Principles in Practice: The Blog of the Objective Standard

Principles in Practice: July 2007

Environmentalists Against 'Buying Green' by ARI Media
Mediocrities Hold Their Ground by Craig Biddle
Socialism is Anti-Life: Example # 1,375,457 by Bob Murphy
Liberate American Energy Producers, Neuter OPEC by ARI Media
'Loophole': Anti-Euphemism of Statists by Craig Biddle
Celebrating Income Inequality by Alex Epstein by ARI Media
The Flavor Police by ARI Media
'No Substitute for Victory' now in Hebrew by John David Lewis
The Real Disgrace: Washington's Battlefield 'Ethics' by Elan Journo by ARI Media

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Environmentalists Against 'Buying Green'

Posted by ARI Media at 5:26 PM

Irvine, CA—With organic food in every grocery store and hybrid cars on every stretch of freeway, "green consumerism" has become commonplace. But a backlash against such allegedly "earth friendly" shopping is arising; critics within the environmentalist movement are condemning the trend as superficial and contradictory. Says one environmental activist: "green consumerism is an oxymoronic phrase."

"This criticism is extremely revealing about the true nature of environmentalism," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute. "For decades, many environmentalists have insisted that protecting the environment is not incompatible with industrial civilization. To make their ideology more palatable, they regularly promise that living 'sustainably' doesn't have to come at too great an economic cost or personal hardship. But when people finally begin to come on board and make allegedly 'pro-environment' choices, they are condemned as 'light greens' and 'eco-narcissists.'

"The truth is that environmentalism is not compatible with human flourishing. It does demand economic destruction and unbearable hardship. The claim that its goal is to protect the environment for the sake of mankind is a Big Lie. Its goal is to protect nature, not for man, but from man—to preserve an untouched environment as an end in itself, no matter what cost or hardship that imposes on human beings.

"Anyone who thinks that 'eco-chic' is consistent with the principles of environmentalism had better think harder about the true nature of the ideology they are trying to support. What environmentalism truly demands is sacrifice to nature—the rejection of our modern, industrial civilization in favor of the decidedly un-chic, unglamorous hardship of a primitive, pre-industrial, stone-age existence."

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

Monday, July 30, 2007

Mediocrities Hold Their Ground

Posted by Craig Biddle at 12:52 PM

After the avowedly mediocre philosopher Steve Gimbel launched an envious attack on human excellence in general and Ayn Rand in particular—in which he pricelessly attempts to intimidate those who revere excellence into revering mediocrity instead—he and some mediocre followers found themselves engaged with a few Objectivists whereupon they further demonstrated the difference between themselves and their tall targets. I won’t comment further on Gimbel’s confessional tirade, as it speaks clearly for itself, but this comment from an observer of the ensuing discussion is too perfect to pass up:

What assessment and conclusion would a neutral party make after reading this thread.

Assessment #1: Objectivists are intellectually serious and make philosophic arguments in defense of their position.

Assessment #2: Academic philosophers don’t and apparently can’t make philosophic arguments and engage almost entirely in snide, anti-intellectual ad hominem drivel.

Yep.

(Note to irresolute mediocrities: You can choose to be something more, but the clock is ticking.)

Anyone interested in Ayn Rand’s actual ideas—as against the straw men asserted by Gimbel and his ilk—should read her works. Relying on the assertions of alleged authorities is mere Peter Keating-type second-handedness; relying on the assertions of self-acknowledged mediocrities is, well, let’s just hope there’s no need to form a concept for that.

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

Friday, July 27, 2007

Socialism is Anti-Life: Example # 1,375,457

Posted by Bob Murphy at 3:17 PM

Unmoved by the mass suffering and death caused by socialism throughout the last century, states such as Wisconsin continue to enact socialist programs, shrouding them in the now-invisible garbs of “compassion” for the poor. The unarguable fact that the consequent rationing of goods and soaring costs cause a decline in the standard of living—especially in that of the poor—matters not to the politicians and bureaucrats involved.

Proponents use the familiar argument for national health care that this will save money (about $1.8 billion a year) through efficiency gains by eliminating the administrative costs of private insurance. And unions and some big businesses with rich union health plans are only too happy to dump these liabilities onto the government.

