Principles in Practice: The Blog of the Objective Standard

Principles in Practice: January 2007

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Eminent Domain: To Preserve or To Abolish

Posted by TOS Admin at 9:11 AM

The audio of a remarkable debate, Eminent Domain: To Preserve or To Abolish, between Jeffrey A. Finkle and Yaron Brook, is now available on our Events page. The audio is free and accessible to all. Click here to listen now.

Eminent Domain: To Preserve or To Abolish
Jeffrey A. Finkle vs. Yaron Brook

The Issues: In the wake of the controversial Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, some legislators are moving to place limits on the government's power to seize citizens' property for use by private enterprises. Is it appropriate under certain circumstances for the government to use eminent domain for the purpose of transferring a citizen's property to a private business—or is this practice wrong in principle? Moreover, while the government is constitutionally authorized to take citizens' property for "public use," the question remains: Is this policy moral—and is it practical?

Does the government have a moral right to take citizens' property under certain conditions—or do citizens have an absolute right to their personal property? Does robust economic development require the occasional use of eminent domain—or would economic progress be greater if property rights were upheld as truly inalienable? What are the moral issues involved in eminent domain? What are the practical issues? Are the moral and the practical necessarily at odds—or can they be reconciled? Mr. Finkle and Dr. Brook will present the facts in support of their respective positions.

The Debaters: Mr. Finkle became the president and CEO of the International Economic Development Council in August 2001, following IEDC's birth through the merger of the Council for Urban Economic Development (CUED) with the American Economic Development Council (AEDC). Prior to the merger, Finkle served for 15 years as president and CEO of CUED. During that time, he oversaw the vast expansion of that organization's membership and influence, as well as strengthening its financial footing. Dr. Brook is the president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. As a recognized expert on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Dr. Brook has been interviewed extensively by the print, radio and television media for the Objectivist position on current events. Among his recent interviews have been appearances on Talk Back Live (CNN), Your World with Neil Cavuto (Fox News Channel), The O'Reilly Factor (Fox News Channel) and Closing Bell and On the Money (CNBC).

Enjoy!

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Sunday, January 28, 2007

CORRECTION

Posted by TOS Admin at 9:28 AM

In an earlier post, we mistakenly reported that TOS contributing editor John Lewis would be interviewed on the Kit Jarrell Show on February 10, at 10:00. The correct date is Friday, February 2, at 10:00 PM EST. The subject is his most recent TOS article, "'No Substitute for Victory': The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism." Tune in for what is bound to be a lively and informative conversation.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Friday, January 26, 2007

Life In Junior High - Part 2

Posted by Lisa VanDamme at 11:49 PM

Last week, I contrasted the cliché junior high classroom—of raucous teenagers throwing spitballs, passing love notes, and giggling at lewd jokes—with a VanDamme Academy junior high classroom—of young adults in raptures over Cyrano de Bergerac. How we produce students with such maturity and enthusiasm for learning is something I hope will be made clear over the life of this newsletter. But for now, I can at least indicate the answer.

The high achievement, the sophistication, and the reverence for learning of VanDamme Academy students ultimately derive from the school's basic philosophy. Our view is that the goal of education is to provide children with the knowledge and skills indispensable to life as an intelligent, informed, flourishing adult. We do not treat school as a holding room for adulthood, where we keep students busy until they reach the age when they can strike out on their own. We do not treat it as a grooming salon, where we prepare them for tests and build them a resume for admission into the best high school, colleges, and careers. We do not treat it as a Boy Scout camp, where we train good citizens with lessons in values and enlist them in the latest political trends. The busywork, the "to the test" teaching, the propaganda that results from these approaches defaults on the real responsibility of education and sours students on learning.

At VanDamme Academy, we believe that the purpose of a real education is to prepare the child for life as a capable and fulfilled adult. The curriculum, therefore, consists of only that which promotes this basic purpose, and is presented with this purpose always firmly in mind.

In literature classes, for example, students read the great classics for children and adults. These works are chosen for their timeless (i.e., insightful and eternally relevant) themes, for their captivating plots, and for their defined, memorable, and often inspirational characters. The goal of class discussions is to mine these values from every work, coming to a real understanding of the story's events, the meaning of these events, and the applicability of this meaning to the student's own life. I will always recall with satisfaction experiences such as the following: a junior high girl seeing to the essence of a Turgenev villain's soul ("He is so shallow, phony, and pretentious!") and then drawing out a lifelong lesson ("I would never date someone like that!").

This can be contrasted with my own education in literature. We read the stock list of mediocre American novels (The Catcher in the Rye, The Great Gatsby, etc.), and focused our discussions on stylistic devices (e.g., simile, metaphor, irony), an array of arbitrary "themes" that present themselves throughout the story (e.g., the symbolism of colors), and standardized test preparation (e.g., learning vocabulary words and identifying topic sentences). This experience encouraged in me, as it does in most, the view that literature—and education in general—is an obligation to be reluctantly fulfilled: not that it is deeply selfish, profoundly satisfying, crucially relevant.

