Principles in Practice: The Blog of the Objective Standard

Principles in Practice: April 2008

How Government Makes Disasters More Disastrous by Thomas A. Bowden by ARI Media
Rational Egoism in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead by Craig Biddle
An Interview with Lisa VanDamme on Education and Objectivism by Craig Biddle
Expelled Gets an F by ARI Media
Woodstock's Legacy: The Rise of Environmentalism and the Religious Right by ARI Media
Exploit-the-Earth Day Materials by Craig Biddle
On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day by Craig Biddle
'Life and Taxes' by Yaron Brook by Craig Biddle
And You Thought It Was Your Room by ARI Media
OCON Event Announcement by ARI Media
Defender of Civilization: Andrew Bostom by John David Lewis
Heidi Moore's Argument from Intimidation by Craig Biddle
Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist by ARI Media
Why Unregulated Capitalism is the Only Moral Social System by ARI Media
The Real Meaning of Earth Hour by Keith Lockitch by ARI Media
Religion vs. Morality by ARI Media
Global Capitalism: The Solution to World Oppression and Poverty by ARI Media
The Price of Bush's Commitment to Palestinian Statehood by Elan Journo by ARI Media
Woodstock's Legacy: The Rise of Environmentalism and the Religious Right by ARI Media
Announcing AtlasShrugged.com by ARI Media
'Earth Hour' Sends a Deceptive Message by ARI Media
Your Child Is Not State Property by Thomas A. Bowden by ARI Media

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

How Government Makes Disasters More Disastrous by Thomas A. Bowden

Posted by ARI Media at 12:36 PM

In a speech from New Orleans last week, Republican presidential candidate John McCain lashed out at the Bush administration for its response to Hurricane Katrina. McCain's remarks, which appeared calculated to make disaster relief a key campaign issue, revived harsh memories of the savage storm that inundated the Mississippi Delta in late August 2005, leaving more than 1,800 people dead and causing widespread property damage.

Although the floodwaters long ago receded, government officials are still counting the disaster's costs. Earlier this year, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers disclosed that 489,000 claimants are seeking damages caused by poorly designed levees. Of those claimants, 247 want more than $1 billion each, including one whopper for $3 quadrillion (a stack of a quadrillion dollar coins would reach beyond Saturn).

The tax dollars spent resolving those claims will augment the tens of billions already paid to restore and repopulate New Orleans, a below-sea-level bowl situated precariously amidst a lake, a major river, and a gulf, in a known path for hurricanes.

Disasters can sometimes shock a nation into questioning entrenched practices. But Hurricane Katrina, perhaps the worst natural disaster ever to befall America, has failed to spark serious challenge to long-standing government policies that actively promote building and living in disaster-prone areas.

The Katrina tragedy should have called into question the so-called safety net composed of government policies that actually encourage people to embrace risks they would otherwise shun—to build in defiance of historically obvious dangers, secure in the knowledge that innocent others will be forced to share the costs when the worst happens.

Without blaming the victims for having followed their own government's lead, it is time to question whether those policies should continue.

The first strands of today's safety net were spun in the nineteenth century, as the Army Corps of Engineers shouldered the burden of constructing and maintaining levees and other flood controls along the Mississippi River. From then to now, Congress and the states have responded to each new flood by installing newer, higher, and stronger barriers at public expense, as if the preservation of a city like New Orleans in its historical location were a self-evident necessity.

Throughout the twentieth century, new strands were woven into the safety net, first in the form of loans to disaster victims, then by direct grants, infrastructure repairs, loan guarantees, job training, subsidized investments, health care, debris removal, and a host of similar rehabilitative measures.

In 1968, the National Flood Insurance Program began supplying subsidized coverage for structures and their contents in flood-prone areas. Similar state-subsidized insurance programs arose for hurricanes in Florida and earthquakes in California. In 1978, the Federal Emergency Management Agency was created to coordinate the increasingly complex job of government disaster response.

At each juncture, more aid was funneled to disaster victims without serious challenge to the wisdom of encouraging people to occupy vulnerable locations.

In response to Mississippi floods, Florida hurricanes, and California earthquakes, the number of major disaster declarations almost doubled from the 1980s to the 1990s, from an annual average of 24 up to 46. At century's end, Congress was paying an average of $3.7 billion a year in supplemental disaster aid, with state taxpayers contributing many millions more. As of August 2007, Katrina relief alone had cost federal taxpayers $114 billion.

