ARI Media Feed

By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog Is It Fair to Charge More for Better Service? By David Holcberg (Wall Street Journal, February 27, 2008) Regarding Andy Kessler's "Internet Wrecking Ball" (op-ed, Feb. 25): Internet service providers have no obligation to treat all Internet traffic equally. If these providers decide that it is in their self-interest to charge Web sites for faster delivery, they should be free to do so. Forbidding ISPs to offer superior services to some of their customers is a violation of their rights. As owners of their networks, they have the moral right -- and should have the legal right -- to run their businesses as they see fit. Just as we respect the right of FedEx and UPS to charge their customers for faster delivery, so we should for Internet service providers. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003337.html

By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog Exxon vs. Venezuela By David Holcberg (Investor's Business Daily, February 25, 2008) Re "Big Oil Strikes Back At Petrotyrants" (Editorial, Feb. 8), Exxon is to be congratulated for standing up for its property rights against Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. And Western courts are to be applauded -- so far -- for protecting Exxon's rights and enforcing the terms of its contract with the Venezuelan government. Had Western governments and courts defended the property rights of Western oil companies half a century ago, when their oil fields and rigs were nationalized by Arab and Muslim countries, they might have prevented the flow of trillions of dollars into the hands of despots who financed -- and continue to finance -- jihadist ideology and Islamic terrorism against the West. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003336.html

By Thomas Bowden from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog "Retaliation": Another Job Security Weapon February 19, 2008 Irvine, CA--The Supreme Court hears oral argument this week in two cases that will determine whether blacks and over-40 workers may sue for "retaliation" under federal employment discrimination laws. In the case of CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, a Cracker Barrel restaurant manager was fired for leaving the store safe open overnight. He sued for retaliation, alleging he was really being punished for having previously complained about racial discrimination against a fellow employee. The Supreme Court will decide whether the Civil Rights Act of 1866 allows such a retaliation claim. In another case, Gomez-Perez v. Potter, the issue is whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act grants older workers a similar right to sue. "Most Americans think discrimination laws simply stop irrational employers from making decisions based on race, age, or sex when those factors are irrelevant to performance," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute. "In fact, however, such laws burden all employers by jacking up the costs and risks of employing the so-called protected classes, such as minorities, women, and disabled or older workers. "Any employer who disciplines, demotes, or fires a 'protected' worker must be prepared to prove, to the government's satisfaction, in a court of law, that the decision stemmed entirely from legitimate business reasons. Given the huge number of employment decisions made every day, the cost associated with maintaining evidence of those decisions' validity is staggering. A 'protected' employee can file a charge of discrimination with little or no evidence. Then the burden of proof--along with attorneys' fees, lost employee work time, and the risk of large monetary awards, including punitive damagesfalls on the employer. Predictably, employers end up giving preferential treatment to members of the 'protected' classes. "Outlawing retaliation clothes the 'protected classes' in yet another layer of legal insulation. An employee whose bad performance puts him in danger of discipline or discharge need only make a complaint of discrimination as a 'pre-emptive strike.' Now if his employer fires him, he can cry 'retaliation' and drag his boss into court, without further evidence of wrongdoing. "The ever-present threat of discrimination and retaliation suits prevents rational employers from acting on their own best thinking about who is most fit for a job. Whatever the Supreme Court's decisions in the two pending cases, Congress should address the continuing injustice of laws that encourage irrational discrimination in the name of preventing irrational discrimination. The best weapon against irrational discrimination is a free market, in which those who act on their stupid prejudices are shunned and lose out on talented minority, female, or older employees. The solution is not to make hiring such employees a nightmare." ### ### ### http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003314.html