It is by offering a core curriculum program, one that consists only of that which is most essential to the child's intellectual development, and by presenting it in a way that conveys to the students the power of the knowledge and allows them to harness it for themselves, that VanDamme Academy cultivates an environment of reverence for learning. Put in colloquial terms, the experience of a VanDamme Academy student is, continually: "That is so interesting!—I really understand it!—I see why I need to know it!"

Just yesterday, we were visited by five VanDamme Academy graduates. They had just finished final exams at a local private high school, and chose to spend their time off at their beloved alma mater. During their visit, they argued (somewhat facetiously) that VanDamme Academy should require more homework, to prepare students for the pain of the piles of un-graded busywork they will suffer in high school.

These same graduates had presented Mr. Lewis with a crystal trophy at their graduation, engraved with the following words, which they had composed: "Andrew Lewis. The man who has taught us to look at kings and see more than crowns, to look at wars and see more than bloodshed, to look at laws and see more than words. The man who has shown us the world of ideas."

Such is their feeling about a VanDamme Academy education.

Click here to sign up for the VanDamme Academy's free, weekly e-newsletter: "Pedagogically Correct." Every week, you will be sent a new article about the principles of teaching employed at VanDamme Academy, along with stories about the results they are achieving.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Thursday, January 25, 2007

CORRECTED

Posted by TOS Admin at 8:24 PM

John Lewis on the Kit Jarrell Show

On Friday, February 2, at 10:00 PM EST, TOS contributing editor John Lewis will be interviewed on the Kit Jarrell Show. The subject is his most recent TOS article, "'No Substitute for Victory': The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism." Tune in for what is bound to be a lively and informative conversation.

Also, if you live in Colorado, don’t miss Dr. Lewis’s whirlwind CO speaking tour which begins tonight! For details, visit NoodleFood.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Life In Junior High

Posted by Lisa VanDamme at 5:40 PM

When I tell people that I teach literature to junior high students, the response is nearly universal: an expression of profound sympathy. Teaching junior high is regarded as a martyr's job, to be taken on only by those with such a selfless commitment to children and education that they are willing to endure the daily torture of a classroom full of obnoxious, disrespectful, hormone-driven, teenagers who have nothing but contempt for learning.

One can see the basis for this view by looking at the state of most junior high schools today. A recent New York Times article about the problem of "chaotic middle schools"describes a scene from a typical New York City classroom:

...paper balls fly and pens are flicked from desk to desk. A girl is caught with a note and quickly tears it up, blushing, as her classmates chant, "Read it!"The teacher, Laura Lowrie, tries to demonstrate simple machines by pulling from a box a hammer, a pencil sharpener and then, to her instant remorse, a nutcracker—the sight of which sends a cluster of boys into a fit of giggles and anatomical jokes.

Is this sort of behavior an inevitable stage of development, the curse of the teenage years? Does puberty cause children to abandon the pursuit of knowledge in favor of spitballs, love notes, and dirty jokes? Must all junior high teachers be candidates for sainthood?

Not in my experience. Here is a scene from the last week in a junior high classroom at VanDamme Academy.

I entered the classroom five minutes before my literature class, the first class of the day, was to begin. The students were milling around and talking, until the first one saw me enter and alerted the others of my arrival. They all bolted for their seats and then sat erect with hands folded, for a deliberately exaggerated message: "We want to finish the last act of Cyrano de Bergeracright now."

I had been absent the day before, and the class had read act four with another of the VanDamme Academy teachers. Mattingly, age 11, said, in a tone playful but earnest, "I don't think it's right that our literature teacher was not with us when Christian died."

I took a few minutes at the start of class to talk about plans to view the movie, in a discussion that included their protests against the modern, Gerard Depardieu version in favor of the 1947 black-and- white version of which they had watched one act. "If it is not Jose Ferrer, it is not Cyrano,"said Geoffrey, a 12-year-old student.

I assigned parts, and the students read the act aloud, with sincerity, expressiveness, and understanding. As Cyrano lamented the tragic end to his tragic life, the tears streamed down my face. Seeing movement in the desk across from mine, I looked up at Allison, the 12-year-old girl seated there, who was wiping the tears from hers.

This maturity, this reverence for learning, this capacity for enjoyment of art is to be expected in a VanDamme Academy junior high classroom—and it can be replicated anywhere with the right curriculum and teaching methods.

Click here to sign up for the VanDamme Academy's free, weekly e-newsletter: "Pedagogically Correct." Every week, you will be sent a new article about the principles of teaching employed at VanDamme Academy, along with stories about the results they are achieving.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Immigration: Let Them In or Keep Them Out?

Posted by ARI Media at 10:35 AM

Who: Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, and Mr. Carl Braun, executive director of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps of California

What: A panel discussion and Q&A on the issue of immigration

Where: UCLA Campus: Moore 100, Los Angeles, CA

When: Tuesday, February 6, 2007 at 7:00 PM

Admission is FREE.

