Principles in Practice: The Blog of the Objective Standard

Principles in Practice: March 2008

Monday, March 31, 2008

More on the Propriety of Donations with 'Strings'

Posted by Craig Biddle at 5:30 PM

The latest attack on BB&T’s educational donations—and on academic freedom—comes by way of this Charlotte Observer editorial, which opens with the obvious truth that “A public university's faculty and administration—not donors—should have the final say on the content of courses.” The editorial closes with the obvious truth that “it’s wrong to strike fund-raising deals that suggest a university's curriculum can be shaped by the highest bidder.” Unfortunately, what lies between those two undeniable truths is a series of non sequiturs, non-principles, and nonsense having nothing to do with the factual nature of BB&T’s grants.

Of course the faculty and administration of a university should have the final say on the content of courses—and of course it is wrong for a university’s curriculum to be shaped by the highest bidder. If a university were to permit the content of its curriculum to be shaped by the highest bidder, imagine the cognitive destruction that could be wrought by the likes of George Soros or British Petroleum (BP). But for the Observer to suggest that BB&T somehow has or seeks the final say regarding the content of university curricula is absurd.

Certain universities and professors have chosen to include Ayn Rand’s books in the reading material of their courses, and some of them have sought and received BB&T grants that are contingent on including her works. This voluntary meeting of minds is called academic freedom and moral responsibility: The academics are free to choose their course content and to accept or reject the grants—and BB&T is being morally responsible with respect to its donations by ensuring that its money is put toward curricula consonant with its values.

The second sentence of the Observer editorial claims: “Otherwise, the college classroom becomes just another a [sic] arena of commerce, not a place where independent learning and research take place.” If an arena of commerce (i.e., free trade) is somehow incompatible with learning, does this mean that no one can learn anything by reading the Charlotte Observer, which is certainly an arena of commerce? The notion that free trade is incompatible with independent learning or research is utterly refuted by such obvious examples as the private-school industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the computer and software industries, and libraries—which are filled with the products of the book-publishing industry. If the Observer’s editors want to proceed with their “logic” they will have to contend with these facts.

The editorial continues: “That’s why the University of North Carolina system ought to enact a clear policy that forbids universities to seek or accept private funds that come with strings about what will be taught to students. This is an important principle, one that affects each of the 16 campuses.” If the Observer’s editors had read and understood the works of Ayn Rand when they were in college, they wouldn’t call such a non-principle a “principle.” A principle is a general truth on which other truths depend. The actual and relevant principle here is that of academic freedom: recognition of the fact that teachers and universities should be free to choose their materials and to seek funding for their courses—including, if they choose, funding that comes with strings. If the Observer’s editors have a principled argument against academic freedom, they should put it forth. To do so, however, they will have to specify the general truth by reference to which professors and universities should be forbidden to choose their materials and curricula and to accept funding in support of their choices.

As to the alleged impropriety of businessmen and corporations donating money to support educational initiatives of which they approve, the fact of the matter is that it is illogical and immoral to give money to an educational organization without stipulating in principle (if not in detail) how that money is to be used. If you blindly give money to a biology department rather then specify what the department must teach in order to receive your donation, the department might use your money to teach “intelligent design” as science. Likewise, if you blindly give money to a political science department rather than attach strings stating what the department must teach in order to receive your funds, the department might use your money to teach such nonsense as the notion that socialism is compatible with freedom.

Donating money without strings to universities is not noble; it is irrational and irresponsible. Nor does the attachment of strings to a donation in any way violate the autonomy of the recipient (be it a professor or department or university); he (or it) remains (and should remain) free to accept or reject the offer.

In sum, this is how educational donations should work: Professors and universities seeking funding for their courses should say—and be free to say—in effect, “Here is what we want to teach, and we will accept donations to teach it.” Likewise, businessmen and corporations who want to support higher education should say—and be free to say—in effect, “Here is what we would like to see taught, and we’re willing to donate money to those who are willing to teach it.” To argue against this approach is to argue against academic freedom and moral responsibility.

BB&T’s donations would not have ruffled a feather had they gone toward teaching the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau or John Stuart Mill or Thomas Hobbes. It is high time that the anti-Rand academics and the rabble-rousing media stop spewing fallacies and abusing language in their efforts to keep Rand’s ideas out of higher education (where they are clearly and desperately needed). If these people have a valid argument against academic freedom and moral responsibility, they should set it forth in plain, logical English. If not, they should move on to less obnoxious endeavors.

See also Rational 'Strings' are Good Things

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

Friday, March 28, 2008

The Originality of 'Atlas Shrugged'

Posted by ARI Media at 12:45 AM

What: A talk analyzing the theme and content of "Atlas Shrugged." A Q&A will follow.

Who: Tore Boeckmann, speaker for the Ayn Rand Institute

Where: Tufts University, Barnum Hall, Room 104, Medford, MA

When: Monday, March 31, 2008, at 8 pm

Admission is FREE.

Description: Ayn Rand said that "creating a new, original abstraction and translating it through new, original means" is "my kind of fiction writing." Tore Boeckmann tests the originality of "Atlas Shrugged" in regard to both abstract theme and concrete means by comparing the character of Francisco and the event of the tunnel disaster with similar concretes from Friedrich Schiller's plays ("Fiesco" and "Mary Stuart"). The comparison highlights non-obvious ways in which "Atlas Shrugged" concretizes its theme.

Bio: Tore Boeckmann's mystery short stories have been published and anthologized in several languages. He edited Ayn Rand's "The Art of Fiction," and has lectured at Objectivist conferences in America and Europe. Recent publications include " 'The Fountainhead' as a Romantic Novel" and "What Might Be and Ought to Be: Aristotle's 'Poetics' and 'The Fountainhead' " in "Essays on Ayn Rand's 'The Fountainhead,' " edited by Robert Mayhew.