By Thomas Bowden from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog Religious Constitution Invites Blasphemy Death Sentence February 21, 2008 Irvine, CA--"Death sentences for blasphemy, such as the one handed down to Sayad Kambakhsh in Afghanistan recently, are to be expected under any constitution that enshrines Islam as the state religion and the Koran as the supreme law of the land," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute. A council of mullahs acting under court authority has decreed capital punishment for Kambakhsh, a 23-year-old journalism student charged with possessing anti-Islamic books, starting un-Islamic debates in class, and downloading and distributing Internet articles saying that Muhammad ignored women's rights. The sentence, which has been endorsed by Afghanistan's upper house of parliament, is on appeal. Afghanistan's president has hinted at clemency, but only after appeals are finished. "In 2006, mobs of clerics were clamoring for the death of Abdul Rahman, an Afghan whose 'crime' was converting to Christianity," Bowden said. "And now, Sayad Kambakhsh faces death unless a growing international outcry embarrasses Afghanistan's government into lifting the sentence. "Criminal punishment of blasphemy is certainly unjust and outrageous, but ad hoc protests offer no long-term solution. If Islam's stranglehold on Afghanistan's government is to end, that nation must adopt an American-style constitution protecting individual rights, including freedom of speech and religion. The strict separation of church and state erects an institutional barrier to religious persecution, as American history shows. "But a nation that exalts mystical dogma and tribal allegiances cannot be expected to think in such terms. 'The guy should be hanged,' said an 18-year-old student at the American University in Kabul, calling for Kambakhsh's swift execution. Said a Muslim cleric: 'He should be punished so that others can learn from him.' For such people, freedom is an intolerable obstacle to the overriding goal of enforcing Islam. "When the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan, its stated policy was to promote 'democracy.' That policy has now achieved its exact aim. The Afghan government reflects the democratic will of the people. The people want to kill blasphemers, and their constitution allows them to do so lawfully. "Bush's policy was based on his delusional belief that Afghans are as freedom-loving as Americans. But what they truly value is religion. Sayad Kambakhsh is living--perhaps dying--proof that religion injected into government is hostile to freedom. ### ### ### http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003313.html

By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog Exxon vs. Chavez By David Holcberg (Houston Chronicle, February 15, 2008; Los Angeles Times, February 17, 2008) Exxon is to be congratulated for standing up for its property rights against Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. When Chavez broke Venezuela's contract with foreign oil companies last year and demanded they cede control over their facilities to his government, Exxon abandoned its projects in Venezuela and sought arbitration in international courts, rather than accept the expropriation of its assets. Exxon's legal victory in British and Dutch courts, which froze $12 billion in assets of Venezuela's state-run oil company, should serve as a warning to any government around the world that might consider nationalizing the property and looting the wealth of multinational companies. Exxon's fight for its rights will hopefully embolden all other companies that have been--or might be--looted by dictatorships to take appropriate legal action. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003310.html

By Elan Journo from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog Memo to U.S. Editors: Reprint Muhammad Cartoons February 13, 2008 Irvine, CA--Taking a defiant stand in defense of freedom of speech, on Wednesday newspapers in Denmark reprinted one of the notorious satirical cartoons of Muhammad. "Now it is the turn of American newspapers and media outlets to show their solidarity with that ideal, and reprint all 12 of the original cartoons," said Elan Journo, a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. On Feb. 13, fifteen newspapers in Denmark and one in Sweden reprinted the cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, drawn by Kurt Westergaard. The papers' admirable editorial decision was a response to news that Danish police had just arrested three men suspected of plotting to murder Westergaard for drawing that cartoon. Berlingske Tidende, a Danish paper, explained: "We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech we as a newspaper will always defend." "Freedom of speech is the right to express one's ideas--in books, newspapers, drawings, speeches, films--without fear of retribution, even if others disagree with you, even if they are repulsed. This right leaves people free to dissent and free to advocate for their own ideas. This includes the freedom to challenge, criticize, satirize, denounce all religions and all political viewpoints," said Mr. Journo. "Newspapers in Denmark grasp that nothing should be allowed to override freedom of speech. Their refusal to bow down in the face of murder plots should be a wake-up call to editors in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' Few U.S. newspapers--and none of the leading ones--dared to stick their necks out, let alone raise their heads, during the cartoons crisis two years ago. U.S. media outlets, who claim to cherish freedom of speech, should realize the need to uphold it as a principle without exceptions." * * * In 2006 the Ayn Rand Institute helped organize public "unveilings" of the cartoons and panel discussions on the significance of the controversy at NYU, USC and UCLA, among other campuses. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003293.html

