Little Big Man

My responses would be: 1) The will of the majority (i.e., a mandate) is irrelevant: the morality of the policy is what matters. Now, one might think that, without a mandate, there will be a terrible backlash. Well, that involves two assumptions: ( a ) that governments have a mandate to do most of the changes they do, and ( b ) FPO would effect changes with such a negative impact that people would rebel at the time of re-election. ( a ) is false: most of what the government does it lacks a mandate to do. This is mostly due to the fact that the majority of people have insufficient knowledge to consent to, or to reject, the policies. They don't know: they trust the party in power to know FOR them. That has always been true, and it will always be true. ( b ) is false: FP isn't proposing an overnight transformation to a capitalist economy. You will note that despite the fact that FPO proposes competition and private sector options for health care and education, it never proposes privatization of OHIP or of government-run schools. The fact - as we all know - is that such things would probably run themselves out of business in about one year...or else they would start satisfying their customers (which seems highly unlikely). Thus, the fate of those systems would be in the hands of the consumer, not in the hands of the party or of the government. The public tend not to backlash against themselves. 2) Yes, the media and professionals do look at the policies, which is why FPO issued its 2007 election platform a full two years prior to the election. It's not that you don't need policies. It's just that the broad electorate couldn't give a damn about them. One must have policies, but having them is all that the public requires. Content, to them, is irrelevant because they cannot understand it, or choose not to. They just leave it to those who want to run the government...just as the public leaves the problem of telephonic communication to others. They just use the product, they don't understand it. 3) Any criticism of FPO's longevity applies in equal measure to the Liberals and PCs. This is, again, because the public cannot tell them apart, by and large. They TRUST one party more than another, but their fears are not based upon an understanding of policy. They are based on things like a cover of Mcleans showing a picture of Stockwell day next to the word (in huge type) SCARY. Not at all. Education must happen and, in fact, Freedom Party International's role is/will be to promote the PHILOSOPHY and its application to issues of the day. It is not an electoral party, but it holds all of the intellectual property used by its affiliated political parties: the name, the tiger, the logo, etc.. As for the idea that nobody should bother with a political party until the populace has been converted to Objectivism: that is an intellectually dishonest argument if, at the same time, one is telling people that they should vote Democrat or vote Republican. If it's too early for a political party, voting has no place in an objectivists life. If voting does have a place in an objectivist's life - and I would submit that it must, even if only as a matter of self-defence - then it is not wrong to form or support an objectivist political party...and, CERTAINLY, not wrong if it's somehow right for an objectivist to support or promote liberal or conservative political parties. Moreover, I happen to know that even Leonard Peikoff has communicated to FP, and said that if the party can conduct itself without violating its principles, it will indeed have done a good thing. Keep in mind that Rand was concerned about Libertarians when she spoke out against getting involved. Her reasoning, as any objectivist should know, is set out at the end of her "What is Capitalism?" speech: the biggest enemy is the man who tries to advocate capitalism on grounds OTHER THAN ethical/moral. The Libertarians are and were a party that is opposed to the adoption or promotion of any one moral defence of capitalism: libertarianism is methodically anti-philosophical, and tends to embrace and found their position on the words of Humeian skeptics and "greater good" utilitarian economists. Rand was concerned that a party so VOCAL about capitalism would entirely DESTROY attempts to promote capitalism by completely missing the only valid defence for it: ETHICS...specifically, rational egoism. Freedom Party, I think you will find, puts rationalism front and centre...just read the party leader's intro to the 2007 election platform. The disaster wasn't due to unprincipled voting. It was due to socialism (and the effects of a contraction in the money supply as we made the switch from Keynesianism to Monetarism in terms of central banking policy), tax increases, deficit spending, etc.. I.e., bad government was due to bad government, not due to an election. In the face of public outrage and the threat of doctors' striks, Ontario was switched from a competitive system of health insurance to a tax-funded government monopoly in one day: October 1, 1969. The PCs, who imposed that monopoly and imposed the provincial income tax to pay for it, remained in power until 1985. A full third of the FPO election platform is: promising to reverse that decision. If an FPO government made that change in its first year, there would be no outcry 4 years later...especially because taxes would be much lower, and people would finally have a family doctor again. You can count the number of interested objectivists on 5 to 10 pairs of hands. Five or 10 people will NOT cause thousands of red Tory or Liberal socialists to convert their party's ideology to objectivism. People who get involved in politics are not seeking to promote a philosophy: that's not the job of a political party. The job of a poltical party is: to seize the reigns of governmental power and use them in accordance with the aims of the party. The product being sold by a political party is: a SENSE OF LIFE. Objectivists are needed to ensure that policies are at all times consistent with the philosophy, and to ensure that the right ARGUMENTS are used to defend the party's proposals...that is what the Libertarians fail to do. Beyond that, anyone can support a sense of life without having any CONSCIOUS understanding of their philosophy. The flaw in inherent in the strategy of joining altruistic political parties and trying to change them from within is made clear by Rand's razor.

