The Objective Standard Blog
The Objective Standard Blog: October 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Church and State: A Marriage Not Made in Heaven
Washington, D.C.—Californians will soon have the chance to vote on Proposition 8, which would define marriage in the state constitution as being only between a man and a woman, denying marriage to same-sex couples. The proposition is heavily supported by the religious community. Said one religious leader who supports the measure, “We believe it is a religious issue as well as a political issue. That’s where we feel the Church must have a word.”
According to Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, “Regardless of how one thinks ‘marriage’ should be defined, there’s a much graver issue at stake: this is a flagrant attempt to inject religion into politics.
“As our Founders understood, religion is properly a private matter—not a legitimate basis for government action. The government’s only role is to protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Under our secular political system, individuals are free to hold any religious views they wish, but they cannot impose their views on the rest of us. That is the meaning of freedom of religion.
“Once we accept the view that the ‘Church must have a word’ in the political sphere, we are accepting a principle completely opposed to freedom. If gay marriage can be barred because, as one supporter of Prop. 8 put it, ‘I don’t think God has ordained it,’ then why, for instance, can’t speech that similarly offends religionists also be banned? Indeed, this is the very principle that motivates the religious right’s crusade against broadcast ‘indecency’—and the brutal principle that recently led the Afghani government to sentence a journalism student to 20 years in prison for blasphemy.
“The separation of church and state is a cornerstone of liberty. It protects our right to live by our own judgment, free from the dictates of ministers and mullahs. To protect that right, we should oppose any attempt to bring religion into politics.”
### ### ###
Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He is a regular contributor to Forbes.com and a contributing editor of The Objective Standard. His articles have been featured in major newspapers such as USA Today, the Houston Chronicle, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Providence Journal and the Orange County Register. Dr. Brook is often interviewed on radio and is a frequent guest on a variety of national TV shows, having appeared in the new Fox Business Network, FOX News Channel, CNN, CNBC, and C-SPAN.
To interview Dr. Brook or book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson:
949-222-6550, ext. 213
media@aynrandcenter.org
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Individual Rights and Law, Religion
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Fleeting Freedom: The Indecent Assault on Broadcasters by Don Watkins
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments Nov. 4 in the so-called fleeting expletive case, Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, it’s clear that much more hinges on its outcome than broadcasters’ ability to air dirty words.
The FCC has had the power to fine broadcasters for “indecent” speech for decades. But following Janet Jackson’s infamous Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction in 2004, the government declared all-out war on indecency. Congress increased the maximum penalty per infraction tenfold, from $32,500 to $325,000; the FCC started issuing fines left and right; and Congressman James Sensenbrenner went so far as to recommend jail time for broadcasters who violated “indecency” guidelines. At the same time, the FCC began issuing fines for fleeting expletives. Suddenly a star’s offhand comment on live TV could cost broadcasters hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In the midst of all this, one question never got answered: just what is “indecency”? The Supreme Court had defined it as speech that “depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities and organs in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards.” But which Americans count (and don’t count) as part of the community? Why are they king? And how are broadcasters to divine their supposedly shared standards? In response to these unanswerable questions, the FCC issued a hodgepodge of rulings in specific cases and told broadcasters, in effect, “You figure it out.”
Multiple uses of expletives in Martin Scorsese’s PBS documentary The Blues? Indecent, said the FCC. Multiple uses of those same expletives in the movie Saving Private Ryan? Not indecent. Suggestion of teenage sexual activity on CBS’s Without a Trace? Indecent. Graphic discussion of teen sexual practices on Oprah? Not indecent. Bono’s use of the “F-word” during the 2003 Golden Globe awards? Even the FCC wasn’t sure about that one. Initially it said the word was not indecent, but later changed its mind and started handing out the fleeting expletive fines at issue in FCC v. Fox Television.
So what is a broadcaster to do? Engage in self-censorship, cutting any material that regulators might declare indecent.
Defenders of the war on indecency admit that the FCC’s regulations are murky. But without such restrictions, they say, Americans will be helpless against the stream of offensive programming pumped into their homes: either we allow the government to wield arbitrary power over broadcasters, or we give broadcasters arbitrary power to subject us to filth.
What this argument ignores is that broadcasters’ power is not arbitrary. They must earn their market by offering programming Americans choose to consume. We choose to buy a TV (or not). We choose to pay for cable (or not). We choose which channels we and our children watch. Broadcasters can’t force us to watch offensive programming any more than an author can force us to read an offensive book.
This is the meaning of free speech: people have the right to say whatever they want, no matter how offensive—and we remain free to listen or not. We don’t have to abide by the opinions, prejudices, and errors of our neighbors, but can judge for ourselves whether something is true or false, art or trash, insightful or indecent.
But once the government becomes the enforcer of “community standards,” no speech is safe. How long until, say, the Bible Belt declares that the theory of evolution is offensive, corrupts young minds, undermines community values, and must be suppressed? This question is not academic. Bolstered by the indecency precedent, efforts are already underway to regulate “excessively violent” broadcasts.
And if the government can suppress speech “the community” allegedly deems offensive, then why can’t it force broadcasters to engage in speech “the community” allegedly regards as good? In fact, it already does so: Univision was recently fined $24 million for failing to air a sufficient amount of educational children’s programming. On the anti-indecency movement’s premises, judging the value of programming is not the prerogative of broadcasters, who decide what to air, or viewers, who decide what to watch—it’s the prerogative of “the community” (and its self-appointed spokesmen).
This is what is at stake in FCC v. Fox Television. The question is not whether fleeting expletives are indecent, an issue that individuals have a First Amendment right to decide for themselves. It’s whether the Constitution grants government the power to trample on freedom of speech, using non-objective laws to dictate what we can say and hear on the airwaves. The Supreme Court should take this opportunity to respond with an emphatic “No!” Anything less would be indecent.
