Principles in Practice: The Blog of the Objective Standard

Principles in Practice: February 2007

Preventing Mergers Destroys Competition by ARI Media
Update on John Lewis's Cancelled GMU Talk by Craig Biddle
GMU Goes Dhimmi: John Lewis Talk Cancelled by Craig Biddle
Debate: 'Justice in War' by TOS Admin
'No Substitute for Victory': The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism by TOS Admin
No Child Let Ahead by ARI Media
Washington 's Make-Believe Policy on Iran by Elan Journo by ARI Media
Chavez's Disastrous Nationalization Plan by ARI Media
UCLA Penalizes Student Group's Exercise of Free Speech by ARI Media
Rex Barks by Lisa VanDamme

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Preventing Mergers Destroys Competition

Posted by ARI Media at 7:28 PM

Irvine, CA—Opponents of a planned merger between XM Satellite Radio Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. are asking the government to block the merger in order to "preserve competition" in satellite radio.

But, said Alex Epstein, junior fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute, "The opposition to this merger is irrational. There is no way a voluntary merger can be a threat to genuine competition.

"Proper, free-market competition is a process in which businesses, free to produce and sell whatever products they choose, attempt to outdo one another in making consumers the best offers for their money. No combination of companies can force customers to buy its products, nor prevent other businesses from offering theirs—thus, no merger can thwart free competition. To the contrary, mergers are an extremely valuable form of competition. A good merger enables businesses to combine strengths and strip away unneeded costs in an attempt to improve the appeal and profitability of their products. This is exactly the outcome that the struggling satellite providers Sirius and XM are hoping for—as they attempt to sell a profitable product to customers who have the option of listening to terrestrial radio, high definition radio, Internet radio, audiobooks, podcasts, and CDs.

"When two businesses have so many outstanding competitors that they are bleeding red ink, how can anyone oppose a merger between them as a 'threat to competition'? These opponents do so only because they accept the perverse concept of 'competition' that underlies our antitrust laws. On this view, 'competition' is not a free process—it is an egalitarian outcome, in which every market and sub-market has as many viable competitors as possible, with no one ever growing or succeeding 'too much.' Antitrust advocates believe that the government must forcibly prevent any one company from gaining too great a market share—that is, prevent it from persuading 'too many' customers to buy its products.

"A conception of 'competition' that grants government bureaucrats the power to keep companies from becoming 'too successful' should not be preserved—it should be rejected as perverse and un-American. As a first step, we can tell our government to keep its hands off of satellite radio companies."

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

Update on John Lewis's Cancelled GMU Talk

Posted by Craig Biddle at 12:33 PM

Under pressure from those who oppose American self-defense (i.e., Islamists and/or their sympathizers), and on a technicality (i.e., the GMU Objectivist Club failed to file requisite paperwork), GMU has cancelled John Lewis's talk "'No Substitute for Victory': The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism," which was scheduled for tonight (Wed., Mar. 28). We are currently working to reschedule the event at GMU and will post updates here as we gather information.

Rest assured that—one way or another—this event will be held in the DC area. If GMU refuses to permit the expression of ideas in defense of America on its campus, we will hold the event elsewhere (perhaps at the National Press Club) and publicize GMU's decision in conjunction with Dr. Lewis's talk, which should draw significant press coverage. Stay tuned.

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

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

GMU Goes Dhimmi: John Lewis Talk Cancelled

Posted by Craig Biddle at 6:27 PM

George Mason University has abandoned its commitment to freedom of expression on campus. At the last minute, GMU has caved-in to pressure from Muslim groups and has cancelled Dr. Lewis’s talk, "'No Substitute for Victory': The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism," which was scheduled for tomorrow night, Wed, Feb 28, 2007. This is all we know right now. We will post details as soon as we have them. Please spread the word.