But those costs won't vanish; they'll merely shift to all taxpayers and businesses. Small employers that can't afford to provide insurance would see their employment costs rise by thousands of dollars per worker, while those that now provide a basic health insurance plan would have to pay $400 to $500 a year more per employee.

The plan is also openly hostile to market incentives that contain costs. Private companies are making modest progress in sweating out health-care inflation by making patients more cost-conscious through increased copayments, health savings accounts, and incentives for wellness. The Wisconsin program moves in the opposite direction: It reduces out-of-pocket copayments, bars money-saving HSA plans, and increases the number of mandated medical services covered under the plan.

So where will savings come from? Where they always do in any government plan: Rationing via price controls and, as costs rise, waiting periods and coverage restrictions. This is Michael Moore's medical dream state.

Although this editorial points out the impracticality of so-called “universal healthcare”—a euphemism for socialized medicine—it fails to make any moral argument against the program. The crucial moral fact here is that socialized medicine is anti-life; it is an assault on the very source of life: man’s mind.

Man’s mind—his basic means of producing the values on which his life depends—can guide man in producing values only to the extent that he is free to act on his judgment. The reason why socialized medicine fails to improve healthcare is that it is in direct opposition to the very source of healthcare: the freedom of healthcare providers, doctors, patients, and insurers to act on their judgment. This is the point that needs to be hammered home time and again.

Of course, making this point to today’s socialists will have no effect on them; they are not concerned with man’s mind or human life or moral facts; their feelings tell them what’s “right.” But this is the point that must be grasped by thinking people if the socialists’ programs are to be soundly defeated.

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

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Liberate American Energy Producers, Neuter OPEC

Posted by ARI Media at 11:41 AM

Irvine, CA—A recent Reuters report quotes a top OPEC official declaring what price the cartel seeks to bring about: $60 to $65 per barrel, he says, is "appropriate."

"It is taken for granted," said Alex Epstein, a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "that OPEC, a despicable cartel of tyrannical regimes that coercively limits their oil production to raise prices, can manipulate our energy future on a whim. But such a state of affairs is completely unnecessary; it is a product of U.S. environmental regulations that strangle domestic energy production.

"In a free energy market, the response of competing producers to OPEC-influenced high prices would be to eagerly cultivate new oil sources in America—such as the many untapped sources of oil in Alaska and on America's coastlines—and to vigorously seek to produce truly practical alternative sources of energy, such as coal, natural gas, and nuclear power. Such actions would drive oil and energy prices down, and with them OPEC's ability to manipulate prices.

"However, thanks to environmentalist policies, America's energy market is anything but free. In the name of preserving pristine nature at human expense, our government has rendered huge oil and natural gas deposits off-limits, has strangled coal production for decades, and has demonized and practically prohibited the pursuit of nuclear power.

"It is only because America has for decades throttled domestic energy producers that the looting dictators of OPEC continue to wield major influence over our energy supplies. It is time for America to liberate itself from the shackles of OPEC by liberating energy production from the shackles of environmentalist policies."

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

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

'Loophole': Anti-Euphemism of Statists

Posted by Craig Biddle at 5:17 PM

Jack Shafer of Slate has written a superb article on the notion of “loophole” titled “Shut Your Loophole.”(Thanks to Brad Malestein for bringing this piece to my attention.) Here’s an excerpt:

Upon entering the English language in the late 16th century, the word loophole defined the narrow opening in a wall through which defenders jetted arrows, javelins, or stones at foes.

Over the centuries, this perfectly useful term has been corrupted by rhetorical con artists to mean terrible "gaps" in the law—or in the tax code—that demand "closing." Because the legal code allows all that it does not prohibit, loophole prospectors needn't look far to discover new ones. Just find a permitted behavior in the proximity of a banned one and scream, " Eureka!"

It's a loaded, partisan word, one that implies wrongdoing and scandal where none exists, and inserting it into a political argument gives the inserter the upper hand. When loophole creeps into news stories, they start to read like editorials….

The Washington Post shouted loophole just yesterday in "Loophole Lets Candidates Skirt Donation Limit" (July 23). Using the word in both the headline and the story, the Post reports that presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and John Edwards are legally collecting donations for their presidential campaigns at the same time they're gathering money from other political entities connected to them. For example, presidential candidate Clinton has also declared herself a candidate for re-election to the Senate in 2012, thus allowing supporters to make double donations to her.