Summary: Immigration is a hotly debated issue today, entailing a number of considerations. What does a rational moral code have to say about allowing immigrants into the country versus having restrictive policies or a closed border? What is to be done about potential terrorists and criminals? What are the economic ramifications of immigration? Do immigrants displace jobs? Will open immigration cause an unjust drain on the welfare system—more so than is the case currently? Will overcrowding be a problem? What value do immigrants pose to a country? Will an influx of immigrants irrevocably alter the cultural atmosphere? Do immigrants have the right to come to America? Do Americans have the commensurate right to employ and sell housing to immigrants?

Dr. Harry Binswanger, member of the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute, will moderate the panel discussion, and the audience questions to the panelists.

Yaron Brook's bio: Dr. Yaron Brook holds a Ph.D. in Finance (1994, University of Texas at Austin) and is the president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. He lectures on Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, business ethics, and foreign policy at colleges, community groups, and corporations throughout the world. His articles have appeared in academic business journals, magazines, and popular newspapers, including USA Today. His numerous media appearances include recent interviews on On the Money (CNBC) and The O'Reilly Factor (Fox News Channel).

Carl Braun's bio: Mr. Carl Braun is a founding member and the Executive Director for the 2,000+ Minuteman Civil Defense Corps of California; one of the oldest and largest Borderwatch organizations in the United States. He is responsible for directing the efforts of a 12-person leadership team and coordinating border security efforts across a 35-mile stretch of California's southern border with Mexico.

For more information e-mail events@aynrand.org

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Friday, January 19, 2007

Don't Revive the Fairness Doctrine

Posted by ARI Media at 3:17 PM

Irvine, CA—At the National Conference for Media Reform last weekend, several lawmakers called for the return of the "Fairness Doctrine," which demands that television and radio broadcasters give a balanced presentation of all sides of controversial issues.

"The Fairness Doctrine is a violation of broadcasters' right to free speech," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "Broadcasters should not be forced to promote ideas they may disagree with.

"Defenders of the Fairness Doctrine claim that, left unrestrained, broadcast corporations will stop some views from being heard. But no private individual or organization can keep people from voicing dissenting views—it is only the government that has the power to suppress speech. By granting a cabal of government bureaucrats the power to arbitrarily dictate what ideas should and should not be heard on the air, the Fairness Doctrine is the real threat to free speech.

"Those who think their views are not being heard have every opportunity to promote them—on television, on radio, in print, online—but they must earn their audience, not demand that it be provided to them ready-made. As Ayn Rand put it, 'The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.'

"Those who value the First Amendment must oppose the Fairness Doctrine as a grave threat to freedom of speech."

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Bush's Iran Policy Encourages More Attacks on Americans in Iraq

Posted by ARI Media at 9:35 PM

Irvine, CA—In his January 10 speech, President Bush acknowledged that Iran is providing key material support for attacks on American troops in Iraq.

"Iran's support for these attacks constitutes an act of war against the United States—the latest act of war in a long series stretching back to the Iranian hostage crisis," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "Our government has a moral obligation to respond to these vicious acts by taking decisive military action against Iran: hostile nations must not be given a blank check to murder American citizens.

"Shamefully, instead of vowing to retaliate against Iran, President Bush has meekly announced plans to 'disrupt' future attacks and destroy isolated 'networks' of Iranian agents plotting to murder more American citizens.

"President Bush's inaction against Iran will encourage the regime to sponsor further attacks on Americans in Iraq, and to expand the scope of its aggression further. Those who value the lives of our soldiers and the security of America must demand that the Bush administration change course and eliminate the Iranian threat."

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

The Most Successful Business Book Ever

Posted by ARI Media at 1:21 PM

Dear Editor:

Charles Pretzlik claims that Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is "the most successful business book ever", yet asserts that it is not worth reading ( The Financial Times, Outside Edge, "Why John Galt is not worth knowing", January 6/7).

If the book were really as "joyless" as Mr Pretzlik asserts, its success would be inexplicable. How does an unreadable tome find an audience of millions and enjoy enduring popularity 50 years after its publication?

In fact, what a new reader will discover in its pages is an exciting suspense story with well-drawn characters, an ingenious plot structure and a profound philosophic theme.

Atlas Shrugged is more than just a "manifesto for money and the free market". It is a deep exploration of the philosophical foundations of freedom. It is no exaggeration to say that the very future of capitalism, itself, depends on the ideas in this book. FT readers should follow another "Randian tip": ignore Mr Pretzlik's advice and judge Atlas Shrugged for yourself.