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

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Debate: 'Justice in War'

Posted by TOS Admin at 12:32 PM

America is often harshly criticized at home and abroad for its conduct in war, not just by "doves" hoping to restrain American military might but also by "hawks" seeking more vigorous military action. So what does morality require of America in war? Is a vigorous defense of American interests abroad compatible with justice? What are the military's obligations toward the civilians of an enemy nation? What is the moral response to today's pressing problem of global terrorism? On Tuesday, March 13th, Dr. Yaron Brook and Dr. Martin Cook will debate these questions at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

What: Debate on "Justice in War" with Dr. Martin Cook and Dr. Yaron Brook

Where: Wittemeyer Courtroom, Wolf Law Building, University of Colorado at Boulder

When: Tuesday, March 13th, 2007, 8:00 to 9:30 p.m.

About the Debate: Dr. Martin Cook: For centuries the "just war tradition" has provided a moral framework for assessing the justification for the use of military force and also the methods for its application. The "sole remaining superpower" status of the United States, coupled with the exigencies of the "war on terror" (or "the long war") raise questions about the continued applicability of that tradition. Dr. Cook will examine this question and note areas where existing just war standards (especially as codified in International Law) are challenged by this new strategic environment.

Dr. Yaron Brook: America's failed "War on Terrorism" is the result, not of any practical inability to defeat the Islamic Totalitarian movement and its state sponsors, but its leaders' moral unwillingness to wage all-out war in self-defense. American leaders accept the altruistic code of "Just War Theory," which demands that a nation follow self-sacrificial restrictions for the sake of its enemies and their supporters. Dr. Brook will advocate an alternative theory of war based on Ayn Rand's ethics of rational egoism, arguing that a government is right to go to war whenever the rights of its citizens are threatened by a foreign aggressor and to do anything necessary to defeat the enemy and return to normal life.

This debate is free and intended for the public. Members of the media are encouraged to attend. For further information on the series or to arrange interviews of the speakers, contact Dr. Robert Pasnau at (303) 492-4837 or Robert.Pasnau@colorado.edu.

About the Debaters: Dr. Martin L. Cook is Professor of Philosophy and Deputy Department Head at the United States Air Force Academy. He has lectured widely in the United States to military and civilian audiences, as well as delivered invited lectures to the military educational institutions of the United Kingdom, Ecuador, Norway, Singapore, and Australia. His most recent book is The Moral Warrior: Ethics and Service in the US Military.

Dr. Yaron Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. A former finance professor, he has published in academic as well as popular publications. In addition to his frequent interviews by the media, he lectures on Objectivism, business ethics, and foreign policy at college campuses and for corporations across America and throughout the world. He is the co-author of "'Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defense" published in The Objective Standard, Spring 2006.

About Think!: This debate is sponsored by "Think!"—a public lectures series of the Center for Values and Social Policy in the Philosophy Department of the University of Colorado at Boulder. For more information about "Think!" please visit: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/center/think.shtml. All "Think!" events are funded through the generosity of The Collins Foundation.

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

Thursday, February 15, 2007

'No Substitute for Victory': The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism

Posted by TOS Admin at 10:48 AM

Who: Dr. John Lewis, historian at Ashland University

What: A talk on how we can and why we must defeat Totalitarian Islam—first and foremost by destroying the current regime in Iran

When: Wednesday, February 28, 7:30 PM–9:30 PM

Where: George Mason University, Fairfax Campus, Johnson Center, 3rd Floor, Meeting Room C

The public and media are invited. Admission is FREE.

Summary: In the wake of 9/11, and in the face of rising threats to their freedoms and rights, Americans are uncertain about what a proper foreign policy should be. The uncertainty arises from the philosophical influences of pragmatism and altruism, which have misguided Americans and their leaders for decades. Mentally crippled by this uncertainty, America has failed to address the cause of the threats against her and, in so doing, has bolstered it.

This talk consults the historical precedent of American policy towards Shintoism in post-1945 Japan to show that a proper policy today would first identify Islamic Totalitarianism as the cause of the threat facing the West, and then direct American resources toward eliminating the political imposition of Islamic Law. If Americans want to end the threats against their lives and liberty, they must first identify the advocates of political Islam (those who seek to impose Islamic Law by force) as the true enemy, and then destroy that enemy—beginning with the Islamic State of Iran. This is the only way to reestablish American security.