Don Watkins is a writer and research specialist at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
Monday, October 27, 2008
On Loving America
One thing that is often implied, if not explicitly stated, in this election is that John McCain—like George Bush—really loves his country. Of course McCain makes mistakes in particular areas, but, according to this view, these are the forgivable errors of a true patriot. McCain's values and principles are fundamentally sound, it follows, he just errs in the practice. Given his good principles, we are told, he can "learn" to better apply them. If we advocate for his election on the basis of these principles, we are told, we can then guide him to better apply these principles in practice.
This same argument has been made about Bush for eight years. Now we are hearing it applied to McCain: elect him, and he will somehow "learn" to repudiate his socialist economic plans, his plans to keep American troops fighting for others, etc. etc.
This is nonsense for at least three reasons.
First, why would a 72-year-old man suddenly learn to repudiate that which he has advocated for the past 35 years? What motive would lead him to do this? There is none. He will continue to advocate that which he has automatized and practiced for decades: McCain wants an economic plan that differs only in detail from that of Obama, because he agrees in principle with Obama.
Second, even if McCain did (somehow) have an epiphany of insight (a light in the sky?), why should he reject the very means he used to achieve the presidency? Why should the very success of his efforts lead him to reject those efforts and the altruistic principles at their foundation? He will have a mandate—both in the electorate, and in his own mind—to continue, and to expand, the program that got him elected.
Third, and more deeply: To love a thing is to know and love its nature. McCain sees America as the land of service, where our goodness is measured by our willingness to sacrifice. Is this America's nature? If it is, then McCain loves his country, and we should support his plans to increase the sacrificial, socialist economic policies that he has advocated. But let us not fool ourselves about what we are supporting: a socialist vision of America that differs profoundly from its constitutional principles.
Of course, what McCain loves about America is not its essence. America’s purpose is not a “more perfect” welfare state, but rather a more perfect union of free individuals. Let us then recognize that McCain neither knows nor loves America. He loves an image that is the very antithesis of America. As president he will "learn" to more strongly apply his "love" by shaping America into that image: a nation of sacrificers.
Let us consider more broadly the Republicans over the past two generations. What have the leading Republicans actually learned since Goldwater? On a policy level they have learned to quit worrying about and instead love the welfare state. They claim not to oppose it, but to better manage it. The essence of their domestic policy is: “my gang will do a better job.”
But on top of this pragmatism, they want to be moral, which to them means being “compassionate” with our wealth. Their guiding management principle is: to redistribute wealth while purporting to cut taxes. To be both moral and politically successful, the Republicans have learned to love the welfare state.
Meanwhile the Democrats are learning to love God. Each has learned: There is no electoral success without religious socialism, or, if this makes you uncomfortable, socialistic religion.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy
McBama vs. America
What: A one-hour talk followed by a Q&A
Who: Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard
Where: Hilton Costa Mesa, 3050 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, California (at Bristol and the 405 Freeway) [map]
When: October 29, 2008; Bookstore opens at 6:30 PM; Lecture begins at 7:30 PM and will be followed by a one-hour Q&A
Admission is FREE and open to the public.
Description: While John McCain and Barack Obama struggle to distinguish themselves in terms of particular promises, it is crucial for Americans to recognize that these candidates are indistinguishable in terms of fundamentals. In this talk, Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard, examines the candidates’ platforms, identifies essential similarities among their proposals, and shows their aims to be manifestly at odds with the American ideal of individual rights. Mr. Biddle then zeros in on the purpose of government presumed by the candidates’ goals, shows this purpose to be an expression of a particular moral philosophy shared by these men and by most Americans, and demonstrates that this morality is the root cause of the abysmal alternative we now face. Finally, Mr. Biddle specifies the moral principles that Americans must grasp if we want to generate future candidates who will return government to its proper purpose of protecting our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Events, Individual Rights and Law
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Universal Health Care: The Cure or the Disease?
What: Informal debate between Professor Mark Kleiman (UCLA Department of Public Policy) and Dr. Peter LePort, M.D. (Ayn Rand Institute Board of Directors)
Where: UCLA Campus: Moore 100
When: Thursday, October 30, 2008, from 7 to 9 PM
FREE Admission
For maps and directions, click here: http://www.ucla.edu/map/
Health care has been an important issue in politics, especially in the last several years. Amidst much specific policy analysis and political quibbling over superficial issues, the fundamentals have been ignored: What are the underlying philosophic and economic considerations? Is universal health care moral? Does it achieve its stated goal? Is there an ethical and practical alternative?
Come hear Professor Mark Kleiman and Dr. Peter LePort answer your questions about the issue of universal health care.
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.
Labels: Announcements, Events, Healthcare
Notice of Special Event: Mr. Flemming Rose on 'Free Speech in a Globalized World'
What: A Lecture by Mr. Flemming Rose, editor of Jyllands-Posten, publisher of the Danish Muhhamad cartoons, on "Free Speech in a Globalized World."
When: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 7:00 PM
Where: Page Auditorium, Duke University
In September 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons depicting the Islamic figure Muhammad with images of terrorism. The newspaper's publishers stated that they wanted to bring issues of free speech and censorship forward into public awareness. The result was a firestorm of protest, ordered by clerics some weeks after the publication, that highlighted the seriousness of this issue. Over one hundred people were killed in the ensuing riots.
This event will be a unique opportunity to hear the cultural editor of this publication explain the decision to publish these cartoons, the issues at stake in the decision, and the meaning of the protests and the violence that followed. A Q&A will follow the talk.
Flemming Rose is a journalist with long experience in European, Russian, and American issues. He has been awarded the "Free Speech Award" from the Danish Free Press Society.
Web Site: www.committeeforfreespeech.com
Contact: John Lewis, Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science, Duke University, john.d.lewis@duke.edu
Labels: Announcements, Events, Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law
Friday, October 24, 2008
Greenspan Has No Free Market Philosophy
Washington, D.C.—Opponents of the free market are giddy at Alan Greenspan's declaration that the financial crisis has exposed a "flaw" in his "free market ideology." Greenspan says he is "in a state of shocked disbelief" because he "looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity"—and it didn't.