For more information: e-mail media@aynrand.org

###  ### ###

Tore Boeckmann is available for interviews now and after his talk.
Contact: Larry Benson          
E-mail: larryb@aynrand.org          
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213

For more information on Objectivism's unique point of view, go to ARI's Web site at http://www.aynrand.org/site/R?i=Uz8MXSJNZ6-mFClefvkVyA... Founded in 1985, the Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Please note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI. ARI does not necessarily endorse the content of the lectures and sessions offered.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

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

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Rational 'Strings' are Good Things

Posted by Craig Biddle at 9:43 PM

“Gifts with Strings a Knotty Issue,” is the latest in a recent stream of articles about academics going berserk because BB&T, under the direction of CEO John Allison, has made contributions to universities with the stipulation that Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged be included somewhere in the schools’ curricula. For those who have not yet read Atlas, let me begin by saying a few words about the novel in order to set the context necessary for understanding the hostility of certain academics toward the book.

Atlas Shrugged is a spellbinding mystery about a man who said he would stop the motor of the world—and did. But the book is more than a wonderful suspense story; it is also a profound philosophical treatise dramatizing: the fact that reality is absolute (i.e., that facts are facts and cannot be wished or prayed away); the fact that reason is man’s only means of knowledge and basic means of survival; the fact that the requirements of man’s life constitute the standard of moral value; the fact that pursuing one’s rational self-interest is moral because doing so is necessary for one’s life; the fact that the initiation of physical force against a human being is immoral because it stops him from acting on his rational judgment (i.e., his basic means of living); and the fact that laissez-faire capitalism is the only moral social system because it is the only social system that bars physical force from social relationships, thereby enabling everyone to act fully in accordance with his own rational judgment and thus to live fully as a human being. The theme of Atlas Shrugged is a condensation of all of this: the supreme role of reason in man’s life.

Given the forgoing, it should come as no surprise that many of today’s academics loathe Rand and Atlas. “Absolutes? Reason? Egoism? Banning force? Capitalism?”—you can hear them shrieking in horror. Nor should it come as a surprise that these hostile-to-reason academics are coming unglued at the idea of Atlas being included in university curricula: The ideas presented in the novel clearly correspond to reality and thus are persuasive to students and threatening to the academic status quo.

What is a little surprising, however, is the ridiculously transparent nature of the “arguments” used in the efforts to keep Atlas out of the academic mix.

The universities receiving these donations from BB&T made voluntary agreements with the corporation whereby, in exchange for the donations, the schools include Atlas in the reading material for certain courses. More importantly, the professors in whose courses the book is used personally choose to use it because they see educational value in the book. Nevertheless, as the above article reports: “The schools’ agreements have drawn criticism from some faculty, who say it compromises academic integrity. In higher education, the power to decide course content is supposed to rest with professors, not donors.” Are we to believe that these anti-Atlas academics regard the act of using a book in which one sees educational value as a compromise of academic integrity? If so, they are operating with a bizarre definition of integrity. Integrity is, as one of the heroes in Atlas Shrugged puts it, “the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake your consciousness . . . that man is an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and consciousness, and that he may permit no breach between body and mind, between action and thought, between his life and his convictions….” The incensed professors would do well to pick up the book.

Another “argument” against the agreements was eloquently put forth by UNC-Charlotte religious studies professor Richard Cohen, who complains that BB&T’s gift is “going to make us look like a rinky-dink university.”

I don’t know how else to say this: If anything makes a school look like a rinky-dink university, it is the unwillingness of its faculty to make independent, rational judgments about such things as what constitutes good curricula. Setting aside tangentially relevant issues (such as the fact that the University of Texas at Austin has accepted a $2 million grant from BB&T to establish a Chair for the study of Objectivism), second-handedly following the lead of more established universities that (allegedly) wouldn’t accept generous donations with the stipulation that they must include Atlas Shrugged in the reading material of a course or two is no way to succeed or become a leader in the field of education. The principle of independence is, as one of the heroes in Atlas Shrugged puts it, “the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it—that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life—that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence.” This principle applies to universities just as it applies to individuals. Professor Cohen and his sympathizers could profit from reading Atlas Shrugged. (Are you sensing a pattern here?)

The article continues:

Allison has been surprised that the gifts can generate controversy. He says he simply wants students exposed to the late author’s ideas, which he thinks the academic community has largely ignored. He welcomes opposing ideas.

In other words, the stipulation is not that other books must be excluded from the curriculum; the stipulation is only that Atlas Shrugged must be included. Are the sweating academics concerned that students who read Atlas will no longer fall for the canards of skepticism, mysticism, and collectivism?

[Allison] also points out that the schools approached the foundation, not the other way around.

“We obviously can’t make anybody teach something,” he says. “We wouldn’t want to, we wouldn’t try to. These are professors that want to teach this.”. . .

Critics of the agreements do not merely ignore this crucial point; they turn it on its head. The very academics who affirm that “the power to decide course content is supposed to rest with professors” simultaneously seek to obstruct professors who decide to include Atlas in their course content.

The article continues:

“Most of the defenders of free markets mostly do it from an economic perspective,” Allison says. “They argue that free markets produce a higher standard of living, which is certainly very good. But Rand makes a connection to human nature and why individual rights and free markets are the only system consistent with human nature.”

Observe that even today’s best defenders of free markets—such as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams—utterly fail to defend freedom on philosophical or moral grounds. Sowell regards human beings as innately depraved (e.g., “If you have ever seen a four-year-old trying to lord it over a two-year-old, then you know what the basic problem of human nature is”), which precludes him from recourse to human nature in defense of freedom. And Williams regards moral values as matters of opinion (e.g., “There are no facts whatsoever to which we can appeal to settle any disagreement. One person’s opinion on the matter is just as good as another’s”), which precludes him from employing morality in defense of freedom.