For more information on this talk, please email info@theobjectivestandard.com .

To read the article on which the talk is based, click here.

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

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

No Child Let Ahead

Posted by ARI Media at 6:52 PM

Irvine, CA—With the No Child Left Behind Act up for reauthorization, critics are pointing out that it is preventing gifted children from advancing ahead. Because the act forces states to ensure that the weakest students are not left behind, it has dried up funding for programs intended to challenge the strongest.

"The problem is not just with No Child Left Behind," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute. "The problem is inherent in the very system of public education, itself. When people's tax dollars are taken to pay for the education of other people's children, there is no way to distribute those dollars fairly."

"The inevitable result is a massive government bureaucracy making collective judgments involving millions of students. And given the egalitarian philosophy dominating that bureaucracy, should it be any surprise that it is our nation's best and brightest that are sacrificed in the attempt to serve the weakest?

"Only a free market in education can prevent the injustices of the current system—a system that, like any government-run industry, has deteriorated into a junk heap of dismal public schools that meets no one's educational needs."

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

Monday, February 12, 2007

Washington 's Make-Believe Policy on Iran by Elan Journo

Posted by ARI Media at 9:02 PM

The Bush administration claims to have a way to deter the militant theocracy of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and thwart its ambition to bring "death to America." Washington's plan aims to pressure Teheran, financially and psychologically. The idea is to cut off Iran's nuclear program from banks and businesses in other nations, and to undermine the confidence of Iranian officials. The right amount of pressure, we are told, can induce Teheran to give up its nuclear program.

In fact this policy is a pathetic sham. It is a cover-up for Washington's abdication of the responsibility to protect American lives.

When you consider the plan in detail, it is incredible that anyone thinks it could thwart Iran. The financial "pressure" so far includes a prohibition on the Iranian Bank Sepah from completing transactions in U.S. dollars. That bank is "the financial linchpin of Iran's missile procurement network," according to a Treasury Department official. The ban means Bank Sepah can no longer facilitate sales of oil in dollars—but Teheran has announced that it is now selling oil in euros.

To extend its financial "pressure" overseas, Washington hopes to persuade foreign governments, international banks and companies not to lend Iran money or sell it technology or nuclear expertise. This entails groveling before the likes of France and Germany, keen appeasers of Iran, and Russia, which gutted the already toothless U.N. sanctions against Iran. Even if some companies or countries, like Japan, agree to reduce some of their trade with Iran—the regime is about to open a brand new Russian-built reactor believed capable of producing weapons-grade nuclear material, and apparently begin industrial-scale efforts to produce uranium.

Washington's scheme also calls for undermining the self-assurance of Iran's zealous leadership by responding "firmly" to Iranian hostility. In one notable case, four Iranian officials were detained in Iraq on suspicion of abetting insurgents, but after protests from Teheran and Baghdad, the officials were promptly released. Preposterously, this catch-and-release scheme is allegedly "precisely the type of thing that will chip away at their confidence," as one European diplomat approvingly confided to the New York Times. Recently, U.S. forces detained other Iranian operatives (releasing some of them) and raided an Iranian consular office in Iraq. While our troops are now permitted to kill Iranian operatives in self-defense, these measures, in sum, are but pinpricks.

How could such a feeble policy fail to encourage Iran's belief that it is free to pursue its hostile goals with impunity?

This plan is not some mistaken or naive attempt to deal with Iran. It is an evasion of Iran's nature and goals—an evasion of the need to eliminate the Iranian menace.

Iran's nuclear quest (like its funding of insurgents who slaughter our troops in Iraq) is just the latest in a series of hostilities stretching back to the 1979 invasion of our embassy. To protect American lives, we must recognize Iran as an enemy stained with U.S. blood and assert ourselves militarily to make it non-threatening. This does not mean an Iraq-like crusade to bring them elections; it means protecting U.S. lives by destroying Iran's militant regime. But that is precisely what our leaders refuse to do.