I think you are missing the point. Lets say that the government taxes its four taxpayers (A, B, C, and D) to provide a services to all of them. Later, the government continues to provide the same services to all of them, but ceases to tax A. Your answer: "Better for A". I agree with you to that extent. However, you are missing the inevitable: "Worse for B, C, and D". Why? Because B, C, and D will now have their tax burdens INCREASED. Why? Because the government has continued to provide services to a person who is not paying for them: A. There's no getting out of it: if a tax cut is targetted to only a subset of service recipients, then the rest of the recipients MUST pay more taxes UNLESS we change the quality or quantity of the service provided. And, even were it the case that services were decreases sufficiently to avoid an explicit tax increase for B, C, and D, that would still be a tax increase for B, C, and D: getting less for the same price is the same as getting the same amount for more. Moral praise for a tax cut only for A is IMPLICITLY moral praise for a tax increase for B, C, and D. That is why an "across the board" tax cut is (with some exceptions) the only MORAL type of tax cut. A simplified exception: reversal of a past injustice. For example. If, a year after A was the only guy to get a tax cut, the government suddenly gives the an tax cut of equal size to B, C, and D, but not to A, then the net result is that A, B, C, and D have, finally, received an "across the board" tax cut. You are only looking at the tax side of the equation. Look at the expenditure side too: a government SERVICE is a subsidy if the recipient didn't pay for it. Consider the example above: A is given a tax cut but B, C, and D are not, yet all of A, B, C, and D continue to recieve services. That is a subsidy in the form of government SERVICES to A. That's why Milton Friedman correctly observed that a tax cut to A is actually a "subsidy" if the services received by A aren't reduced along with the cut in taxes payable by A. I never suggested anything of the sort. Again: the subsidy takes the form of government services that continue to be received by A even after he stops paying for them. Those services are paid for by B, C, and D. Therefore, B, C, and D are subsidizing A...not with money, but with the services bought with money. I agree. I just disagree that some of the things that called "tax cuts" are actually tax cuts. If the service provided to A is not decreased when his tax burden is decreased, that means that those services are being subsidized by B, C, and D. A tax cut only to A in such circumstances is not truly a "tax cut". It's a subsidy that is masquerading as a tax cut. Freedom Party is opposed to hiding subsidies via such tax measures...we're opposed to subsidies period, but the worst type is the type that nobody can easily identify and quantify: you have to identify something before you can condemn it, and annihilate it. FP doesn't claim that getting subsidies out of the tax system is not the be-all and end-all. It is just one step toward a freer society. Socialism wasn't imposed overnight, and freedom cannot feasibly be restored overnight. One needs to take such steps. Agreed. Not at all. Hopefully, I have explained to you why FPO regards some "tax cuts" as just subsidies in disguise. Subsidies are unjust and morally reprehensible. Luckily for you, that is NOT the message being conveyed by Freedom Party. Freedom Party of Ontario is not promoting a philosophy. It is trying to win seats. The party is morally opposed to taxation, but that does not mean that it should be so foolish as to suggest that all immoral conduct must be eliminated at once, over night, in a revolutionary style. Rand did not suggest such a thing, and a call for revolution is not only naive and bound to fail but - were it temporarily successful - the backlash from an altruistic society would put the cause of freedom back a thousand years. Take it easy champ. We're on your side.