Rand defends freedom on moral and philosophical grounds—by showing that man’s life (as against “God’s will” or personal opinion or social convention) is the standard of moral value and that in order to live, man must be free to act on his rational judgment, which is his only means of knowledge (as against faith or “intuitions” or feelings)—and she does so by brilliantly dramatizing these truths in Atlas Shrugged. If this book is not qualified for inclusion in academia, then academia is not qualified to educate college students.

As to the putatively principled objection that donations to educational institutions in general shouldn’t come with strings attached, not only is this wrong; it is exactly backward. The opposite is true. As a matter of moral principle, all donations to universities should come with strings attached. Just as one should not blindly give money to a politician to do with as he sees fit, so one should not blindly give money to an educator to do with as he sees fit. The inclusion of strings (i.e., conditions pertaining to one’s values) makes a donation a trade, an exchange of value for value; it also establishes accountability, a means of determining whether each party does what he is supposed to do. Academics who don’t want to trade value for value—or to follow through on agreements—or to teach Atlas Shrugged are free not to accept donations that require such rational actions. But schools and professors who do want to engage in such actions should be free to choose and contract and teach accordingly.

John Allison and BB&T’s thoughtful, principled approach to supporting higher education is not a cause for academic anxiety; it is a model of moral propriety. Rather than being scorned for attaching rational strings to their educational donations, Mr. Allison and BB&T should be praised for setting an example of how all such donations should be made.

The greater the percentage of donations to universities that come with rational strings attached, the greater will be the percentage of schools that include rational ideas (such as those of Ayn Rand) in their curricula. Imagine the positive consequences of just a few additional highly successful corporations offering the kinds of thoughtful and purposeful donations to schools that BB&T now offers. Such a development could spark an educational revolution.

If you are a successful businessman, why not join Mr. Allison and BB&T in this admirable practice? Read Atlas Shrugged and see what you think. If you think it should be included in the curricula of schools to which you donate money, start donating with the appropriate strings attached. In addition to promoting the values on which human life and happiness depend, you will help expose the irrationality of those academics who will publicly denounce you for being rationally principled. Reasons don’t get any better than these.

See also More on the Propriety of Donations with 'Strings'

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

Sunday, March 23, 2008

An Islamist 'Declaration Against Terrorism'

Posted by John David Lewis at 4:11 PM

In the "question" period of my recent talk at Georgia Tech, a student's fifteen-minute monologue included the claim that a recent Islamic conference in India had condemned terrorism—and that the western press had ignored this conference.

MEMRI covered the conference, which was attended by some ten thousand clerics, scholars and teachers. The "declaration against terrorism" issued by the conference included the following:

This All India Anti-Terrorism Conference, attended by the representatives of all Muslim schools of thought, organised by Rabta Madaris Islamiah Arabia (The Islamic Madrasas Association) Darul Uloom Deoband, condemns all kinds of violence and terrorism in the strongest possible terms.

The declaration continues:

The Conference expresses its deep concern and agony [over] the alarming global and national conditions [presently prevailing in the world], in which most of the nations are adopting an attitude against their citizens—especially the Muslims—that cannot be justified in any way, in order to appease the tyrant and colonial master of the West.

This last means the United States. The conference was a typical anti-American gathering.  Predictably, the declaration went on to decry the oppression of Muslims inside India:

Now the situation has worsened [to such an extent] that every Indian Muslim—especially those associated with madrasas, who are innocent with good record of character—are always gripped by the fear that they might be trapped by the administrative machinery anytime.

How should this "grip of fear" by Muslims be ended? The declaration demands that the Indian government shift the fear onto anyone criticizing Islam, by forcibly banning freedom of speech for critics of Islam:

This conference strongly demands that the Indian Government curb those maligning the madrasas and Muslims. The administrative machinery should be [required] to conduct impartial investigations into activities [of] disturbing public peace in the country, and to punish only those found guilty. . . . This All India Anti-Terrorism Conference [calls on] all intellectuals, writers and [journalists] to analyze the national and international affairs independently and honestly, and [to] avoid biased and partial attitudes.

"Disturbing the public peace" and displaying a "biased and partial attitude" includes saying and writing anything critical of ("maligning") the teachings of the Islamic schools. "They" (meaning "all intellectuals, writers and journalists") must "render full support to the Islamic madrasas . . .  following the Islamic Shariah and teachings with full confidence."

The declaration is not a condemnation of terrorism. It is a call to implement Islamic law over every aspect of human thought and action, and to prosecute anyone critical of Islam.

Is this is the best example that the critic in my audience could come up with for a condemnation of terrorism by Muslims?

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

Friday, March 21, 2008

Free Speech vs. McCain and Company

Posted by Craig Biddle at 11:00 PM

Yaron Brook, director of the Ayn Rand Institute, has a timely and important op-ed in today’s Forbes.com titled “War On Free Political Speech,” in which he answers common arguments for campaign finance restrictions. Here are the opening paragraphs:

This presidential campaign will be, by far, the most expensive in U.S. history. And it is ironic that John McCain, the co-author of McCain-Feingold, is one of the candidates hustling to raise tens of millions of dollars. One thing is for sure: No matter who wins, the call for more campaign finance legislation will intensify--all in the name of combating the allegedly corrupting influence of money on politics. This is ominous, because what campaign finance restrictions actually do is subject political speech to the corrupting influence of government control.

Under current law, we are severely limited in how much we can donate to candidates, political parties and political committees. We are also subject to bans on radio and TV ads that might--crime of crimes--impact the victory or defeat of a candidate we favor or oppose. What justifies these restrictions on our freedom?

Without them, advocates say, the wealthy would control political speech. They would use their vast resources to promote their candidates while locking out those unable to run expensive ads. Americans would be left without access to the information necessary to make informed political decisions. Elected politicians would be beholden to rich financial backers, whom they'll have to pay off with special favors. The solution to this mess, the argument goes, is obvious: The government must "level the playing field" by limiting wealthy Americans' ability to use their money in the political debate.