By gradual steps, this disaster safety net became part of the legal landscape, taken for granted by private investors and owners deciding to undertake new projects or rebuild storm-damaged areas. Relief programs—by minimizing, disguising, and shifting the real risks of defying natural hazards—became an active force distorting private decision-making and inviting even worse future tragedies.

Thus if a pre-Katrina Mississippian asked himself, "Should I build my house 10 feet above sea level, a quarter-mile from the Gulf Coast?" the answer came back: "Sure, why not? The government will look after me if disaster strikes."

This entitlement mentality ensured that each new tragedy would generate fresh demands to expand the safety net. In Katrina's aftermath, those demands centered on State Farm, which dared to deny certain claims under homeowners policies that covered wind damage but expressly excluded floods. Mississippi's attorney general immediately sued to void flood exclusion clauses as "unconscionable" and "contrary to public policy" and even launched a criminal investigation of State Farm's claims adjusting practices.

Last year, a jury inflamed by adverse public opinion awarded $1 million in punitive damages against State Farm for having stood on its contract rights in a dispute involving a single house. That case was recently reversed on appeal, but the victory is cold comfort for State Farm, which in the meantime elected prudently to calm the litigation storm by paying tens of millions of dollars to settle claims for unproven wind damage. Voila! The safety net had a brand new strand, woven at the insurance company's expense.

Disgusted, State Farm announced last year that it would cease writing new homeowners policies in Mississippi.

As more private insurers withdraw from high-hazard areas—or raise their rates to reflect the staggering legal and public relations costs of offering disaster insurance—a predictable lament arises: the free market has failed, and government must fill the vacuum so that the statist safety net remains strong. Thus it surprises no one to hear Florida Gov. Charlie Crist challenging this year's presidential candidates to support creation of a federal catastrophic fund that would keep insurance premiums artificially low in disaster-prone areas across the country.

But the solution is not more of the market distortions and perverse incentives that have lured so many people into harm's way. The solution is to replace the prevailing entitlement mentality with a free market in disaster prevention, insurance, and recovery.

In a free market—without tax-paid levees, government disaster relief, or subsidized insurance—anyone who contemplates building or buying property in a high-hazard area will need to face hard facts about the local history of natural disasters, the efficacy and cost of preventive measures, and the availability of insurance.

For example, the high price—or total unavailability—of private insurance will resound like a clanging alarm bell, signaling the market's objective view that a particular building plan is abnormally risky compared to less dangerous locales.

With their own lives and wealth at stake, people will have every incentive to evaluate risks objectively. And if hardy souls still choose to occupy and fortify New Orleans, or build on an earthquake fault, or live in a tornado alley, the risk and reward will be theirs alone. No longer will government make disasters more disastrous by pretending that citizens have a right to defy the forces of nature at others' expense.

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.

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

Monday, April 28, 2008

Rational Egoism in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead

Posted by Craig Biddle at 7:52 PM

Who: Andrew Bernstein, professor of philosophy and speaker for the Ayn Rand Institute

What: A talk and Q & A examining The Fountainhead and explaining Ayn Rand's morality of rational egoism

Where: University of Maryland, Arts Building, Room 2309, College Park, MD

When: May 1, 2008, at 8 pm

Admission is FREE and open to the public.

Hosted by: the Terrapin Objectivists
Club Contact: anyborgh@umd.edu

Description: In The Fountainhead, novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand fully dramatizes the moral theory of rational egoism—the theory which holds that it is each person's responsibility to choose his goals and values by use of his independent reasoning mind; and that it is his right to pursue these goals in quest of his own selfish, personal happiness. Put another way, conscientious adherence to one's best rational judgment is the only appropriate means by which to live a fully human life—and success, creative achievement and personal happiness are its proper goals and ends. The theme of the novel is the virtue of independence in thought and action: the crucial importance of deriving your values and standards by the exercise of your own best judgment, as opposed to blindly following the judgment of others; and then pursuing these values consistently and indefatigably, as opposed to betraying or compromising them in practice. Dr. Bernstein explores how the plot and conflict of The Fountainhead convey this theme, including a detailed, in-depth analysis of the five major characters in the story—Peter Keating, Ellsworth Toohey, Gail Wynand, Dominique Francon, and the hero Howard Roark.

