The Objective Standard Blog

The Objective Standard Blog: October 2006

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Notes on the Coming Election

Posted by Craig Biddle at 9:49 PM

[Since this post is coming in right on top of Dr. Lewis's excellent comments on the subject, I'm writing this note to bring continued attention to his post, which is a must read.]

For whom should one vote in the coming election? What is the principal factor one should consider in judging a candidate or a political party? Should one focus on what a candidate says he is going to do in office? Should one make one's decision by asking, as some have suggested, what a given political party adds to the debate? No, one should not. One should make one's decision not by reference to words but by reference to actions—and the motives behind those actions. One should ask: What does a given candidate or party actually do when it is in power—and why?

All of the Republicans who are now in office campaigned on promises of reducing government spending, cutting taxes, increasing freedom, and defending America. But what have they actually done? In regard to domestic policy, they've increased government spending and taxes beyond any liberal's wildest dreams (alleged tax cuts are just that in the face of such massive spending increases). They've crusaded against open immigration, a crusade which constitutes an assault on the rights of all Americans to do business with whomever they choose. They've assaulted businessmen with (among other things) Sarbanes-Oxley, the most onerous anti-business law ever imposed on producers. They've crusaded against abortion and embryonic stem cell research, causing mass suffering and death of actual (as opposed to potential) human beings. They've pushed to require public schools to teach so-called "Intelligent Design" in science classes. They've crusaded against homosexuality and gay marriage. They've passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which is a huge blow to freedom of speech. And so on.

In regard to foreign policy, the Republicans have ignored (or befriended) our major enemies, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, and thus given these murderous regimes time and leeway to train more jihadists, procure more weaponry, and plot more attacks against the West. Via the Forward Strategy of Altruism, they've brought democracy (i.e., unlimited majority rule) to the Middle East in exchange for the lives and limbs of American soldiers—who are now charged with the impossible task of resolving the consequent civil war—which is sure to end in another theocracy or two regardless of when (or whether) we withdraw what is left of our sacrificial troops. Having celebrated the "virtue" of democracy, the Republicans also set the stage for (among other things) the election of Hamas in Palestine because, as President Bush so aptly put it, "democracy is democracy" (would that he recognized the law of identity elsewhere). In response to the Iranians' continuing efforts to produce nuclear weapons while chanting "Death to America," the Republicans have boldly shaken a finger at them and called for more negotiations. In response to the North Koreans actually testing a nuclear weapon, they've boldly scolded Kim Jong-Il for defying "the will of the international community" and called for the U.N. Security Council to "condemn the test" and to "impose tough sanctions on  Pyongyang for flagrantly disregarding the Security Council's appeal not to detonate a device." There's more, but that should suffice.

In sum, the actual actions of the Republicans while they have controlled Congress have been utterly irrational, anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-life.

Why do Republicans take such actions? What motivates them? Religion. Their adherence to religion is the fundamental cause of their choices and policies. Consider:

  • If, as religion holds, you are your brother's keeper, and you're supposed to "be openhanded toward… the poor and needy in your land" (Deuteronomy 15:11) and "give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you… not demand it back" (Luke 6:30), then the legitimacy of increased welfare spending and taxes is simply unassailable.
  • If, as religion holds, people are inherently evil (via Original Sin), then we obviously can't have open immigration; we can't trust hopelessly evil people to be honest, productive, and self-sufficient. If we open our borders, the evil Mexicans will come here and break our laws, steal our stuff, and live on the dole.
  • If businessmen are by nature corrupt—and what, according to religion, is more corrupt than a businessman?—then we can't very well let them engage in accounting practices that suit their greedy needs. Rather, we must dictate accounting practices and implement monitoring devices to thwart their greedy efforts and counter their evil nature: hence Sarbanes-Oxley.
  • If, as religion holds, God creates one's soul at conception, then abortion and embryonic stem cell research are clearly murder and must be outlawed.
  • If creationism is true, as according to the Bible it is, then it certainly should be taught in schools.
  • If God says, as He does in the Bible, that homosexuals should be murdered (Leviticus 20:13), then, at the very least (until such time as biblical law can be implemented in full), they should not be permitted to marry—and, better yet, they should be forbidden to engage in their deviant sexual behavior.
  • If people are so base as to engage in homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and other ungodly acts, God only knows what they'll broadcast if free to air whatever they choose: hence the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act.
  • If you're supposed to "love your enemies" and "resist not evil" and "turn the other cheek" and "judge not that ye be not judged" and so on (see the Beatitudes), then we should have a foreign policy essentially like the one advocated and implemented by the Republicans. (I know, I know. God also said "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth," and Jesus said "these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me." Religion involves all manner of contradictory edicts. I'm not vouching for its consistency, but pointing out its insanity.)

Although Republican politicians do not necessarily cite or even see religion as the motivating factor in all that they do, religion is their philosophy, and one's philosophy is what guides one's choices and actions. Implicitly or explicitly, the Republicans govern by reference to religion. This is why, when Republicans are in office, they expand the welfare state; increase spending; thwart free trade; attack businessmen, women, and gays; strive to corrupt science and retard the minds of children; appease our enemies; sacrifice our soldiers; and endanger our lives. When Democrats are in office they do most of this, too—but less so—and none of the damage they inflict is ever blamed on their being capitalists or "hawks." All damage caused by Democrats is blamed on their being socialists and "doves."

While the Republicans are in office, whatever they do in the name of defending America is regarded as the most we can do. "We're doing everything we can," the Republicans tell us daily. And since Americans have accepted the false alternative of conservatism or liberalism, and since the Democrats call only for retreat, Americans by and large believe that our alternatives are the status quo or surrender; thus, Republicans are scarcely encouraged to do more. Conversely, if the Democrats gain control, whatever they do (or don't do) to defend America will properly be seen as too little; thus, they will constantly be encouraged to do more. We need to turn the tables.

That actions speak louder than words is not a particularly profound principle; it is a mere truism known even to a child. Yet this truism is apparently regarded as untrue in the minds of those who insist that the Republicans are doing better than the Democrats would do at waging the so-called "war on terrorism." The general argument from the pro-Republican camp is that, "well, at least the Republicans talk tough and are trying to kill terrorists." Even granting the notion that their talk is tough (it is not), the only way their so-called "tough talk" will ever translate into remotely tough action is when they are sitting on the sidelines lying to the Democrats about what they'd do if they were in office.

As to the notion that the Republicans are at least trying to kill terrorists: Suppose you hired someone to rid your yard of leaves, and he proceeded to pick up one leaf at a time between his fingers and walk it to the curb while ignoring the bright-red rake before his eyes. What would you say to the claim that "he is trying to get rid of the leaves"? We have excellent tools that are specifically designed to eliminate regimes that attack or threaten America. Politicians who ignore those tools in favor of sending American soldiers off to die as sacrificial lambs cannot objectively be said to be trying to win anything—except perhaps the favor of an alleged God.

