to an abortion as well as one’s right to put the child up for adoption. My question is: how are we supposed to tell which interpretation is correct, and which occult commitments are (and are not) carried by the act of consensual sex? Ultimately, all arguments against abortion rights — including the argument from tacit consent — depend on the claim that the fetus has a right to life. Ari Armstrong and I refuted that argument in our 2010 policy paper, The “Personhood” Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception. If you’ve not yet read it, be sure to check out the section on “Individual Rights and Abortion.” That being said… over the past few months, I’ve been thinking off and on about how to defend abortion rights in a way that’s more persuasive than the standard pro-choice arguments, including the better arguments of Objectivists. I want to find a way to make my own view resonate better with reasonable people of the “but it’s a baby!” mindset. So if you have any thoughts on more effective rhetoric on this issue, I’d be interested to hear that in the comments. I’d be particularly interested to hear from people who switched from “pro-life” to pro-choice views: What convinced you? Link to Original

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I will answer questions on the nature of addiction, unions for government employees, materialism and romance, mandatory child support, and more. This episode of internet radio airs on Sunday morning, 27 January 2013, at 8 PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Nature of Addiction: Is addiction a genuine phenomena? Can a person become dependent on alcohol or drugs to the point that he cannot prevent himself from consuming it, except perhaps by a supreme effort of will? Is such addiction physiological – or just a matter of bad habits of thought and action? Similarly, can a person be addicted to certain foods (such as sugar or wheat) or certain activities (like gambling or pornography)? If so, what does that mean? If a person is addicted to something, is the cure to he abstain from it forever? Question 2: Unions for Government Employees: Should government employees be permitted to unionize? In your 16 December 2012 discussion of "right to work" laws, you said that business owners should have the right to refuse to hire union members (or to fire them). How would that work for government employees? In a free society, could legislators (or departments) forbid government workers from being union members? Could they require union membership? Might unions serve some functions – like providing insurance and other benefits to members – but not engage in collective bargaining over wages or benefits? Question 3: Materialism and Romance: Are materialistic couples less likely to have a lasting relationship? A recent study by Brigham Young University claims to show that concern for money causes stress in a relationship and that people who love money tend to be more impersonal and less passionate towards their loved ones. (See: ) Is that right? Does it reveal some defect with a morality of worldly values? Question 4: Mandatory Child Support: Isn't mandated child support basically just welfare for needy children? What is the moral difference between compelling parents to support their children and compelling all people to support the needy in society? Many critics of the welfare state believe that parents should be compelled to support their children with basic levels of physical sustenance and education, such that failing to provide these constitutes violating children's rights. But how is that different from compelling people to support other needy or vulnerable people? Is the blood relationship what creates the obligation to support the child – and if so, how? 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. Again, if you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: 27 January 2013. I hope that you join us on Sunday morning, but if you can't attend live, be sure to listen to the podcast later! 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.

I just sent e-mails to my two US senators opposing the proposed “assault weapons” ban. I’ve included the text of my letter below, and others are welcome to adapt it for their own use. You can contact your Senators using the link below. (Most of them have a link on their websites to submit an e-mail. Ours included drop down menus for topics, including “2nd Amendment”): http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC My letter wasn’t super-polished, but I just wanted to hit a few key points: Dear Senator [FILL IN NAME]: I am a law-abiding Coloradan, a doctor, and a gun owner. I’m also a swing voter who has voted for both Democrats and Republicans in the past few elections. I’m writing to express my extreme opposition to Senator Feinstein’s proposed new “assault weapons ban”. The guns she is trying to outlaw have legitimate uses for sporting and self-defense purposes. Plus, the AR-15 platform and some of the affected features (such as the pistol grip) make it very ergonomic for shooters with less upper body strength (e.g., women), or older shooters with arthritis. Outlawing such weapons would impose a disproportionate burden on such shooters. Similarly, outlawing magazines with greater than 10-round capacity handicaps victims who may be caught by surprise by multiple attackers. Finally, universal background checks are unnecessary and burdensome to honest citizens. If one law-abiding citizen sells his used rifle to another, there is no victim and no harm. Northeastern University criminology professor James Fox recently noted, “Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally.” Newtown killer Adam Lanza stole his mother’s guns — which would not have been prevented by a background check. Mandatory ID checks of law-abiding customers purchasing Sudafed in their local pharmacies have not stopped illegal meth labs. Similarly, mandatory background checks for private firearms purchases merely impose unnecessary new burdens on the law-abiding, but will not stop the bad guys. I oppose every major provision of Senator Feinstein’s bill. I’m writing to urge you to oppose the bill as well. Paul Hsieh, MD Sedalia, CO Hope others find this helpful! Link to Original