That overlooks what I was saying about how people vote though: they don't go looking to find out what policies are being proposed by each party. Policy is not a consideration for most people when they vote. That's as true for FPO as it is for the Libs and PCs. One cannot get stressed, or see ones pet benefit at risk, if one hasn't heard many negative things about the party in question. Trust me: most people haven't heard anything at all about most political parties (FPO included), much less anything stressful. When a good number of people are stressed by FPO's "lower taxes, a better life" message, that will be progress: awareness in the public mind. At that point, the (at least implicitly) moral debate can commence (e.g., should the government prevent a person from using their own money to pay for their own health care?). I have little doubt that, on a policy-by-policy basis, there is sufficient electoral support for a platform like that offerred by FPO: remember, FPO doesn't need to sell objectivism itself. Keep in mind that people did not vote the NDP into a majority government in 1990 by reason of its election platform. The NDP got sucked into a power vacuum because the PCs still had far too negative an association to replace the Liberals. People voted NDP by default, not distinguishing socialism from capitalism, altruism from egoism, reason from faith. It may be sad, but it is true, that many people second-hand their way through the voting process. The record of voting in this country suggests that may never change. One who intends to run for office in the present has to deal with the facts that reality presents one with at this point in time. At present, the fact is that (a) yes, most folks are altruists, but ( that's irrelevant, because they don't vote according to party ideology or policy. They vote for the biggest party that is not stressful to them. FPO has never formed a government so, like the NDP in 1990, it would be difficult for the voter to hold a strong negative feeling about FPO. Not exactly. I agree entirely that a great many people operate on codes of ethics that they have never considered conciously. However, the fact that a voter has an implicitly or explicitly altruistic philosophy does not mean that he or she morally evaluates the policies (or the philosophies) of the parties they vote for. There is no moral evaluation of the party or its policies when ones only criterion is: "Do I hold such negative FEELINGS about this party that I will not vote for it?". That is not to say that such a voting strategy cannot itself be condemned on moral grounds...it is only to say that the strategy does not involve a moral evaluation of the party or its policies.

This means putting an end to the practice of subsidizing people/companies with tax policy. Collecting less tax from person A but not from person B puts onto person B's shoulders a greater percentage of the burden of paying for government expenditures (unless expenditures to A are decreased proportionately to the decrease in his tax burden). There are many ways in which tax policy is used to "pay" subsidies to people: targeted tax deductions, tax credits, progressive rates of taxation (originally recommended by Marx) etc.. Freedom Party's message, in the quoted line, means: "If the government is going to hand money out to people, it should give them a cheque, not a tax break". THAT way, we know EXACTLY how much money is being given to them, and exactly how much OTHERS are being forced to pay for services delivered, by government, to the non-payors. This policy is about establishing transparency and accountability. The party isn't suggesting that people should receive more money: this policy is just about making sure we know how much wealth is being transferred. This is addressed somewhat by McKeever in this video: Essentially: a capital gains tax is a tax on property that has already been paid for with after-tax dollars. It is what tax policy wonks call a "wealth tax". It is a tax on what you have, merely because you own it, and not because your ownership of it costs anyone anything. Taxes on income are offensive, but taxes on wealth are even more offensive because they are taxes on things bought with after-tax income: wealth taxes are salt in the wound. Taxes on sales are the least offensive tax for at least one reason: when a person buys or sells a product or service, a contract is formed. The state is expected to spend money on courts, court staff, judges, sherriffs offices etc. should either party to the contract breach the terms of the contract. By taxing a sale, there is at least some connection between the payment of the tax and the receipt of a government service. Moreover, there are practical reasons for preferring sales taxes, including: money earned but saved is not taxed unless and until it is spent, so tax-free wealth accumulation is possible when the only tax is a sales tax. a sales tax does not descriminate on the basis of such things as the wealth or income of the buyer/seller: a single rate applies to all purchases, regardless of the identities of the seller and purchaser. sales taxes are imposed at the time of the sale, as part of the purchase cost. In contrast, an invoice (or demand for the payment