Bio: Dr. Bernstein is a visiting professor of philosophy at Marist College; he also teaches at SUNY Purchase (which selected him Outstanding Teacher for 2004) and formerly at Pace University and at Marymount College (which selected him Outstanding Teacher for 1995). Dr. Bernstein lectures regularly at American universities and appears frequently on radio talk shows. His op-eds have been published in such newspapers as The San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, Baltimore Sun, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Washington Times, Los Angeles Daily News and The Houston Chronicle. Dr. Bernstein is the author of three Ayn Rand titles for CliffsNotes: Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead and Anthem. He also authored Penguin's Teacher's Guide to "The Fountainhead," and The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire.

### ### ###

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

For more information on this talk, please e-mail media@aynrand.org.

For more information on this event and on Objectivism's unique point of view, go to ARI's Web site. 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.

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

Thursday, April 24, 2008

An Interview with Lisa VanDamme on Education and Objectivism

Posted by Craig Biddle at 1:28 PM

Michael F. Shaughnessy, a senior columnist for Education News, has published a wonderful interview with Lisa VanDamme. Here are the first two questions and answers:

1) Lisa, first of all, what got you interested in education and teaching?

From one perspective, you could say I stumbled upon my career as a school owner and director; in another sense it is the perfect harmony of my lifelong interests.

The "chance" element came in 1996, when I had just graduated with a degree in philosophy and was contacted (through mutual friends) by some families in California who were fed up with traditional schools and were seeking a private teacher for their children. I came home one day to a message on my answering machine informing me of this unusual opportunity.

I very quickly became enthusiastic about the prospect: I would be given the opportunity to educate children as they might and ought to be educated, entirely unlike I had been educated in public schools, and as I had been attempting to educate myself as an adult. I interviewed, was hired, and packed my bags to begin the adventure.

I can only describe those early years of home-schooling as a magical experience. The children were wildly enthusiastic about learning: with my guidance, they became logical, articulate and eager writers; they devoured classics of world literature and learned to appreciate them with intellectual sophistication and deep emotion; they progressed to the limit of their capability rather than being held back by classmates; etc.—and, as it might and ought to be, they sincerely loved to learn.

I was convinced that the principles that made that home-school experience so "magical" could be translated into a school environment. So, in 2001 my ex-husband and I started VanDamme Academy, a school dedicated to giving children a real education. The school was to provide all that—and only that—which was necessary to help the children mature into informed, thoughtful, rational, life-loving adults. Rather than endless, fill-in-the-bubble busywork, rather than agenda-laden discussions of current events, rather than classes on everything from cooking to citizenship to clay making, rather than countless play-days meant to make the supposed drudgery of learning palatable, we would just educate them, in the core curriculum. That has been my ever-improving goal for the last ten years.

Though in a sense I stumbled upon my career, with that out-of-the-blue call from California, it is the perfect integration of my love of children and my passion for philosophy. I have the opportunity to contemplate, research, write about, and then apply my most deeply held philosophic convictions to the proper education of children, and then the joy of observing the results in year after year of students.

2) Who has influenced you?

The greatest influence on my philosophic views broadly was the philosopher Ayn Rand, and the greatest influence on my educational philosophy was Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand's intellectual heir and the father of one of my first students.

I discovered Ayn Rand in college and was awed by her philosophic insights, which, in contrast to all I had learned in my philosophy classes, made sense, were consistent with my life experiences, gave new order and intelligibility to the world around me, and identified rational principles by which I could guide my actions in order to live a fulfilled and joyful life.

I learned from Ayn Rand both the importance of having a philosophy to guide your life, and what a rational, life-affirming philosophy would look like.

Leonard Peikoff's course "Philosophy of Education" applied Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism to educational theory, and it is that course which has been the most formative influence of my career. The course identified a proper definition of "education," explaining the basic necessity and purpose of education. It identified the principles that define which courses a good education should comprise, and the basic methodology that should be followed in teaching those courses.

It contrasted a rational approach to education with that of other historical movements in education, such as Dewey's progressive method and Prussian education. It showed me, in essence, what had been wrong with my own education and how to redeem education for my students.

Read the whole thing here.

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

Expelled Gets an F

Posted by ARI Media at 10:15 AM

Irvine, CA—Today Ben Stein's anti-evolution documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opens in theaters. The film claims that advocates of "intelligent design"—the view that life is so complex it must be the product of a "higher intelligence"—are the persecuted victims of a "scientific establishment" dogmatically committed to evolution.