But let us, as Ayn Rand so often advised, check our premises.

Read it all—and email it to your friends and associates. This is one of the most important political issues facing America today. How important is it? Freedom of speech is the defining characteristic of a society in which political change can occur peacefully.

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

The Easter Masqueradeby Keith Lockitch

Posted by ARI Media at 12:08 AM

In 1582 Pope Gregory XIII established our modern calendar and fixed the rules determining the date of Easter. This year Easter falls on March 23, but from year to year it can shift by as much as a month on the Gregorian calendar.

Finding Easter's date for a given year requires a surprising degree of scientific acumen. The last things one might expect to see in, say, the Book of Common Prayer are tables of numbers and rules for mathematical calculations—but there they are, nevertheless.

At first glance, this seems to exemplify a kind of harmony between religion and science, a peaceful concord between faith and reason. Indeed, a variety of public figures—from prominent scientists to the Pope—have promoted the view that science and religion are not adversaries but complementary and mutually supporting fields. "Truth cannot contradict truth," they declare, implying that the truths discovered by reasoning from sensory evidence cannot clash with the "truths" of religious dogma.

A closer look, however, reveals the long history of the hostility of faith towards reason—which continues to this day. Violent clashes between the two are not only possible but unavoidable, and the notion that religion can coexist on friendly terms with science and reason is false.

For reasons both biblical and astronomical, Easter is defined as the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox (the first day of spring). To get his calendar rules right, Pope Gregory had to rely on some of the best astronomers and mathematicians of his day. Ironically, one of these was Nicolas Copernicus, whose sun-centered astronomy engendered one of history's most famous clashes between science and religion.

A faithful canon of the Catholic Church, Copernicus supported the calendar project happily. His scientific work was partly motivated by the goal of predicting more accurately the first day of spring and the subsequent full moon. He modestly expressed the hope that by facilitating the calculation of Easter his labors would "contribute somewhat even to the Commonwealth of the Church."

At first Copernicus's work was warmly accepted by Church officials—but only because they didn't take it seriously. Sixteenth century common sense held that the Sun orbits the Earth, which is motionless at the center of the universe. More important, Church scholars held that the true structure of the world is established not by science but by official interpretation of Scripture. Hence, they regarded the motion of the Earth as nothing more than a convenient mathematical assumption—an idea justified solely by its utility in making astronomical predictions. Thinking they could evade a clash between reason and revelation, they denied the reality of the Earth's motion but used the Copernican theory nonetheless.

This contradiction became inescapable decades after the Gregorian reform when Galileo removed the objections from common sense by explaining the physics of the moving Earth. But the objections from faith proved more intractable. Galileo's outspoken defense of the Earth's motion as a serious physical idea forced Church leaders to take a stand—and when they got off the fence, they came down firmly against science. That the Church persecuted Galileo for defending Copernican theory is well-known. Less frequently acknowledged is the utter hypocrisy of that act: the Church persecuted Galileo for defending the very ideas on which its Easter reform depended.

In 1992 Pope John Paul II grudgingly admitted—350 years too late—that his predecessors had been wrong. He called the Church's persecution of Galileo a "sad misunderstanding" that "now belongs to the past."

But does it?

Although few would now declare the Earth the motionless center of the universe, it is not difficult to find those who claim it to be 6,000 years old and deny the long, slow evolution of its species. More alarming is that the same Dark Ages mentality that dragged Galileo before the Inquisition now seeks to prohibit entire fields of scientific research, such as therapeutic cloning. The war of religion against science has merely shifted to new battlegrounds, but it still rages on.

Religion's alleged harmony with science is a fraudulent masquerade, extending only insofar as religious dogmas are not called into question. True defenders of science must be committed to reason as an absolute principle—following facts wherever they lead and bowing to no authorities but logic and reality. And they must understand that the servile obedience demanded by faith is wholly incompatible with science—and with the rational thinking on which all human progress and prosperity depends.

Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a 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 © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

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

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Capitalism and the Environment: The Virtues of 'Exploitation'

Posted by ARI Media at 1:51 PM

What: A talk analyzing the destructive nature of environmentalism--and explaining the constructive role of science, technology, and capitalism in promoting human life and progress. A Q&A will follow.

Who: Richard M. Salsman, public speaker for the Ayn Rand Institute

Where: Rice University, Herzstein Hall, Room 212, Houston, TX

When: Tuesday, March 25, 2008, at 7:30 pm

Admission is FREE.

Description: Man achieves his survival by using his mind to alter his environment to suit his needs and improve the conditions of his existence. It is this process--expressed in science, technology, and capitalism--that has allowed man to rise from the hunger, drudgery, and misery of primitive existence to the comfort of modern civilization. But it is precisely this process that is under attack by the reactionary "greens"--who want to return man to the pre-industrial era even to the Stone Age.

In this talk, Mr. Salsman does not merely discredit the scientific claims of environmentalism; he demolishes its moral and philosophical base. He demonstrates that: (1) the doctrine that nature has "intrinsic value," i.e., some sort of mystical value entirely apart from its relation to man, is nothing but the desire to destroy human values, (2) the improvement of the environment--for man--can only be provided by laissez-faire capitalism, and (3) that it is the environmentalist movement itself that is today's greatest danger to human health and happiness.

Bio: Richard M. Salsman, CFA, is founder, president and chief market strategist of InterMarket Forecasting, Inc., an investment research and forecasting firm based in Chapel Hill, NC. Mr. Salsman is a noted authority on banking and capitalism. He is the author of two books, Gold and Liberty (1995) and Breaking the Banks: Central Banking Problems and Free Banking Solutions (1990). Mr. Salsman's articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, Barron's, Forbes, and The National Post ( Canada). Mr. Salsman lectures widely at investment gatherings and at universities such as Harvard University, the University of Chicago and the University of California, Berkeley.