But according to Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, “any belief Greenspan ever had in truly free markets was abandoned long ago. While Greenspan long ago wrote in favor of a truly free market in banking, including the gold standard that such markets always adopt, he then proceeded to work for two decades as leader and chief advocate of the Federal Reserve, which continually inflates the money supply and manipulates interest rates. Advocates of free banking understand that when the government inflates the currency, it artificially increases prices and causes booms in certain sectors of the economy, followed by inevitable busts. But not only did Greenspan lead the inflation behind the .com bubble and the real estate boom, he blamed the market for their treacherous collapses. Greenspan should have recognized that what he wrote in 1966 of the boom preceding the 1929 crash applied here: ‘The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market—triggering a fantastic speculative boom.’ Instead, he superficially blamed ‘infectious greed.’
“Should it be any shock that Greenspan now blames the free market for today's meltdown—rather than the Fed's policies, which fueled an inflationary housing boom, which rewarded reckless lenders and borrowers from Wall Street to Main Street? Greenspan didn't mention the word ‘inflation’ once in his testimony.
“Whatever Greenspan's economic philosophy is, it is not anything resembling a free market.”
### ### ###
Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He is a regular contributor to Forbes.com and a contributing editor of The Objective Standard. His articles have been featured in major newspapers such as USA Today, the Houston Chronicle, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Providence Journal and the Orange County Register. Dr. Brook is often interviewed on radio and is a frequent guest on a variety of national TV shows, having appeared on the new Fox Business Network, FOX News Channel, CNN, CNBC, and C-SPAN. Dr. Brook, a former finance professor, lectures on Objectivism, capitalism, business and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.
To interview Dr. Brook or book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson:
949-222-6550, ext. 213
media@aynrandcenter.org
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Frontline Heats Up Global Warming Alarmism
Washington, DC—On Tuesday evening, PBS premiered Heat, a Frontline documentary exploring the economics and politics of climate change. After travelling the world interviewing corporate CEOs and political leaders, Frontline correspondent Martin Smith argues that a “huge and concerted push from government” is necessary to prevent a major catastrophe.
But according to Keith Lockitch, fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: “A huge push from government on climate change would be a major catastrophe.
“One thing the documentary shows pretty clearly is the repeated failure of government economic intervention—especially in the form of policies aimed at centrally planning energy production, such as government subsidies for corn ethanol. These have distorted world food markets by diverting billions of taxpayer dollars away from investments that market participants would have freely chosen and into the production of corn for burning up in our gas tanks, with the resulting distortions to world food prices causing food riots and starvation.
“Government policies aimed at severely restricting carbon emissions would inflict a major blow to the economy. Industrial-scale energy is an indispensable, life-saving value, and currently there is simply no practical way to produce abundant carbon-free energy. Nuclear power could generate substantial amounts of electricity, but environmentalists have consistently fought it tooth and nail. And even nuclear can’t fuel the internal combustion engines of the world’s 800 million oil-powered vehicles.
“The more important point is that there is no need whatsoever to restrict carbon emissions,” said Lockitch. “The scientific jury is still out on the extent of man’s contribution to global warming. But even if we are causing large-scale changes to the climate--this is not a planetary emergency. If individuals on the free market can smoothly absorb the major transitions that occurred in moving from the horse and buggy to the automobile or the rapid population growth that accompanied the Industrial Revolution, they can adapt to large-scale climate change. The freer we are from the burdens of government intervention, the more we can continue to produce wealth, economic growth, and the means of adapting to whatever changes occur, if any.
“The irony is that the very policies that people are pushing for in the name of fighting global warming—such as a massive expansion of government control over the production and consumption of energy—would severely reduce our ability to cope with nature. This would inflict upon us an economic catastrophe far worse than anything the climate could deliver.
“The real threat we face is not the possibility of large-scale changes to the climate, but the much more dangerous possibility of drastic government policies enacted in the name of climate change.”
### ### ###
Dr. Lockitch has a PhD in Physics from the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. 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:
E-mail: media@AynRandCenter.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Environmentalism, Individual Rights and Law, Science and Technology
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Jail Time for Blasphemy Under Religious Constitution
Washington, D.C.—“The 20-year jail sentence for blasphemy handed down to Sayad Kambakhsh in Afghanistan this week is the kind of outrage to be expected under any constitution that enshrines Islam as the state religion and the Koran as the supreme law of the land,” said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.
A council of mullahs acting under court authority had originally decreed capital punishment for Kambakhsh, a 24-year-old journalism student charged with possessing anti-Islamic books, starting un-Islamic debates in class, and downloading and distributing Internet articles saying that Muhammad ignored women’s rights. That death sentence, which was endorsed by Afghanistan’s upper house of parliament, has now been overturned on appeal.
“In 2006, mobs of clerics were clamoring for the death of Abdul Rahman, an Afghan whose ‘crime’ was converting to Christianity,” Bowden said. “And now, Sayad Kambakhsh faces two decades in jail unless an international outcry embarrasses Afghanistan’s government into lifting the sentence.
“Criminal punishment of blasphemy is fundamentally unjust and outrageous, and ad hoc protests offer no long-term solution. If Islam’s stranglehold on Afghanistan’s government is to end, that nation must adopt an American-style constitution protecting individual rights, including freedom of speech and religion. The strict separation of church and state erects an institutional barrier to religious persecution, as American history shows.
“But a nation that exalts mystical dogma and tribal allegiances cannot be expected to think in such terms. ‘The guy should be hanged,’ said an 18-year-old student at the American University in Kabul, at the time of Kambakhsh’s death sentence. Added a Muslim cleric: ‘He should be punished so that others can learn from him.’ For such people, freedom is an intolerable obstacle to the overriding goal of enforcing Islam.
