dianahsieh

In Sunday morning's episode of Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio, I'll answer questions on federal, state and local government, parenting via empty threats, circumcision versus female genital mutilation, reasons for everything, and more with Greg Perkins. Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh and Greg Perkins What: Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio: Government, Empty Threats, Circumcision, and More When: Sunday, 21 October 2012, 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET Where: Philosophy in Action's Live Studio This week's questions are: Question 1: Federal, State and Local Government: Is it proper for state or local government to enact laws that a federal government should not? A proper government is one that fulfills and is limited to the role of protecting citizens from initiations of force by other individuals or other nations. However, in a free and proper society, is it proper for local and state governments to enact laws that go beyond the proper functions of a federal government? For example, in a properly-governed United States, could states enact certain laws that regulate behavior beyond what the federal government could enact, perhaps based on the religious or other values held by most people in that community – on the assumption that any person who disagreed could leave the area? Question 2: Parenting Via Empty Threats: Should parents make empty threats to their children? At the grocery store last week, I heard a mother threaten to throw away her daughter's favorite toys unless the daughter behaved. That seems to be pretty common: parents make empty threats in an attempt to scare their kids into better behavior. They'll say that it works, and perhaps it does. But what are the consequences? Are such empty threats a valid parenting technique? Question 3: Circumcision Versus Female Genital Mutilation: Is circumcision on par with female genital mutilation? Many people decry female genital mutilation, but they regard circumcision as the right of parents. Is that wrong? Question 4: Reasons for Everything: Does everything happen for a reason? When confronted with some unwelcome turn of events, many people tell themselves that "everything happens for a reason." What does that mean – and is it true? Is it harmless – or does believing that have negative effects on a person's life? 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. If you attend the live show, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask me follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio from the episode posted here: Q&A Radio: 21 October 2012. Philosophy in Action Radio broadcasts every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. For information on upcoming shows and more, visit the Episodes on Tap. I hope that you join us on Sunday morning!

Here’s an interesting thought, from a post on Kevin MD on supposedly “greedy” doctors: The extent to which the value of a service to an individual approaches infinity (such as a human life saved), is the extent to which a person expects it to be provided to them for free. Any charge for this infinitely valuable service will not be considered a very fortunate undercharge. Instead, the extent to which there is any charge at all for the infinitely valuable service, is the extent to which the receiver of the service will harbor undue resentment toward whomever profited any amount from providing it. Undoubtedly, altruism begets such resentment. (Altruism is the view that each person’s highest moral duty is to serve others.) The altruist patient resents that the doctor “takes advantage” of him by saving his life, then requiring payment for services rendered. Given his great need, the doctor should have saved his life without demanding payment, according to the altruist patient. The doctor’s bill is, on this view, morally wrong. In contrast, the rational egoist experiences gratitude in such circumstances. (Egoism holds that each person’s own life and happiness are his highest moral purpose.) He knows that the doctor saved his life — and payment is the least that he can offer in return. The egoist recognizes that the doctor is his own man, and that neither of them has a claim on the life or time of the other. Which kind of person would you like to be? P.S. Did you recognize our old friend the troll Johnny Blaze? P.P.S. Paul has some comments on this article on We Stand FIRM. Link to Original

This 2011 Japanese performance of my absolute favorite segment of music — Beethoven’s Ode to Joy — was dedicated to the survivors of the tsunami. I don’t think that the ginormous crowd of singers works well musically — at least not in this recording — yet I still appreciate the power of the performance. Initially, to see Japanese singers performing in German was a bit strange, but then I realized that such is the fruit of the globalization of culture. Japanese singers and musicians can recognize the beauty and power of a German symphony written in 1824, then perform it spectacularly. Then, I, wholly American, can enjoy it from the comfort of my home in Colorado. So many people decry the globalization of culture, thinking that it means nothing more than McDonalds and Starbucks on every corner. In fact, that’s good too, for the same reason as this performance. Globalization enables each individual person to pick and choose what he values most from around the world, rather than being limited to the cultural and economic products of his own culture. We might not always agree with other people’s choices, but we’re free to make our own. Link to Original