To the charge that the Democrats would be worse than the Republicans, I ask: Where is the evidence? Pointing to the Democrats' words is entirely insufficient. Their words are meaningless. Today's politicians don't act on their words; they act on their motivations. Consider the case of Bill Clinton and healthcare, which he promised to socialize. Once in the White House, he did no such thing; rather, he instituted relatively few new government controls and even signed into law major welfare reforms. Why? Because the American people demanded it. While Republicans are motivated by religion, Democrats are motivated by power, and they will say anything to gain it (they'll even quote scripture). Once in power, however, they will also do anything to stay there—and that means doing what the American people tell them to do. Granted, such an arrangement is hardly ideal, but it is certainly better than the current situation. However bad for America a Democrat-controlled Congress would be—and it would be bad—it would not be as bad as the Republican-controlled Congress has been and would continue to be.

Democrats today don't have any ideas to speak of; they're dried-up, unserious, discredited socialists who just want to be in power because it makes them feel like big shots. Republicans do have ideas, religious ideas; they want to be in power because they want to impose their faith-based, man-hating, rights-violating, sacrificial ideas on America. Yes, some Democrats are me-too-ing the Republicans and pretending to be more religious than they actually are, but this is because the culture is warming to religion; thus, the Democrats think it will help them get elected. If elected, however, that pragmatically pious veneer will quickly peel away and expose the puppet that is a Democratic politician—a puppet that the American people can then proceed to manipulate in accordance with their more-secular, life-promoting values.

America is not now a theocracy, and it may not be one anytime soon, but the religionists are chipping away at the ever-weakening wall between church and state, and we are already suffering various faith-based initiatives, faith-based advantages, faith-based laws, and, worst of all, the faith-based policy of so-called "Just War"—with its roots in that foul, crooked, sordid Augustine—which has hamstrung our military, sacrificed our soldiers, emboldened our enemies, zapped America's will to fight, and made impossible a proper assault on Iran.

The issue comes down to this: The Republicans are essentially religionists. They believe that faith delivers knowledge; that the Bible is true; that while the U.S. Constitution currently prohibits them from following God's word to the T, they should persistently strive to remedy that problem; and that we must fight a so-called "Just War"—a war in which the lives and limbs of American soldiers are systematically sacrificed for the sake of enemy civilians and mystical savages. The Democrats, on the other hand, are effectively idealess power-seeking puppets: They want to be in office so that they will feel some (pseudo-)self-worth. Vote for the pathetic puppets, and then work to spread the right ideas to their constituents.

It is time to oust the Republicans. I'll be voting for Democrats and letting the candidates of both parties know why I did; I urge you to do so, too. Even if there happens to be a relatively "good" Republican candidate on your ballot, vote Democrat and inform the Republican that you voted against him despite his virtues because of his affiliation with and support for a party that is profoundly anti-reason, anti-America, anti life. Let him know that if he wants your vote in the future, he must openly repudiate the Republican agenda—openly denounce religion, statism, and the Forward Strategy of Altruism—and openly advocate reason, capitalism, and a foreign policy of self-interest.

Finally, no single election is as important as the underlying cause of the political nightmare in which we find ourselves today. That cause is bad philosophy, and the only way to counter it is by understanding, embracing, and spreading good philosophy. However you choose to vote in this election, study and spread Objectivism, donate to the Ayn Rand Institute, read The Objective Standard, and encourage your friends and family to do the same. The future is still ours if we are willing to fight for it.

Labels: , ,

Why I Will Not Vote for Any Republican

Posted by John David Lewis at 2:56 PM

In the upcoming election, I will not vote for any Republican. My reasons are based on those offered by philosopher Leonard Peikoff, and I agree with him completely. A straight Democratic vote in this election is the only rational choice I can make. I would not, however, vote Republican today even if the issue of government religion was not relevant.

In every area of domestic and foreign policy, the conservatives controlling the Republican Party have expropriated the central tenets of the left, while claiming to be an alternative. This has created a false alternative to the political left, posing as its opposite but supporting the same basic goals. This has sowed massive confusion in people's minds, and limited the American people to a choice of poisons. This confusion is undermining people's capacity to even conceive of a true alternative to the welfare state and military defeat.

The matter becomes all the more urgent , and the consequences more dangerous, when motivated by a civic religion and its claims to supernatural sanction.

The left is of no cultural importance here. They are clearly socialistic at heart, and want America to retreat before the whims of foreigners. It is easy to establish an opposition to them—whenever an alternative has been clear, their failure has been inescapable. But the Republicans, by forming a phony choice, have made it much more difficult to discern a true alternative.

Consider fiscal policy. The conservatives have become outright supporters of the welfare state. Compassionate conservatives have set out to surpass the leftists in spending. Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill, and he ranks with FDR and LBJ as a great financier of the welfare state. To call this triumvirate "free-market," or "pro-business," is an intellectual and political crime. Yet this is what the Bush conservatives claim.

Under Bush, the Department of Education has nearly doubled in size. Attempts to eliminate Social Security have mutated into plans to save it. Private savings accounts will be owned by individuals but controlled by the government. Private medicine will be by cartels, under government controls and grants. Welfare will be distributed by private groups, including churches and other religious organizations, who will seek the approval of government bureaucrats. All of this is in fundamental agreement with the welfare state, even if the form differs from what a leftist might prefer—and its claims to religious sanction give it a power that the left does not have.

Bush, of course, did well to lower the Capital Gains Tax—but does this temporary measure, easily repealed, offset the permanent harm done by an institutionalized Sarbanes-Oxley? Must we save capitalism by jailing CEOs?

Conservative support for the welfare state was once a compromise with the left. This is no longer so. Conservatives are energetically growing the welfare state, and will continue to do so even if the left withers away. On one level, principles of altruism motivate them to demonstrate their goodness through tax and spend. But there is another reason for this commitment: the very fact that the welfare state exists. This, to a true conservative, is sufficient evidence for its legitimacy.

Conservatives conserve. They see a nation's institutions, traditions and moral ideals as the anchor for its society—the glue that holds it all together—and they want to preserve them. For most of history, from the Greeks through Rome, the Middle Ages and into the 18 th century, the glue was seen as the laws and customs of our ancestors, whether the simple virtues of pious farm life, the norms of the Senatorial aristocracy, the dogmas of the church, the prerogatives of the ancien regime, the traditional religious standards, or other established credos. Conservatives do not stand for any content; they stand for preserving that which anchors and stabilizes society—a claim to mystical insights into moral ideals that rise above the petty concerns of life on earth.

In classical Athens, conservators of the traditional standards protected the city against "new gods" by executing Socrates. In Sparta, the divine ideals of the ancient founder Lycurgus were preserved by force. In Rome, Cato advocated the virtues of agrarian life as blessed by the gods; in the Middle Ages popes and monks defended the ideals of the early church; in early modern Europe the kingship and nobility stood against liberal reformers; in our own day, advocates of an old-time civic religion stand against a secular alternative.

In every case, it was the reformer—anyone who wanted to use his mind to find a better way of doing things—who was the enemy of the conservative. The point is not that the reformer was right; in many cases he was not. The point is that the conservatives opposed him because he was a reformer, because he used his mind to question the moral basis of life on earth. He became a danger to the established order.