of) income or wealth taxes can arrive in the mail: such taxes create a debt out of thin air, very suddenly, without any action on the part of the taxpayer. One day, the man sitting quietly in his back yard is debt free. The next, he is $50k in the hole. His sin: owning something or producing something. Freedom Party is not for wild-eyed revolutionaries who want to eliminate every wrong done by government in about 1.5 weeks (and who, as a result, will be too frightening ever to be trusted with a seat in the legislature). The party recognizes that socialism wasn't imposed in a day, and it will take time to eliminate it. Accordingly, FP takes the approach of eliminating the most offensive taxes first, and proceeding down the list toward the lesser offensive ones. FP, in short, sets a direction with philosophy, and sets an extent/speed with political feasibility. Paul McKeever put it this way in the Foreward to the Policies of the Freedom Party of Ontario:

In my view, the great majority of people have always, and will always, live their entire lives - from cradle to grave - without ever even having tried to identify the moral code according to which they make their decisions. Contrary to what Ms. Rand said, I think that that is a good thing for an objectivist political party, not a bad thing. In fact, in terms of electoral politics, its worse: the great majority of voters never vote according to policy, and never know the policies (if any) of the party/candidate for whom they are voting. The underappreciated secret of electoral politics - a secret missed by even the most intelligent - is that people don't vote FOR parties: they vote AGAINST them. Let me explain. If you have a limited budget and a working vehicle that is not causing you too much distress or discomfort, you are extremely unlikely to spend any time looking at new cars at car dealerships. The very same phenomenon applies in electoral politics: unless the party in power is causing a sufficient number of voters too much distress and discomfort, most voters will not bother looking at any other party than the party in power. They will just enter the polling booth, and vote for the status quo. Here's part 2 of the secret. When a sufficient number of voters is sufficiently distressed or uncomfortable with the governing party, they will vote for another party instead. Which party? How do they choose? Well first of all, it is important to remember that their goal is not "better policies". Their ONLY GOAL is: getting rid of the thing that is causing them distress and discomfort; getting rid of the politicians that comprise the governing party. They choose a criterion for party selection that most rationally suits their goal: the PROBABILITY that, by voting for party X, they will get rid of the thing that is causing them distress and discomfort: the governing party. They do NOT look for POLICIES. They do NOT look for PHILOSOPHIES. They don't even NOTICE such things, for the most part. Like a young boy who cannot keep his eyes off of a bountiful female chest, they focus solely on the single factor: the power, the size, the probability, that the party they vote for will have sufficient popular support to displace the guy who's causing them so much stress and discomfort. Here's part 3 of the secret: there is a caveat. If the voter knows that party X would cause them just as much stress and discomfort as the party they are trying to torpedo, they will not vote for party X...they will vote for party Y. This - for those who are following politics in the province of Ontario, Canada - explains the election strategy of Ontario's second-place Progressive Conservatives. They have been extremely diligent in their efforts not to make any promises, and not to release anything remotely resembling policies or an election platform. They quite intentionally want to promise nothing at all. The rationale: the party that proposes nothing proposes nothing that is distressing or uncomfortable. It's as simple (and as pitifully disgusting) as that. Just watch. The PCs' party leader is ALL eraser, and no pencil: he criticizes the honesty, or leadership, or integrity of the governing party, but rarely if ever its policies...most of the time, he says that he agrees with WHAT was done, but disagrees with HOW it was done (e.g., not enough consultation with "stakeholders", too fast, too slow, too much, too little, too early, too late, etc..). So, how MUST one deal with this phenomenon and with such an electoral strategy? 1. Recognize that little can be done to cause the governing party to falter. Let the second place party (who has media attention) attack the governing party. Let them spend their money, their effort, their time on that effort. 