Earlier this week, I was chatting with my friend Santiago about the validity of defamation laws. Just to get everyone on the same page, Wikipedia summarizes defamation as follows: Defamation — also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words) — is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image. I’m particularly interested in this topic because I have a question on it in the Philosophy in Action Queue that I’d like to answer sooner rather than later. Here’s my current thinking on the matter, and I’d be interested in people’s thoughts in response. I can understand that a person might be deeply distraught to be harassed by people telling bald-faced lies about him, particularly when that costs him well-earned business. I can understand the desire to recover damages for those losses. However, even if a person should be able to do that, I’m doubtful that defamation should be a legally actionable tort in a free society. Why? First, defamation laws are too often used as a weapon to silence criticism — meaning, to violate free speech rights. If a person dislikes the criticisms of others — even if those criticisms are completely justified by the facts — he can can sue (or threaten to sue) others into silence. Alas, I have personal experience with such abuses. The cost in time, money, and anxiety of defending yourself against a false claim of defamation is ginormous. The fact that defamation lawsuits — or the threat thereof — silence speech important for living life should be deeply troubling. People should be free to speak out about their experiences with incompetent doctors, shady contractors, dishonest businesses, and the like without fear of legal reprisals. Such speech is critical to living life well, yet under defamation laws, people engage in such speech at their peril. Second, if a person unjustly attacks your reputation, defending yourself is almost always pretty easy. You simply have to say that the person is mistaken or lying, then state the facts. (Many staunch defenders of defamation laws are unwilling to do that, I’ve found: they see themselves as above any such explanations to the unwashed masses.) You can also ask forums hosting the defamatory speech to remove it or not permit more of it. Sure, some people will believe the lies, but most people worth knowing or dealing with will not just swallow them. Reasonable people will listen to you. I know that from far too much personal experience too. Third, notwithstanding those practical conerns, the critical question about the validity of defamation laws concerns the nature and scope of rights. To wit: Does a person have a right to a factually accurate reputation? A person’s reputation is the sum of the judgments that others make of him: it’s “the beliefs or opinions that are generally held about someone or something.” As such, a person cannot be entitled to a certain reputation by right. A person can influence his reputation by his words and deeds, but it’s not his property because ultimately, a person’s reputation consists of judgments in the minds of others. It’s their property, in fact. Certainly, some people believe ridiculous claims about me — yet they’re not violating my rights in doing so. They’re just jerks or chumps, but hey, that’s their right. I don’t have a right to anyone’s good opinion, even if that’s what I deserve morally. People are entitled to believe whatever they damn well please — and, I think, to say pretty much whatever they damn well please too. Yes, that speech might do me damage, but so does the speech of pastors and politicians. Ultimately, I don’t see any basis for claims of a right to reputation. Hence, at least right now, I don’t see that defamation laws can be justified. Thoughts? Link to Original

Tonight, Mittens and OBummer will debate again. So that you can watch without poking yourself in the eye with a sharp stick, I’ll host another text chat and drinking game. The debate begins at 6 pm PT / 7 pm MT / 8 pm CT / 9 pm ET. It runs for an hour and a half. You can join the text chat in Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio. Given that Romney was widely recognized as winning the first debate, I’m very curious to see what Obama’s strategy will be for this debate. If Romney wins this debate too, then I suspect he might well do the unlikely — namely, win this election. Either way, the next four years will be mighty unpleasant… but probably not as unpleasant as this election season has been. Hooray for that! Link to Original

As I mentioned on Friday, I would be hugely grateful if fans of Philosophy in Action Radio would nominate us for the Podcast Awards. You have until midnight tonight, Eastern Time, I assume. You can only submit nominations once. The nomination form is at PodcastAwards.com. Categories: “People’s Choice” and “General” Podcast Name: Philosophy in Action Podcast URL: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/dates.html To everyone who nominates us… you rock! Link to Original

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine): 12 October 2012: Proposed Limits in NY State by Paul Hsieh 11 October 2012: UK Patient Abuse by Paul Hsieh 10 October 2012: Reynolds On The Price of “Free” Health Care by Paul Hsieh 9 October 2012: Adalja on Repealing EMTALA by Paul Hsieh 9 October 2012: Quick Links: Exodus, Kryptonite by Paul Hsieh Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter. This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government: 10 October 2012: Politics Corrupts Money by Diana Hsieh Follow the Coalition for Secular Government on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard: 15 October 2012: Why Forcibly Limiting Campaign Spending is Censorship—And Why it Matters by Ari Armstrong 12 October 2012: A TOS Flier for Distribution at Atlas Shrugged II by TOS Admin 12 October 2012: Laughing Joe’s Egalitarian Aim by Ari Armstrong 11 October 2012: Craig Biddle on Common Mistakes about Ethics by TOS Admin 10 October 2012: Latest Islamist Attacks and U.S. Appeasement by Ari Armstrong 9 October 2012: Mistakes People Make in Thinking about Ethics by Craig Biddle Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo: 13 October 2012: Philosophy Weekend: Philosophy in Action Radio Preview by Diana Hsieh 12 October 2012: The Paleo Rodeo #131 by Diana Hsieh Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter. Link to Original

Due to strep throat last week and procrastination this week, I’ve been highly remiss in not asking you to nominate Philosophy in Action for the Podcast Awards. But it’s not too late! You have just three days to do so. (You can only submit nominations once.) So please go here — PodcastAwards.com — and submit us for the “People’s Choice” and “General” categories. Podcast Name: Philosophy in Action Podcast URL: http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/dates.html To everyone who does that… THANK YOU! Link to Original