For a brief moment, however—for a few decades in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries—people understood that what defined American life was individualism, the free market and limited government. Conservatives to some degree supported these ideals against progressives and Marxists. People began to think that defending these ideals was the essence of conservatism, and they forgot the more basic nature of conservatism: to conserve traditions qua traditions, to be taken on faith.

Consequently, when the welfare state supplanted limited government and freedom, and showed its resilience in the face of opposition, conservatives became the defenders of the new status quo. That is where we are today. Conservatives of the Bush tribe are now energetic advocates for the welfare state, connecting it to what they call traditional American virtues, meaning altruistic sacrifice, and defending it as the basis for American life.

This is true in domestic policy, but also in military defense. A few decades ago, conservatives wanted to use our military only for our own defense, and with quick and overwhelming force. They set a policy tone that Ronald Reagan claimed as his own. But Reagan retreated from Lebanon, and George Bush, Sr. never did anything without an international consensus. So it is with Bush Jr., who attacked Iraq only after months of building a coalition, and who sees democracy for them—even if based on Islamic Law—as constituting our success. If this sounds more like Woodrow Wilson than Douglas MacArthur, it should.

The conservative platform today is fundamentally indistinguishable from the New Left. Yet conservatives are not as forthright about their socialism. They claim to be pro-business, pro-freedom, and pro-military offense, all the while they act the opposite. They claim the mantle of Barry Goldwater while pushing the policies of FDR and LBJ. They hide the nature of their plans, seeing the route to success as appearing to be A while being non-A.

This has fostered enormous confusion. Say "military offense" and many people will think of Iraq—meaning quagmire and non-victory. Say "free market" and they think of cartels, Enron, and Sarbanes-Oxley as a necessary restraint on "greed." Say "freedom in medicine" and they think of the government-controlled hospitals that offer "choice" with a government handout. Say "private education" and they think of charter schools with public scholarships. Say "fiscal conservatism" and they think of rising deficits, from tax cuts combined with increased spending. Say "morality" and they think of anti-abortion, marriage laws and prayer in schools.

Conservatives have created a fantasy world of appearance, designed to expropriate the programs of the left while wearing the clothing of American freedom. In the end, the idea of a true alternative to the welfare state and military defeat is hacked up and re-stitched into a chimera. The fact that the left has become a cesspool of nihilism does not change the nature of the conservative reaction, or make this package-deal any real alternative.

In my view, if our choice is between two forms of welfare redistribution and military timidity, we would be best off with a president who openly espouses these ideas, and makes no claims to support the opposite. This would not lead to better policies, but it would result in clarity, a point of focus for an opposition, and a better chance for a true alternative to take hold.

Suppose that Al Gore had been elected in the fall of 2000. The 9/11 attacks would have occurred, but there would have been no confusion about what caused them: democratic weakness, not Republican "offense." Gore would have been forced to look strong, in the face of Republican opposition. Welfare-state spending could be blamed on Democratic welfare-statism, not the Republican "free market." Persecution of businessmen could be blamed on Elliot Spitzer, not the "pro-business" philosophy of Alberto Gonzales.

All of this becomes all the more potent when integrated with the core issues of the conservative civic religion: anti-abortion, regulation of biotechnology, control of marriage, and controls on immigration, issues in which some Republicans and Democrats actually differ. Bush saw fit to veto one bill in six years—stem cell research—and to interrupt his vacation to prevent a merciful death for the brain-dead Terry Schiavo. Beyond that, he has never met a government program he did not like.

In the end, a repudiation of these policies cannot occur by rewarding the Bush conservatives with an election victory. This has not worked for the past six years, and it will not work now. To "crush the left" in this election will not hurt the leftists any further—for their collapse is philosophical, not political, and thus far deeper than any election. But a conservative victory now will confirm the present leadership of the Republican Party, and strengthen their hold on it.

Republican Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona is one of the few rational voices here. In his opposition to earmarking—a distinctly conservative form of spending your money—he said "Maybe it'll take two years in the wilderness of being in the political minority. I hope that's not what it takes." But it will—for this will be a necessary step to discrediting the new conservatives and making clear the need for a true alternative to the welfare state and foreign appeasement, and its anchor in civic religion.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Objectivist Summer Conference 2007 Preview

Posted by ARI Media at 6:29 PM

Leonard Peikoff's The DIM Hypothesis available FREE at aynrand.org!

Next summer, Objectivist Summer Conference 2007 will present a new lecture series by Leonard Peikoff, presenting a detailed examination of his forthcoming book, The DIM Hypothesis.

Objectivist Summer Conference 2007

For a limited time, as a prelude to this event, we are able to present to you, free of charge, a streaming audio recording of the original lecture series, delivered in 2004, in which Dr. Peikoff gave the first detailed presentation of his exciting new theory. Listeners are invited to experience this course as a document of the early development of Dr. Peikoff's latest work.

Streaming audio links for the course can be found online at the Ayn Rand Institute's Registered User Page. (If you aren't yet registered, registration is fast, free and easy—just click to register now!) Audio streams are available in both RealMedia® and Windows Media® formats.

Course description:

This 15-session course—part lecture, part discussion—was presented live to a worldwide audience by phone and on the Internet. It is based on Dr. Peikoff's "The DIM Hypothesis" (book-in-progress), in which he looks at the role of integration in the culture and in practical life.

This course explains and explores Dr. Peikoff's new DIM hypothesis, applying it to ten different cultural areas, as listed in the course outline. The hypothesis identifies and distinguishes three types of mind: the mind characterized by I (Integration); by D (Disintegration); or by M (Misintegration). In the sessions Dr. Peikoff points out how all of the influential movements in the areas included reflect—and could only have been created by—one or another of these three mind sets. If enhancing your understanding of today's world and of where we are heading is an important concern of yours, Dr. Peikoff believes that you will find a DIM perspective on events to be of significant value.

As Dr. Peikoff recently explained: "[M]y thesis is that the dominant trends in every key area can be defined by their leaders' policy toward integration: they are against it (Disintegration, D); they are for it, if it conforms to reality (Integration, I); they are for it, if it conforms to a superior reality (Misintegration, M)."

LISTEN NOW

FREE REGISTRATION

Labels: , ,

Thursday, October 26, 2006

New Streaming Videos from the Ayn Rand Institute

Posted by Craig Biddle at 7:18 PM

The following new videos are free (with a quick registration). The first is Dr. Yaron Brook's enlightening explanation of why the Forward Strategy of Freedom has failed and will continue to fail to bring security to America. The second is Dr. Onkar Ghate's excellent discussion of why religion cannot provide a foundation for an objective morality and of what philosophy can. Both talks are highly recommended.

Democracy versus Victory: Why the "Forward Strategy of Freedom" Had to Fail
By Yaron Brook

After Sept. 11 the Bush administration declared that we must go on a mission to bring freedom to the Middle East nations that threaten us; thus, the Forward Strategy of Freedom. According to this strategy, establishing democracies in key Muslim countries, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq, would spur a revolution in the rest of the Muslim world—a revolution that would bring free, pro-Western, anti-terrorist governments to power.