“When the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan, its stated policy was to promote ‘democracy.’ That policy has now achieved its exact aim. The Afghan government reflects the democratic will of the people. The people want to punish blasphemers, and their constitution allows them to do so lawfully.
“Bush’s policy was based on his delusional belief that Afghans are as freedom-loving as Americans. But what they truly value is religion. Sayad Kambakhsh is living—at least for now--proof that religion injected into government is hostile to freedom.”
########
Mr. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, 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 on this topic.
Contact: Larry Benson
E-mail: media@AynRandCenter.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law, Religion
Friday, October 17, 2008
Capitalism: The Only Moral Social System
What: A one-hour talk followed by a Q&A
Who: Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard and author of Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It
Two Events:
University of Texas–Austin, Jester Auditorium, October 22, 8:00 pm
Rice University, Houston, Texas, 100 Herring Hall, October 23, 7:30 pm
Admission is FREE and open to the public.
Description: Capitalism is widely recognized as the practical social system because, wherever and to the extent that it is implemented, it leads to wealth and prosperity. But this same system is widely regarded as immoral because it enables people to act fully in their own self-interest—that is, to act on their own judgment and to keep, use, and dispose of the product of their own effort. This talk demonstrates why, far from making capitalism immoral, the fact that it enables everyone to act selfishly and own property is what makes it not only the most practical but also the only moral social system ever devised.
Please note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although the Ayn Rand Center (ARC) provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARC. ARC does not necessarily endorse the content of the lectures and sessions offered.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Business and Economics, Events, Philosophy
The Road to Fascism
Washington, D.C.—The government has announced that it plans to use $250 billion to buy ownership stakes in various U.S. financial institutions. According to the New York Times, nine major U.S. banks have already been forced into the program. “The chief executives of the nine largest banks in the United States . . . were each handed a one-page document that said they agreed to sell shares to the government, then Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said they must sign it before they left. . . . ‘It was a take it or take it offer,’ said one person who was briefed on the meeting, speaking on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private. ‘Everyone knew there was only one answer’”—even though at least one institution, the relatively healthy Wells Fargo, wanted to say no.
According to Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, “In herding banking executives into a room and making them an offer they couldn’t refuse, the Paulson regime took its latest and most disturbing step yet on the path to state control of the economy.
“If fascism means coercive state control over nominally private property, then there is no more chilling sign of creeping fascism in America than government’s encroachment on the lifeblood of the U.S. economy—its financial institutions. While the government assures us it will be a ‘passive investor,’ merely funneling cash into the banking system rather than dictating how banks function, this is a lie. Not only does the money come with strings attached--such as restrictions on executive compensation, dividend payments, and the types of investments banks can make—but politicians are already promising a web of further controls. As John McCain recently noted, ‘We will not merely inject billions of dollars into companies and walk away hoping for the best. We will require that those companies be reformed and restructured until they are sound assets again, and can be sold at no loss—or perhaps even a profit—to the taxpayers of America.’
“The Paulson shakedown is the latest in a rapid-fire series of government bailouts and interventions over the last several months. Our leaders claim that this virtual takeover of markets is economically necessary. But it was government control of financial markets that spawned the financial meltdown in the first place: an inflationary boom brought on by the Fed’s easy-money policies, a campaign to promote home ownership that encouraged risky loans, regulations that pushed banks to become dangerously over-leveraged, etc., etc. The response to the crisis should be to restore freedom and to disentangle government from the economy. Instead, the same mentality and the same central planners that created the financial crisis are being given far wider reign to manipulate and distort markets. We must tell our government to reverse this fascist course—now.
### ### ###
Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He is a regular contributor to Forbes.com and a contributing editor of The Objective Standard. His articles have been featured in major newspapers such as USA Today, the Houston Chronicle, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Providence Journal and the Orange County Register. Dr. Brook is often interviewed on radio and is a frequent guest on a variety of national TV shows, having appeared on the new Fox Business Network, FOX News Channel, CNN, CNBC, and C-SPAN. Dr. Brook, a former finance professor, lectures on Objectivism, capitalism, business and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.
To interview Dr. Brook or book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson:
949-222-6550, ext. 213
media@aynrandcenter.org
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
Religion versus Morality
What: A talk followed by a Q&A
Who: Andrew Bernstein, professor of philosophy at Marist College
Where: Wilson Hall Room 301, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
When: October 22, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Admission is FREE and open to the public.
Description: Conventionally, most people believe that morality can only be based in religious faith—that in a world without God no principles of right and wrong could exist. Related to this, philosophers have long held that no objective, fact-based, rational code of values is possible. Regarding both points, this talk shows that the exact opposite is true. The purpose of morality is to guide human life on earth—and religion is utterly incapable of it. Flourishing life requires a code of secularism, rationality, egoism and freedom. Religious faith clashes with every principle of a proper moral code, and, as such, has led, and can only lead to, hell on earth.
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® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Events, Philosophy, Religion
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Ayn Rand's Morality of Selfishness
What: A one-hour talk followed by a Q&A
Who: Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard and author of Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It
Where: Loshbaugh Hall, Rogers State University, Claremore, OK
When: October 20, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Admission is FREE and open to the public.
Description: Ayn Rand’s morality of selfishness, or rational egoism, is a system of observation-based principles regarding the requirements of human life, personal happiness, social harmony, and political freedom. This talk introduces the principles of rational egoism; contrasts them with the creeds of altruism, hedonism, relativism, and predation; and shows why everyone who wants to live happily and freely must repudiate those alternatives and embrace the morality of rational self-interest.
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® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Events, Philosophy
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Faith-based Politics costs Colorado Republicans by Ari Armstrong
Colorado is known for its Western values of independence and economic liberty. So why do Republicans, the supposed champions of those values, keep getting trounced?
Republicans can blame wealthy Democratic donors, but in large part Republicans have beaten themselves by pushing a faith-based agenda of banning abortion and stem-cell research, discriminating against homosexuals, and directing welfare dollars to religious groups. They have subverted the law to religious doctrine and weakened the wall between church and state.