Yaron Brook
Executive Director
Ayn Rand Institute

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Monday, January 15, 2007

How to Truly Support our Troops by Alex Epstein

Posted by ARI Media at 6:37 PM

Whatever their views of President Bush's new "surge" of 20,000 soldiers, both liberals and conservatives continue to claim that they support our troops. Liberals say they support our troops by criticizing or opposing "Operation Iraqi Freedom," which they claim has unnecessarily killed 3,000 soldiers. Conservatives say they support our troops by supporting the mission that most of our troops believe in.

In fact, neither liberals nor conservatives truly support the brave men and women who risk their lives to defend America. For both, "support our troops" is a cheap, undeserved claim to patriotism—one that obscures their unwillingness to do what is truly necessary to protect America and its soldiers.

Granted, almost everyone wants to give our troops the resources they need to do their jobs: the best weapons, armor, provisions, and training available—as well as praise, gratitude, and encouragement. But for our government to truly support our troops, it must do far more than help them do their jobs; it must give them the right jobs to do—the jobs that will effectively defend America while minimizing the risk to their lives. Our government must place soldiers' lives at risk only when American freedom is threatened, and during war it must give them the objectives and tactics that will defeat the enemy as quickly as possible.

The conservatives' Iraq war does not meet this standard. It could have—if the war had been undertaken as a step in defeating the anti-American, terrorist-sponsoring regimes of the Middle East and thus rendering the region non-threatening. Instead, President Bush made the war's primary focus the welfare of Iraqis—above all, their "freedom" to elect whatever regime they wished, no matter how anti-American. Further sacrificing Americans to Iraqis, Bush and his subordinates imposed crippling "rules of engagement" (also supported by liberals) that place the lives of civilians in enemy territory above our soldiers. Our hamstrung troops in Iraq have not been allowed to smash a militarily puny insurgency; instead, they have been forced to suffer an endless series of deaths by an undefeated enemy, while Islamic totalitarians worldwide rejoice in our defeat.

One does not support our troops by sending them to fight wars of self-sacrifice and then thanking their corpses. The conservatives' call to "stay the course" in Iraq—or to add 20,000 troops to that course—is harmful to America and its troops because the mission has been conceived and conducted in defiance of American interests.

If the conservatives do not support our troops, then do the liberals? Absolutely not.

Observe that while liberals criticize the Iraq war for killing our troops, they propose no alternative policy that would protect America against Islamic totalitarianism and its state supporters, including the militant, terrorist theocracy of Iran. Liberals' only policy proposal is that we not take military action in Iraq or in any other country beyond Afghanistan. Why? Because they believe that America has no right to defy the "international community" or "impose its will on the rest of the world"—i.e., to aggressively pursue its self-defense. They, like the conservatives, advocate self-sacrifice in foreign policy. Denying our right to an all-out military defense, liberals say we must engage committed enemies like Iran with endless "diplomacy," i.e., bribery, appeasement, and inaction.

One does not support our troops by keeping them home when their and our freedom requires military action. Our soldiers did not join the military to sit on their hands while Iran prepares for nuclear jihad.

If liberals were truly concerned with our troops in Iraq and the freedom our soldiers should be fighting for, they would call for our soldiers to smash the insurgency and move on to defeat our other enemies. Instead, they call for a self-effacing retreat from Iraq, followed by further kowtowing to the anti-Americans at the United Nations—actions that would greatly embolden the Islamic totalitarians.

Liberals oppose the Iraq war and other wars, not because they truly value our soldiers, but because they—like the conservatives—oppose our soldiers mounting an uncompromising, self-assertive defense of America. But such a defense is required to defeat the threat of Islamic totalitarianism. We must adopt a foreign policy of self-interest and commit to defend ourselves using our full, unmatched military might. Neither the conservatives nor the liberals support this, and thus they end up sacrificing our troops and our freedom.

Do not let the conservatives or liberals pose as defenders of America or its military. Demand that they start truly protecting America and its soldiers—or be scorned as traitors to both.

Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Calif. Bill Mandating Universal Health Insurance Is Immoral

Posted by ARI Media at 5:16 PM

Irvine, CA—On Monday Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed a plan to mandate health insurance coverage to nearly all of California's 6.5 million uninsured. Under Schwarzenegger's plan, all Californians would be required to have insurance, including those unwilling or unable to afford it; the poorest would be subsidized.

According to Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, "Gov. Schwarzenegger's plan is a moral travesty, and must be rejected.

"The governor's plan is immoral," said Dr. Brook, "because it is based on the premise that the needs or desires of some people give them a claim on the lives and property of others. This vicious double standard turns the providers—doctors, hospitals, businesses—into the serfs of those deemed to be in need. There is no right to health coverage. The governor's scheme, like other socialist healthcare schemes, requires wielding government force to violate the rights of untold individuals."

Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Writing and Understanding

Posted by Lisa VanDamme at 12:55 AM

Several weeks ago, in my article "Pattern Recognition vs. Real Understanding," I stressed the crucial connection between writing and understanding:

For the student to write explanations, in complete sentences, about every subject—whether history, literature, grammar, math, or anything else—requires that he have a true understanding of the concepts at hand. But he can often do well on multiple choice, matching, or other rote exercises with no real understanding.