But the strategy has failed. With the rise of the religious Shiites in Iraq, of Hamas and of Hezbollah, and with the electoral victories of Islamic radicals elsewhere in the Middle East, the Muslim world has grown more militant.

Why has the Forward Strategy of Freedom failed, and why was failure inevitable? What are the flaws inherent in the strategy? How does it necessarily undermine victory? What motivates it and what strategy should replace it? These are the questions Dr. Brook addresses in this talk.

Religion and Morality
By Onkar Ghate

From the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in the classroom to federal prohibition on the funding of stem cell research to the Terri Schiavo case, religion is playing an increasing role in America's public life. The advocates of religion claim that only religion can restore values to America—by combating moral skepticism and relativism with an absolute view of right and wrong, applicable to everyone. If God is dead, it is often thought today, then everything would be permitted. But does morality rest on religion? Can it rest on religion? Are moral absolutes possible with religion? Without religion? What approach to morality can actually bring values to American culture? These are the questions this talk addresses.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

America's Self-Defense Should Not Be Left at the Mercy of the United Nations

Posted by ARI Media at 7:27 PM

Irvine, CA—Iran is apparently expanding its nuclear program, and North Korea has hinted that it might test another nuclear bomb. Washington has committed itself to a "diplomatic" solution and is pushing for U.N. sanctions against Iran or North Korea. These sanctions, though, might be sunk if opposed by Russia or China or another country. So U.S. diplomats are busy trying to build international support for supposedly "tough" U.N. sanctions.

"But this entire approach is dead wrong. It sacrifices our self-defense to the whims of the so-called international community," said Elan Journo, a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute.

"Our self-defense should not be left to the mercy of the dictatorship-infested United Nations, an organization corrupt to its core and manifestly hostile to America.

"We have a moral right to exist and defend our freedom. But our leaders do not believe that. That is why they want the approval of others, the endorsement of a 'consensus' supporting U.S. actions. Our leaders lack the confidence to act self-assertively to defend U.S. interests. But such independence—grounded in rational judgment and moral self-confidence—is indispensable to protecting our lives.

"Today's crisis is a product of U.S. inaction and appeasement of Iran. Taking military action against Iran is not only within America's rights, but overdue."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

The Media's Mistreatment of Jeff Skilling

Posted by ARI Media at 10:18 PM

Irvine, CA—Upon hearing the news that former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling was sentenced to 24 years, most Americans, trusting the newspaper articles and books they have read on Enron, think that justice has been served. But, said Alex Epstein, a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "Jeff Skilling has not gotten justice, and the media bear a major portion of the blame.

"Few Americans know that during Skilling's trial, the prosecution came nowhere near proving its central allegation that Jeff Skilling engineered a conspiracy to defraud investors. Few know that Skilling, upon leaving Enron five months before its collapse, destroyed no documents, nor did anything else resembling a criminal cover-up. Few know that the prosecution, unable to prove a conspiracy, spent huge swaths of the trial taking pot-shots at Skilling with issues not even mentioned in the indictment, such as the failure of Skilling, a multi-millionaire many times over, to disclose a failed $50,000 investment to Enron's board.

"The media's misportrayal of the case against Skilling long predates the trial. Ever since the fall of Enron, most of the media have treated as fact every conceivable smear against Skilling made by ax-grinding prosecutors or ex-Enron employees, while treating as absurd Skilling's claim that he neither engineered a conspiracy nor lied to investors.

"There can be no doubt that the media's treatment of Skilling contributed to his conviction for a phantom conspiracy—and to the outrageous 24-year sentence that he has now received. And the mistreatment of Skilling is part of a broader trend: the trend of treating businessmen as guilty until proven innocent. Our journalists and intellectuals, accepting the idea that the pursuit of profit is morally tainted, assume that whenever anything goes wrong in business, it is the result of crooked behavior by greedy, rich CEOs—and slant their coverage accordingly. This practice is putting numerous innocent men in jail, and instilling terror throughout corporate America.

"During Skilling's appeal, let us call for the media to start treating Skilling—and all businessmen—fairly."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

Monday, October 23, 2006

How Britain Should Promote Assimilation

Posted by ARI Media at 3:27 PM

Irvine, CA—Britain is embroiled in a fierce debate over British Muslim women who wear a niqab—an opaque veil that covers a woman's entire face. Many British Muslims have expressed outrage that a public schoolteacher was ordered to remove her veil—while many other Britons have defended the school, criticized the wearing of niqabs, and called for the greater assimilation of Muslims into British society.

"Britons are absolutely right to criticize the niqab," said Alex Epstein, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "It is a demeaning, barbaric article of clothing that inculcates shame in women, depriving them of individuality and femininity."

"But to criticize niqabs will not go very far in making Britain a more integrated, less balkanized nation. Britons' most powerful tool of assimilation is to understand and proudly and convincingly proclaim Western ideals. They must understand that what made the West great is individualism, reason, the pursuit of happiness—and that this is objectively superior to the tribalism, superstition, and earthly deprivation that many Muslims seek to live out and bring to Europe. Britons must reject the insidious idea of multiculturalism, which holds that all cultures are of equal value. Cultures are not of equal value: prosperity is superior to poverty, happiness is superior to misery, freedom is superior to slavery, and a visible face is superior to a slit revealing two anonymous eyes."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

Restrictions on Internet Gambling Are an Infringement on Our Rights

Posted by ARI Media at 3:05 PM

Irvine, CA—On Oct. 13 President Bush signed into law the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, a measure restricting Internet gambling.

"This measure, which requires financial institutions to block credit card and other payments to Internet wagering businesses, is an infringement on our rights," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"Gambling, when practiced responsibly, can be a totally legitimate form of entertainment. The government has no right to prohibit adults from doing it—on the Internet or anywhere else—and no right to prohibit businesses from offering gambling opportunities to potential customers.

"Why do supporters of the law deny individuals the freedom to spend their hard-earned money on gambling? Because, they say, people will bet and lose more than they can afford. In other words, individuals are inherently incapable of making rational decisions, and thus it is the government's job to protect us from ourselves. This vicious, paternalistic idea has no place in a free society."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels:

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Condemn the Power of Eminent Domain

Posted by Larry Salzman at 11:16 AM

Last years' United States Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, which refused to prohibit local governments from using eminent domain to promote private economic development, has spawned a massive popular and legislative response at the state level. A comprehensive list of legislation pending, passed, or dead is available from the Institute for Justice's Castle Coalition website, as well as a report with a discussion of common "weasel words" in bills that may appear to reform the law but will in fact have little legal effect in constraining the power of eminent domain. Because the merit of much of this legislation is suspect, it is worth carefully reviewing legislation proposed in those states where multiple bills or popular referendums are pending, prior to next month's elections. The passage of nearly any such laws is of some value in registering popular support for property rights, but enactment of better variants of the proposed legislation is likely to lead to a steady stream of lawsuits which will keep the subject of property rights in the headlines for many years to come, which is to my mind a worthwhile result in itself. The more coverage the subject gets, the more time and opportunity are presented to intellectuals to speak to the issue of property rights in popular venues.