In Sunday morning's episode of Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio, I'll answer questions on pursuing personal values in an imperfect world, working for the IRS versus collecting welfare, upselling to unwary customers, being like Hank Rearden, and more with Greg Perkins. Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh and Greg Perkins What: Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio: Our Imperfect World, Work Versus Welfare, and More When: Sunday, 14 October 2012, 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET Where: Philosophy in Action's Live Studio This week's questions are: Question 1: Pursuing Personal Values in an Imperfect World: Given the terrible state of the economy and culture, is it wrong to pursue your own private values? Shouldn't we all be working full time at counteracting the terrible ideas that run rampant in our culture? Is time taken away from "the good fight" in pursuit of other activities merely a useless distraction, counterproductive, and possibly immoral – as some people claim? Or is the pursuit of your own values a moral way to enjoy one's life in spite of the grim state of the culture, politics, and the economy? Question 2: Working for the IRS Versus Collecting Welfare: Is it wrong to accept Social Security disability benefits when I could work? I'm blind. Although I can work, my recent job at the IRS seemed to be so soul-draining and vexing that I determined to look elsewhere for employment. However, jobs are limited right now, and I am not sure what else I want to do at this point. Was it right for me to quit my job before having the next one lined up? In the meantime, is it moral for me to receive Social Security? Have I gone from being a maker to a taker? Question 3: Upselling to Unwary Customers: Should a waitress upsell a customer without warning when given an ambiguous order? At the restaurant where I work, we sell wine. Customers often ask for "just a red/white wine, whatever." Many servers take that as an opportunity to sell them the most expensive wine. Is that moral and/or wise? (Personally, if the customer gives me an order like that, I suggest a few options, usually the house wine and some more mid-range brands.) Should we tell the customer what wine we're selling them and its price? Should we give them the cheapest or house wine? Or should we sell them the most expensive wine, since that will generate the largest tip? Question 4: Being Like Hank Rearden: Should I try to be more like Hank Rearden? After reading Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," I've come to an important conclusion: I want to be more like Hank Rearden. What tips would you offer to someone desiring to be so awesome? 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. If you attend the live show, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask me follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio from the episode posted here: Q&A Radio: 14 October 2012. Philosophy in Action Radio broadcasts every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. For information on upcoming shows and more, visit the Episodes on Tap. I hope that you join us on Sunday morning!

In this blog post for The Objective Standard, Ari Armstrong explains that money doesn’t corrupt politics, as advocates of campaign finance laws claim. Instead, politics corrupts money: “Although the source of money is virtuous because it is production, money is corrupted when it is used to buy political favors.” Indeed, and such political favors can only be bought in a mixed economy in which some people’s rights may be violated for the right price. So if you think that campaign finance laws can keep politics pure, think again… and go read the whole post! Be sure to consider what he says about Colorado’s Amendment 65: Amendment 65 is a futile attempt by the left to solve the problems created by leftist policies. As I argued in my debate with Gordon, the censorship of political speech that Amendment 65 advocates will not solve the problem of influence peddling; it will only make that problem worse. As I pointed out, under Amendment 65, the proposed censorship laws would themselves be crafted by the influence peddlers. Demanding that the foxes guard the henhouse is not wise politics: it’s a power-grab by the foxes and their allies in the henhouse. Link to Original

During tonight’s Vice Presidential Debate between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden, I’ll be hosting another text chat, like I did for the first Presidential Debate. This time, I won’t be running a fever, so I’ll be a bit more talkative — and I should be able to join in the drinking game! The debate begins at 6 pm PT / 7 pm MT / 8 pm CT / 9 pm ET. It runs for an hour and a half. You can join the text chat in Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio. Many people are predicting that Ryan will stomp Biden. However, I think that being the expected winner can be dangerous: you can lose, even if you win, if you don’t meet people’s expectations. Since the drinking game site was overloaded at the start of the first debate, here are the rules: Link to Original

In Wednesday evening’s episode of Philosophy in Action Talk Radio, I interviewed Craig Biddle on “Common Mistakes about Ethics.” If you missed the live broadcast, you can listen to the audio podcast. You’ll find that posted below, as well as on this episode’s archive page: 10 October 2012: Craig Biddle on Common Mistakes about Ethics. Talk Radio: Episode: 10 October 2012 Episode Note: For the special 30-day trial of Audible, visit www.AudibleTrial.com/PA. 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. Craig Biddle is the editor of The Objective Standard 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, which is 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. Listen or Download: Duration: 1:08:18 Download: Standard MP3 File (15.7 MB) To automatically download every new episode, just subscribe to the Philosophy in Action Podcast RSS Feed in your music player: Enhanced M4A Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader Standard MP3 Feed: Subscribe in iTunes or your RSS reader Follow Philosophy in Action Link to Original