For more information: e-mail media@aynrand.org

###  ### ###

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

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

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Memoirs of a 'Criminal Mind': Georgia Tech, March 13, 2008

Posted by John David Lewis at 7:39 PM

On March 13, I gave my talk “‘No Substitute for Victory’: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism” to an audience of about forty at Georgia Institute of Technology. In the talk, based on my article in The Objective Standard, I rejected all forms of theocracy, but emphasized the danger posed by the Islamic state and argued for the destruction of its most obvious manifestation, the regime in Iran. I was prepared for opposition to the idea of war with Iran, and I acknowledged up front that those who recognize that religious law is wrong might disagree with my conclusion that a war against the Iranian state is necessary. But I was not prepared for the strident defense of Islamic law and jihad—and for the condemnation of me for even raising the issue of Islamic jihad—that was to come.

The onslaught began with the first “question,” actually a monologue that lasted nearly fifteen minutes. The monologist claimed that: (1) there is a long history of separation of church and state in Islam; (2) Islamic law is good; (3) whenever imposed, Islamic law has brought peace; (4) jihad is a “wonderful idea” and does not mean war; (5) Islamic Totalitarianism poses no threat, since 500 million Muslims reject terrorism; (6) the tax leveled against subjugated peoples is just, because they are protected by Muslims in return; (7) I am “ignorant of history” if I do not acknowledge the “truth” of these claims.

I listened to him without interrupting—and even asked a legitimately annoyed member of the audience to allow him to finish—so that he could fully reveal himself. In answer, I re-read a series of quotes in which Islamic leaders—as well as a young girl on Lebanese television—call for jihad, war, and death; and I pointed out to the monologist that he must be quite angry at these Muslims for their incorrect view of jihad. But instead of being angry at those who give his presumably peaceful religion a bad name, he condemned me for reading their quotes. This is evasion par excellence—to condemn those who raise Islam’s violent past and present rather than have to face the fact that the vision of idyllic peace that one associates with one’s religion has no basis in reality.

(I at least got a good laugh out of this exchange when I concretized the meaning of the tax on subjugated peoples. Suppose a Mafia thug came to your door, I said, and he offered to protect you for, say, $100 a month. You would ask the thug, “From whom do I need protection?” to which he would reply: “Us.”)

Following this was more of the same: combinations of Islamic apologizing and ad hominem attacks. I was told, for instance, that I could not possibly understand Iran if I had never been there myself. By this standard, history as such is impossible; no one today can know what it was like a decade, a century, or a millennium prior to his birth. But the apologists have no problem suspending this standard for themselves when it serves their purposes, in this case to glorify Mohammad (“a peaceful man”) and 7th-century Arabia.

But one “questioner” in particular stands out: After reading a sentence from my article Notes on the Near Eastern Roots of Islam, with no context or explanation for the audience to even understand what it meant, he attacked me by saying that I should remember “logic” and the fact that I was at a “scientific” school before making statements such as those that I had made. But rather than explain to me what was illogical or unscientific about my views—let alone ask a question in the question period—he continued his ad hominem attack by stating that my views were so obviously wrong that only a “criminal mind” (a phrase he repeated) could have come up with them. Again, he never stated what was wrong with my quote, never established any reasons for his conclusion, and never asked me to clarify my reasoning—he took his assertion of the “criminality” of my mind as a self-evident fact.

On the face of it, the “scientific logic” he employed was nothing more than arbitrary name-calling—obviously a cherished technique by his “method.” But what motivated his calling me a “criminal mind”—twice?

The topic of my talk was theocracy and Islamic law. Islamic governments, as ideological states founded on claims to divine revelation, must jail—or worse—those who speak out against the clerics. This was the thug’s ideal: In lieu of rationally demonstrating the “truth” of his beliefs, he would criminalize me, or jail me, or perhaps kill me, to stop the spread of ideas contrary to his. In Iran, this ideal has already been achieved; there I would have been arrested, condemned, and thrown into solitary confinement. But in America, the thug’s ideal is frustrated; without the power of the law to silence me he was reduced to name-calling.

What deeper attack on civilization, freedom, the mind, and human life could be possible than to propose the establishment of thought crimes in an American university? His was the voice of a dark-age Nazi brownshirt longing for the day when he can destroy those who vocalize ideas that make it difficult for him to evade the irrational nature of his whims. Who is it that should be empowered to peruse articles and determine which ones constitute crimes? The thug made that very clear. Unfortunately, with but one exception, the Muslims in the audience did not say anything against him.

For a taste of what develops when people like the ones I faced have their way, read this article about a university lecturer in Iran who was sentenced to death in Iran for the “crime” of polling Iranians about their attitudes towards America. This is the real meaning of Islamic law: the destruction of the mind, and death to those who use their minds.

The content of my article is irrelevant in the face of such attacks on the mind. But, for the record, the passage that the thug read was this: “There is a need for an external enemy, as a point of focus for the rage which would otherwise turn into civil war.” And here are the next two sentences: “The Arabic tribes were in constant warfare, until Islam pointed their energies outwards, into conquest. To this day, the civil wars return to such areas whenever there is no external enemy, or no dictator to keep order by force.” I wrote this because it is true. Dictatorship or anarchy is largely the rule in the Middle East today—as it was under Mohammed in Arabia, which he conquered internally and then turned outward to foreign conquest.

On display the night of my talk were the theory and practice of Islamic totalitarianism—the soul and the fist—in the evasions about Islamic history and its practices today, and in the open wish to criminalize those stating these truths.