By Thomas Bowden from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog Exxon's Lonely Battle February 14, 2008 Irvine, CA--Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez is angrily threatening to halt oil exports to the United States, in retaliation against Exxon Mobil. Exxon has used court proceedings to freeze Venezuelan assets in America, in an attempt to recoup some of the billions of dollars it lost when Venezuela nationalized Exxon's oil operations there last summer. "Venezuela's nationalization of oil assets was pure theft, not a private contract dispute," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute. "The Bush administration last year should have denounced Chavez's oil grab as a form of robbery and cut off diplomatic relationships with Venezuela. But Bush did nothing and said nothing. "Now Exxon is fighting a lonely battle in the courts, facing down an armed dictatorship that sneers at private property rights and dares anyone to defy its might. Yet a Bush spokesperson recently dismissed the matter as 'private civil litigation, which we won't comment on.' "If there is anything the President of the United States should 'comment on,' it is the brazen theft of American property by a thuggish, petulant dictator. This is not 'private civil litigation' but a public outrage. Venezuela is joining the already-numerous ranks of hostile states funded by stolen Western oil assets." ### ### ### http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003292.html

By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog One Million Ayn Rand Novels in Classrooms This Year February 4, 2008 IRVINE, CA--With a shipment of 80,000 books in January, the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) has placed more than 1 million copies of Ayn Rand's novels in the hands of high school teachers and their students across North America. This astounding number of books has been provided for free by ARI, over the last six years, to high school teachers in the United States and Canada, as part of its mission to promote Ayn Rand's ideas in today's culture. According to Marilee Dragsdahl, ARI's education manager, "Since we began this program in 2002, we sent teachers about 600,000 copies of Anthem, 400,000 copies of The Fountainhead and 50,000 copies of Atlas Shrugged. To date, 20,000 teachers have received and are using in their classrooms the Ayn Rand novels we sent them." Each school year ARI distributes promotional flyers that offer free classroom sets of Ayn Rand's novels to English and language arts teachers, department heads and principals, as well as selected counselors and high school administrators. "This offer," said Mrs. Dragsdahl, "is available to both public and private high schools throughout the United States. Through this program, which I have been running since its inception, we estimate that almost 2 million students have read and studied Ayn Rand's novels." "Each teacher who requests these books," explained Mrs. Dragsdahl, "receives a classroom set of the novels, along with a teacher's guide, lesson plans and information about ARI's annual Anthem, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged essay contests, which may well be the largest in the United States. We also offer phone and e-mail support to teachers to facilitate their teaching of the books in their classes. The response has been excellent." Here is what some of the teachers who received free books from ARI and taught them in their classrooms had to say: "Students were excited about the novels. They appreciated having their own copy and not having to share with other students. Overall positive experience for everyone involved. . . . Your providing a complimentary classroom set of books was a great offer, as budget constraints are a real issue in our district." (San Diego, CA) "Our school could not have been more thrilled to receive all those free texts, and our students are gaining so much from them!" (Esparto, CA) "In an age when we battle a multitude of distractions and apathy, these books have helped ignite a new spark in the classroom." (Victoria, TX) "[My students] absolutely LOVED The Fountainhead. Over half of the students who read the novel cite major changes in the way they perceive their roles in their own lives. Many students feel that the novel has a life-changing impact, and several students convince friends in other classes to read the novel, as well.” (Carlsbad, CA) "Students responded [to Anthem] with thoughtful reflection. They were honors 9th graders, and it was the first time they really had a book that presented them with so much to think about." (Covina, CA) "I love Anthem and The Fountainhead. I have been recommending them to other teachers and students throughout my 20-year career." (Sierra Vista, AZ) More information on the Free Books to Teachers program is available at the Ayn Rand Institute's Web site, www.aynrand.org/freebooks. ### ### ### http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003286.html