In my own state, California, at least nine separate bills were introduced in the state legislature and two popular initiatives were proposed. Unfortunately, only one initiative has made it to the ballot for next month's election: Proposition 90. Although it is among the weakest of the bills introduced, it nonetheless has the virtue of causing city planners to run scared that they may see some restraints put on their power to take private property for economic development. For those in the area of Orange County, California, the Federalist Society and Pacific Legal Foundation are sponsoring a legal conference this Friday at Chapman University featuring a debate over the Proposition and a symposium on the history of eminent domain.

Labels:

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Attention Webmasters and Bloggers

Posted by Craig Biddle at 5:30 PM

Help promote The Objective Standard by placing one of our sexy banners on your website or blog. Select a banner, and paste the accompanying HTML code onto your web pages. If you have any questions about how to do this, please email Alan Germani at webmaster@theobjectivestandard.com. Banners featuring dated material (journal covers, current issue contents, etc.) will automatically be updated if you use the provided HTML.

Labels:

Monday, October 16, 2006

The Military Doctrine of Altruism

Posted by John David Lewis at 5:57 PM

A New York Times article recently described the military skills our soldiers will need to engage in the operations our politicians are asking them to perform ("Military Hones a New Strategy on Insurgency," October 5, 2006). The new doctrine renounces overwhelming force, focuses on reacting to insurgent attacks rather than winning offensive battles, and has a goal of protecting foreign civilians rather than defeating a hostile enemy.

Before the 2004 election, Vice-President Cheney lambasted John Kerry for wanting to fight a more "sensitive" war. But Cheney should rather have agreed, as that is exactly what we are doing. (I identified this before the election, in "President Bush's 'Sensitive' War," Capitalism Magazine, August 27, 2004.)

The Times article is right that the face of the military is changing: At military conferences, and in discussions with military officers and instructors, I repeatedly hear how we must change attitudes among a foreign population rather than use our force, and how it is preferable to let "bad guys" escape rather than to hurt civilians. The military is developing new tactics to achieve such ends.

In a visit to the military simulators at Fort Riley, Kansas, for instance, I saw a stunning array of technology. One enters a warehouse-style building, full of metal cubes with doors. Close the door, and you are in a tank: a mock-up of an M1 Abrams tank commander's display, with monitors and controls to replicate real-world conditions. Six tanks can be networked, and sent on a mission. Instructors can ambush them, engage them with fire, and monitor their actions. Afterwards, in a classroom, participants can see an overhead view of the entire operation, and evaluate every move from above. Such technology is space-age and potentially beneficial—but what of the goals to which it is being employed?

It was once the case—in a by-gone era—that our goal in war was to defeat an enemy, thereby securing our safety. This meant demonstrating to enemy leaders, fighters, and civilians that victory for them was impossible—by destroying their capacity to fight. With such a goal in mind, the regime in Iran, for instance, which is providing the Iraqi insurgency with a steady stream of personnel and of material and psychological support, would not be allowed to remain in power. Local Iraqi warlords would face overwhelming assault. Civilians would learn not to harbor our enemies and not to support a hopeless cause.

But the new doctrine has nothing to do with defeating a deadly enemy or protecting American lives. The new "wisdom" is that "the more force is used, the less effective it is." The army, it is said, must "clear, hold and build," since building things for a foreign population is more important than demanding their surrender. The enemy's safe-havens over the borders, its defiant leadership, and its sympathetic civilians, are not to be attacked. "Tactical success guarantees nothing"; the new aim is "to protect the Iraqis against intimidation." (One wonders how the police in New York could protect a grocer from the intimidation of organized gangsters without destroying the Mafia that funds them—but this, in essence, is how our military now operates.)

There is one big idea behind such thinking, one idea that establishes the political and intellectual context for the new doctrine: altruism. It is altruism ("otherism") that elevates the value of others over self. This is the core moral principle behind today's Just War Theory—which is the direct application of altruism to the question of military ethics and doctrine.

Offensive war is based on the idea that one's own citizens, and one's own cause, are more valuable than the enemy and his cause. Every soldier who shoots an enemy, and every president who issues an ultimatum to a hostile power, is presuming this principle. But this, according to altruism, is self-interested, and thereby morally tainted. The new aim of the war—taken as an unquestioned absolute—is to bring good things to the population of a hostile nation, while hoping, as a secondary goal, that it will respond by embracing democracy and thus ceasing to threaten us (as if unlimited majority rule in the Middle East were the key to our security).

It is altruism that subjects our military to the slow bleed of dead and maimed soldiers in order to avoid confronting an enemy leader or hurting a shopkeeper. It is altruism that tells our soldiers to build toilets for a hostile population rather than to defeat the deadly enemy. It is altruism that places the welfare of Iraqis over the security of Americans.

Since altruism provides no specific goals for war—it says only that, whatever our goals, they must be good for others and not self-interested—a lack of purpose is the inevitable result of the new military doctrine. The decline of civilian support in America for the Iraq war is a consequence of the inability to understand why one American should die for the Iraqis. And the contempt for America in the Middle East is the result of our unwillingness to assert ourselves or to destroy those spreading anti-American propaganda in the region. What American altruists see as virtuous deference to the needs of others, our enemies overseas take as weakness of will and submission.

Some commentators have praised this new military doctrine, while whitewashing its implications. Counter-insurgency war is not about victory or defeat, runs one argument; democracy for others is our purpose and will be the "final stage" of the war. We should fight on until the enemy establishes an electoral "Vote for Liberty!" campaign, blanking out the fact that "liberty" has a specific meaning, that people who do not understand it cannot be expected to defend it, and that any moral standard which requires us to sacrifice our liberty for theirs is a repudiation of liberty at its root.

The real problem, say others, is "leftists" who want to "cut and run"—evading the fact that the New Left political and economic agenda has been adopted lock, stock, and barrel by the New Conservatives. "Peace without Victors" was the call of liberal Woodrow Wilson in 1918 and is the call of conservatives today. Just War Theory itself is a leftist construct that has been embraced by conservative leaders, in many cases for its Christian overtones. Mr. Cheney may chide Mr. Kerry—but the Bush administration has taken the democrat's advice.

Military experts are warning that we do not have enough resources to continue "fighting" this way. Since the military's job is now to "counter" an endless "insurgency," we would need as many army squads as there are buildings and street corners in the Middle East. Proponents claim that such a war may take fifteen years for Iraq alone—without considering the support flowing in from surrounding areas or the increasing threats to America from other parts of the world. The doctrine is a prescription for a stream of American body-bags, with no end in sight because no victory is being pursued.

America's increasing technological superiority, combined with the deepening fog surrounding the moral purpose of such superiority, is a symptom of the gulf between science and the humanities that has characterized the past two hundred years. We combine soaring advancements in the capacity to control physical nature, with stagnation and regression in our understanding of man's moral nature. If we do not grasp the moral goodness of self-interested action—which in war means the pursuit of victory over our enemies—our military will continue to increase in technological efficacy only to continue sacrificing it to the bathroom needs of foreigners.

None of this will deter the advocates of this new doctrine, for they are driven by a moral ideal—altruism—that carries far more weight in their minds than the need to defend our own freedom.