Forbes has just published my latest OpEd, “Why Doctors Should Not Ask Their Patients About Guns“. My theme is that physicians should not routinely ask patients whether they own guns, because it could compromise the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship. Here is the opening: Should doctors ask patients if they own guns? Currently, ObamaCare bans the federal government from using patient medical records to compile a list of gun owners. But following the Newtown, CT shootings, President Obama issued an executive order clarifying that “the Affordable Care Act [ObamaCare] does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.” The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) similarly encourages physicians to ask patients if they own firearms — in the name of protecting child safety. As a physician, I consider this advice misguided. Instead, physicians should not routinely ask patients whether they own guns, because it could compromise the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship. I cite Dave Kopel (who was one of many scholars who debunked the standard 43-to-1 flawed statistic about the danger of guns in the house) and also discuss the little-recognized fact that swimming pools are far more dangerous to kids than guns, yet no one asks for background checks for pool owners. And many thanks to Dr. Matthew Bowdish for permission to quote him at the end of the piece! (Read the full text of “Why Doctors Should Not Ask Their Patients About Guns“.) Link to Original

The 1/17/2013 Denver Post published my LTE opposing pointless new background checks for private arms sales. Here is the text of the LTE (including a link to the editorial I was responding to): More background checks (and fees) for gun sales? Re: “ Hickenlooper’s endorsement of gun background checks hard to gauge,” Jan. 11 news story. Gov. John Hickenlooper’s proposed new background checks for private gun sales are deeply misguided. If a law-abiding gun owner sells his used rifle via private sale to another law-abiding gun owner without a background check, there is no victim and no harm. Northeastern University criminology professor James Fox recently noted, “Most mass murderers do not have criminal records or a history of psychiatric hospitalization. They would not be disqualified from purchasing their weapons legally.” Newtown killer Adam Lanza stole his mother’s guns — which would not have been prevented by a background check. Mandatory ID checks of law-abiding customers purchasing Sudafed in their local pharmacies have not stopped illegal meth labs. Similarly, mandatory background checks for private firearms purchases merely impose unnecessary new burdens on the law-abiding, but will not stop the bad guys. Paul Hsieh , Sedalia This letter was published in the Jan. 17 edition. Link to Original

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I will answer questions on solutions to widespread racism, recommended works of Aristotle, veto power over abortion, staying in a marriage, and more. This episode of internet radio airs on Sunday morning, 20 January 2013, at 8 PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: Solutions to Widespread Racism: Should the government intervene when widespread racism makes life impossible for some people? Given that the effect of strictly respecting the rights of private property owners in the South was that blacks could not find accommodations, health care, transportation, food, and other basic necessities of life, shouldn't the government have intervened? Didn't civil rights legislation help eliminate racism – and wasn't that a good thing – even if that meant violating the right to property of racists? Question 2: Recommended Works of Aristotle: What works of Aristotle do you recommend reading? As a layperson interested in philosophy, I'd like to educate myself on the philosophy of Aristotle. I'm particularly interested in developing a better understanding of epistemology and metaphysics. What works should I read, and where should I start? Do you recommend any secondary sources? Question 3: Veto Power over Abortion: Should a man be able to prevent his pregnant girlfriend from aborting his baby? Sometimes, a man will get his girlfriend pregnant accidentally, and they disagree about what should be done. If the man wants the woman to carry the pregnancy to term, whether to give up the baby for adoption or him take sole custody, while the woman wants to get an abortion, should he be able to prevent her? It's his baby, shouldn't he have some say? Question 4: Staying in a Marriage: If a married couple wouldn't marry again, should they split? Many married couples seem to stay together due to inertia, not because they truly value each other. My view is that if a couple wouldn't marry again, they should get divorced. Is that too high a bar in marriage? 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. Again, if you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: 20 January 2013. I hope that you join us on Sunday morning, but if you can't attend live, be sure to listen to the podcast later! 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.