There were, however, two bright spots to the evening. The first was a man who described himself as a thirty-year emigré from Turkey. He noted with pride that his homeland had a thoroughly secular government and he praised Kemal Ataturk for bringing Turkey into the modern age, for instance, by banning the headscarf. But today Turkey’s secular government is being undercut—by Americans who describe its government as “moderate Islamic” and thereby blur the line between theocracy and secularism. This opens the door to the establishment of Islamic law. The man’s message was this: There can be no compromise between theocracy and secular government; it is either–or. To accept “moderate Islam” into government is, in principle, to establish theocracy. I wonder if he realized that, by the standards of the brownshirt in my audience, he was a criminal for holding such a view.

The second bright spot of the evening was a young woman who asked me excitedly about Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness. As the young woman struggled to understand Rand’s challenging ideas, our conversation continued into the hall and outside. She apologized for the actions of the audience; I told her not to be concerned with them, only herself. I am certainly glad that, for now at least, she lives in a society where she can remain focused on her own intellectual development—and safely ignore those who would stifle or slaughter her “criminal mind” before the wings of her intellect have a chance to grow.

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

Friday, March 14, 2008

Defining the Right of Self-Defense by Gun by Thomas A. Bowden

Posted by ARI Media at 10:47 PM

First, the robber hit Willie Lee Hill more than fifty times with a can of soda, knocking him unconscious. Later, the 93-year-old victim awakened, covered with blood, to find his 24-year-old assailant ransacking the bedroom. When Hill pulled out a .38-caliber handgun from near his bed, the robber lunged at him. Hill stopped his attacker with a single bullet to the throat. “I got what I deserved,” the robber told police afterward.

That episode happened in Arkansas last July, but similar acts of self-defense occur by the thousands all across America every year. Overwhelming historical evidence and common sense demonstrate that guns—often called the “great equalizer,” for obvious reasons—are a powerful method of self-defense in the precious minutes before police can arrive.

In the District of Columbia, however, citizens may not lawfully possess a handgun for self-defense, even in the home. The Supreme Court will soon hear oral argument in D.C. v. Heller, which is expected to determine whether such a blanket ban violates the Second Amendment. But regardless of how the Court may interpret the Constitution, citizens deserve a legal right to own a handgun for self-defense.

As the Declaration of Independence recognizes, governments are created to protect our individual rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The right of self-defense is included and implied in the right to life. In forming a government, citizens delegate the task of defending themselves to the police. But to delegate is not to surrender. Each citizen retains the ultimate right to defend himself in emergencies when his appointed agents, the police, are not available to help.

But what constitutes an emergency? What acts of self-defense are permissible in such a situation? And what tools may private citizens own for emergency self-defense? The law’s task is to furnish objective answers to such questions, so that citizens may defend their lives without taking the law into their own hands.

An emergency, properly defined, arises from an objective threat of imminent bodily harm. The victim must summon police, if possible. An emergency ends when the threat ends, or as soon as police arrive and take charge. During that narrow emergency interval, a victim may defend himself, but only with the least degree of force necessary under the circumstances to repel his attacker. A victim who explodes in vengeance, using excessive force, exposes himself to criminal liability along with his assailant.

Many objects commonly owned for peaceful purposes can be pressed into service for emergency self-defense. But unlike kitchen knives or baseball bats, handguns have no peaceful purpose—they are designed to kill people. The same lethal power that makes handguns the most practical means of self-defense against robbers, rapists, and murderers, also makes handguns an essential tool of government force. Handguns are deadly force and nothing but—a fact that gives rise to legitimate concerns over their private ownership in a civilized society.

These concerns can be resolved only by laws carefully drawn to confine private use of handguns to emergency self-defense, as defined by objective law. Such laws must also prohibit all conduct by which handguns might present an objective threat to others, whether by intent or negligence.

Contrary to an often expressed worry, therefore, a right to keep and bear arms in no way implies that citizens may stockpile weaponry according to their arbitrary preferences. Cannons, tanks, and nuclear weapons have no legitimate use in a private emergency, and their very presence is a threat to peaceful neighbors.

If handguns are confined to emergency self-defense, no legitimate purpose is served by an outright ban such as the District of Columbia enacted. Even if such laws actually deprived criminals of guns (which they don’t), they would infringe upon a law-abiding citizen’s right in emergencies to repel attackers who are wielding knives, clubs, fists—or cans of soda.

With the aid of his handgun, Willie Lee Hill survived that violent home invasion last July. Self-defense was his right, as it is ours. A proper legal system recognizes and protects that right, by permitting private ownership of handguns under appropriate limits.

Thomas A. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on legal issues. Mr. Bowden is a former attorney and law school instructor who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland. The Ayn Rand Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

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

Objectivist Summer Conference 2008 Early Registration Deadline Approaching!

Posted by TOS Admin at 10:38 PM

Objectivist Summer Conference 2007

We would like to remind you that the deadline to take advantage of our early registration price breaks for Objectivist Summer Conference 2008 is approaching fast! The conference takes place in Newport Beach, California, from June 28 to July 6, 2008. Join us for nine days of intellectual stimulation, and meet people from around the world who share your values.

Register by March 31 to take advantage of discount pricing!

Important Lodging Notes:
This year's conference will be hosted at the Marriott Newport Beach Hotel and Spa, where OCON has negotiated special pricing arrangements for conference attendees. The group discount rate will remain available through Friday, June 13, 2008. To book your reservation by telephone, call 1-800-228-9290 and give the discount code "OCON 2008" to claim your conference rate.

For more information please visit the Objectivist Conferences Web site, or call us at 1-800-365-6552 ext. 239.

We hope to see you this summer!

REGISTER ONLINE

Copyright © 2008 Second Renaissance, Inc. All rights reserved.

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

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Too Big to Bail by Alex Epstein

Posted by ARI Media at 1:49 AM

Every few days we hear that another leading financial institution has written down billions more on subprime investments gone bad. Nearly every major financial institution, it turns out, had a hand in loans to low-credit borrowers—borrowers whose ability to pay often hinged on endlessly low interest rates or a strong housing market. How could this happen? How could nearly all the leading lights of the financial industry—the experts in assessing and managing risk—expose themselves to such massive losses? Or, as a Fortune cover crudely put it: "What were they smoking?"