By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog Concern for Whales Should Not Stop Navy from Using Sonar By David Holcberg (San Diego Union Tribune, January 8, 2008; The Virginian-Pilot, January 9, 2008) Re "Judge bans Navy from using sonar off Southern California": It's outrageous that our federal laws and judges place the well-being of whales above that of humans. Even if, as alleged, the use of sonar "severely threatens the lives and health of marine mammals," no law should prevent the Navy from using this crucial military technology. The fundamental purpose of government in a free society is the protection of the individual rights of its citizens. If the Navy judges that sonar experiments off the coast of California might increase its ability to detect such potential military threats as hostile submarines, it should do these experiments. Our national defense and our very lives may depend on it. This attack on our Navy's ability to defend us from foreign threats is yet another example of environmental laws being used to sacrifice our interests for the alleged "rights" of animals. Once again, environmentalists are showing whose side they are on, and it is not humanity's. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003244.html

By Andy Bernstein from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog January 31, 2008 Religion vs. Morality Who: Dr. Andrew Bernstein, professor of philosophy and speaker for the Ayn Rand Institute What: A talk arguing for a secular, rational basis for morality. A Q&A will follow. Where: Rice University, Sewall Hall, Room 309, Houston, TX When: Thursday, February 7, 2008, at 7:30 pm Description: Conventionally, most people believe that morality can only be based in religious faith that in a world without God no principles of right and wrong could exist. Related to this, philosophers have long held that no objective, fact-based, rational code of values is possible. Regarding both points, this talk shows that the exact opposite is true. The purpose of morality is to guide human life on earth and religion is utterly incapable of it. Flourishing life requires a code of secularism, rationality, egoism and freedom. Religious faith clashes with every principle of a proper moral code, and, as such, has led, and can only lead to, hell on earth. Bio: Dr. Bernstein is a Visiting Professor of Philosophy at Marist College; he also teaches at SUNY Purchase. Dr. Bernstein lectures regularly at American universities and appears frequently on radio talk shows. His op-eds have been published in The San Francisco Chronicle, The Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Washington Times, The Los Angeles Daily News, and The Houston Chronicle. Dr. Bernstein is the author of three Ayn Rand titles for CliffsNotes: Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem. He also authored The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire. For more information on this talk, please e-mail [email protected] ### ### ### http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003243.html

By Alex Epstein from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog Memo to Gates: The Cause of Third-World Poverty Is Not Capitalism, But a Lack of Capitalism January 28, 2008 Irvine, CA--Bill Gates made waves at the World Economic Forum by calling on Western nations to adopt a new, “creative capitalism.” He complained that under “pure capitalism . . . . the great advances in the world have often aggravated the inequities in the world. The least needy see the most improvement, and the most needy see the least . . .” Gates called for corporations and governments to devote far more time and money “doing work that eases the world's inequities.” “Gates’s entire speech essentially blames Western capitalism for the Third World’s poverty,” said Alex Epstein, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, “and offers a slightly more sophisticated form of foreign welfare handouts as the antidote. But the West did not become wealthy at the Third World’s expense--we did not seize computers, houses, pharmaceuticals, and railroads from the Sahara. We created our wealth under capitalism, the system that liberates individuals to produce and trade without interference. And Third World countries could do the same if they adopted that system. “The last 200 years have shown that wherever capitalism is adopted--from Singapore to the United States to Hong Kong to Australia--it enables its citizens to create wealth and prosper. Yet not one word of Gates’s speech calls for poor countries to change their anti-capitalist governments. “No matter how many billions Bill Gates gives to poor nations, until he starts advocating universal capitalism instead of attacking it, he is acting as an enemy of prosperity in the undeveloped world.” ### ### ### RSS http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003237.html