2. Remember the "caveat" mentioned above. If the 2nd-place party is trying to be all things to all people (by saying nothing), make sure that the public knows it, good and hard. Let the public know (a) what the 2nd place party is trying to do, ( that a man who promises nothing always delivers on those promises (i.e., he will do nothing at all), © point out that the jurisdiction is facing serious crises (it is, in the case of Ontario), and that doing nothing and promising nothing is simply a recipe for sitting idly by while things implode. In short: if you show people that crises exist, and show them that the 2nd place party is either unable or unwilling to disclose any substantive plans to deal with those problems, you will have demonstrated that the 2nd place party is either incompetent or sneaky...let the public know that, either way, the result - if the 2nd place party wins - will be: distress and discomfort for the voter. Think of it like this: you're sick of your car breaking down so you go to a car lot. You see new cars and used cars. If the salesman takes you to the used car lot and shows you a car very similar to your own, but shiny and newly painted. He never shows you the rotting floors under the rug, and doesn't tell you about how much oil the car is burning every week, you might just look at the used car's new paint job and say: thank goodness, a way to get out of my old car and into something different...you may plunk down money and unwittingly buy the junker. But if the salesman is honest, and shows you the problems, you will probably move over to the new car lot. The criterion for most buyers will be: does the new car have any PROBLEMS...will it cause me any STRESS and DISCOMFORT? There will be some concern: the result of not knowing much about the new car, or the model, or the manufacturer. However, many will take the chance SO LONG AS they know that the freshly painted car in the used car lot is pretty much just a polished version of the turd they are trying to get rid of. All of this should make sense to you given your observation that: Precisely. And, because they are FOR nothing, and because they don't care to KNOW much about the VIRTUES of those whom they elect, the chances of a virtuous party getting elected are not really all that bad. Once one realizes that all of the perceived barriers are BS (e.g., "people don't like your policies" - they don't know them, "people don't like your candidates" - they don't know them, "people are more middle of the road politically" - they aren't even on the road, "you need to compromise" - if nobody knows what you are offering, nobody knows whether or not you have already compromised, etc.). Now, you might worry: "But what if the 2nd place party starts attacking the virtuous party, calling its virtues vices etc..". Answer: the 2nd place party is TERRIFIED of letting the public know that IT knows that the virtuous party even exists. At all times, the 2nd place party is BITING ITS LIP, for fear of legimizing the party that is constantly torpedoing it. Thus, the virtuous party has the luxury of lobbing hand-grenades and getting absolutely NO return fire. And, should it by chance receive return fire, the public's opinion of the effectiveness and legitimacy of the virtuous party will improve...as will news coverage and the chances that it - not party X - will win seats. In short: philosophy and policy is for those who will govern, and for that small percentage of voters who take philosophy and policy seriously. For the rest, all that matters is their knowledge that party X comes with just as much discomfort and stress than does the party in power. The rest is pretty much a jeans ad: slogans, look, feel, imagery, symbolism....for most people, supporting a political party is like buying a Venti latte from Starbucks: people buy them, in many cases, so that other people can know how hip they are. Bottom line: the future is bright for people who stop waiting for the world's philosophy to change, and who get down to basics: electioneering. It's all that matters to most people, and it's all that ever will.

I thought you might enjoy ,'> , in which Freedom Party of Ontario leader Paul McKeever discusses Rand versus libertarianism. It is actually part 3 of a four-part video in which McKeever discusses Freedom Party's philosophy, and his own (see ) etc.. In Part 3, McKeever also gives us a peak at his theory of the legitimacy and origin of governmental authority (from a forthcoming book). In ,'> , he also discusses his theory on the morality of sales taxes. Anyway, here are links to the four parts, including the description for each (from YouTube.com): 15:40 Episode 2: The Morning Commute. Part 1 of 4 parts: My son John Law; the York-Durham diesel train; follow-up to episode 1 re: the PCs; bacon, eggs, and Oakley for breakfast; funding the TTC; unions, strikes, essential services and slavery; Uxbridge growing pains; displacement, rubber, leather, and my Pontiac GXP; lay-offs, downsizings and economic turmoil. Recorded: October 20, 2006. 11:29 Episode 2: The Morning Commute. Part 2 of 4 parts: libertarianism; reality, reason and Freedom Party's philosophy; kudos for Stephen Harper's position on Israel, terrorism, and "neutrality"; Paul McKeever's theory of the nature of democracy; obedience vs. independent thought. Recorded: October 20, 2006. 14:45 Episode 2: The Morning Commute. Part 3 of 4 parts: Ayn Rand's Philosophy; Rand's non-aggression principle; anti-philosophy, anarchism and libertarianism; Paul McKeever's theory on the legitimacy and source of governmental authority. Recorded: October 20, 2006. 15:21 Part 4 of 4: Paul McKeever's theory on the morality of taxation; passion versus justice; Stephan Molyneux; meet the office; The Death of Wolfe. Recorded: October 20, 2006.