Republicans also have alienated freedom-minded independents and Republicans. Polls released by Pew show most Americans, and half of conservatives, now oppose church involvement in politics. As Ryan Sager shows in his review of 2005 Pew data, the Interior West holds a "live and let live" philosophy, with 53 percent of residents saying homosexuality "should be accepted by society" and 59 percent saying "the government is getting too involved in the issue of morality."
Yet the GOP panders to its evangelical base at the expense of political victory.
This year, Republicans passed a resolution at their state convention calling for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Eighteen Republican candidates signed the Colorado Right to Life survey, saying they want to ban abortion as the will of God and outlaw stem-cell medical research.
The same candidates also endorsed Amendment 48, which would define a fertilized egg as a person in Colorado's constitution. This would lay the ground to ban all abortion except perhaps to save the mother's life, ban the birth control pill and other forms of contraception that may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, and ban most fertility treatments. Women would be forced to bring a pregnancy to term, even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and health risks.
True, some of these candidates, such as Congressman Doug Lamborn and congressional candidate Mike Coffman, live in safe districts for Republicans. But Libby Szabo, a candidate for state senate in District 19, does not. Her opponents have hammered her over her answers to the survey, making sure to link her views to the GOP.
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, the incumbent in a Republican district, has managed to fall behind challenger Betsy Markey in some polls. Musgrave wants to outlaw abortion, and she is most well known for sponsoring a constitutional gay marriage ban.
Republican Bob Schaffer is trailing Mark Udall in the polls in the U.S. Senate race in part because of Schaffer's faith-based politics. Udall has written, "I fully support the continued separation of church and state in this country." He opposes bans on abortion and stem-cell research. Schaffer, evoking God's will, said abortion is "always wrong."
Republicans should have learned their lesson when they lost the governership to the Democrats in 2006, when Bob Beauprez touted his faith-based politics and selected a running mate of the same cloth, Janet Rowland. Like Beauprez, Rowland wanted to outlaw abortion and maintain faith-based welfare.
Yet the GOP continues to actively push its anti-abortion agenda. A recent flyer "Paid for by Colorado Republican Committee" urged recipients to vote for a presidential candidate who opposes abortion and who will appoint Supreme Court justices to outlaw it.
But some who are pro-choice across the board are fighting back. Diana Hsieh founded the Coalition for Secular Government, which issued a paper that she and I wrote titled, "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life." Diana's husband Paul wrote to Dick Wadhams, head of the state GOP, "Although I'm pro-free market, pro-strong national defense, and pro- gun, the position that the CO GOP has taken against abortion is a clear breach of the principle of separation of church and state." Doug Krening wrote to Republican officials, "I have been a Republican for my entire voting life, but cannot endorse the GOP currently because of it's explicit endorsement of religion in government."
On September 11, Amanda Mountjoy, chair of the Colorado Republican Majority for Choice, hosted a banquet with 240 participants to oppose Amendment 48. Former Senator Hank Brown told the crowd, "At the point that we give up supporting and defending individual freedom and choice, we give up the very core of this great party."
Colorado Republicans have two options. They can respect the separation of church and state and defend individual freedom and choice, or they can continue to lose and deserve to do so.
Ari Armstrong is a writer for the Coalition for Secular Government and the editor of FreeColorado.com.
Copyright © 2008 Coalition for Secular Government. All rights reserved.
Labels: Individual Rights and Law, Religion, Science and Technology
Totalitarian Islam and the Threat to Free Speech
What: A panel discussion on the nature of totalitarian Islam and its threat to free speech, followed by a Q&A
Who: Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute; Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum; and Flemming Rose, cultural editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten
Where: Ward One, Auditorium One, American University, Washington, D.C.
When: Thursday, October 23, 2008, at 6 pm
Admission is FREE and open to the public.
Description: What is the nature of totalitarian Islam—is it limited to terrorism or is it a broader movement? Are non-Muslims its only victims? Who precisely is the enemy? Does the West bear responsibility for creating this movement? What policies can defeat it?
Defenders of Islam around the world have striven to silence critics with threats, protests and acts of violence. How should the West respond to demands for censorship, as in the Danish cartoon controversy?
Panelists will address these critical issues in a lively discussion.
Bios:
Dr. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and a recognized Middle East expert who has written and lectured on a variety of Middle East issues. Dr. Brook has discussed the Israeli-Arab conflict and the war on Islamic totalitarianism on hundreds of radio and TV programs, including FOX News, CNN, and a C-SPAN panel of experts on terrorism.
Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum. Abroad, he appears weekly in Israel’s Jerusalem Post, Italy’s l’Opinione, Spain’s La Razón and monthly in Canada’s Globe and Mail. His Web site, DanielPipes.org, is one of the most accessed Internet sources of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam. Mr. Pipes has appeared on ABC World News, CBS Reports, Crossfire, Good Morning America, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, The O’Reilly Factor, The Today Show, the BBC and Al-Jazeera.
Flemming Rose is a Danish journalist, author and the cultural editor at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. In September 2005 Mr. Rose commissioned a series of cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad. He was concerned about the tendency toward self-censorship in Europe and some Muslims’ insistence on special treatment of their religious sensitivities in the public domain, which he wanted to bring forward for debate. The backlash from Muslims around the world caused an international crisis and the Danish government experienced its worst foreign policy crisis since the Nazi occupation during WWII.
For more information: e-mail media@aynrand.org
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.
Labels: Announcements, Events, Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law, Religion
CSG on Colorado's Amendment 48
Announcing the Coalition for Secular Government's new web site on Colorado's Amendment 48:
Amendment 48 is the ballot measure that would define a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights in the Colorado constitution. (Read the full text.) If passed and implemented, it would pose a grave threat to the life, liberty, health, and happiness of the women and men of Colorado.