"The premise of Expelled is that proponents of 'intelligent design' have been shunned, denied tenure, and even fired because of a conspiracy to quash the scientific evidence supporting their theory," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "But the truth is: there is no evidence supporting their theory. Intelligent design is completely devoid of any positive scientific content, and consists of nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on evolution. To the extent intelligent design advocates are facing obstacles in academia it is because they are not doing real science: they haven't been 'expelled' they have flunked out of the scientific community, just as a faith healer would flunk out of medical school.

"Observe that intelligent design advocates have pumped millions into publicity-seeking, rather than appealing to scientists with facts and logical arguments. They have spent more time at Christian 'apologetics seminars' than scientific conferences, and have attempted to use the courts to force schools to teach their ideas. Now they are hoping to dupe the movie-going public with a film that misrepresents Darwin's theory and the array of facts that support it—just as the makers of Expelled misrepresented the nature of the film in order to bamboozle respected evolutionary scientists into participating in it.

"Intelligent design advocates will do anything to advance their views—except science.

"The reason for that is simple: doing science has never been their goal. Their goal is to make biblical creationism appear scientific in order to skirt the constitutional ban on religion in public schools. Contrary to the film's claims, the real dogmatists are not the defenders of Darwin, but the religiously motivated advocates of intelligent design."

### ### ###

Dr. Lockitch has a PhD in Physics from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI). He writes and edits for ARI and is a professor in the Objectivist Academic Center, where he teaches undergraduate writing and a graduate course on the history of physics. His writings have appeared in publications such as the Orange County Register and the San Francisco Chronicle.

Dr. Keith Lockitch is available for interviews. To book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson: 800-365-6552 ext. 213 (office) 949-838-5137 (cell) larryb@aynrand.org

For more information on Objectivism's unique point of view, go to ARI's Web site. Founded in 1985, the Ayn Rand Institute promotes 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, April 22, 2008

Woodstock's Legacy: The Rise of Environmentalism and the Religious Right

Posted by ARI Media at 11:16 PM

Who: Yaron Brook, president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute

What: A Ford Hall Forum talk that will consider how the opposing forces of reason and emotionalism have manifested themselves in American culture in the four decades since Woodstock, with special focus on the rise of religion and environmentalism. A Q & A will follow.

Where: Old South Meeting House, 310 Washington Street, Boston, MA

When: Thursday, May 8, 2008, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

This event is open to the public. Admission is FREE.

Summary: At Ford Hall Forum in 1969, Ayn Rand examined the cultural significance of two high-profile, enormously well-attended but very different events: Woodstock and the Apollo 11 launch.

In her lecture, “Apollo and Dionysus,” she showed how philosophical ideas play out in a culture: she showed why these two events, so opposite in nature, were a product of a long-standing philosophical dichotomy, reason versus emotion. She concluded her talk by noting that, against the bromide that man’s senses and reason confine him to the grubby, material world while his mystical emotions lift him to the stars, Woodstock and the Apollo 11 launch “offered you a literal dramatization of the truth: it is man’s irrational emotions that bring him down to the mud; it is man’s reason that lifts him to the stars.”

In this talk, Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, will consider how these two opposing forces, reason and emotionalism, have manifested themselves in American culture in the ensuing decades. He will examine the Apollonian elements which are lifting us to the stars. And he will examine the Dionysian elements—religion and environmentalism—which are dragging us back down into the mud, figuratively and literally.

For more information on this talk, please e-mail events@aynrand.org

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

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Exploit-the-Earth Day Materials

Posted by Craig Biddle at 1:48 PM

April 22 is Exploit-the-Earth Day, and the following banners, blurb, and article are available for use on websites and blogs for the purpose of spreading the word and celebrating the holiday. Let the world know where you stand and why.

EED Blurb:

Exploit the Earth or Die™

It’s not a threat. It’s a fact. Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.

The fact annoys some people. But it shouldn’t: Hence our “Exploit the Earth or Die” campaign.

Place an EED banner on your blog or website; wear an EED T-shirt; drink from an EED mug. The good guys will smile. The bad guys will snarl. And the battle for civilization and against “environmentalism” will be brought to the fundamental alternative whereupon the matter ultimately must be decided: life or death.

EED Op-Ed:

On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day

by Craig Biddle

Because Earth Day is intended to further the cause of environmentalism—and because environmentalism is an anti-human ideology—on April 22, those who care about human life should not celebrate Earth Day; they should celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day.

As I wrote for The Objective Standard’s “Exploit the Earth or Die” campaign:

Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.

Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may.

Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.

Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature onto the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.

Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.

The basic principle of environmentalism is that nature (i.e., “the environment”) has intrinsic value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of human life—and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: man. Rivers must be left free to flow unimpeded by human dams, which divert natural flows, alter natural landscapes, and disrupt wildlife habitats. Glaciers must be left free to grow or shrink according to natural causes, but any human activity that might affect their size must be prohibited. Naturally generated carbon dioxide (such as that emitted by oceans and volcanoes) and naturally generated methane (such as that emitted by swamps and termites) may contribute to the greenhouse effect, but such gasses must not be produced by man. The globe may warm or cool naturally (e.g., via increases or decreases in sunspot activity), but man must not do anything to affect its temperature. And so on.

In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil.

Stating the essence of environmentalism in such stark terms raises some illuminating questions: If the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, vegetables, fruits, and the like. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist.

It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept the notion that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist?

There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not.

On April 22, let the world know where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why.

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

Thursday, April 17, 2008

On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day

Posted by Craig Biddle at 12:58 PM

As I wrote for The Objective Standard’s “Exploit the Earth or Die” campaign:

Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.

In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil.

There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not.

On April 22, let the world know where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why.

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

'Life and Taxes' by Yaron Brook

Posted by Craig Biddle at 12:54 PM

Yaron Brook has another excellent commentary in Forbes, this time on “Life and Taxes.” Here’s an excerpt:

Tax policy works by attaching financial incentives to a long list of values deemed morally worthy. If you want to maximize your wealth come tax time—and who doesn't?—you must look at the world through tax-colored glasses, "voluntarily" adjusting your behavior to suit social norms and thereby qualifying for tax breaks. In this way, the social engineers of tax policy preserve the impression that you're exercising free choice, while they're actually dispensing with your reason and your judgment.

As an example, consider the choice between buying and renting a home. In a free market, a dollar paid in rent is equivalent to a dollar paid for mortgage interest. But when the federal government offers a mortgage interest deduction—based on some alleged need for an "ownership society"—then each purchase dollar saves a few pennies in tax that a rental dollar does not. So the path to wealth maximization suddenly veers away from renting and toward home ownership.

Over the past century, such social engineering has inflated the nation's tax laws to an estimated 66,000 pages of statutes, regulations and rulings. At the core of this unreadable agglomeration is the most arrogant scheme of all, the progressive income tax. Its basic idea is that the more productive you are, the more you should pay in taxes. If you dare to suggest that penalizing success is neither a moral ideal nor a practical tax policy, you will be told that all such questions must be decided by reference to the good of society.

And now the presidential candidates want to bulk up this already bloated system. For instance, Hillary Clinton wants you to take care of your elderly relatives ($3,000 "caregiver's credit"), Barack Obama wants you to keep your company's headquarters and jobs in America ("Patriot Employer" program) and both Obama and McCain want you to fund more research and development (making an existing credit permanent).

Of course, there's nothing wrong with caring for grandparents, hiring local people or spending on R&D—if a rational thought process leads you to conclude that those choices actually serve the self-interest of you or your company. But government has no right to influence your decisions one way or the other. . . .

If government were restricted to its proper functions—police, courts and a strong military to defend individual rights against physical force and fraud—our 66,000-page coercive tax code would be a thing of the past. What's more, a great burden would be lifted, not just from the economy, but from our lives.

Read the whole thing.

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

And You Thought It Was Your Room

Posted by ARI Media at 12:23 PM

Irvine, CA—Is it legal for a roommate locator service to match up customers according to their mutual preferences: male or female, gay or straight, have children or childless? Probably not, according to a recent federal appellate court decision in Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com. That's because the federal Fair Housing Act and a similar California law ban discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, or marital status in housing transactions.

"This lawsuit attacks individual liberty in a particularly sensitive area," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute. "Adults who contemplate sharing living space should have absolute contractual freedom to use a roommate-matching service that treats their own individual preferences as paramount.

"It's perfectly obvious that an incompatible roommate can make life miserable, as anyone who has occupied a freshman dorm room can testify. People should not have to get government permission to arrange their private affairs according to their own best judgment.

"The government's job is to protect you against physical force and fraud, not to overrule your preference for a roommate who shares your sexual orientation—or not; who is of the same sex—or not; or who has children—or not.