Over the past few months, I’ve been really pleased to see the audience for Philosophy in Action Radio grow by leaps and bounds. Mostly, that’s thanks to promotion from BlogTalkRadio, as well as our Facebook advertising. Let me give you some nuts and bolts. People listen to the show via one of three methods: (1) the live broadcast, (2) the archive on BlogTalkRadio, or (3) the high-quality archive hosted on Podbean. (That last is used by our web archive and RSS feeds.) The Live Audience My live audience regularly ranges from about 30 to 90 people. Interestingly, my live audience for my Sunday morning shows is almost always greater than for my Wednesday evening shows. The BlogTalkRadio Archive The number of people listening via BlogTalkRadio’s archive varies widely, depending on whether BlogTalkRadio promotes the show or not. Since July, when I figured out that I could ask BTR to promote my shows, each episode has averaged over 2600 listens. (That’s really pretty awesome!) Each episode ranges from a few hundred listens to many thousands. These five shows have had over 5000 listens: 5510 listens: 26 August 2012 Q&A: Third Parties, Selfish Parenting, Bigotry, and More 5533 listens: 8 July 2012 Q&A: Psychic Powers, Office Politics, Freedom, and More 5620 listens: 9 September 2012 Q&A: Rape Fears, Family Conflict, Atheist Prayer, and More 8640 listens: 16 September 2012 Q&A: Judging Others, Chivalry, Blue Laws, and More 17790 listens: 8 July 2012 Q&A: Cloning, Hypocritical Allies, Beauty, and More Here are my total live listens and downloads via BlogTalkRadio by month: Although the audio quality of BlogTalkRadio isn’t fabulous, I’m thrilled to be using a platform that brings Philosophy in Action so many new listeners. That’s really helped me break far beyond my original mostly Objectivist audience. The Podbean Archive As a result of that promotion by BlogTalkRadio, as well as the Facebook ads I’ve been running for Philosophy in Action’s Facebook Page, I’ve seen big growth in my downloads from Podbean. (Again, that’s what serves our web archive and RSS feeds.) Here’s the graph of my downloads per month for all time. (Click for the full-size image.) The graph shows the downloads for all my podcasts, including my Explore Atlas Shrugged series and my podcasts on philosophy of religion. The orange arrow indicates October 31st 2010, when I broadcast my first live “Rationally Selfish Webcast.” The blue arrow indicates April 25th, 2012, when I began broadcasting my Wednesday evening Talk Radio Show. Shortly thereafter, in mid-May, I switched the Sunday Q&A to BlogTalkRadio. Basically, you can see a ton of growth starting in March 2012. I’ve tripled my downloads since then, which makes me very, very happy. In fact, I’m soon to hit a milestone. My total downloads are 199,066 — meaning that I’m just a stone’s throw away from 200,000 download from Podbean! Our Tip Jar Alas, contributions to Philosophy in Action haven’t grown with that increase in audience. I have some changes that I want to make in order to encourage that, particularly offering special content to people who contribute. (Y’all deserve that!) In the meantime, I hope that people interested in spreading rational ideas will be enthused enough about our increasing reach to support our efforts. Even a few dollars makes a difference in my capacity to further expand Philosophy in Action’s audience. So if you’ve been thinking of contributing, please don’t wait for another day: Contribute Now. Also, my hearty thanks to everyone who has contributed, particularly to those of you who’ve created recurring monthly contributions. You’ve enabled Philosophy in Action to get this far. I’m so excited to see where we’ll go from here! Link to Original

On October 2nd, the Center for Competitive Politics posted a press release about the questions that Judge Kane is sending to the Colorado Supreme Court for CSG’s campaign finance lawsuit. It’s very interesting news, because until very recently, I didn’t even know that this could be part of the legal process. (Look, it’s federalism in action! Nifty!) CONTACT: Sarah Lee, Communications Director, 770.598.7961 ALEXANDRIA, Va. – A federal judge today issued an order seeking clarification by the Colorado Supreme Court of the state’s campaign finance laws. Senior Judge John L. Kane of the United States Court for the District of Colorado asked the state Supreme Court to “provide clear guidance… as to the scope and meaning” of provisions that have been challenged under the First Amendment to the US Constitution Judge Kane’s order was made in connection with a case brought by the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) on behalf of the Coalition for Secular Government (CSG). The case, over which Judge Kane presides, is Coalition for Secular Government v. Gessler, No. 12-cv-1708. The judge’s order noted that the “lawsuit raises First Amendment challenges to several provisions of Colorado campaign finance law that remain undefined by the Colorado Constitution, Article XXVIII’s implementing legislation, or caselaw from Colorado courts.” CSG alleges that, even though it plans to raise no more than $3,500–nearly all of which will go toward updating and disseminating a public policy paper–the state constitution appears to demand that CSG register as an issue committee if its papers take a position on ballot measures. Such registration would force CSG to maintain several new types of records, file periodic reports, turn over the names and addresses of contributors who donate as little as $20 toward financing the policy paper, and risk substantial fines should it err in its public filings. Judge Kane certified four questions. These include: Does the Colorado Constitution treat money spent on a policy paper, including one that suggests how the reader should vote on a ballot initiative, as the equivalent of money spent on political ads? Does the state constitution entitle policy papers distributed over the internet to be treated in the same way as newspaper and magazine editorials for purposes of campaign finance law? In light of a federal decision declaring certain groups too small to be regulated by the state of Colorado, what is the monetary trigger for an issue committee under the state constitution? Is it the roughly-$1,000 mentioned in the federal opinion? The $3,500 contemplated by CSG? The $200 mentioned in the constitution itself? Or another number altogether? While the Colorado Supreme Court is not required to answer Judge Kane’s questions, doing so would provide some welcome guidance on these important questions. “For years, organizations in Colorado have been unsure how to comply with Colorado’s campaign finance rules, or have been subject to politically-motivated complaints for making minor errors,” CCP Legal Director Allen Dickerson said. “Some choose not to speak at all in the face of this situation. The Colorado Supreme Court now has the option of bringing a measure of predictability to some of the state constitution’s more difficult provisions.” Judge Kane’s order, which includes a brief description of the case, may be found here. Here are the four questions certified in their technical language: 1. Is the policy paper published by the Coalition for Secular Government (CSG) in 2010 “express advocacy” under Art. XXVIII, S 2(8)(a) of the Colorado Constitution? 2. If the policy paper is express advocacy, does it qualify for the press exemption found at Art. XXVIII, S 2(8)( ? 3. Is the policy paper a “written or broadcast communication” under S 1-45-103(12)( (II)( , C.R.S.? If not, did it become a “written or broadcast communication” when it was posted to CSG’s blog or Facebook page? 4. In light of Sampson v. Buescher, 625 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2010), what is the monetary trigger for Issue Committee status under Art. XXVIII S2(10)(a)(II) of the Colorado Constitution? I’ll be very interested to see how the Colorado Supreme Court rules on these questions — and then what Judge Kane says about that. I’m excited by the prospect of at least clarifying Colorado campaign finance law, let alone striking down some of its most burdensome elements. Also, I’ll have some news about the forthcoming updates to Ari Armstrong’s and my 2010 paper — The “Personhood” Movement Is Anti-Life — soon. Although “personhood” won’t be on the ballot in Colorado due insufficient signatures, the movement has grown dramatically in influence over the past year, as seen in the GOP primary. Hence, Ari and I are determined to update the policy paper to reflect that. Alas, my being so sick last week blew apart our plans. We’ve made a new plan, and it’s a better plan, I think. You can expect some announcements about that later this week. Just know that, once again, we will need your support to make it happen! Link to Original