- Amendment 48 would make abortion first-degree murder, except perhaps to save the woman's life. First-degree murder is defined in Colorado law as deliberately causing the death of a "person," a crime punished by life in prison or the death penalty. So women and their doctors would be punished with the severest possible penalty under law for terminating a pregnancy—even in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity.
- Amendment 48 would ban any form of birth control that might sometimes prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus—including the birth control pill, morning-after pill, and IUD. The result would be many more unintended pregnancies and unwanted children in Colorado.
- Amendment 48 would ban in vitro fertilization because the process usually creates more fertilized eggs than can be safely implanted in the womb. So every year, hundreds of Colorado couples would be denied the joy of a child of their own.
Amendment 48 would have severe legal consequences for Colorado. Men and women would be legally bound to sacrifice themselves for the sake of a zygote—even before it implants in the womb, even before it develops any recognizable human form, even before it has any capacity for awareness. The people of Colorado would be forced to sacrifice themselves based on the faith-based fiction that zygote is the equal of a born baby.
The common claim that "life begins at conception" cannot justify Amendment 48. The fact that something is human and alive does not make it a person.
Every cell in our body is both human and alive, yet we don't worry about giving blood for testing or scraping off a few skin cells in a fall. A fertilized egg is distinctive because, in addition to being alive and human, it might develop into a born baby given the right conditions. What supporters of Amendment 48 cannot show, however, is that a potential baby has the moral status of an actual baby. The difference between them is enormous.
An embryo or fetus is wholly dependent on the woman for its basic life-functions. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as an extension of her body, contained within and dependent on her for its survival. It is only a potential person, not an actual person. That situation changes radically at birth. The newborn baby exists as a distinct organism, separate from his mother. Although still very needy, he lives his own life. He is a person—and individual. His life must be protected as a matter of right.
Consequently, when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy she does not violate the rights of any person. Instead, she is exercising her own rights over her own body—likely in pursuit of her own health, well-being, and happiness. Amendment 48 would destroy those rights in Colorado.
For a detailed analysis of Amendment 48, download and read the Coalition for Secular Government's issue paper by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh:
"Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person"
Amendment 48 is based on sectarian religious dogma, not objective science or philosophy. It is a blatant attempt to impose theocracy in Colorado. Please vote NO on 48!
For more information, visit: http://ColoradoVoteNo48.com
—Diana Hsieh
Coalition for Secular Government
The Coalition for Secular Government advocates government solely based on secular principles of individual rights. The protection of a person's basic rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness—including freedom of religion and conscience—requires a strict separation of church and state.
Labels: Announcements, Individual Rights and Law, Religion, Science and Technology
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Are We All Socialists Now?
Washington, D.C.—The Treasury Department, as part of its ongoing assumption of control over the financial industry, is preparing to inject cash into U.S. banks in exchange for preferred shares of bank stock.
“Are we all socialists now?” said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “Have we learned nothing from the devastation that socialist policies wrought worldwide in the twentieth century? Government intervention distorts markets and causes economic dislocations, no matter whether Uncle Sam controls private companies by regulation or assumes public ownership outright.
“A crisis doesn’t transform poison into medicine. Over decades, government manipulation of money, credit, and mortgages poisoned this economy and left it dangerously weak. Now Hank Paulson and his comrades are hooking up IV tubes filled with more of the same poison—bailouts, loan guarantees, cheap money, and more burdensome regulations—and hoping we will lie still and trust in their cure.
“But the real cure is capitalism, not more doses of socialism. We should act quickly to put government in its place, by rolling back the interventionist measures that caused the present emergency. Government’s proper role is to punish fraud and enforce contracts, not to own and manage the economy. We cannot achieve financial health unless we are willing to free the markets.”
### ### ###
Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He is a regular contributor to Forbes.com and a contributing editor of The Objective Standard. His articles have been featured in major newspapers such as USA Today, the Houston Chronicle, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Providence Journal and the Orange County Register. Dr. Brook is often interviewed on radio and is a frequent guest on a variety of national TV shows, having appeared in the new Fox Business Network, FOX News Channel, CNN, CNBC, and C-SPAN. Dr. Brook, a former finance professor, lectures on Objectivism, capitalism, business and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.
To interview Dr. Brook or book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson:
949-222-6550, ext. 213, media@aynrandcenter.org
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
Thursday, October 09, 2008
America's Soldiers Deserve Better
Washington, D.C.—Asked when American combat forces should be used to quell humanitarian crises that pose no threat to U.S. security, Barack Obama pointed to Darfur and Rwanda, saying, “When genocide is happening . . . and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.” McCain agreed: “We must do whatever we can to prevent genocide.”
But according to Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, “Vowing to send U.S. troops on selfless missions is a travesty.
“What Obama dismisses as standing ‘idly by’ really means: to protect the irreplaceable lives of American soldiers by refusing to ship them off on sundry ‘peacekeeping’ missions that do nothing to make us safe. That is not some cold-hearted gesture, but the government’s moral obligation. Nothing but a threat to American lives or freedom can justify putting our soldiers in harm’s way. Demanding they spill their blood in order to stop warring tribes from slaughtering each other is an obscene violation of their rights—regardless of how noble McCain or Obama thinks the cause is.
“Our soldiers deserve better. Instead of sacrificing U.S. treasure and lives for the alleged welfare of foreigners, we should demand a foreign policy that treats American security as its exclusive concern.”
### ### ###
Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He is a regular contributor to Forbes.com and a contributing editor of The Objective Standard. His articles have been featured in major newspapers such as USA Today, the Houston Chronicle, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Providence Journal and the Orange County Register. Dr. Brook is often interviewed on radio and is a frequent guest on a variety of national TV shows, having appeared in the new Fox Business Network, FOX News Channel, CNN, CNBC, and C-SPAN. Dr. Brook, a former finance professor, lectures on Objectivism, capitalism, business and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.