"The law should respect and protect the right of Roommates.com, or any other such matching service, to design a questionnaire that suits their customers' needs. Roommate seekers who object to a particular questionnaire are free to find another matching service, or to start their own.

"This case illustrates why the Fair Housing Act, which does nothing but infringe on freedom of contract in the housing market, should be repealed."

### ### ###

Mr. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on legal issues. A former lawyer and law school instructor, who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland, his op-eds have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Los Angeles Daily News, and many other newspapers. Mr. Bowden has given dozens of radio interviews and has appeared on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes.

Thomas Bowden is available for interviews.

Contact: Larry Benson
E-mail: media@aynrand.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550 ext. 213

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

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

OCON Event Announcement

Posted by ARI Media at 10:47 PM

Leonard Peikoff to host Q-&-A session at Objectivist Summer Conference 2008

If you have not yet registered for Objectivist Summer Conference 2008, there is a new reason to consider attending. OCON is pleased to announce that Leonard Peikoff will host an open Q-&-A session at this summer's conference in Newport Beach, California.

Dr. Peikoff, the preeminent authority on Objectivism, was a longtime student of Ayn Rand's. He is the author of The Ominous Parallels and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, the definitive presentation of Ayn Rand's philosophy. He is currently at work on his third book, "The DIM Hypothesis."

Dr. Peikoff's Q-&-A session will take place on Wednesday, July 2, from 6:15-7:45 pm, with a brief intermission. An updated conference schedule is available on our Web site.

Admission to this event is included with General Session registration. An a-la-carte price of $25 ($10 for students) is also available; call 800-365-6552, ext., 239, for details.

For more information on Objectivist Summer Conference 2008, 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

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

Monday, April 14, 2008

Defender of Civilization: Andrew Bostom

Posted by John David Lewis at 12:58 AM

Those interested in cutting to the truth about the Islamic Totalitarian threat that is descending upon—and arising among—all of us should pay special attention to the works of Andrew Bostom. His blog is a must-read, and his articles in The American Thinker are not to be missed.

Bostom’s major works are The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History (Prometheus, 2008). The latter (to be released next week) promises the same profound expertise and virtuous commitment to the truth as found in the former. His works are required reading for anyone who wants to understand the nature of jihad and the hostile attitudes of Muslims toward Jews throughout history.

Dr. Bostom is not a scribbler. He is a scientist, and he approaches his subject with the meticulous loyalty to facts and evidence that define a man of reason. His works do not merely present his conclusions; they detail how his conclusions accurately reflect the relevant facts and available sources. In an article three years ago, for instance, he took on the widespread Muslim claim that “jihad” refers to some kind of “inner struggle” as against external war. In historical terms, “it is a complete crock” he wrote to me in an email—and his article “Sufi Jihad?” shows us why.

Bostom cites a series of Sufi thinkers—the ones who are supposed to favor the spiritual meaning of Islam rather than the violence of the creed—to show that these mystics were in fact dedicated to violence. To take the most important: Al-Ghazali (1058–1111), a towering figure in Islamic thought, a Sufi Muslim who followed the Shafi’I school of Islamic jurisprudence, and an allegedly non-violent man, wrote this of jihad:

[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year . . . one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them . . . [if one of them] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked. . . . One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide . . . on offering up the jizya [the tax levied on the dhimmis, the subjugated peoples], the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear . . . their houses may not be higher than the Muslim's. . . . They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths . . . [dhimmis] must hold their tongue. . . . [cited in Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi'i, Beirut, 1979, pp. 186, 190–91; 199–200; 202–203. English translation by Dr. Michael Schub.]

Some today claim that “jihad” means some kind of contemplative inner struggle, that non-Muslims under Muslim rule enjoy equal protection under the law, that there are no slaves in Islam, that non-Muslims need not wear an identifying patch to single them out, or that there is respect for civilians in Islamic thought. But to make this claim, one must disagree not merely with a modern commentator. One must repudiate the most authoritative Islamic mystic since the founding of Islam.

Such is the value of Dr. Bostom’s contribution. He has done the heavy lifting required to bring these kinds of sources to us and to show—not merely by the force of his own conclusions, but in the words of such Islamic authorities themselves—the intellectual origins of the war against the West today.