In Wednesday evening’s episode of Philosophy in Action Talk Radio, I’ll interview Craig Biddle on “Mistakes about Ethics.” Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh, with Craig Biddle, plus live callers What: Philosophy in Action Talk Radio: Craig Biddle on Mistakes about Ethics When: Wednesday, 10 October 2012, 6 pm PT / 7 pm MT / 8 pm CT / 9 pm ET Where: Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio 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. Craig Biddle is the editor of The Objective Standard 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, which is 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. 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 call the show with your questions and experiences, as well as post comments and questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you’ll find the audio from the episode posted here: 10 October 2012: Craig Biddle on Mistakes about Ethics. Philosophy in Action Radio broadcasts every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. For information on upcoming shows and more, visit the Episodes on Tap. I hope that you join us tomorrow evening! Link to Original

On the evening of Monday, October 22nd, I’ll be speaking to the Secular Students and Skeptics Society at CU Boulder on whether Christianity is compatible with capitalism. The talk will start at 6:30 pm; it will run about 20 minutes, plus Q&A. It’ll be in Hellems 199. Regular folks — meaning non-students — are welcome to join us. (Yes, I find that picture completely hysterical.) Here’s a bit more about the talk: The Unholy Union of Christianity and Capitalism For over three decades, conservatives have actively worked to blend free markets with Christian values. The GOP’s ticket this year — Mormon Mitt Romney and Catholic Paul Ryan — is no exception. Yet in fact, Christianity cannot be reconciled with free markets or capitalism. Christian scriptures are explicitly opposed to worldly values like rationality, planning for the future, the accumulation of wealth, and individual rights. This talk will expose the basic ideological contradictions of pro-capitalist Christians, as well as challenge the skeptics and secularists who admire the ethical teachings of Jesus. Secular Students and Skeptics Society, CU Boulder University of Colorado at Boulder, Hellems 199 Monday, 22 October 2012, 6:30 pm It’ll be a fun talk: I always enjoy a bit of Bible study! So if you’re local, please join us! Link to Original

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine): 7 October 2012: Madianos and Vecchio Speak Out For Freedom by Paul Hsieh 6 October 2012: Insurance Is the Problem by Paul Hsieh 5 October 2012: RomneyCare For The States? by Paul Hsieh 4 October 2012: Catron and Wolf on Biden by Paul Hsieh 4 October 2012: Quick Links: Choosing Doctor, Refusing Insurance by Paul Hsieh 3 October 2012: Hsieh Forbes OpEd: Get Ready For Obamacare’s Medical Rationing by Paul Hsieh 3 October 2012: Physicians Quitting? by Paul Hsieh 2 October 2012: Personal DNA Testing by Paul Hsieh 2 October 2012: The City Without Medicine by Paul Hsieh 1 October 2012: Hsieh PJM OpEd: The Harms of Medical Licensing Laws by Paul Hsieh Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter. This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government: 4 October 2012: Link-O-Rama by Diana Hsieh 3 October 2012: Philosophy in Action Radio Tonight: Cancelled by Diana Hsieh 3 October 2012: A Religious Wedding for an Atheist Groom: Philosophy in Action Podcast by Diana Hsieh 3 October 2012: Preview: Philosophy in Action Radio: The First Presidential Debate by Diana Hsieh 2 October 2012: Ari Armstrong: Free Speech Versus Amendment 65 by Diana Hsieh Follow the Coalition for Secular Government on Facebook and Twitter. This week on Mother of Exiles: 2 October 2012: Repost: Harry Binswanger on Open Immigration by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela Follow Mother of Exiles on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard: 7 October 2012: Sesame Street to PBS: “Don’t Be a Bully” by Ari Armstrong 6 October 2012: When Politics Corrupts Money by Ari Armstrong 5 October 2012: Archbishop’s Claim that Gay Marriage Threatens Religious Freedom is a Threat to Religious Freedom by Michael A. LaFerrara 4 October 2012: “Trickle Down Government”: Obama’s Economic Vision by Ari Armstrong 3 October 2012: The Question that Matters in this Presidential Election by Ari Armstrong 1 October 2012: The Meaning of Obama’s Government “Investments” by Ari Armstrong Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo: 7 October 2012: Food Safety in a Free Society: Philosophy in Action Podcast by Diana Hsieh 5 October 2012: The Paleo Rodeo #130 by Diana Hsieh 2 October 2012: Polyphenols and Xenohormesis (How things like resveratrol, curcumin and ginseng work) by Christian Wernstedt 1 October 2012: Easy Sautéed Pineapple by Diana Hsieh Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter. Link to Original