Let me elaborate on this topic.

If a student's understanding of a given idea is genuine, if he holds the idea independently and clearly sees its relationship to reality, then he can offer reasoned support for his view. In asking the students to write paragraphs and essays in every subject, we are able to emphasize this crucial aspect of thought—we demand that they give reasons for their assertions.

Far from the "every opinion is sacred" attitude learned in most all of today's schools, our students learn that "any unsupported opinion is sacrilege."

Several years ago, some of our older students were asked to write an essay about their opinion of school uniforms. Word about this assignment got around, and some younger students became concerned that this was a policy we were giving serious consideration. They complained to their parents, who agreed to come and discourage me from requiring uniforms.

Apparently, these 9 and 10-year-old students told their parents, "Now don't just go in and state your opinion about school uniforms. You have to be prepared with clear reasons for your view."

Knowing that their parents had not attended VDA, they feared this was a lesson they had not learned.

The fact that the students are universally required to support their abstract assertions means that the teacher is always able to discover how they hold those abstractions. The teacher learns not just whether the child recalls the abstract conclusion, but why he believes it is true.

Often, the child's explanation will reveal an error in thinking. This gives the teacher an opportunity both to correct this particular error, and to point to the principle that will allow him to avoid this category of error in the future.

For example, several years ago I taught the play The Admirable Crichton, and after reading and discussing the play, I asked the students to write a description of the essence of each of the main characters.

I made an interesting discovery: they thought they understood the characters, having heard my lectures about them. But rather than giving examples to support their character analysis, many simply repeated the abstract point.

The restatements were sufficiently different from the original point that they felt like they were justifying their assertions—but in fact, they were simply saying it again, in different terms.

For example, one would assert that Ernest was self- absorbed, and then, in support of this assertion, would say, "If he had a smile on his face he was probably thinking about himself."

Another, in support of the view that Lady Mary was "condescending," would say, "She thought others were beneath her and not worthy of her time."

This seemed to reflect both a failure to really understand the characters, and a failure to grasp the point that an assertion must be grounded in facts.

I had to make clear to them that what constituted proper support of their conclusions was concrete examples of the characters' actions in the play.

I decided to illustrate this point in a memorable form. I walked into class and (making it clear that this was an exercise, and intended to prove a point), I said, "One of the teachers at this school must be fired." Following my lead, they asked "Why?"

I responded, "Because he can't be trusted." Again, they said, "Why?" I replied, "Because you can never count on him." Again, starting to get the point, they said, "Why?" and I said, "Because he is never there when you need him."

I then asked them what was unsatisfying about my explanations, and they identified that I never in fact mentioned anything the teacher had done to warrant this evaluation.

I then applied this issue to their analysis of the characters in the play. This made it possible for them both to gain a real understanding of the characters and to learn a valuable epistemological lesson.

This lesson was only possible because of the conceptual, objective approach of the class—because I had asked them to write a clear and supported statement of their ideas.

Click here to sign up for the VanDamme Academy's free, weekly e-newsletter: "Pedagogically Correct." Every week, you will be sent a new article about the principles of teaching employed at VanDamme Academy, along with stories about the results they are achieving.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Letter from TOS Reader Burgess Laughlin

Posted by TOS Admin at 3:55 PM

To the Editor:

Various TOS articles by Dr. John Lewis have helped me identify the essential nature of the current "War on Terrorism."

One shouldn't be surprised that an entity's actions follow from the entity's nature. As a political entity, the USA is a welfare state. It is taking various actions—military and economic—against individual Islamic terrorists and for "democratic" Muslims.

Just as the welfare bureaucracy of the USA endlessly drains the resources of productive citizens, all in the name of altruism, so the "War on Terrorism" is endlessly draining the resources (and lives) of the USA, all in the name of altruism.

All three essentials are in place in both cases: taxing productive people; altruistic motives; and a perpetual program that, by its very nature, can never be completed.

Sadly, I can also now see that the war (the action) won't change until the USA welfare state (the entity) changes. Actions follow from the nature of the entity.

Thank you, Dr. Lewis.

Burgess Laughlin
 

John Lewis Replies:

Dear Burgess,

Thanks! I certainly agree with this.

I note, for one particular among many, how our welfare state identity affects immigration policy: The welfare state makes every new person an enemy. This was inevitable, once we abandoned freedom and capitalism in favor of slavery and socialism (to whatever degree we have adopted those characteristics). It is also fascinating that while the altruism of the welfare state considers every potential producer to be an enemy, it pretends that every enemy is a potential friend.

The good news here is that the identity of the United States is not metaphysically given; it is the product of the ideas and actions of the individuals in it. We have the political result that we do because American philosophy has collapsed. Our identity has been shaped by philosophy—for better or for worse. The American identity—specifically, its character—is the product of the moral values adopted by individuals, starting with the Founders and leading into the present day. Just as an individual's character is, as Dr. Peikoff identified, a man's nature or identity insofar as it is shaped by the moral values he accepts and automatizes, so it is with America.