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

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Heidi Moore's Argument from Intimidation

Posted by Craig Biddle at 4:25 PM

On the website of the Wall Street Journal, under the heading “Capitalism Shrugged: Should Ayn Rand Be Required Reading?”—and after stating a few uncontroversial facts, several inaccuracies, and some inconsequential fluff—Heidi Moore gets to her point:

Rand has a bit of a reputation problem among those who have not drunk the Kool-Aid. . . . Deal Journal readers, we put the question to you: Should there be more Ayn Rand to instruct young, impressionable minds? Or is the problem with capitalism today too much Rand already?

Gosh, Ms. Moore, since you put it that way, how could readers of the Wall Street Journal possibly answer in the affirmative? How could self-respecting, independent thinkers bear the prospect of being regarded as Kool-Aid–drinking cultists for holding that reality, reason, self-interest, individual rights, freedom, and the like deserve the attention of college students?

I’ve said enough here and here about the absurdity of the ongoing attacks against John Allison and BB&T for taking a rationally principled approach to educational grants, so I won’t address that issue again here. But I cannot resist pointing out that if Heidi Moore had read and understood Ayn Rand’s works, she might have thought twice about so brazenly and publicly engaging in one of the irrational tactics identified by Ayn Rand: The Argument from Intimidation.

The Argument from Intimidation is the attempt to substitute psychological pressure for rational argument. In Rand’s words:

It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.

In today’s epistemological jungle, [this] method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”

The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”

God forbid that college students encounter such ideas; they might commit suicide and catch a comet.

If Ms. Moore has a rational argument against Rand’s ideas—whether against the importance of recognizing facts, or against the principle that reason is man’s means of knowledge, or against the principle that acting in one’s best interest is in one’s best interest, or against the principle that initiating force or committing fraud is immoral, or against the principle that freedom is a requirement of a proper human life, or against the principle that one should think for oneself—Ms. Moore should set forth her argument. If not, she should consider actually reading and understanding Ayn Rand. Philosophic education is more fruitful, and less embarrassing, than journalistic intimidation.

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

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist

Posted by ARI Media at 1:52 PM

Who: Dr. Tara Smith, professor of philosophy at the University of Texas and speaker for the Ayn Rand Institute.

What: A talk and Q & A examining Ayn Rand's view of egoism and how it can enable each of us to live more successful, happy lives.

Where: University of Chicago, Harper Memorial Library, Room 140, Chicago, Illinois

When: Wednesday, April 16, 2008, at 7 PM

Admission is FREE.

Summary: Ayn Rand is well known for advocating selfishness, yet the substance of that selfishness is rarely understood. This lecture presents Rand's ideal: a virtuous egoist.

Dr. Smith explains why a person should be an egoist, the kind of egoism that Rand does and doesn't commend, and the kinds of virtues that a person must exercise in order to actually advance his self-interest. Along the way, Dr. Smith differentiates Rand's rational egoism from hedonism, materialism, and predation, and sketches Rand's egoistic account of two vital but widely misunderstood virtues: honesty and justice.

Bio: Tara Smith is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas, where she currently holds the Anthem Foundation Fellowship for the Study of Objectivism. She is the author of the books Moral Rights & Political Freedom, Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root & Reward of Morality, and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist, as well as numerous articles.

### ### ###

Dr. Tara Smith is available for interviews now and after her talk.
Contact: Larry Benson
E-mail: media@aynrand.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213

For more information on this event and on Objectivism's unique point of view, go to ARI's Web site at www.aynrand.org. 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.

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

Why Unregulated Capitalism is the Only Moral Social System

Posted by ARI Media at 9:27 AM

Who: Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute

What: A lecture and Q&A explaining the philosophical and moral basis of capitalism.

Where: UCI, Crystal Cove Auditorium, Irvine, CA

When: Monday, April 14, 2008, at 7 PM

Admission is FREE.

Description: Capitalism is blamed for exploitation, environmental destruction, cut-throat competition, sweatshops, child labor, and the rising cost of education. But are these claims true? What is capitalism's essential nature? How can it be considered good? Find out the answers

Bio: Yaron Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and is a contributing editor to The Objective Standard. A former finance professor, he has published in academic as well as popular publications. He is frequently interviewed in the media and appears weekly on the new Fox Business Network to debate and discuss current economic and business news. His columns and opinion-editorials are published on forbes.com and in major newspapers. Dr. Brook lectures on Objectivism, business ethics and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.

For more information on this talk, please e-mail events@aynrand.org.

### ### ###

Dr. Yaron Brook is available for interviews now and after his talk. Contact: Larry Benson E-mail: media@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 www.aynrand.org. Founded in 1985, the Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

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