PJ Media has published my latest OpEd, “How Medical Licensing Laws Harm Patients and Trap Doctors“. My twin themes are that (1) Government licensing of doctors is both morally and economically wrong, and (2) the interaction between current licensing laws and upcoming ObamaCare laws will harm both patients and doctors in unanticipated ways. This piece is adapted from a short talk I recently gave on Milton Friedman and medical licensing. I don’t agree with Friedman on some important issues, but he was excellent on the issue of occupational licensure. I also cite economist Shirly Svorny and Dr. Milton Wolf for their proposals to move us in the right direction. Link to Original

Ari Armstrong published an excellent op-ed in Sunday’s Denver Post against the campaign finance measure on Colorado’s ballot, Amendment 65. The whole op-ed is worth reading, but I particularly enjoyed his argument that restrictions on campaign spending are restrictions on speech. He writes: Voters must observe that limiting campaign spending means limiting spending on speech. You have no right of free speech if you cannot spend your resources how you want on speech. With the possible exception of shouting over panhandlers on a street corner, every form of speech requires the expenditure of resources. To write for an audience, you need computers, Internet connections, copy machines, books, or newspapers. To speak, you need microphones, podcasts, film equipment, radio signals, or television transmissions. Spending money on speech is part of speaking. Controlling spending on speech is controlling speech itself. Yes! That’s exactly why free speech depends on property rights — and the “dictators of the proletariat” understood that. The Soviet Union didn’t ban the free press directly in its early years: it simply nationalized all printing presses. Ari then observes: The very idea that government should attempt, through force, to “level the playing field” in the realm of communication and ideas is pernicious. It is the government’s proper job to protect each individual’s right to speak freely, whether alone or as part of a group, not to forcibly silence some voices so that others face less competition. Certainly, I’ve felt that heavy burden in speaking against Colorado’s “personhood” amendments in 2008 and 2010, as I described in detail in my December 2011 testimony. No advocate of campaign finance regulations has ever directly addressed the huge contradiction between their stated goals with campaign finance regulations and my experience as an ordinary citizen attempting to speak out. It’s infuriating. In addition to this excellent op-ed, Ari gave this short speech on Amendment 65 at a local forum on the election: Ari deserves the thanks of every Colorado resident for his work advocating our rights to speak freely! Link to Original

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine): 29 September 2012: Quick Links: Armstrong, Goodman, Bayh by Paul Hsieh 28 September 2012: NYT Openly Advocates Rationing by Paul Hsieh 27 September 2012: Obama and Romney Health Policy Statements in NEJM by Paul Hsieh 26 September 2012: Two From the NYT by Paul Hsieh 25 September 2012: Quick Links: War, Outlawed Plans, Replacement Docs by Paul Hsieh 25 September 2012: Catron on Obama’s AARP Speech by Paul Hsieh 24 September 2012: Gottleib on the Degradation of Medical Practice by Paul Hsieh Follow FIRM on Facebook and Twitter. This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government: 29 September 2012: A Religious Wedding for an Atheist Groom: Philosophy in Action Sunday Radio by Diana Hsieh 24 September 2012: Link-O-Rama by Diana Hsieh Follow the Coalition for Secular Government on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of The Objective Standard: 30 September 2012: Objective Standard Mini-Conference, Dallas by TOS Admin 29 September 2012: Global Wealth “Redistribution” for Equal Poverty: The Egalitarian Ideal by Ari Armstrong 28 September 2012: Government Control of Medicine Necessitates Rationing by Ari Armstrong 27 September 2012: Obama’s Apology vs. Responsibility Regarding the Libyan Murderers by Michael A. LaFerrara 26 September 2012: Romney vs. Romney on Coercive Wealth Redistribution by Michael A. LaFerrara 25 September 2012: Richard Salsman: Religion of Democracy Undermines Rights by Ari Armstrong 24 September 2012: The Meaning of Appeasement in the Middle East by Ari Armstrong 24 September 2012: TOS Seeking Web Developer by TOS Admin Follow The Objective Standard on Facebook and Twitter. This week on The Blog of Modern Paleo: 29 September 2012: Philosophy Weekend: Philosophy in Action Radio Preview by Diana Hsieh 28 September 2012: The Paleo Rodeo #129 by Diana Hsieh Follow Modern Paleo on Facebook and Twitter. Link to Original