Labels: ,

Friday, October 13, 2006

North Korea's Power Over the West

Posted by ARI Media at 4:14 PM

Irvine, CA—Speculation is rampant about North Korea's apparent test of a nuclear bomb. But one fundamental question is being ignored: How does a country so poor that it citizens die of starvation become a nuclear menace?

"The basic answer," according to Elan Journo, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "is that North Korea exploits the West's moral cowardice."

"North Korea is an aggressive dictatorship that holds power by force. The regime loots its enslaved citizens and threatens to do the same to its neighbors. What have Western powers done in response to the North's longstanding pursuit of nuclear weapons?

"Did they condemn the regime? Did they stand up to its bluster and seek to end the regime with a self-righteous, airtight trade embargo? Did they exhibit even an ounce of moral confidence? No; they evaded North Korea's vicious nature and appeased it with protection money. Years of Western 'diplomacy'—including gifts of oil and food—strengthened and emboldened North Korea. Whenever the North rattled its saber anew, the morally craven West responded with more diplomacy—and more bribes. This perverse cycle must end."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels:

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Eminent Domain vs. Property Rights

Posted by ARI Media at 12:52 PM

Irvine, CA—California residents will soon vote on Proposition 90, which limits the power of eminent domain available to government in California to projects of "public" use. Proposition 90 also requires that government pay "just compensation" whenever it takes private property for such public use or whenever its actions "result in substantial economic loss to private property." Similar attempts to curb the government's power of eminent domain are being considered throughout the country.

"The protection of property rights is a crucial pillar of a free society and a necessary condition for the protection of all individual rights," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"Every American who values his freedom and his individual rights should be deeply concerned about the government's power to use eminent domain and should support just compensation of property owners adversely affected by the government's actions.

"As Ayn Rand stated, 'Without property rights, no other rights are possible.'"

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels:

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Government to American Enterprise: Be Irrational—We'll Help!

Posted by Craig Biddle at 11:18 PM

In the United States today, if your enterprise is based on the acceptance of ideas in support of which there is no evidence, then you receive every imaginable kind of break and advantage from the government. This from today's New York Times:

At any moment, state inspectors can step uninvited into one of the three child care centers that Ethel White runs in Auburn, Ala., to make sure they meet state requirements intended to ensure that the children are safe. There must be continuing training for the staff. Her nurseries must have two sinks, one exclusively for food preparation. All cabinets must have safety locks. Medications for the children must be kept under lock and key, and refrigerated.

The Rev. Ray Fuson of the Harvest Temple Church of God in Montgomery, Ala., does not have to worry about unannounced state inspections at the day care center his church runs. Alabama exempts church day care programs from state licensing requirements, which were tightened after almost a dozen children died in licensed and unlicensed day care centers in the state in two years.

The differences do not end there. As an employer, Ms. White must comply with the civil rights laws; if employees feel mistreated, they can take the center to court. Religious organizations, including Pastor Fuson's, are protected by the courts from almost all lawsuits filed by their ministers or other religious staff members, no matter how unfairly those employees think they have been treated.

And if you are curious about how Ms. White's nonprofit center uses its public grants and donations, read the financial statements she is required to file each year with the Internal Revenue Service. There are no I.R.S. reports from Harvest Temple. Federal law does not require churches to file them….

An analysis by The New York Times of laws passed since 1989 shows that more than 200 special arrangements, protections or exemptions for religious groups or their adherents were tucked into Congressional legislation, covering topics ranging from pensions to immigration to land use. New breaks have also been provided by a host of pivotal court decisions at the state and federal level, and by numerous rule changes in almost every department and agency of the executive branch….

The changes reflect, in part, the growing political influence of religious groups and the growing presence of conservatives in the courts and regulatory agencies. But these tax and regulatory breaks have been endorsed by politicians of both major political parties, by judges around the country, and at all levels of government.

"The religious community has a lot of pull, and senators are very deferential to this kind of legislation," said Richard R. Hammar, the editor of Church Law & Tax Report and an accountant with law and divinity degrees from Harvard.

As a result of these special breaks, religious organizations of all faiths stand in a position that American businesses—and the thousands of nonprofit groups without that "religious" label—can only envy. And the new breaks come at a time when many religious organizations are expanding into activities—from day care centers to funeral homes, from ice cream parlors to fitness clubs, from bookstores to broadcasters—that compete with these same businesses and nonprofit organizations.

Click here to read the whole thing.

By effectively assisting faith-based organizations while crippling reason-based ones, our government is rewarding, encouraging, and fostering irrationality while punishing, discouraging, and thwarting rationality. The remedy to this insanity is, of course, not for the government to start taxing, regulating, harassing, and generally stifling faith-based enterprises—but, rather, for the government to keep its coercive hands off of all rights-respecting enterprises, whether irrational or rational, and let the chips fall where they may. But, then, that would be rational, so neither liberals nor conservatives will consider it.

Labels: ,

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Reply to a Question about Targeting Non-Combatants in War

Posted by Craig Biddle at 7:43 PM

Reader Dan Edge writes:

I've very much appreciated the TOS articles concerning the Islamic Totalitarian threat, particularly Dr. Brook and Dr. Epstein's Just War Theory" article and Dr. Lewis's "William Tecumseh Sherman" article. I had the opportunity to meet Dr. Lewis recently at an NYU Objectivist Club event. Following his excellent lecture on "Why We Are Losing the War: Five Years After 9/11," I posed a question to Dr. Lewis that I would also like to pose to the TOS staff (at Dr. Lewis's recommendation):

In precisely what way does rights theory imply the moral necessity to target non-combatants in war?

To be clear, I believe rights theory does necessitate the targeting of civilians in war when it is an effective military tactic for defeating an enemy nation. But I ask this question as a devil's advocate, because many [people] are very loudly proclaiming that the principle of individual rights prohibits the specific targeting of civilians.

The argument is usually phrased something like this: The government may use force only in retaliation against those who initiate its use. Civilians in an enemy nation have not initiated force against anyone. The fact that a civilian sanctions his (evil) government's actions does not constitute an initiation of force. Therefore, though collateral damage to the civilian population is permissible when targeting the enemy military, specific targeting of civilians is not morally permissible.

This question assumes that a proper theory of rights implies the moral necessity of targeting non-combatants in war, but this is not necessarily so. It depends on the context. Objective rights theory—that is: rational egoism applied to the requirements of human coexistence—implies the moral necessity of protecting oneself and one's rational interests from aggressors by whatever means necessary. In the context of a war, this means that the nation against which force has been initiated morally must use whatever retaliatory force is necessary to eliminate the aggressor as quickly and efficiently as possible—with as little risk to the lives of its own citizens as possible. If targeting non-combatants is required to achieve that end—as it was in World War II, and as it is in the war against Islamism—then egoism demands it.