This is super-dense inanity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA6rUU0K9xE: My favorite bit is when she concludes from a whole slew of completely ridiculous pseudo-physics that disease is when we “transform our energy state into something different.” The bit about us hearing strings vibrate was pretty awesome too though. As it happens, I answered a question on whether pharmacies should sell homeopathic “medicine” in the 5 June 2011 episode of Philosophy in Action Radio. If you missed that episode, you can listen to or download the audio podcast: Duration: 8:57 Download: MP3 Segment Link to Original

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I will answer questions on free will and natural law, romance between an atheist and a believer, bringing children into a statist world, recommended works of Aristotle, and more. This episode of internet radio airs on Sunday morning, 13 January 2013, at 8 PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: Free Will and Natural Law: Is free will merely an illusion? While I dislike the idea that we're just puppets of physics and natural law, I wonder whether our seemingly "free'' decisions are actually determined by the combination of our biology and our environment. After all, if our brain is merely a physical and chemical system, how could any any decisions be made freely? Wouldn't that violate natural law? In essence, how can our knowledge that the physical universe is deterministic be reconciled with our subjective feeling that we choose our actions? Question 2: Romance Between an Atheist and a Believer: Can a romance between an atheist and a religious believer work? What are the major obstacles? Should the atheist attend church or church socials with his spouse? Should they have a religious wedding ceremony? Should they send their children to religious schools? Do the particular beliefs – or strength of beliefs – of the religious person matter? Question 3: Bringing Children into a Statist World: Is it wrong to have children in an increasingly irrational and statist culture? People should think about the long-range effects of their actions, and act based on principles. So if a person thinks that our culture is in decline – and perhaps even slipping into dictatorship – is it wrong for that person to have children? Is such an assessment accurate? Along similar lines, were people wrong to have children in Soviet Union and other dictatorships? Question 4: Recommended Works of Aristotle: What works of Aristotle do you recommend reading? As a layperson interested in philosophy, I'd like to educate myself on the philosophy of Aristotle. I'm particularly interested in developing a better understanding of epistemology and metaphysics. What works should I read, and where should I start? Do you recommend any secondary sources? 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. Again, if you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: 13 January 2013. I hope that you join us on Sunday morning, but if you can't attend live, be sure to listen to the podcast later! 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 the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I'll interview Institute for Justice attorney Paul Sherman about "Free Speech in Elections." This episode of internet radio airs on Wednesday evening, 9 January 2013, at 6 PT / 7 MT / 8 CT / 9 ET in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can listen to the podcast later. Here's a bit more about the show: Many people support restrictions on spending in elections, particularly by corporations, in the name of "transparency" and "accountability." Institute for Justice attorney Paul Sherman takes a very different view. He claims that any restrictions on campaign spending are violations of freedom of speech, and he has successfully argued that view in courts across the country. Paul Sherman is an attorney with the Institute for Justice. He litigates cutting-edge constitutional cases protecting the First Amendment, economic liberty, property rights and other individual liberties in both federal and state courts. Paul has litigated extensively in the area of campaign finance. He currently represents a group of Florida political activists in Worley v. Roberts, a challenge to state campaign finance laws that burden the right of citizens to pool money for independent ads about ballot issues. Paul also served as co-counsel in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which the Congressional Research Service described as representing one of "the most fundamental changes to campaign finance law in decades." 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. Again, if you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: 9 January 2013. I hope that you join us on Wednesday evening, but if you can't attend live, be sure to listen to the podcast later! 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.

Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard will speak in Denver on February 2nd about “The Trinity of Liberty: Individualism, Individual Rights, and Independent Thinking.” This will be a great talk, so I hope that local folks will join us! You must register and pay by January 30th. About the Talk What are the essential principles that give rise to and support a free society? This is the most pressing question mankind faces today, and its answer is the least understood. In this lecture, Craig Biddle will argue that a free society depends on the recognition and acceptance of three key principles (along with their corollaries): individualism, individual rights, and independent thinking. Mr. Biddle will examine each of these elements, identify their interrelationships, and elucidate their importance in the establishment and maintenance of freedom. About the Speaker Craig Biddle is the editor of The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal on culture and politics. and the author of Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It, a highly concretized, systematic introduction to Ayn Rand’s ethics. He is currently writing a book, tentatively titled Thinking in Principles: The Science of Selfishness, about how to use one’s mind in the service of one’s life, liberty, and happiness. In addition to writing, he lectures and teaches seminars on ethical and epistemological issues from an Objectivist perspective. Mr. Biddle has lectured and taught seminars at universities across the country, including Stanford, Duke, Tufts, UCLA, and NYU. Event Details and Registration Saturday, February 2nd, 2013, 5 – 9 PM Chinook Tavern, 6380 S. Fiddlers Green Circle, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 5:00 PM: Cocktails, Cash Bar 5:45 PM: Announcements 6:00 PM: Dinner 7:00 PM: Talk with Q/A, Craig Biddle Advance Purchase Cost: $65 per person Student and Active Military: $45 Seating at Head Table with Speaker (space limited): $105 Space must be reserved and paid for before January 30, 2013. Payable online via wepay.com. Also, the Facebook event for the talk is here. Please share it! For those of you not familiar with Craig Biddle, you can check out his awesome work for The Objective Standard on his author page. Also, I interviewed him in October for Philosophy in Action Radio about Common Mistakes about Ethics. If you missed that, you can listen or download below. What are some of the most common mistakes that people make in thinking about ethics? I’ll interview Craig Biddle, editor of “The Objective Standard,” about people’s wrong ideas about ethics, including ethics of duty, pragmatism, religious ethics, collectivism, and more. Listen or Download: Duration: 1:08:18 Download: Standard MP3 File (15.7 MB) Link to Original