We can, of course, adopt better ideas and act on them. The result will be a renewal of the American character as it existed at the Founding, and a Renaissance as has never been seen in history. You, Burgess, and all the other readers of TOS are part of that Renaissance.

Cheers,
John

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Monday, January 08, 2007

'No Substitute for Victory': Replies to Criticisms

Posted by John David Lewis at 6:34 PM

Regarding my article "No Substitute for Victory": The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism in The Objective Standard, readers have brought up several questions that I'd like to answer. Among them are two of great importance: (1) Isn't the enemy stateless, i.e., without the kind of centralized political state that controlled Japan? and (2) Can religion and state be separated in Islam, which is a social-political-legal system as much as it is a religion?

I will address these issues, and others, at length in a reply to readers' comments in the forthcoming issue of The Objective Standard. But I wish to give a brief answer here in advance.

The power of a policy that states the goal of the war as eliminating State Islam is that it identifies the enemy precisely: those who use force to impose Islam politically. It states exactly what we want from the enemy: an end to his use of force. It has a successful historical precedent. It is also fully consistent with the requirements of individual rights and freedom; it does not ask us to win at the price of losing our liberty. It leads directly to a clear strategy to achieve the policy.

This policy would imply several things. First, with the stated goal as the elimination of the threat—and not a better way of life for foreign populations—we could install a ruler over Iraq, akin to the Shah in Iran, and tell him to do what is needed to control the violence—but never, ever, to attack America or threaten American interests. We are in a mess in Iraq because we took on the task of bringing freedom and prosperity to Iraqis—which never should have been our goal. Altruism led us into such a sacrifice. If we remove an enemy and the country falls into civil war, that is better than their building nuclear bombs.

Second, since political Islam—meaning, wherever Islam has achieved actual political power—would be the target, Iran would be first on the list, the goal being the elimination of the theocratic government and the installation of an America-friendly ruler. (The Saudis, given their support for Islamic law across the world, would be second on the list—and would fall into line after the example of Iran, or could be replaced.) On this policy, we would never have ended Iran's strongest regional opponent (Saddam Hussein) and tried to free his country without dealing first with the main threat next door.

Third, with such openly stated goals, the way would be clear for other governments to clean house. They'd be less inclined to compromise between Islamic Totalitarians and us, since they'd want to avoid our wrath at all costs. The demonstration of resolve in war is very effective; recall Sherman's burning of Atlanta (which collapsed the southern will to fight) and the atomic bombs we dropped on Japan (which made it clear to the Japanese leadership that we had and would use them).

To answer another persistent point, we may not, in my opinion, need to use nuclear weapons in the Middle East (although I am not a military tactician). But we do need to demonstrate the will to remove an Islamic government that we deem a threat, without apologizing every time a civilian is hurt. This demonstration would sweep across borders and be seen by every government in the world. It would show that while Islam might be stateless, we recognize that Islamic dictatorships are not, and that to side with such a state is to become a target of the most powerful military in the world.

Islam itself is stateless; it respects no borders. It was designed precisely to unite all those who submit to Allah, regardless of where they live and what tribe they belong to. We have to adopt the same attitude, only with freedom and individual rights as our uniting ideals. By defining the enemy as Islamic Totalitarianism—government imposition of Islamic Law— we exempt no such state from our reach and yet enable every state to avoid the title and our wrath.

As to the claim that Islam, practiced literally, cannot be separated from politics, this is, in my judgment, true. (I see Islam as descending from common roots with Zoroastrianism, the ideology of Ahuramazda, and Manichaeism in the Near East. I wrote a short piece on this at Principles in Practice titled "Notes on the Near Eastern Legacy of Islam.") Islam is not a religion that can be separated from state; it is an all-encompassing way of life. But it is not true that unserious Muslims cannot live under non-Muslim laws; the majority in western countries do—they compromise Islamic law to obey the laws of civilized society.

Identifying the enemy as Islamic Totalitarianism would enable us to end attempts to import Islamic Law into our own country, and it would empower our allies to end such attempts in their own countries. It would enable individual Muslims to comply with our demands, and it would expose those who refuse. It would also demonstrate the failure of Islam as a political movement, and thus challenge the premise, in the minds of many, that the Islamic Totalitarians are some kind of misguided idealists, right in principle but going too far.

As to the issue of realism: There can be no realistic discussion of a proper "strategy" (a means to attain policy ends) without a proper statement of the end that the strategy is intended to achieve. There is nothing more un-realistic than trying to create a plan without knowing where we are going—or assuming that no plan is possible since reality is "really" always in flux. The realism that we need is the recognition that those supporting Political Islam—rule by Islamic Law—are the real enemy. I'll gladly listen to anyone who has a different strategy for eliminating Islam as a political power and ending the threat it poses to us—but I've not yet heard anyone offer such a strategy.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Pedagogically Correct

Posted by Lisa VanDamme at 2:35 PM

Many people understand that education is in desperate need of reform, but few recognize how radical the reform must be.