In WWII, we had to break the will of the people in Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan. But in the war against Islamism (Islamism being the notion that the Koran is true, that it is to be taken seriously, and thus that unbelievers are to submit or be killed), we are dealing not just with the irrational ideology of the people of one or two countries, but with an irrational ideology embraced by millions of people in scores of countries. Islamism is an international movement bent on destroying the West and eliminating freedom from the planet. To put an end to this movement, we must demonstrate, once and for all, that to partake in it or to advocate it is to ensure personal destruction.

The spiritual center of Islamism is Iran, and the spiritual heads of Iran are the mullahs, imams, and teachers who call for strict adherence to the Koran and thus for the submission or murder of infidels (especially Israelis and Americans). These leaders should be our primary human targets; we should aim to kill as many of them as possible (all would be best) by bombing their mosques, madrassahs, and homes when they are most likely to be there. The unfortunate deaths of innocents (such as children) who would be killed in such an attack are the moral responsibility of those who embrace, advocate, or apologize for Islamism. When we, of necessity, kill innocents in a retaliatory attack against an aggressor nation, we do not violate the rights of those innocents; their rights are violated by those who necessitate our retaliatory force. As I said in an earlier, related post:

In circumstances such as these, there is a difference between the killer and the murderer. The murderer is the aggressor—the agent who initiates force and thus necessitates retaliatory force on the part of the victim. The victim, in retaliating, may kill [innocent] people in the process, but all such deaths are the responsibility of the aggressor.

He who necessitates the use of retaliatory force is morally responsible for the consequences of that force. So says the law of causality.

Let's keep our concepts in order—and the blame where it belongs.

Aggressors include those who call for aggression—such as non-combatant Japanese imperialists during WWII and non-combatant Iranian mullahs today.

Non-combatants and innocents are not necessarily one and the same. If a mafia godfather orders the assassination of a police chief but does not himself pull the trigger, he is, in a sense, a non-combatant, but he is clearly guilty of murder; he is an aggressor. So too are the Islamists who call for "death to infidels" but who do not themselves hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings full of Americans. The preachers and teachers of Islamism are not innocent; they are guilty. And they are not merely legitimate targets; they are mandatory targets.

Contrary to the confusions (or evasions) of some, the question of whom to target in a war is not merely a strategic issue to be addressed only by military strategists; it is also, and more fundamentally, a philosophic issue to be addressed by those who understand the role of ideas in human life. This explains, in part, why our military strategy today is so deadly wrong. Today's military strategists do not understand the role of ideas in human life; if they did, they would realize that, in order to achieve our security, we must destroy (not pacify) those who call for death to America. The question of which people must be killed to put an end to the current assault on the West is a philosophic question, and the answer to it is: those who preach or teach the idea that infidels must submit or be killed.

Finally, I do not think it is necessary or proper in today's context, as it was in that of WWII, to target the general population of enemy states. Thanks to modern technology, we now have the ability to be more selective, and—so long as doing so does not place American civilians or soldiers in further danger—we should take advantage of that ability. Targeting the general population of an enemy state is moral if doing so is necessary to put a swift end to the aggression, but I do not think it is necessary today. Nor do I think it would work as it did in WWII. In today's context, given the nature of the enemy, we need specifically to target, among other things, the intellectual leaders of the Islamist movement.

If we were to engage in a massive aerial bombing of Iranian military assets, Iranian government buildings, Iranian mosques and madrassahs (colleges in which students are trained to be Islamists), and the residencies of Iranian leaders, government officials, mullahs, imams, and teachers—and then explain to the world that, from now on, this is how America will respond to any and all threats to her citizens or allies—adherence to Islamism would suddenly lose its appeal worldwide. Muslims across the globe would either lose their religion altogether or opt for a watered-down, unserious version of it, as today's Christians and Jews have done with their equally barbaric creeds.

Labels: ,

The Jihad Against the West: The Real Threat and the Right Response

Posted by Craig Biddle at 2:46 PM

If you are within traveling distance of Boston, you owe it to yourself to attend this event—which is now free to students. There is no more-important subject in politics today than the enemy we face and what we must do to defeat him. Either we get this right—either we understand the threat to our lives and liberty and act accordingly—or we will suffer consequences that make 9/11 pale by comparison. This conference is about how to get it right and what we can do to help. I'll be there. I hope to see you there, too.

What: A three-day conference event including a lecture by Yaron Brook

Where: Ford Hall Forum, Boston, Massachusetts

When: October 20-22, 2006

This event is now FREE for students.

Objectivist Conferences is proud to invite you to this important weekend event.

As the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11 is observed this week, we see our leaders, intellectuals and TV commentators ignoring or denying the meaning of this world-changing atrocity. Instead of identifying and dealing with the deadly threat, our leaders are engaged in shifting blame, pressure-group politics, and deliberations over which cosmetics are permitted to airline passengers. Meanwhile, Islamicist fanatics recruit ever-more followers sworn to our destruction; American soldiers continue to die as Islamic totalitarianism increases its power in Iraq; and the world's premier terror-sponsoring regime works unhindered to acquire nuclear weapons. Amid the noise and confusion, the need for a clear, focused and principled response is more urgent than ever.

Those who attend this conference will find an array of prominent speakers and experts who have refused to submit to intimidation, and whose voices are at the forefront of the pivotal ideological battle to defend Western civilization against the forces of jihad. Their presentations will expose not only the implacable barbarity of Islamic totalitarianism—but also the corrupt, evasive appeasement that continues to enable the rise of jihadist ideology. Join us in this call to action on the most important geopolitical issue of our time.

Students: There is NO admission cost for the panel discussion or for any of the lectures held at the Boston World Trade Center. Free admission to Yaron Brook's Oct. 22 lecture is available through the Ford Hall Forum only.

FEATURED SPEAKERS
Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum
Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute
Flemming Rose, culture editor of Jyllands-Posten
Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch
Peter Schwartz, author of The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America
John Lewis, assistant professor of history, Ashland University

Events will take place at Tufts University, Boston's World Trade Center and Faneuil Hall, concluding with a lecture by Yaron Brook at the Ford Hall Forum.

Labels: ,

Thursday, October 05, 2006

'Just War Theory' Gets Further Entrenched in U.S. 'War' Policy

Posted by Craig Biddle at 6:03 PM

"Just War Theory"—the theory driving U.S. military buffoonery in the absurdly named "War on Terrorism"—is, in fact, an utter inversion of justice, which sacrifices the lives and limbs of American soldiers for the sake of enemy civilians and mystical savages. The even worse news is that this wretched theory is becoming further and further entrenched, as indicated by this article in the New York Times. (Thanks to Robert LeChevalier for bringing the article to my attention.)

The excerpts below require no comment, but when you're through reading them and lifting your jaw from the floor, please read "'Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defense." If you've already read it, send the link to every active-minded person you know.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 4—The United States Army and Marines are finishing work on a new counterinsurgency doctrine that draws on the hard-learned lessons from Iraq and makes the welfare and protection of civilians a bedrock element of military strategy….

The doctrine…cautions against overly aggressive raids and mistreatment of detainees. Instead it emphasizes the importance of safeguarding civilians and restoring essential services….

The current military leadership in Iraq has already embraced many of the ideas in the doctrine. But some military experts question whether the Army and the Marines have sufficient troops to carry out the doctrine effectively while also preparing for other threats.