In Sunday morning's episode of Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio, I'll answer questions on greed in the NFL dispute with referees, a religious wedding for an atheist groom, preventing information overload, food safety in a free society, and more with Greg Perkins. Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh and Greg Perkins What: Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio: NFL Referees, Religious Weddings, Food Safety, and More When: Sunday, 30 September 2012, 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET Where: Philosophy in Action's Live Studio This week's questions are: Question 1: Greed in the NFL Dispute with Referees: Were the NFL owners guilty of greed in their dispute with the referees? Until earlier this week, the NFL was in a labor dispute with its referees, and so the first three weeks of games used replacement referees. Those replacements, however well-meaning, simply weren't capable of performing up to the standard required in the NFL. Games were rife with missed or wrong calls, dangerously dirty play, and out-of-control fights. Commentators and fans were disgusted and furious, particularly after the touchdown ruling in Monday night's game between the Packers and the Seahawks. That furor seemed to force the NFL's hand. An agreement with the regular referees was reached on Wednesday night. Before that, lots of people claimed that the NFL owners were motivated by "greed." Is that right? If the NFL hadn't brought back the regular referees, should fans have boycotted games? Question 2: A Religious Wedding for an Atheist Groom: Should an atheist refuse to have a religious wedding? I'm an atheist, but my fiancée is a not-terribly-devout Christian. My parents – and her parents too – are Christian. Everyone wants and expects us to have a religious wedding, but I don't want that. My future wife would be willing to have a secular wedding, but she prefers a religious one. Mostly, she doesn't want to argue with her parents over it. Should I insist on a secular wedding? Or should I just let this one go? What's the harm, either way? Question 3: Preventing Information Overload: How can I prevent information overload? What are some good ways to limit the amount of information I process in the age of the internet? Besides Philosophy in Action, I follow several other podcasts, blogs and news feeds. What's the best way to prioritize and limit my inputs without feeling like I'm missing something important? How can I retain the information I process and not feel like I'm jumping from one feed to the next without remembering anything? Question 4: Food Safety in a Free Society: How would the government protect the safety of food and drugs in a free society? Would the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) exist in free society? If so, would food or drugs have to gain FDA approval to be sold? Would it have the power to remove food or drugs deemed unsafe from the market? If not, what would protect consumers from harm due to adulterated or otherwise unsafe food or drugs? 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. If you attend the live show, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask me follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you'll find the audio from the episode posted here: Q&A Radio: 30 September 2012. Philosophy in Action Radio broadcasts every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. For information on upcoming shows and more, visit the Episodes on Tap. I hope that you join us on Sunday morning!

Some people are friendly and considerate as a matter of cultivated character. They’re consistently pleasant and accommodating toward others — absent some good reason for different behavior, such as knowing that the person is a major asshat. They’re that way to everyone, whatever their social position, including to cab drivers, help desk operators, grocery clerks, strangers on the elevator, receptionists, baristas, janitors, neighbors, and more. Some people, however, are only pleasant and accommodating to people they deem important — usually, people higher up on their idea of the “food chain,” like their boss. Such people aren’t selectively friendly and considerate; they aren’t friendly and considerate at all. They’re just pretending to be so — and then, when they don’t see any benefit from that, the mask falls away, revealing their true character: self-absorbed, scornful, belligerent, and demanding. Such people — the self-absorbed, scornful, belligerent, and demanding type — should be avoided whenever possible. They’re manipulative and dishonest. They see the world in terms of dog-eat-dog hierarchies of control and domination, not mutually beneficial trade. They trample on the people they see as beneath them, and they suck up to the people they see as above them. They’re always looking to get the better of others, and they’re happy to hurt people as they claw their way to the top. They’re practiced in their ways, and they always play their manipulative games better than honest traders can. This recent article in the Wall Street Journal — The Receptionist Is Watching You — reminded me of all that. Want that job? Better be nice to the receptionist. Job seekers might not know it, but an interview often begins the moment they walk through the door. Candidates usually save their “best behavior” for the hiring manager and assume administrative assistants are automatons whose opinions don’t matter. But assistants are not only close to the boss, they’re generally sharp observers who can instantly sense whether someone will fit in with company culture, says Karlena Rannals, president of the International Association of Administrative Professionals, which represents 21,000 members. It’s just one way companies are filtering candidates in a tight labor market where more applicants are vying for fewer openings, experts say. And: Administrative assistants aren’t the only ones watching. Sometimes crucial impressions are formed even earlier than the first meeting, if an applicant has been communicating with administrative staff to make logistical arrangements for, say, an in-person meeting or a videoconference. “Smart recruiters ask for feedback from the travel agent, the driver from the car service that picked you up at the airport, and the admin that walked you around all day,” says Rusty Rueff, who once headed HR at PepsiCo and Electronic Arts and now is a board director at workplace-review site Glassdoor.com. Remember, if you’re not friendly and considerate to the security guard, the receptionist, and the barista, then you’re not a friendly and considerate — and people will notice. And, if you see that kind of behavior, beware! Link to Original