By Keith Lockitch from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog Poor Countries Don’t Need Climate Change Welfare, They Need Capitalism January 21, 2008 Irvine, CA--A major theme of the recent climate change conference in Bali, Indonesia, is that wealthy, industrialized nations have an obligation to help poor countries adapt to climate change. Delegates agreed to activate an "adaptation fund" to help undeveloped nations cope with projected threats such as disruptions to agriculture and decreased water availability. But according to Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute: “If environmentalists were really concerned about people in undeveloped countries, they would be helping them to bring about what they really need: industrial development. “The world’s poorest can barely cope with day-to-day survival, let alone with unproven threats projected to occur over decades. Imagine having no electricity or access to clean drinking water. Imagine having to cook your meals over an open fire, breathing smoke and ash every day. Billions around the world survive at a subsistence level because they lack the elements of industrial capitalism that we in the developed world take for granted: power plants, factories, modern roads and hospitals, cars, refrigerators, and countless time- and labor-saving devices. "What poor countries need is not climate adaptation welfare doled out by environmentalists who oppose industrial development; what poor countries need is to become rich countries. They need to embrace free markets and private property rights and attract the investment of profit-seeking entrepreneurs to create wealth and drive economic growth. "Despite the media's constant assertion that global warming science is ‘settled,’" Lockitch said, "it is far from certain that any countries will face catastrophic dangers from climate change. But even if certain dangers do emerge, they pose little threat to wealthy nations with a strongly developed industrial infrastructure. What poor countries need is not global warming guilt money but the rapid adoption of capitalism and industrialization. "Yet, it is precisely the adoption of industrial capitalism by undeveloped countries that environmentalists reject. Not only do they not want poor countries to become rich, they are trying hard to force rich countries to become poor by capping carbon emissions and abandoning industrialization. Despite their feigned concern for the world’s poor, the measures proposed by environmentalists pose a far greater threat than any possible changes to the earth’s climate." ### ### ### http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003206.html

By Thomas Bowden from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY 2008 January 18, 2008 Irvine, CA--“Martin Luther King Jr. Day offers Americans an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to eradicating racism in all its forms,” said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute. Ayn Rand once wrote: “Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.” The essence of racism, she explained, is “the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced by his internal body chemistry, which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.” “Achievement of a truly color-blind society will require not only that private individuals reject racism but that government policies and programs cease to favor some citizens over others on the basis of skin color,” Bowden said. “The solution to racism in government does not lie in further race-conscious, affirmative action programs that generate de facto quotas, nor in multicultural education that locates personal identity in one’s ethnic group. Because such policies are themselves racist, they are part of the problem. “A model of good government policy is President Truman’s executive order ending segregation in America’s military services. Issued 60 years ago, Executive Order 9981 declared ‘that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.’ “This official policy exemplifies a government’s proper attitude toward its citizens,” Bowden said. “Every law-abiding adult has an equal right to serve in government, provided he or she can satisfy the position’s objective requirements. In setting standards, government agencies must be forbidden by law from making irrational distinctions among citizens, as by favoring some soldiers over others on the irrelevant basis of skin color. “In a famous speech, Martin Luther King Jr. eloquently envisioned a world without racism: ‘I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.’ Americans should be proud of their nation’s historical achievements in ending slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregated schools, and many other forms of institutionalized racism. On this holiday, we should embrace the challenge contained in King’s eloquent remarks and recommit ourselves to the task of fully eradicating racism from this nation’s public policies.” ########### RSS digg_url = ‘http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16465&news_iv_ctrl=1221’; digg_title = ‘MARTIN+LUTHER+KING+JR.+DAY+2008; digg_bodytext = ‘Eradicate+racism+from+this+nation%u2019s+public+policies.’; digg_topic = 'political_opinion+'; digg_skin = 'compact'; digg_window = 'new'; http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003200.html