Washington has resigned itself to the emergence of a nuclear Iran (and an endless insurgency in Iraq), because our leaders do not believe we have the moral right to stop it. To do that would be self-assertive: it would mean putting America's interests first. Today's prevailing ethical standard condemns such action as selfish, and therefore immoral. Washington's moral premise rules out as illegitimate the dedicated pursuit of American self-defense. But wishing to evade the self-destructive implications of their moral principle, our leaders concoct a plan that creates the illusion of their commitment to our defense.

The squeeze-Iran policy is a ruse that must be repudiated as impractical because immoral. We, the people of America, have a moral right to pursue our happiness in freedom. We owe it to ourselves to demand that our government actually fulfill its obligation to defend our freedom—not merely pretend to.

Elan Journo 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."

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

Chavez's Disastrous Nationalization Plan

Posted by ARI Media at 9:00 PM

Irvine, CA—Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has recently announced plans to nationalize utilities and telecommunications companies.

"Chavez claims that this theft of private property from its owners is necessary to improve the lot of the poor in Venezuela," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "But as history has shown, nationalization is both immoral and impractical. Industries under state control are highly inefficient and much less productive than private industries free to function in a capitalist market. As production is throttled, rich and poor alike suffer.

"Marxist policies always lead to poverty and disaster. There can be no significant progress, prosperity or wealth creation in a social system that does not recognize individual rights, particularly property rights. Property rights are both moral and practical.

"If Venezuelans want to avoid an economic disaster that will eventually wipe out their savings, their investments, their businesses and their livelihoods, they must get rid of Chavez and reject the Marxist ideology he embodies."

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

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

UCLA Penalizes Student Group's Exercise of Free Speech

Posted by ARI Media at 6:17 PM

Irvine, CA—UCLA has cravenly scuttled a student-sponsored forum on U.S. immigration policy—and revealed the administration's contempt for freedom of speech. The administration not only refuses to protect free speech, but also penalizes those who wish to exercise it on campus.

Scheduled for Feb. 6, the canceled event was to feature a debate between Carl Braun of the Minutemen and Dr. Yaron Brook, an open-immigration advocate and president of the Ayn Rand Institute. The forum, sponsored by the UCLA student group L.O.G.I.C., was approved by the administration weeks ago. When the student group learned that protesters from outside the university threatened to disrupt the event, it asked UCLA to protect the group's exercise of free speech by providing security for the event.

UCLA refused either to let the student group pay for its own security—claiming not enough security would be available—or to hold the event without security.

"The administration's decision is a double injustice," said Dr. Yaron Brook, "In the face of threats, UCLA refused to protect the student group's free speech—that's bad enough. But when the student group offered to pay for its own protection, UCLA put up further obstacles. UCLA is punishing the victims of intimidation. Instead of forbidding the protesters who threatened violent disruptions, the university is penalizing the student group for being a victim of threats.

"By preventing the event from taking place, UCLA apparently hopes to appease the protesters by doing their work for them. That an American university is suppressing, rather than enshrining, freedom of speech is a moral travesty."

Moreover, adding to the injustice, the university wants to burden the student group with the costs involved in canceling the event and turning away audience members and protesters. UCLA's line is that because the student group wanted to host a controversial forum—which the group had the right to do—it thereby created a problem and now must pay for resolving it.

"Free speech protects the rational mind: it is the freedom to think, to reach conclusions and express one's views without fear of coercion of any kind. And it must include the right to express unpopular views. UCLA—which like other universities grants tenure to protect intellectual freedom—ought to recognize the crucial importance of this principle and defend it," said Brook.

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

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Rex Barks

Posted by Lisa VanDamme at 5:50 PM

I began my career as a private teacher for a few families committed to providing their children with a real education. These parents had abandoned a fruitless search for a school in which their children would read the classics of literature, learn the story of history, grasp the fundamental principles of science, and develop the clarity and precision of thought that comes from an understanding of grammar.