Some Objectivists are squishy on gun rights, so whenever the topic is raised, I prepare myself for the worst. In this case, however, I was pleasantly surprised. This Forbes op-ed by Harry Binswanger is far better than anything I’ve seen from him on this topic. Plus, his analysis of gun control as a kind of collectivism is a fresh perspective too. Here’s a bit: In particular, the government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won’t violate another’s rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to. But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable. Nice! Now go read the whole thing. (If you like it, share it on Facebook, email it to your friends, post it to gun forums, etc! It has already gotten tons of hits on Forbes… and more is better!) Also, don’t miss this further comment from Dr. Binswanger: There has been a lot of discussion here about extreme weapons, from machine guns to tanks to nukes. I didn’t want to get into those in the article, because they don’t affect the principle. The principle is that only objective threats constitute force, and thus the government can use its force properly only in regard to such threats. Given that, either mere possession of a certain weapon (e.g., a nuclear weapon) is a threat or it isn’t. If it is (and you can easily make a case that nuclear weapons are), then it can be banned. If it isn’t, it can’t be-and why would you want to? If you ask me, an armed nuclear bomb inside a neighbor’s house is the equivalent of a pistol put up against my head. On the other hand, suppose it is an equally destructive device but it is in a state that would take 3 weeks of very publicly visible activity to make it ready to use. Further assume that a) there’s a good, peaceful use for this device, and there’s no evidence that the owner is taking even the first step along that 3-week path. In that case, I don’t see how it could be illegalized, *at this stage*. I hope you can see that it doesn’t make any difference to the argument in the article how we come down on these extreme cases. Nothing decided about nukes is going to make an objective threat out of hunting rifles in the attic or concealed carry by some members of a school staff. A further side-issue is that there is no right to assemble a private army or milita. The government can and should take forcible action to prevent that, because it has to maintain its legal monopoly on the use of force, even retaliatory force, within its jurisdiction. It cannot and should not allow the formation of a “competing government”-i.e., force on whim. Finally, let me state that I wasn’t kidding when I said that until recently I was on the fence regarding gun control. In fact, for most of my 50 years in Objectivism, I leaned in favor of mild gun control. It was the thinking I did after Sandy Hook at Newtown that led me to my present position. So, to those worried about guns, yeah, I know very well how you feel. Again, that’s excellent. My own discussion of “extreme” weapons can be found here: Philosophy in Action Radio: The Legal Status of Automatic Weapons. Like Binswanger, my basic view is that the critical question to ask with any potentially dangerous property is whether mere ownership constitutes a threat to others. That’s not true of firearms, including fully automatic weapons. Duration: 12:48 Download: MP3 Segment My other discussions of firearms-related topics from Philosophy in Action Radio are gathered here. Link to Original