To interview Dr. Brook or book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson:
949-222-6550, ext. 213, media@aynrandcenter.org
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War
Ayn Rand Saw This Coming
Washington, D.C.—“Despite overwhelming evidence that government policies caused the current financial crisis, Congress is blaming businessmen,” said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “What’s worse, the capitalists who have been shackled with unprecedented regulatory burdens are unable to defend themselves morally. Though the events are different, this pattern of abuse and submission is straight out of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.
“The cycle starts with government intervening into the economy and imposing regulations and controls on business. This distorts the free market, leading to economic dislocations. When the problems caused by these distortions inevitably follow, everyone blames the free market and its greedy capitalists. The proposed solution? More government controls. Over the years, conservative critics of creeping government have repeatedly exposed this illogic but have always been helpless to explain why the cycle keeps repeating, decade after decade.
“The pattern keeps recurring because businessmen are willing to take the blame. From capitalism’s inception, its defenders have been morally disarmed by the widespread view that self-interest is morally suspect, and disinterested service to others is a moral ideal. So each new spate of controls has been grudgingly accepted as a fair price to pay for society’s toleration of the selfish pursuit of profit.
“Atlas Shrugged depicted a society in economic collapse due to this recurring cycle, and today’s parallels are obvious. Government manipulation of money, credit, and lending standards over several decades caused the mess we’re in. Now, the offered solution is more of the poison that sickened the economy—more bailouts, more cheap money, more government-guaranteed loans, and above all, more regulations.
“This chronic cycle will not end until businessmen accept that their production of profit is neither immoral nor amoral—it is the capstone of moral virtue. Once they shrug off the role of scapegoat, businessmen can demand with moral certitude that government punish fraud and enforce contracts but refrain from interfering with voluntary trades among consenting adults.
“When America’s markets are finally free of all coercion—in other words, when laissez-faire is achieved—financial crises such as the one we’re experiencing will never happen again.”
### ### ###
Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He is a regular contributor to Forbes.com and a contributing editor of The Objective Standard. His articles have been featured in major newspapers such as USA Today, the Houston Chronicle, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Providence Journal and the Orange County Register. Dr. Brook is often interviewed on radio and is a frequent guest on a variety of national TV shows, having appeared in the new Fox Business Network, FOX News Channel (The O’Reilly Factor, Your World with Neil Cavuto, At Large with Geraldo Rivera), CNN (Talkback Live and the Glenn Beck Program), CNBC (Closing Bell and On the Money), and C-SPAN. Dr. Brook, a former finance professor, lectures on Objectivism, capitalism, business and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.
To interview Dr. Brook or book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson:
949-222-6550, ext. 213
media@aynrandcenter.org
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
'A Pygmalion of the Soul'
"It is a beautiful thing to mold a statue and give it life; it is more beautiful to shape an intelligence and give it truth." —Victor Hugo
The first work of literature read in Room 4 this year was Pygmalion, by George Bernard Shaw. The musical My Fair Lady was based upon this classic play.
Pygmalion is the story of a lowly flower girl who is invited into the home of a brilliant phonetician after he makes a bet that he can teach her the elegance and speech of a proper English lady and pass her off as a duchess at a garden party.
In the play's most comical scene, a favorite among the students, Eliza, the flower girl, ventures into society for the first time. Having been told to confine her conversation to the benign and inoffensive topics of weather and health, she discusses, with the utmost elegance of manners and articulation, her suspicion that her aunt who had allegedly died from influenza had actually been murdered over a hat. And so begins a comedy of errors, in which, as Higgins the phonetician says, the problem is not "how" she says things but "what" she says.
With more training, Eliza learns to curb her coarse speech, and she becomes thoroughly polished, dignified, and charming. Her debut at the garden party is a smashing and unmitigated success. She has become a proper English lady.
But in the last and most important scene of the play, we discover that though she has learned to be a lady, she has not yet learned to be a human being—an independent, self-sufficient individual with her own judgment and her own sense of self worth. She has learned how to conform to the standards of elite society, but she has not learned how to form her own standards.
It is only when she drops her decorum and stands up self-confidently against Higgins that he says, "By George Eliza, I said I'd make a woman of you; and I have."
Because for Higgins (and for Shaw), the mark of a worthy person is not conformity to the standards of the upper classes. Rather, a worthy person is one who has-in my favorite expression of the play—his "own soul," his "own spark of divine fire."
Teaching the play this time, it struck me as metaphorical for my own view of education.
Just as Eliza was taught in a way that allowed her to be passed off as a duchess at a garden party, the best of schools today teach children in a way that allows them to be passed off as educated at a cocktail party. But have they learned to be independent, self- sufficient, clear thinking, passionate human beings? Have they gained their own "spark of divine fire"?
That is our goal at VanDamme Academy. Our aim is not to teach the children a stock set of facts that will make them culturally literate. Our aim is to empower them with the lessons of history, to equip them with the tools of math and science, to provide them the fuel and inspiration of literature—to endow them with the wisdom that will give them the means to live the life of a rational, happy, efficacious human being.
That is why the following were highlights of my week.
First, when Room 4 read that last act of Pygmalion, we came to a scene in which Higgins calls Eliza a fool and she responds that the comment is "not proper." I put down the play and asked the class what Higgins's response to that would be. 11-year-old Taylor's bright eyes became incandescent with understanding and her hand shot in the air. "He would say he doesn't care what's proper!" In that moment, she had not just grasped something deeply important about the character, she had grasped something about Shaw's philosophic perspective on life. She had understood that Shaw cares little for conformity to social standards. And her expression revealed that that kind of understanding was thrilling.
Second, I was stopped in the hall one afternoon this week by the mother of a 7-year-old girl named Emily. She told me that Emily had related to her a story from her book Adventures of the Greek Heroes. Emily told her mother the tragic tale of Admetus the king and his true love Alcestis. Admetus was dying, and the gods declared that if he were to remain with his love, someone would have to die in his place. Admetus went to his loyal subjects, his soldiers, his servants, then even to his own parents, but all feared to die for him. Finally, in a tragic twist, his own dear Alcestis, the love for whom he wanted to live, gave her life for his. As 7-year-old Emily shared the story, her voice became halting, and her mother noticed that she had tears in her eyes. (And as her mother told me this story, both she and I both had tears in ours.)