I knew that a rigorous course in English grammar must include the art of diagramming sentences, but it was no easy task to find a good diagramming textbook in an age when grammar itself is unfashionable. Then, one day, a student's mother brought me a copy of Phyllis Davenport's Rex Barks. Here was a masterful presentation of grammar—a well-structured, incremental course in diagramming with clear explanations and memorable illustrations of each new principle—housed in a hand- folded, type-written book with a stapled binding and a tattered yellow cover. Such is the state of education today.

Schools everywhere have abandoned grammar either as unnecessary or as incompatible with the principles they hold most sacred. Educational theorists insist that the fundamental goal of education is to socialize the child, not to force upon him so rigid and academic a skill as grammar. Prominent linguists tell teachers that grammar is an innate faculty and cannot be taught. The so-called self-esteem movement calls for teachers to encourage and praise, not to correct. The "diversity" movement grants equality to all forms of speech and rejects the notion of a universal standard. Lending support to the myriad of reasons for expelling grammar from the curriculum is the often-repeated and self- contradictory view, "You don't need grammar; you just have to make yourself understood."

Phyllis Davenport understands that if you want to make yourself understood, you need grammar. Her textbook abounds with examples of the ambiguities that result from an ignorance of grammatical rules. Without knowledge of pronouns and elliptical clauses, you lose the distinction between, "You like Millie better than I" (which means, "You like Millie better than I like Millie"), and "You like Millie better than me" (which means, "You like Millie better than you like me"). This subtle distinction can have profound consequences if you and your wife are engaged in a deep discussion about your relationship with Millie. Or consider the confusion that results from the misplacement of a modifier. To cite a memorable example from Rex Barks: "Hanging over the side of the ship, his eye was caught by a piece of rope." (The author wryly comments: "There goes that eye, like a fried egg or one of Dali's watches!") Clarity is impossible without grammar. As Mrs. Davenport points out, "Even the 'educationists' who write books about the unimportance of 'grammar' do so with sentences technically correct."

Even among educators who acknowledge the value of grammar, diagramming has been scorned as an old- fashioned exercise in mental rigor. On the contrary, Rex Barks shows us that the value of diagramming lies not primarily in the mental gymnastics it requires, but in its presentation of a systematic method of identifying the relationships among words in a sentence. To any student who has studied this book and is struggling to identify the function of a word, you need only say, "Picture the diagram!"

Diagramming serves another purpose not served by other approaches to sentence analysis. A diagram brings the relationship among the words of a sentence to the perceptual level. Upon completing a diagram, students are given a visual reminder that, for example, the subject and verb are the core of the sentence, that prepositional phrases are modifiers that add clarification to other words in the sentence, and that dependent clauses are subordinate to main clauses. Through the process of diagramming, you both understand and see the functions of various parts of a sentence.

The art of diagramming sentences provides students with an indispensable foundation for the study of grammar, and Rex Barks makes the process of learning this skill manageable and fun. The book is laid out in logical, incremental steps, and students are given the opportunity to master one concept before proceeding to the next. They begin with sentences like "Rex barks," and work their way up through modifiers, prepositions, verbs, clauses, verbals, and other complexities of grammar, until, to their delight, they are able to diagram the first sentence in the U.S. Constitution.

One of the best features of Rex Barks is the ever-present personality of the author. Mrs. Davenport reminds the reader of that teacher we all once knew: the strict, demanding teacher who made her students think and work hard, who knew her subject and required that her students learn it, who never accepted excuses—and who was loved best by everyone in the school. The book is filled with her firm admonitions for students to stay in focus. (In response to the question of how one can ever learn the difficult task of distinguishing among the various types of verbs, she says, "By THINKING.") It contains many clever devices to help students with tricky concepts (e.g., prepositions are to be remembered as "anything a squirrel can do to a tree.") And it is pervaded by her sense of humor and enthusiasm for her subject.

I am delighted that Paper Tiger Books is republishing this gem of grammar instruction. If today's schools awaken to the importance of grammar, Rex Barks will be available to help them teach their students the lost art of diagramming. Such, I hope, will be the state of education tomorrow.

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