The New York Times reports that Lance Armstrong is considering confessing to doping in order to resume his athletic career: Lance Armstrong, who this fall was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles for doping and barred for life from competing in all Olympic sports, has told associates and antidoping officials that he is considering publicly admitting that he used banned performance-enhancing drugs and blood transfusions during his cycling career, according to several people with direct knowledge of the situation. He would do this, the people said, because he wants to persuade antidoping officials to restore his eligibility so he can resume his athletic career. As I explained in this Philosophy in Action Radio discussion of performance-enhancing drugs in sports, the government has no business banning performance-enhancing drugs. Moreover, the case for a ban in in private sports leagues is remarkably weak. That’s here: Duration: 27:28 Download: MP3 Segment Alas, the problem for Armstrong is that his years of vehement denials of using performance-enhancing drugs, if admitted to be false, would embroil him in major legal troubles. The concern is not merely unjust prosecution by the government. His contracts with sponsors depended on his not using performance-enhancing drugs, and as the the article explains, some sponsors are seeking to recoup millions. Moreover — and this is what I find so morally distasteful — he might have ill-gotten gains from libel lawsuits too: Armstrong is also facing two other civil lawsuits, one that involves the Dallas-based insurance company SCA Promotions, which is trying to recoup at least $5 million it covered when Armstrong won multiple Tours. The company withheld that $5 million bonus from Armstrong after he won the 2004 Tour because of doping accusations that surfaced in the book “L.A. Confidentiel: Les Secrets de Lance Armstrong,” which was published in France. Armstrong sued the company, and the case was settled for $7.5 million. Armstrong is also being sued by the British newspaper The Sunday Times over the settlement of a libel case in which the newspaper paid Armstrong nearly $500,000. I don’t fault Armstrong for doping, nor for lying about that to a quasi-governmental agency. However, if he sued people for millions for telling the truth about his doping… well, that’s remarkably sleazy. Even if he felt backed into a corner, that’s no excuse for abusing the law in order to intimidate people into silence. When faced with such difficult circumstances, the moral person changes course: he admits what he did openly, he defends himself by explaining his reasons, and he advocates for changes in the law. He does not sacrifice others by violating their rights. To do that means sliding rapidly down a very dangerous and degrading slippery slope. That slippery slope doesn’t just destroy a person’s character, but also undermines any capacity of mine to admire his achievements. I really, really, really hope that that’s not what we’re seeing from Lance Armstrong now. Link to Original

This series of Norman Rockwell paintings, compared with photographs used to created them, is pretty interesting. Wow though, I had a huge emotional reaction to this photo and painting: I abhor that painting, particularly in comparison to the photo. In the photo, the man is clearly obstinate and angry for unknown reasons, and the woman is concerned, appealing, and uncertain. We don’t know the story of their marriage, but it’s a stark image of marital strife. In the painting, however, the man has a very black eye, but he looks more aloof than angry. The woman is looking at him in a sly and smug way. The painting seems to be winking at serious physical abuse. If you think that it’s cute or funny, would you say the same if the sexes were reversed? I think not. The fact is that physical abuse in a marriage is abhorrent, whether perpetrated by a woman or a man. Nothing justifies it. Nothing. Link to Original

2012: The year Irish newspapers tried to destroy the web: This year the Irish newspaper industry asserted, first tentatively and then without any equivocation, that links -just bare links like this one- belonged to them. They said that they had the right to be paid to be linked to. They said they had the right to set the rates for those links, as they had set rates in the past for other forms of licensing of their intellectual property. And then they started a campaign to lobby for unauthorised linking to be outlawed. These assertions were not merely academic positions. The Newspaper Industry (all these newspapers) had its agent write out demanding money. They wrote to Women’s Aid, (amongst others) who became our clients when they received letters, emails and phone calls asserting that they needed to buy a licence because they had linked to articles in newspapers carrying positive stories about their fundraising efforts. These are the prices for linking they were supplied with: 1 – 5 €300.00 6 – 10 €500.00 11 – 15 €700.00 16 – 25 €950.00 26 – 50 €1,350.00 50 + Negotiable They were quite clear in their demands. They told Women’s Aid “a licence is required to link directly to an online article even without uploading any of the content directly onto your own website.” Recap: The Newspapers’ agent demanded an annual payment from a women’s domestic violence charity because they said they owned copyright in a link to the newspapers’ public website. This isn’t the case of a collection agent going rogue. The National Newspapers of Ireland is the representative body for Irish Newspaper Publishers. Go read the rest of the article. Many, many things irritate me about this abuse of intellectual property by Irish newspapers, but what really gets my goat is these news web sites could easily block deep linking via their webserver settings… but they choose not to do that. Why not? Obviously, because they actually want those deep links: they depend on that traffic. Still, their business model is failing. So, in a particularly nasty fit of short-sighted pragmatism, they’ve invented an utterly ridiculous legal claim of copyright infringement to compel those providers of traffic to pay them ridiculous sums of money after the fact. It’s just appalling. The good news is that (1) I can’t imagine that any courts will uphold these claims and (2) if they do, the result will only be the utter obliteration of Irish newspapers from the face of the earth. You asked for it, brothers! Link to Original