The Post headline makes the candidates sound extra naughty by stating that the loophole allows them to "skirt" donation limits. Like loophole, skirt is a slippery, vague, and slightly accusatory word. But why should we think of it that way? By definition, anybody who skirts a law is still in compliance with it. A more accurate headline for the Post piece would have been "Candidates Exercise Maximum Fund-Raising Rights."

Read the whole thing.

Shafer goes on to provide additional examples and to point out that the word “loophole” is used to make perfectly legal and morally legitimate practices seem illegal or bad.

Ayn Rand identified this same phenomenon in broader terms in her 1972 essay “How To Read (And Not To Write),” in which she coined the term “anti-euphemism”: “If a euphemism is an inoffensive way of identifying an offensive fact, then … an anti-euphemism [is] an offensive way of identifying an inoffensive (or great and noble) fact.” An anti-euphemism is a concept or phrase that names a legitimate or good thing in a way that makes it appear corrupt.

To what facts of reality does the word “loophole” refer as used by the media in this context? It denotes various means by which people are still free to act on their own judgment; it specifies aspects of life in which individual rights are not yet being thoroughly violated by the government. In other words, it names a wonderful yet rapidly diminishing thing called freedom—which users of the term “loophole” seek to smear as corrupt.

Kudos to Jack Shafer for identifying “loophole” as a smear term—and kudos to Ayn Rand for identifying the broader category of smear technique under which it falls.

Although Shafer’s piece has some flaws—for instance, the use of the smear term (and anti-concept) “partisan” and the naïve assumption that “Once reporters understand that one man's loophole is another man's freedom, they'll never use the word again. At least not outside quotation marks.”—it is an excellent piece of journalism, which is a rare thing today.

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

Celebrating Income Inequality by Alex Epstein

Posted by ARI Media at 5:11 PM

Democrat and Republican candidates for President are debating one another on nearly every issue—but nearly all are united on one thing: America faces a crisis of "income inequality." The rich are getting richer, the refrain goes, while the poor and middle class are held back by stagnating wages, lousy schools, and growing healthcare costs. The solution, we are told, is more government intervention: spend more on education, provide "universal healthcare," and force employers to raise wages through minimum-wage increases and union protection legislation.

But all of this outcry is based on a false premise—that income inequality is bad. While some of the problems critics point to are legitimate concerns, income inequality is not. Income inequality is a natural and desirable part of a free, prosperous society.

Criticisms of income inequality are always couched in a certain type of language. For example, it is claimed that wealthier Americans "command" an "unfair share" of our "national wealth." Such language implies that American wealth is a communal pie that belongs equally to all of us.

But it is no such thing.

The vast wealth that exists in America has been created—through the productive activities and voluntary arrangements of individuals. And individuals do not necessarily create the same amount of wealth. Compare the value brought into existence by the entrepreneur whose productivity software is eagerly bought by millions—and the checkout clerk at a store that sells it. Such vast differences in productivity—which can be caused by vast differences in ability, work ethic, interests, skills, and choices—are the root of vast differences in income.

Because all wealth is created, it rightly belongs to those who earn it (or their chosen beneficiaries)—and no one can rightly claim to deserve wealth earned by others. If someone wants to make more money, he is free to enter a new field, gain new knowledge, start a business, or do anything else to enable himself to create more value.

It is often implied that the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else—that if some get big slices of pie, the rest get only crumbs. But the exact opposite is true. Since wealth (including pie) is created, there is no limit to how much can exist—and the wealth of others cannot inhibit us from creating and enjoying our own. Further, the wealth creation of the richest Americans makes us far more productive and well-off.

Consider how the wealthiest individuals in any free economy, businessmen, make their money. The job of a businessman is to orchestrate productive enterprises that efficiently coordinate people, resources, and tools to create valuable products. Businessmen profit when they bring out valuable products at desirable prices; thus, they are continually making more, better, and cheaper products for everyone to purchase. Businessmen profit when they make others more productive; thus, they are continually seeking to create new jobs that can add to their bottom line, and providing their workers with as many productivity-enhancing tools and technologies as they can. Businessmen's pursuit of profit has been the driving force behind the incalculable increase in our standard of living over the last 150 years—and economic history shows that the freer they are left to make money, the greater the increase in productivity and wages at all levels.