What is needed is not a bigger education budget, a stronger teacher's union, smaller class sizes, or more rigorous testing procedures.

But neither is the solution simply a renewed spirit of intellectualism and mental rigor, or a return to the traditional curriculum of Western civilization and literary classics, or the expulsion of politically correctness from the classroom.

What is needed is a basic, pedagogical revolution—a revolution in the selection of content taught to students, and the method by which that content is presented.

This revolution entails a ruthlessly stripped-down curriculum that includes only that which is indispensable to the child's basic intellectual development, ridding education of non-essential content that distracts from and dilutes the core material. It entails a vigilant commitment to ensuring that students have a real, grounded, independent grasp of everything they are taught, and are never merely parroting the teacher. It entails a presentation of the material that is always integrated around a definite purpose, with each piece related clearly to the whole, and constant encouragement of the students to seek connections of their own. It entails a continual effort to properly motivate the students, demonstrating the personal value to their own lives of the knowledge they are working to acquire.

Our goal at VanDamme Academy, the proper goal of education, is to foster the conceptual development of the child—to instill in him the knowledge and cognitive powers needed for mature life. Our goal is to take the whole of human knowledge, select that which is essential to the child's conceptual development, present it in a way that allows the student to clearly grasp both the material itself and its value to his life, and thereby supply him with both with crucial knowledge and the rational thinking skills that will enable him to acquire real knowledge forever after.

This is the ambition upon which VanDamme Academy was founded, and we believe we have made unequaled progress in its achievement—though we still have much to discover and improve.

It is with this spirit that we proudly announce that we are converting our email list into a new, free, weekly e-newsletter: "Pedagogically Correct." Every week, we will send you a new article about the principles of teaching that we employ at VanDamme Academy, and relay stories about the results we are achieving.

We encourage you to foward Pedagogically Correct to friends, post its contents on your 'blog, or do anything else you can think of to spread the word about VanDamme Academy and our unique educational philosophy.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

The Imperative of Lecturing

Posted by Lisa VanDamme at 2:33 PM

Every class in elementary and junior high school should be in a lecture format. The teacher must be an authority on the subject, he must grasp its basic purpose, he must carefully define the knowledge to be conveyed by reference to that purpose, and he must present that knowledge in a hierarchical, integrated, and engaging form.

When I teach a literature class, I go in to each class armed with an understanding of the value of studying literature, and the knowledge that this value is derived primarily from an appreciation of the novel's plot, an understanding of the basic nature of the characters, and a clear grasp of the novel's theme.

These broad goals then guide me in defining the goal of any particular class. If I am teaching Sinclair Lewis's novel Arrowsmith, for example, I might give one class about the idealistic characters and in what way they are doomed to suffering in the world, another about those who abandon their ideals and achieve practical "success," another about the basic moral/practical dichotomy this implies, and another contrasting this view with that of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead.

In each class, I would set out to convey a definite point about the novel, and to methodically lead the students to a clear understanding of the principle through the events of the novel. I would not conduct the class as question-and-answer, back-and-forth, bull session.

This is a notable contrast to most literature classes today. English teachers often select novels that are disintegrated and purposeless, and therefore have no single, objective interpretation. And even if they teach a good work of literature, with a definite theme, they allow students to take charge of the class, treating every one of their arbitrarily held, sometimes unintelligible, and often contradictory interpretations as sacred.

Several years ago I visited an English class at a reputable college prep school in my area, in which the students were reading Macbeth. The class had a "seminar" format, with the chairs in a circle, and the teacher treated as just one of the student's peers.

This teacher explained to me that the class is "student driven." He doesn't give reading assignments, but instead defines "reading goals." He does not lecture to the class, but assigns each student a section of the play, asks them to prepare a presentation, and listens without comment as they discuss their interpretation with the class.

Other teachers commit the same error in a less flagrant form. A method often used by well-meaning teachers that encourages subjectivism is the overuse of questions and answers. Some teachers go in to class with a definite, objective end in mind, but either in the name of promoting independent thought in the students or of making the class lively and engaging, they think that the steps toward this end have to be elicited from the students.

Many teachers will, for example, introduce a new topic of history, and rather than presenting the relevant facts and integrating them into abstract conclusions, they will ask the students to guess— both the facts and the conclusions. For example, in discussing the founding of Jamestown, such a teacher might ask, "How big do you think the original settlement was?" or "What sort of governing body do you think they established?"

It is appropriate, once in a while, to ask the students to guess the answer to a factual question, particularly when they will be surprised by the right answer. And it is appropriate to ask abstract questions that clearly draw upon their prior knowledge and that they therefore have the context to answer. But to routinely play a guessing game as part of the basic format of the class promotes a subjective, anything-goes view of knowledge on the part of students. Students habituate the idea that knowledge is not the product of a scrupulous and methodical process of integrating the facts of reality, but instead comes from randomly throwing out groundless views.