The new doctrine is part of a broader effort to change the culture of a military that has long promoted the virtues of using firepower and battlefield maneuvers in swift, decisive operations against a conventional enemy.

The doctrine is outlined in a new field manual on counterinsurgency that is to be published next month….

The spirit of the document is captured in nine paradoxes that reflect the nimbleness required to win the support of the people and isolate insurgents from their potential base of support—a task so complex that military officers refer to it as the graduate level of war.

Instead of massing firepower to destroy Republican Guard troops and other enemy forces, as was required in the opening weeks of the invasion of Iraq, the draft manual emphasizes the importance of minimizing civilian casualties. "The more force used, the less effective it is," it notes.

Stressing the need to build up local institutions and encourage economic development, the manual cautions against putting too much weight on purely military solutions. "Tactical success guarantees nothing," it says.

Noting the need to interact with the people to gather intelligence and understand the civilians' needs, the doctrine cautions against hunkering down at large bases. "The more you protect your force, the less secure you are," it asserts….

As the manual is being drafted, the military has also revised the curriculum at its war colleges and training ranges to emphasize counterinsurgency….

[C]oncerns have grown that the Army may be raising a new group of young officers with little experience in high-intensity warfare against heavily equipped armies like North Korea.

"That is one of the things folks are a little concerned about,"…

Again, read "'Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defense." It identifies the cause of this insanity and explains what must be done to stop it.

Labels:

Religion would be a Hoot—if…

Posted by Craig Biddle at 12:33 PM

If religion were not so damn deadly, it would just be funny. Get this. Iranian Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khameini decrees:

  • Don't masturbate during Ramadan.
  • Don't gamble on horse races—unless you're a jockey.
  • You may drink water while standing.
  • Wear foot coverings while harvesting.
  • Don't take part in meetings with the opposite sex.
  • You may exchange goats for fabric.

Okay, I made two of those up, but observe that you have no idea which two. Christianity and Judaism involve much similar silliness, but I'll leave their antics for another day.

Labels:

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Speaking in (and of) Tongues

Posted by Craig Biddle at 11:27 AM

This from MEMRI:

Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abd Al-'Aziz: We Will Cut Off Tongues of Those Who Try to Distort Islam With Reform and Progress—They Are Serving the West.

"My brothers, the danger is even greater. Even those people have become tools in the hands of the enemies. Unless we face reality with truth, courage, and evidence, and if we do not stop all the transgressors who are trying to distort Islam with their claims of reform and their corrupt progress—this will be dangerous. These people have been tempted by the West, and have been employed in its service. We are familiar with their relations with foreign elements. We are fighting them and will continue to fight them, and we will cut off their tongues."

Watch the video: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1283

Labels: ,

Frist and Company Urge Compromise with the Taliban

Posted by Craig Biddle at 10:52 AM

This is a brain on conservatism.

QALAT, Afghanistan—U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said Monday that the war against Taliban guerrillas in Afghanistan could never be won militarily, and he urged support for efforts to bring "people who call themselves Taliban" into the government.

Frist said he learned from military briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.

"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," he said during a visit to a military base in the Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful."

And Frist is not alone in his views:

Sen. Mel Martinez (R) of Florida, who was traveling in Afghanistan with Frist, said that negotiations with the Taliban were not "out of the question." But he added that he thought Taliban fighters who did not want to be a part of the political process would have to be defeated militarily.

And:

Ed Morrissey of the conservative blog Captain's Quarters writes that he feels someone confused "Taliban" with "Taliban supporters" and "whether that was Frist or the reporter will probably remain a point of contention between the two." But he also says that the Frist incident does bring up an important point about "the end game" in Afghanistan.

"If we want a representative democracy in Afghanistan, it will probably be heavily influenced by the Pashtuns, who have a strong Islamist bent. They did, after all, push the Taliban into power. At some point, we have to find a way to convince these Islamists to buy into democracy, and we have to be willing to allow that democracy to develop its own laws and customs. Otherwise, we will have to prop up a strongman who can keep the Pashtuns oppressed, which will create an even greater Islamist impulse in Afghanistan."

Such is the nature of conservative "principles."

Labels:

English Fairy Tales and Persian Nightmares

Posted by Craig Biddle at 10:37 AM

This one-minute video is worth watching. Note the fervor not only of Ahmadinejad but also of the crowd chanting "Death to America." Lovely people.

(Hat Tip to Boaz Arad)

Labels:

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

New York Has No Right to Force Restaurants to Cut on Trans Fats

Posted by ARI Media at 8:37 PM

Irvine, CA—New York's Board of Health has proposed a law to force all restaurants in the city to severely limit the content of trans fats in their food.

"The government has no right to dictate to restaurants what they can or cannot serve, and it has no right to dictate to individuals what they can or cannot eat," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"Individuals should be free to judge for themselves what foods to eat, including if and when to eat foods with trans fats.

"Those who believe that trans fats are unhealthy are free not to eat food that contains them—and free to persuade others not to sell or consume them. They have no right, however, to dictate the recipes of restaurants."

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels:

Dhimmitude Taking Root

Posted by John David Lewis at 10:03 AM

USA Today 9/18/06 reports that Muslim cab drivers at Minneapolis–St. Paul Airport are refusing to carry passengers with alcohol—even an unopened bottle of wine—due to their religious beliefs. Drivers are mad because refusing a fare causes them to be sent to the end of the line, and a wait of up to three hours before they get a new fare. So they are demanding special procedures, to allow them to select the passengers they want, without losing their place in line. It appears that some drivers are using this issue as a way to select passengers who want to go places that bring the highest fares. Airport officials have proposed special lights on their car roofs, to help passengers know which taxis serve alcohol-carrying passengers.

It is fascinating that so many Muslims now want to identify themselves visually as different from others. They want lights, and scarves, so that others will know who they are. Contrast attempts, by Germans and others in the past, to force Jews to wear identifying marks—Muslims now want these marks for themselves.

Once Muslims seize the moral high ground in such a way, claiming to be ideologically special, and willing to identify themselves as such, then it will be a small step to enforce this in law. Perhaps special courts should be required for all such drivers, to interpret legal matters according to their own special laws. The machinery will then be in place to advocate a high legal and political status for themselves, and an inferior status of others. This will force others into dhimmitude—that reduced status Muslims impose on others when Muslim law wins. Dhimmitude is a protection racket: it is a compact with the lower peoples to protect them, as long as they follow Muslim law. Protect them from whom? Those who enforce Muslim law.

This reminds me of the Mafia enforcer who tells a shopkeeper that $100 a week will buy him "protection" from the mob. "But who do I need protection from?" asks the shopkeeper. "Us" replies the enforcer.

Daniel Pipes has properly identified the attempts by Muslims to subvert minor cultural norms as very dangerous. If a cab driver does not want to carry me because I carry alcohol, then drive on and let me get into another cab. If it's back of the line for him, so be it. If he will not give me a ride in his cab because my personal preferences conflict with the commands he has received from some mystic, then let him take the consequences.

Robert Spencer reports this story at Jihad Watch.

Labels: ,