The Fraser Institute is an economic think tank in Canada. In the September 2005 issue of its monthly magazine, Fraser Forum, it published a letter by Jack Boulogne encouraging economists to read moral philosophy, but discouraging them from reading Rand, on the ground that she defended selfishness as a virtue. In the February 2006 issue of Fraser Forum, the Fraser Institute published a reply to Boulogne's letter. In it, Freedom Party of Ontario leader Paul McKeever defends, Rand and Objectivism. See both letters, below. Source: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readm...?sNav=pb&id=821 Letter to the Editor Mr. Jack Boulogne (Letter to the Editor, Fraser Forum, September 2005) recommends that economists learn to defend “market” or “laissez faire” economics on moral grounds, but that they not “bother reading Ayn Rand.” I cannot think of more harmful advice. To begin with, economic research has not demonstrated the superiority of “the market” or “laissez faire,” per se. Even trade in a communist economy occurs in “the market.” A perfectly “laissez faire” system (i.e., one in which government played no role at all) would actually be an anarchistic one governed not by market forces but by brute forces. Let us be precise. The success of economics has actually been to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism: a system in which government defends each person’s exclusive control over the use of his own land, chattels, money, inventions, etc. (i.e., in which government defends property rights), and in which one can trade the use of one’s property for other property or for labour. Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, provided the first and only rational and logical moral defence of capitalism in human history. Objectivism is every capitalist economist’s greatest ally and most powerful intellectual weapon. Accordingly, Ayn Rand is the anti-capitalist’s most hated foe; the spread of her philosophy is his greatest fear; and the defamation of Rand, of her philosophy, and of those who espouse her philosophy, is his most pressing task. In a nutshell, Rand’s philosophy defends capitalism as follows: Metaphysics: The universe actually exists. It is not a product of your mind. Its qualities are not affected by what you merely think about them. Epistemology: Unlike all other organisms, your sole means of knowing anything is by logical reasoning. Man cannot survive and thrive if no man chooses to think. Ethics: Your own life is your highest moral value: your death is of no value to you. The pursuit of your own happiness is your highest moral purpose: the pursuit of self-sacrifice and suffering is anti-life. In your pursuit of happiness, rationality (which implies productivity) is your highest virtue: it would be vicious for you pursue your own happiness by forcing others to sacrifice. Politics: Denied your physical liberty, you cannot survive by acting upon your thoughts. Denied the fruits of your productive activities, you will suffer or perish. Therefore, it is morally right to use physical force to defend your life, your liberty and your property. Capitalism: Capitalism recognizes and defends reason as man’s sole means of survival. In a capitalist society, goods and services are distributed by consensual trade, not by physical coercion. Being a system in which coercive physical force is used only to defend each person’s life, liberty and property, capitalism is the only system compatible with human life. If you want to understand the nature of anti-capitalist philosophies, take Mr. Boulogne’s advice and read any other philosophical works you can. But, if you want to know why capitalism is morally righteous, read Rand. Sincerely, Paul McKeever, BSc (Hons), MA, LLB Employment Lawyer and Leader of the Freedom Party of Ontario ======================================= Source: http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/...s/Sept05ff.pdf# Letter to the Editor Morality & Economics While the central problem of economics, here defined as the science of finding optimum methods to create goods and services, is essentially solved, a problem remains. Economists now generally recognize that “the market” is the path to prosperity and quality of life. Thankfully, the Marxist “economist” is an almost extinct species, but the stubborn problem that remains is how to persuade politicians and the general public that laissez-faire, grudgingly accepted as good for business and creating wealth, is also good for human life in general. Pope John Paul II made a most remarkable statement a short time before he died. He said, and I paraphrase, “People are too concerned with making money and this is wrong. We should concern ourselves instead with the task of eliminating poverty.” Since I am a philosopher and routinely examine statements for logical soundness, my mouth hung open with astonishment. How could such a wise and respected man say something so absurd? I expected to hear a roar of laughter right around the world. Instead nothing. No response. No editorial comment. Here then we see the unsolved problem in a nutshell. People with some education are quite willing to accept “the market” as good for creating jobs and prosperity but a failure in moral terms. They see some fundamental clash between the morally good life and the materially good life. The Fraser Institute is devoted to the idea that freedom in economic matters, which is materially so productive, is also morally superior, but the task of communicating the idea is dauntingly difficult. Some economists have made things worse by talking about “value-free economics” which could be understood to mean that economists are people who care nothing about values, which include the so-called moral values. Moral values are things that have to do with matters of distributive justice, the moral repugnance we feel when we see the very rich living in proximity with the dismally poor, and the emptiness of being very rich and discovering that “there is more to life than mere wealth.” To make a very long story very short, I recommend that economists take the formal study of moral philosophy more seriously, and not bother reading Ayn Rand, the very smart (once famous) author of Atlas Shrugged. After all, she spoke of the “virtue of selfishness,” and that is precisely the message that economists do not want to convey because it is precisely why the public is suspicious of laissez-faire economics. Selfishness is not a moral virtue, even though it is also true that unselfish people cause most of the world’s problems. To explain this enigmatic statement takes a great deal more time and space than is available here. —Jack Boulogne Jack Boulogne ([email protected]) is a retired physics teacher and a full time writer of books on moral reasoning. He has an MA in philosophy from the University of British Columbia. He has written a number of articles on philosophy for the Canadian Children’s Magazine and taught a high school ethics course for a number of years. ========================= Note from Little Big Man (i.e., not solicited by the Fraser Institute): Those who support the Fraser Insitute with a contribution of $100 or more annually automatically receive Fraser Forum magazine more or less monthly (I think there's a winter double-issue for December-January). The articles are great: intellectual ammo. Support those who support freedom. Ultimately, they're supporting you.