This does not promote intellectual independence and enthusiasm; it promotes intellectual unseriousness and eventually boredom. Questioning of the students should be secondary to the teacher's directed, purposeful, positive presentation of a clearly defined body of knowledge. For every class, the teacher should seek to convey definite knowledge, presenting the essential facts and integrating those facts into abstract conclusions, thereby leading the students to a clear understanding while also modeling rational thought.

This does not entail passivity on the part of the students. On the contrary, they will be engaged in answering questions when appropriate, asking questions that occur to them, making connections with other relevant items of their knowledge, and following the logical progression laid about by the teacher—which itself is an active and independent process.

Click here to sign up for the VanDamme Academy's free, weekly e-newsletter: "Pedagogically Correct." Every week, you will be sent a new article about the principles of teaching employed at VanDamme Academy, along with stories about the results they are achieving.

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

America's Sanction of its Enemies

Posted by John David Lewis at 2:02 PM

On March 1, 1973, eight Palestinian Black September killers stormed the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum during a send-off party for American Charges d'Affairs George C. Moore. They took Moore, U.S. Ambassador Cleo A. Noel, Jr., Belgian Charges d'Affairs Guy Eid, and two other diplomats hostage. They demanded the release of PLO and Baader-Meinhof Gang killers, including Robert F. Kennedy's Palestinian assassin Sirhan Sirhan, and Black September commander Muhammed Awadh (aka Abu Daud). The real reason for the attacks was not merely to facilitate the release of their terrorist cohorts, but to strike at the U.S., in order to end U.S. attempts to mediate in the region.

The next day, after President Nixon and other leaders announced their refusal to negotiate with the terrorists, Moore, Noel, and Eid were taken to the basement of the embassy, lined up against a wall, and machine-gunned to death—the killers firing first at their feet and legs and gradually moving upward in order to extend their suffering.

Yasir Arafat denied involvement. He hid behind the ruse that Black September was a group that had broken away from his own Al Fatah organization. Western leaders did not challenge Arafat's assertion. Rather, they granted him political respectability and touted him as a man dedicated to peace. He visited the White House regularly, and even received the Nobel Peace Prize. He smiled in public while he orchestrated more attacks on Americans. For over thirty years, seven American administrations and myriad State Department employees accepted Arafat's lies and denied his murderous nature.

In May of 2006, a State Department historian released a 33-year-old memo that confirmed Arafat's direct involvement in every aspect of the attack in Khartoum, including the specific order to kill the American Ambassador. The memo ends: "The emergence of the United States as a primary fedayeen target indicates a serious threat of further incidents similar to that which occurred in Khartoum."

Arafat's actions were nothing less than an act of war against America—and we have known about it for over three decades. American officials, however, chose to evade this knowledge and let Arafat get away with murder. They found this easier than to face the threat and do something about it.

The big story here is not Arafat's thuggish nature, nor even his attacks; thugs are plentiful in warlord societies, and similar attacks have continued for decades. The big story is the role of Americans (and Europeans) in keeping Arafat in power despite their knowledge of who he was and what he did. American officials evaded the identity of this enemy, granted him the status of a political leader, and empowered him. It was the sanction of the United States that put him on the world's stage—rather than into the obscure, early grave he deserved.

Without America's help, Arafat had nothing. America is strong precisely because Americans are in general rational, productive, and free; the Palestinians are weak precisely because they do not value rationality, productivity, or freedom. The only weapon that the Palestinian leadership can hold over America is its claim to an altruistic moral high ground because of the self-created, debased condition of the Palestinian people. This weapon cannot work without our sanction.

Ayn Rand called such sanction "the sanction of the victim"; it entails placing one's virtues in the service of one's own destroyers by granting an undeserved moral status to one's enemies. As philosopher Leonard Peikoff wrote, the sanction of the victim means:

a man's willingness to embrace his exploiters, to pay them ransom for his virtues, to condone and help perpetuate the ethical code which feeds off those virtues, which expects them and counts on them at the very moment it is damning them as sin and condemning their exponents to hellfire. (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p.333)

This accurately describes the relationship between the United States and Middle Eastern dictators such as Arafat. American leaders have (literally) embraced such thugs, treated them as legitimate leaders, and paid them ransom to boot—all while these same thugs have condemned and attacked us. The more they have attacked, the more we have appeased, and the more we have granted them a stature they could not otherwise have achieved.

Those who sanctioned Arafat actually protected him and his ilk. They were afraid to condemn him because they were, on some level, ashamed to proclaim their own goodness. It is high time that Americans reverse this pathetic, suicidal policy, recognize our moral superiority, withdraw support for our enemies, and call for our government to destroy those who seek our destruction.

Thanks to Caroline Glick for her report o