A major part of the answer is: government bailout crack.

For decades our government has had a semi-official policy that large financial institutions are too big to fail—and therefore must be bailed out when they risk insolvency—a policy that creates perverse incentives for them to take on far more risk than they otherwise would. "Too big to fail" is implemented through a network of government bodies that protect financial institutions from the long-term consequences of their decisions at taxpayer expense—a phenomenon we can observe right now.

Consider Countrywide, a major subprime money-loser just acquired by Bank of America. Private lenders have not been willing to grant Countrywide  the $10s of billions it sought to keep afloat, given the company's huge and difficult-to-measure subprime exposure. In a free market, bankruptcy would loom—but in our system, Countrywide and others can turn to the government-backed Federal Home Loan Banks for cash; these banks have lent Countrywide over $70 billion so far. According to the Wall Street Journal, these banks specialize in "providing funding where other creditors won't go"—which they can do because of "a widespread belief the government would bail them out [with taxpayer money] in a crisis."

Cash from Federal Home Loan Banks is just one of the many entrees the government provides on its bailout menu. Another option a failing bank has is to court bank depositors—who will not be scared away because their deposits are backed by the government's Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Countrywide and others have a huge potential pool of capital accessible to them if they take on the additional cost of offering depositors higher interest rates than their competitors'. On its Web site, Countrywide is actively chasing your dollars, boasting, "Can your bank match our CD rates?" The policy is working; American depositors have invested or kept $10s of billions of their savings in Countrywide's coffers—despite regular headlines about the company's perilous finances. Depositors know that no matter how reckless Countrywide is with their money, other taxpayers will be there to pay the company's FDIC-backed commitments—just as they were there to bail out depositors in savings and loans in the 1980s.

Still another item on the bailout menu is provided by the Federal Reserve. Today and throughout history, when major financial institutions are losing money, the Fed uses its power to manipulate interest rates and the money supply so that banks can borrow cheaply—giving them easy money with which to paper over their old mistakes. Again, it is other taxpayers who pay—in this case, through inflation. Inflation depletes Americans' hard-earned savings; the trend of skyrocketing housing and commodity prices we have witnessed during the last five years is just the latest and most obvious harm done by our government's inflationary actions.

The combined effect of these and other bailout policies is to make risk-taking less risky for large financial institutions—because true failure is not an option.

If an institution can be bankrupted when its investments go bad, it is supremely clear to its managers and its creditors (its depositors, in the case of a bank) that they must be continuously diligent about risk. They have every incentive to thoroughly investigate long-term consequences—because enough money badly invested could mean the firm's extinction.

However, when the long term loses its meaning, when institutions are told they can never fail, managers are given an incentive to put more capital at risk. If the investments go well in the short term, as subprime investments did for several years, the profit potential is huge. If they eventually fail, the downside is only so bad; the government will "do something" to keep the firms afloat.

And when these reckless investments do go well in the short term, they're sure to be repeated. If one financial giant is reaping huge profits from subprime, other firms are pressured to follow along—or else risk losing investors, customers, or employees who want to be part of the exciting profit machine. The long-term result of "too big to fail" is a gradual and overall decline in responsible risk-taking—with periodic crises like the subprime debacle.

Any doctrine that encourages overly risky investing, and punishes sound risk-taking is unfair and destructive. We need to phase out "too big to fail" and replace it with a free market in banking, which would reward sound long-term lending and borrowing practices and punish irresponsible ones. Otherwise, the next financial market fiasco is just a matter of time.

Alex Epstein is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on business issues. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.

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

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Remarkable Activism—Addendum

Posted by Craig Biddle at 7:23 PM

It occurs to me that in my last post I should have acknowledged not only Lin Zinser—the founder and director of FIRM—but also all the writers and activists who have embraced the organization’s mission and contributed to its success: Ari Armstrong, Linn Armstrong, Martin Buchanan, Betty Evans, Linda Gorman, Diana Hsieh, Paul Hsieh, Hanah Krening, Gina Liggett, James Schroeder, Brian Schwartz, Ralph Shnelvar, Russell Shurts, Richard Watts, and anyone else who has had a hand in the effort. Thank you, one and all, for your work in defense of individual rights!

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

Friday, March 07, 2008

Remarkable Activism

Posted by Craig Biddle at 9:11 PM

Lin Zinser, founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) and contributor to TOS, has set an outstanding example of how to engage in principled activism. I’ll let her accomplishments speak for themselves—and add only this: Thank you, Lin, for defending man’s right to life.

FIRM: Year End Results
by Lin Zinser

Today we celebrate the achievements of the FIRM coalition over the past year.

FIRM started at the end of January 2007, and comprises a group of Colorado citizens with diverse careers, interests and ideas about what medicine and health insurance should (and could) look like in Colorado (and in America, for that matter). For some, this is the first time they have ventured into an ethical/political issue in public. Some want to stay out of politics, but are interested in what used to be called "moral suasion," persuading people through moral argument to change their beliefs about a particular issue.

What these people do agree with is that the government should stop regulating, controlling and intervening in decisions that individuals make about what medical procedures they should have, whether to buy health insurance, and if so, what type of health insurance is appropriate for them and their families, and who should be their provider of services, among the thousand other decisions that people make regarding their health every year.