On the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I will answer questions on seeking welfare, initiating contact in friendship, poking fun at values, gay "conversion" therapy, and more. This episode of internet radio airs on Sunday morning, 6 January 2013, at 8 PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: Seeking Welfare: Is it wrong to manipulate your finances to qualify for welfare? An acquaintance of mine – who is moderately wealthy – feels justified in manipulating her finances to get government aid whenever possible on the grounds that it is "getting back" some of what she has paid. For example, she had her elderly mother buy a new car for her own use, in order to have her mother deplete her savings faster and qualify for Medicaid. However, while she had paid much in tax, her mother collects more in social security every month than she ever paid in taxes. Is it rational to view this as "getting back" money that was taken inappropriately, or is it actually immoral and self-destructive? Question 2: Initiating Contact in Friendship: Should friends initiate contact with each other roughly equally? Some of my friends never initiate contact with me. They are friendly, loyal, and otherwise great friends. But for any interaction or get-togethers, I must initiate conversation, suggest activities, and so on. Sometimes, I feel as if I value the friendship much, much more than the other person does. Is that an accurate assessment or is something else going on? Should I just seek other friends? Should I talk to these friends about this issue? (If so, what should I say?) In the future, should I seek out different kinds of friends? Question 3: Poking Fun at Values: When does humor work against my values? Sometimes, I wonder whether my jokes undermine what I value. Is it wrong to poke fun at my friends or myself? Is it wrong to joke about principles that I hold dear? How do I draw the line? Question 4: Gay "Conversion" Therapy: Was California right or wrong to ban "gay cure" therapy for minors? Recently, California banned "reparative" or "conversion" therapy – meaning, therapy that aims to make gay teenagers straight. Such therapy is widely regarded as dangerous pseudo-science by mental health professionals. The ban only applies to patients under 18. So adults can still choose such therapy for themselves, but parents cannot foist it on their minor children. Is such therapy a form of child abuse? Or should parents have the power to compel such therapy on their children, even if they're morally wrong to do so? 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. Again, if you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: 6 January 2013. I hope that you join us on Sunday morning, but if you can't attend live, be sure to listen to the podcast later! 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 the next episode of Philosophy in Action Radio, I will answer questions on the good in American culture, romance between an atheist and a believer, the limits of humor, and more. This episode of internet radio airs on Sunday morning, 30 December 2012, at 8 PT / 9 MT / 10 CT / 11 ET in our live studio. If you miss that live broadcast, you can listen to the podcast later. This week's questions are: Question 1: The Good in American Culture: How is American culture better today better than people think? I've heard lots of depressing claims about the abysmal state of American culture lately, particularly since Obama won the election. You've disputed that, arguing that America is better in its fundamentals that many people think. What are some of those overlooked but positive American values? How can they be leveraged for cultural and political change? Question 2: Romance Between an Atheist and a Believer: Can a romance between an atheist and a religious believer work? What are the major obstacles? Should the atheist attend church or church socials with his spouse? Should they have a religious wedding ceremony? Should they send their children to religious schools? Do the particular beliefs – or strength of beliefs – of the religious person matter? Question 3: The Limits of Humor: When does humor work against my values? Sometimes I wonder whether my jokes work against what I value. (For example, what's the most selfish sea creature? An Objectifish!) How do I draw the line? 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. Again, if you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio podcast from the episode posted in the archive: Radio Archive: 30 December 2012. 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. Be sure to follow Philosopy in Action via our blog, RSS feeds, and Facebook too. P.S. I've started a new thread because the old thread had "webcast" in the title, but I'm now purely on radio.

My latest piece is now up at Forbes, “The Battle Of The Narrative: How Ordinary Americans Can Fight ObamaCare“. Here is the opening: The 2012 election ensured that ObamaCare will not be repealed anytime soon. But opponents continue to fight back. 26 state governments have declined to establish insurance “exchanges.” 40 lawsuits are still pending against various aspects of ObamaCare. Ordinary Americans may not be able to directly affect these battles. But they can play a key role in the all-important battle of the “narrative.” As the problems of ObamaCare inevitably emerge, the big question will be whether they will be blamed on the residual free-market elements of our health system or on the new government controls. This will be the battle of the “narrative.” I discuss how ordinary Americans can take part in this battle for their health freedom. (Read the full text of “The Battle Of The Narrative: How Ordinary Americans Can Fight ObamaCare“.) Link to Original