What then explains the poor educational opportunities, growing healthcare costs, and stagnating wages that are real problems for many Americans?

Government policies based on the same egalitarian mentality that denounces "income inequality." In the name of giving citizens "equal access" to education and medicine, the government has virtually taken over these fields, placing crippling controls on both producers and consumers. In the name of equalizing income, it enforces minimum-wage and anti-firing laws that make it difficult for eager newcomers to enter the job market. In the name of saving us from the alleged evils of rich, Big Business, it enforces endless regulations that apply to every business, decreasing the productivity of all and making it hard for new business ventures to succeed.

In America, equality should mean only one thing: freedom for all. If business and wages were deregulated, we would see a dramatic rise in economic opportunity. If education and medicine were left free, with America's businessmen, doctors, and educators liberated to offer education and medicine at all different price points, we would see quality and price improvements like those for computers or flat-panel television sets. But these benefits of freedom require that we recognize the moral right of each individual to enjoy whatever he produces—and recognize that none of us has a right to something for nothing.

Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA. 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

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

The Flavor Police

Posted by ARI Media at 11:17 PM

Irvine, CA—Congressmen are haggling over which flavors of cigarette to ban. Nearly all agree that chocolate, strawberry, almost any other conceivable flavor be banned, but there is a furious debate as to whether clove-flavored cigarettes should be a permitted exception.

"The very existence of such a debate," said Alex Epstein, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "the fact that the government is dictating anything related to what flavor cigarettes may or may not be produced and consumed is an ominous indicator of the state of liberty in America.

"The purpose of a government is to protect our freedom to live our lives according to our own judgment. This necessitates leaving us free to choose whether, what, and how much to smoke—whether we choose to rationally enjoy cigarettes in moderation or make the mistake of smoking too much—just as we are free to choose how to conduct ourselves in eating, marriage, child-rearing, and business, even though mistakes in those realms are legion. Individuals should be absolutely free to consume whatever flavor of cigarette they regard as most enjoyable.

"On the principle of individual freedom, those who are concerned about the hazards of smoking have every right to work to persuade—but not force—others to choose not to smoke. But the anti-smoking movement and today's paternalistic government reject the principle of individual freedom. On the premise that individuals are incapable of governing their own lives, the government dictates to us what we may or may not do in an ever-expanding number of realms: from medical treatments to retirement planning, to what kind of cooking oil we may consume, to forbidding flavorful cigarettes.

"There is no realm that is off-limits to such a government. Once we accept the government's right to ban flavorful cigarettes, by what principle will we resist when anti-obesity activists try to ban our favorite, tasty, high-calorie foods? Or when 'investor advocates' ban us from making government-designated 'risky' investments? Americans should assert their rights, take responsibility for their own lives, and demand an end to the paternalistic state."

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

Sunday, July 22, 2007

'No Substitute for Victory' now in Hebrew

Posted by John David Lewis at 2:31 PM

I am proud to note that my article, "No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism," has been transmitted into Hebrew. It appears in Nativ: A Journal of Politics and the Arts, vol. 20, n. 3.116 (May - June 2007). Nativ is published by the Ariel Center for Policy Research. From its website: "The Ariel Center for Policy Research (ACPR) is devoted to incisive research and discussion of political and strategic issues concerning Israel and the Jewish people."

The article is published by permission of The Objective Standard, from its 1.4, Winter, 2006-2007, pp. 39-63. This is the English abstract, as it appears in Nativ:

No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism

In the face of rising threats to their freedom and rights, Americans today are uncertain about what a proper foreign policy should be. This uncertainty arises from the philosophical influences of pragmatism and altruism, which have misguided American leaders for 50 years, and have made it difficult for Americans to evaluate their leaders and to evaluate their actions. As a result, Americans have failed to forthrightly confront rising threats, and have not properly supported allies – in particular, Israel. We have, as a result, emboldened and empowered the worst threat to the West in centuries.