I am very appreciative for all of you who have supported the efforts of FIRM, and want to provide you the tangible record of your efforts. Briefly, in a summary form, they are as follows. From January 30, 2007, to January 31, 2008, FIRM coalition supporters had the following public results:

Letters to the editor—48 (including one in "USA Today")
OpEds/Columns—26
Citations in Media—t least 10, perhaps more
Articles/Essays—2
Talks/Panel Discussions—9
Media appearances—6
Formal Proposal Submissions to 208 Commission—1
Public statements to 208 Commission—17
Letters to 208 Commission during their request for public comments—at least 5, undoubtedly more
Letter to Colorado Medical Society—1
Public Statements to Medical Organizations—Total 1
Public Statement to Colorado Joint Legislative Committee on Health and Human Services—1
Distribution of "Health Care is Not A Right", by Leonard Peikoff—over 1,000 copies

These are fabulous results. The war is not yet won, and it will be difficult. Last year, at this time, one of the popular ideas in the public was the individual mandate to purchase insurance. This year, at least, it looks like there will not be a push for the individual mandate to purchase insurance in the State of Colorado, and that is due in no small part to the efforts of FIRM supporters -- of their own, individual efforts. Individual mandates are not dead, but they are no longer thriving.

This year, it appears that the effort will be to expand government health insurance to all of the uninsured children in the state, increasing the number of people on government programs that don't work, giving families the illusion of coverage, at an expensive price tag for all, including taxpayers. We expect to see additional restrictions on insurance policies, including benefit mandates and rating issues as well. So there is work yet to do.

Below are the details that support the summary above. I applaud every name on the list, and I also applaud all of you who have written, sent comments and forwarded any of these efforts to friends, family, co-workers, doctors or other health-care providers. Please remember as you read the list, that not everyone on the list may absolutely be in 100% agreement with all aims of FIRM. FIRM is a coalition, and its ideas are expressed in its Statement of Principles and Goals. These individuals have expressed their adherence to some of these goals in these particular writings or public statements.

A special thanks to Paul Hsieh for blogging so diligently and for co-writing with me an excellent article on the state of medicine and health insurance in America.

I have used smaller type so that the blog is not so long.

Letters to the editor—Total 48 (including one in "USA Today")

Diana Hsieh, Rocky Mountain News, 2/5/2007, "Paul Campos: Health Care"
Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 3/3/2007, "Universal Health Care"
Richard Watts, Rocky Mountain News, 4/16/2007, "End government health-care meddling"
Richard Watts, Craig Daily Press, 4/19/2007, "Health Care"
Paul Hsieh, Denver Post, 4/24/2007, "Health Care is Not a Right"
Russell Shurts, Rocky Mountain News, 4/25/2007, "Health Care in Colorado"
Richard Watts, Rio Blanco Herald Times, 4/26/2007, "Health Care"
Paul Hsieh, Denver Post, 4/30/2007, "Two Arguments Why Health Care is Not a Right"
Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 4/30/2007, "Fair Health Care"
Brian Schwartz, Rocky Mountain News, 5/3/2007, "Medical insurance restrictions are costly"
Brian Schwartz, Boulder Daily Camera, 5/3/2007, "Health Care: The government would worsen it"
Ralph Shnelvar, Denver Post, 5/6/2007, "Debating health care systems in U.S., Canada"
Hanah Krening, Denver Post, 5/23/2007, "Proposals to reform health care in Colorado"
Paul Hsieh, Pueblo Chieftain, 5/27/2007, "Socialized Medicine"
Richard Watts, Steamboat Pilot, 5/30/2007, "Too Much Control"
Richard Watts, Rocky Mountain News, 5/31/2007, "Health Care"
Richard Watts, Glenwood Springs Post-Independent, 5/31/2007, "Don't Allow the Government to Dictate Your Health Care"
Gina Liggett, Denver Post, 6/6/2007, "Free Market Health Care Reform"
Gina Liggett, Boulder Daily Camera, 6/9/2007, "There is No 'Right' to Any Health Care"
Gina Liggett, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 6/13/2007, "Need vs. Right"
Gina Liggett, Carbondale Valley Sentinel, 6/14/2007, "Need vs. Right"
Gina Liggett, Pueblo Chieftain, 6/17/2007, "Health Panel Stacked Deck"
Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 6/19/2007, "'Universal' Health Care"
Richard Watts, Grand Junction Free Press, 6/21/2007, "Health Care is Not a Right"
Richard Watts, Boulder Daily Camera, 6/22/2007, "Health Care is Not a Right"
Martin Buchanan, Denver Post, 6/27/2007, "Health Care For All: Whose Responsibility Is It?"
Gina Liggett, Rocky Mountain News, 6/28/2007, "Health Care is Not a 'Right', It's a Need"
Russell Shurts, Rocky Mountain News, 6/29/2007, "Social Responsibility"
Gina Liggett, USA Today, 6/29/2007, "Moore In Denial"
Brian Schwartz, Rocky Mountain News, 7/2/2007, "Health Insurance"
Diana Hsieh, Colorado Springs Gazette, 7/3/2007, "People, not government, responsible for health"
Gina Liggett, Denver Post, 7/6/2007, "Health Care in the US"
Gina Liggett, Northern Colorado Business Report, 7/6/2007, "Free Health Care?!"
Richard Watts, Rocky Mountain News, 7/7/2007, Health Care"
Paul Hsieh, Rocky Mountain News, 7/12/2007, "In-Store Health Clinics"
Diana Hsieh, Rocky Mountain News, 7/17/2007, "Free Market Medicine is the Answer"
Gina Liggett, Colorado Confidential, 7/21/2007, "Health Care"
Paul Hsieh, Denver Post, 7/31/2007, "Rising Health Care Costs"
Richard Watts, Denver Post, 7/31/2007, "SCHIP Program"
Lin Zinser, Rocky Mountain News, 8/7/2007, "Health Care in Colorado"
Brian Schwartz, Rocky Mountain News, 8/13/2007, "Free Markets Key to Affordable Health Care"
James Schroeder, Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, 8/28/2007, "Single Payer Health Plan Would Be Costly and Unfair"
Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 8/31/2007, "Health Savings Accounts"
Brian Schwartz, Denver Post, 9/7/2007, "Funding Health Care"