In Sunday morning’s episode of Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio, I’ll answer questions on greed in the NFL dispute with referees, a religious wedding for an atheist groom, preventing information overload, food safety in a free society, and more with Greg Perkins. What: Philosophy in Action Q&A Radio: 30 September 2012 Who: Dr. Diana Hsieh and Greg Perkins When: Sunday, 30 September 2012, 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET Where: Philosophy in Action’s Live Studio This week’s questions are: Question 1: Greed in the NFL Dispute with Referees: Were the NFL owners guilty of “greed” in their dispute with the referees? Until earlier this week, the NFL was in a labor dispute with its referees, and so the first three weeks of games used replacement referees. Those replacements, however well-meaning, simply weren’t capable of performing up to the standard required in the NFL. Games were rife with missed or wrong calls, dangerously dirty play, and out-of-control fights. Commentators and fans were disgusted and furious, particularly after the touchdown ruling in Monday night’s game between the Packers and the Seahawks. That furor seemed to force the NFL’s hand. An agreement with the regular referees was reached on Wednesday night. Before that, lots of people claimed that the NFL owners were motivated by “greed.” Is that right? If the NFL hadn’t brough back the regular referees, should fans have boycotted games? Question 2: A Religious Wedding for an Atheist Groom: Should an atheist refuse to have a religious wedding? I’m an atheist, but my fiancée is a not-terribly-devout Christian. My parents – and her parents too – are Christian. Everyone wants and expects us to have a religious wedding, but I don’t want that. My future wife would be willing to have a secular wedding, but she prefers a religious one. Mostly, she doesn’t want to argue with her parents over it. Should I insist on a secular wedding? Or should I just let this one go? What’s the harm, either way? Question 3: Preventing Information Overload: How can I prevent information overload? What are some good ways to limit the amount of information I process in the age of the internet? Besides Philosophy in Action, I follow several other podcasts, blogs and news feeds. What’s the best way to prioritize and limit my inputs without feeling like I’m missing something important? Hoe can I retain the information I process and not feel like I’m jumping from one feed to the next without remembering anything? Question 4: Food Safety in a Free Society: How would the government protect the safety of food and drugs in a free society? Would the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) exist in free society? If so, would food or drugs have to gain FDA approval to be sold? Would it have the power to remove food or drugs deemed unsafe from the market? If not, what would protect consumers from harm due to adulterated or otherwise unsafe food or drugs? 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. If you attend the live show, you can share your thoughts with other listeners and ask me follow-up questions in the text chat. If you miss the live broadcast, you’ll find the audio from the episode posted here: Q&A Radio: 30 September 2012. Philosophy in Action Radio broadcasts every Sunday morning and Wednesday evening. For information on upcoming shows and more, visit the Episodes on Tap. I hope that you join us on Sunday morning! Link to Original

Some people say, “How can you post on silly stuff like liquid nitrogen and ping-pong balls when we’re facing global economic collapse and the prospect of concentration camps if Obama is re-elected?!?” (#WAKEUP #ROMEISBURNING, and all that.) I say, “Why work yourself up about silly stuff like the politics and the election when there’s awesome videos involving liquid nitrogen and ping-pong balls to watch on the internet?!?” Wasn’t that so much better than watching some ridiculously infuriating interview with Mittens or Obummer? Link to Original

As folks know, I’m very ho-hum about this election for reasons that I explained in this radio segment. I despise OBummer and Mittens. In fact, the only thing that irritates me more than those statist jackasses are the blowhards who toss off moral condemnations based on nothing more than a person’s planned vote for president. (Undoubtedly, that is the least significant political action that a person can take all year. No wait, posting rants to Facebook is even less significant.) Nonetheless, I loosely follow the election news, and I was interested to read this analysis by the insightful Doug Mataconis about the flailing of Mittens’ campaign. After talking about how Ann Romney is upset that conservatives are criticizing the campaign, he writes: The Romney campaign has been blundering its way through the General Election in a manner that seems rather bizarre given the manner in which they operated during the Republican primaries. Granted, running against Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich is in no way like running against a professional campaign organization like Obama For America, but at least in those days people supportive of Romney’s candidacy could point to a campaign that seemed to be operating the way a campaign that wants to win an election operates. Then, something happened after Romney won the election and, for some reason, the Romney campaign seemed wholly unable to either respond to the Obama campaign’s attacks against it and now seems as gaffe prone [as] Rick Perry was a [year] ago. Is it really any wonder that some of Romney’s fellow Republicans aren’t very happy with the situation right now? While some of them are no doubt acting out of self-interest (and what’s wrong with that?), there are others who are just clearly frustrated by watching yet another Republican campaign blunder its way through an election. Since the very outset, this election has been the Republican’s to lose. That’s what they seem to be doing — in their usual style. That doesn’t make me happy. I don’t look forward to another four years of Obama. Even worse, I suspect that the GOP will run an even worse crop of candidates in 2016 — meaning, more theocratic and more statist. That seems impossible, I know, but Republicans are capable of amazing feats of idiocy. Link to Original