This article uses the historical example of American policy towards Shintoism in post-1945 Japan, in order to show that a proper policy today would first identify Islamic Totalitarianism as the political threat facing the West, and would then direct American resources towards ending the political imposition of Islamic Law, beginning with the Islamic State of Iran. By identifying the advocates of political Islam – those who would impose Islamic Law by force – as the true enemy, Americans could destroy its state manifestation wherever it appears, and then offer an intellectual alternative to jihad. This is the only way to end the threat posed by Islamic Totalitarianism, and to re-establish a proper basis for freedom across the globe.

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

Monday, July 02, 2007

The Real Disgrace: Washington's Battlefield 'Ethics' by Elan Journo

Posted by ARI Media at 11:30 PM

Americans rightly admire our troops for their bravery, dedication and integrity. The Marines, for instance, are renowned for abiding by an honorable code—as warriors and as individuals in civilian life. They epitomize the rectitude of America's soldiers. But a recently disclosed Pentagon study—little noted in the media—has seemingly cast a shadow over our troops.

The study of U.S. combat troops in Iraq finds that less than half of the soldiers and Marines surveyed would report a team member for breaches of the military's ethics rules. Military and civilian observers have concluded from the study that more and stricter training in combat ethics is urgently needed.

But instead of reinforcing the military's ethics, we must challenge them. The Pentagon study provides evidence for a searing indictment not of our soldiers but of Washington's rules of engagement.

Consider the waking nightmare of being a U.S. combat troop in Iraq: imagine that you are thrust into a battlefield—but purposely hamstrung by absurd restrictions. Iraqis throw Molotov cocktails (i.e., gasoline-filled bottles) at your vehicle—but you are prohibited from responding with force. Iraqis, to quote the study, "drop large chunks of concrete blocks from second story buildings or overpasses" as you drive by—but you are not allowed to respond. "Every group of Soldiers and Marines interviewed," the Pentagon study summarizes, "reported that they felt the existing ROE [rules of engagement] tied their hands, preventing them from doing what needed to be done to win the war."

And the soldiers are right. In Iraq, Washington's rules have systematically prevented our brave and capable troops from using all necessary force to win, to crush the insurgency—and even to protect themselves. As noted in news articles since the start of the war, American forces are ordered not to bomb key targets, such as power plants, and to avoid firing into mosques (where insurgents hide) lest they offend Muslim sensibilities.

Having to follow such self-effacing rules of engagement while confronting sniper fire and ambushes and bombs from every direction, day in and day out, must be utterly demoralizing and unbearable. No one should be surprised at the newly reported willingness of combat troops to defy military ethics, because such defiance is understandable as the natural reaction of warriors made to follow suicidal rules.

When being "ethical" on Washington's terms means martyring yourself and your comrades for the sake of murderous Iraqis, it is understandable that troops are disinclined to report "unethical" behavior. It is understandable that troops should feel anger and anxiety (as many do), because it is horrifically unjust for America to send its personnel into combat, deliberately prevent them from achieving victory—and expect them to die for the sake of the enemy. It would be natural for an individual thrust into the line of fire as a sacrificial offering to rebel with indignation at such a fate.

How can we do this to our soldiers?

The death and misery caused by Washington's self-crippling rules of engagement—rules endorsed by liberals and conservatives alike—are part of the inevitable destruction flowing from a broader evil: the philosophy of "compassionate" war.

This perverse view of war holds that fighting selfishly to defend your own freedom by defeating enemies is wrong; but fighting to selflessly serve the needs of others is virtuous. It was on this premise that U.S. troops were sent to Iraq: Washington's goal was not to defend America against whatever threat Hussein's hostile regime posed to us, as a first step toward defeating our enemies in the region—principally Iran, the arch sponsor of Islamic totalitarianism. Instead the troops were sent (as Bush explained) to "sacrifice for the liberty of strangers"—spilling American blood and spending endless resources on the "compassionate" goal of lifting the hostile and primitive Iraqi people out of poverty, feeding their hungry, unclogging their sewers. The result of this "compassionate" war is thousands of unnecessary American deaths, and the preservation and emboldening of the enemies we most need to defeat: Iran and Saudi Arabia.

We must put an end to the barbarous sacrifice of American troops, now. It is past time to abandon Washington's self-sacrificial rules of engagement, and its broader policy of "compassionate," self-sacrificial warfare. Instead of subjecting troops to more intensive "ethics" training, we should unleash them from the suicidal militarily ethics of self-sacrifice.

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