By Eric Daniels from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog The Morality of Capitalism Who: Dr. Eric Daniels, speaker for the Ayn Rand Institute and visiting scholar at Clemson University's Institute for the Study of Capitalism What: A talk making the case that capitalism is the only moral social system. A Q&A will follow. Where: Kimmel Center, Room 914, New York University, 60 Washington Square South, NY, NY 10012 Maps and directions: http://www.nyu.edu/about/virtual.html When: Wednesday, January 23, 2008, at 7 pm Registration: Attendees must RSVP to [email protected] Description: Despite the enormous success of American capitalism at producing material abundance and political freedom, critics continue their assault on the system, calling it immoral. In this lecture, Dr. Eric Daniels makes the case that capitalism is the only moral social system. He also examines the conventional defense of capitalism, which relies on the practical, economic argument, and illustrates why only a defense of pure laissez-faire capitalism can succeed. Bio: Dr. Eric Daniels is a visiting scholar at Clemson University's Institute for the Study of Capitalism. He taught for five years at Duke University, in the Program on Values and Ethics in the Marketplace, and at the University of Wisconsin, where he earned his doctorate in American history. He has lectured internationally on the history of American ethics, American business and legal history, and the American Enlightenment. Daniels's publications include a chapter in "The Abolition of Antitrust" and five entries in the "Oxford Companion to United States History." For more information on this talk, please e-mail [email protected] ### ### ### http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003189.html

By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog Supreme Court Rejects Right to Life of the Terminally Ill By David Holcberg (January 16, 2008) It is disgraceful that the Supreme Court declined to consider whether terminal patients have a right to use drugs not yet approved by the FDA. The purpose of the Constitution is not to grant government the power to regulate our lives, but to protect our rights by limiting the power of government. Terminal patients--indeed any patients--have a moral and constitutional right to try any medicine or therapy that they believe would alleviate their suffering, improve their health or extend their lives. To deny this right is to deny the right to life and liberty, and amounts to a death sentence to thousands of terminally ill individuals who could benefit from experimental drugs. The government should have no power to keep drugs off the market and no right to forbid us from exercising our judgment and taking a drug we believe would benefit us. Hopefully the U.S. Supreme Court will consider this life-and-death issue in its next opportunity. Real lives are at stake, and for many, time is running out. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003188.html

By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog The "Market Failure" Fallacy Jan. 8, 2008 Who: Dr. Brian Simpson, associate professor and chair of the Department of Management and Marketing at National University in San Diego and speaker for the Ayn Rand Institute What: A talk and Q & A arguing against the notion of "market failure" and defending the moral and productive value of capitalism Where: Hilton Costa Mesa, 3050 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 When: Thursday, January 31, 2007, at 7:30 PM Admission is FREE. Description: In contemporary economics textbooks there is typically at least one chapter devoted to the topic of "market failure," where it is claimed that capitalism leads to undesirable results, such as the creation of monopolies, harmful environmental effects, and an unjust "distribution" of income. In this talk, Dr. Brian P. Simpson attacks the notion of "market failure," arguing for the moral and productive superiority of capitalism, the immorality and destructive economic consequences of environmentalism, and the need to integrate economic analysis with Ayn Rand's revolutionary moral theory of rational egoism in order to properly defend capitalism. Bio: Dr. Simpson is an associate professor and chair of the Department of Management and Marketing at National University in San Diego, where he has been teaching economics since 2002. He has published in peer-reviewed journals, made presentations at scholarly conferences, and created a minor in economics with a focus on free-market economics and Objectivist philosophy. He is the author of the book Markets Don't Fail! For more information on this talk, please e-mail [email protected]. ### ### ### http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003178.html

By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Stories,cross-posted by MetaBlog The Price of Labor By David Holcberg (Wall Street Journal Europe, January 2, 2008) The minimum wage constitutes government coercion against both employers and employees. By mandating a certain level of wages, the government violates the rights of both employers and employees to reach a voluntary agreement based on their own independent judgment of what is in their best interest. Those who provide jobs have a right to set the wages they are willing to pay. And those who are willing and eager to work for relatively low wages--either because they are unskilled, inexperienced or would rather have a low-paying job than no job--have a right to do so. In a capitalist system, the price of labor (i.e., wages) is determined in the same way as all other prices and as it should be: by the individual judgments and voluntary decisions of buyers and sellers. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003170.html