Our goal at VanDamme Academy is not to produce students who are refined, polished, and superficially educated. It is to produce students who are thoughtful, passionate, and sincerely educated.
My favorite author, Victor Hugo, has a passage in which he describes the role of a teacher. He says, "It is a beautiful thing to mold a statue and give it life; it is more beautiful to shape an intelligence and give it truth." And he captures this whole metaphor in an exquisitely poetic description, calling a teacher "a Pygmalion of the soul."
Follow this link for the latest VanDamme Academy Newsletter, which features the above article.
Labels: Education
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
America's Anti-America Candidates
Last night’s debate offered further proof—if any was necessary—that neither Senator McCain nor Senator Obama is a champion of the basic principle of America: the principle of individual rights.
Obama, when asked if he believes health care is a “privilege, right or responsibility,” replied: “Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can’t pay their medical bills ... there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.” If health care is declared a “right,” then insurance companies, doctors, and taxpayers in general will have to be forced to provide “the poor” and the uninsured with goods and services. There is a name for such an arrangement: involuntary servitude. In declaring health care a “right,” Obama demonstrates that either he has no idea what a right is—or he knows what a right is yet will evade that knowledge for his socialist purposes.
McCain is no better. Not only did he eagerly support the disastrous bailout; now, he adds: “...it’s not enough. That’s why we’re going to have to go out into the housing market and we’re going to have to buy up these bad loans and we’re going to have to stabilize home values, and that way, Americans … can realize the American dream and stay in their home [sic].” Government violations of property rights (such as mandates that mortgage companies loan money to unworthy borrowers) are responsible for the current economic catastrophe, yet McCain’s “solution” is to compound the problem by nationalizing large segments of the real estate market and banking industry—thereby further violating the rights of sellers, buyers, and lenders—and further blocking the logical consequences, positive or negative, of their choices and actions.
These attacks on individual rights are attacks on the individual’s life and happiness as such. Barack “I Am My Brother’s Keeper” Obama and John “Country First” McCain believe that an individual pursuing his own individual happiness is evil or, at best, morally suspect. The individual’s right to the pursuit of his own happiness is at the heart of America’s founding principles, but our presidential candidates ignore it—when they aren’t attacking it—and spend their time arguing over who can best defend the “right” to health care or the “right” to a manageable mortgage or other so-called “rights.”
It is time for Americans to demand that our politicians recognize and uphold the basic principle of America: the individual’s right to act on his own judgment for his own sake. But in order for Americans to do so, they must first understand that principle themselves. Toward that end, a good place to start is with Ayn Rand’s essay “Man’s Rights.”
Labels: Business and Economics, Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law
Capitalism Without Guilt: The Moral Case for Freedom
What: A talk inaugurating the Ayn Rand Center’s Speaker Series
Who: Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center
Where: National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC [map & directions]
When: Wednesday, October 22, 2008; Doors open: 6 PM; Lecture and Q & A: 6:30 PM; Reception to follow
This event is open to the public. Admission is FREE.
Description: Capitalism has an undisputed record of wealth generation, yet it has always functioned under a cloud of moral suspicion. In a culture that venerates Mother Teresa as a paragon of virtue, businessmen sit in stoic silence while their pursuit of profits is denounced as selfish greed.
Society tells businessmen to sacrifice, to serve others, to “give back”—counting on their acceptance of self-interest as a moral crime, with chronic guilt its penance. Is it any wonder that productive giants from John D. Rockefeller to Bill Gates have behaved as if profit-making leaves a moral stain that only tireless philanthropy can launder but never fully remove?
It is time America heard the moral case for laissez-faire capitalism.
Two centuries ago the Founding Fathers established a nation based on the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property—and the selfish pursuit of his own happiness. But neither the Founders nor their successors could properly defend self-interest and the profit motive in the face of moral denunciation. The result has been a slow destruction of freedom in America, leading us to today’s economic mess.
In this inaugural lecture celebrating the launch of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, in Washington, D.C., Executive Director Yaron Brook will demonstrate how Ayn Rand’s revolutionary ethics of rational self-interest supplied the moral foundation that previous proponents of capitalism lacked. Dr. Brook will explain why individual rights are crucial for capitalism’s survival—why productivity and profit, the “selfish greed” that conservatives abhor, are not vices but cardinal virtues. He will explain why Americans must reject McCain/Obama-style “national service” and instead proudly embrace the radical individualism their lives and happiness require.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Business and Economics, Events, Individual Rights and Law
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Islamic Totalitarianism’s Threat to Civilization
What: A panel discussion about the nature of Islamic totalitarianism and how to defeat it. A Q&A will follow.
Who: Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, and Dr. Wafa Sultan, outspoken critic of Islam
Where: HIB (Humanities Instructional Building), Room 100, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697
When: Monday, October, 13, 2008, at 7 pm
This event is open to the public. Admission is FREE.
Description: From the Iranian hostage crisis to September 11 to the London subway attacks to the Iraqi insurgency–it is clear the West faces a grave threat from a committed enemy. Conventional wisdom holds that the enemy is a rogue group of fanatics, who have hijacked a great religion in order to justify their crimes. It tells us there is no way to permanently eliminate these violent groups, that we have entered an “age of terror” and that we must give up the desire for a decisive victory . . . but is the conventional wisdom right?
Bios:
-
Dr. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and a recognized Middle East expert who has written and lectured on a variety of Middle East issues. Dr. Brook has served in the Israeli Army and has discussed the Israeli-Arab conflict and the war on Islamic totalitarianism on numerous radio and TV programs, including FOX News, CNN and a C-SPAN panel of experts on terrorism.
-
Dr. Wafa Sultan is a secular Syrian-American writer and thinker, best known for her participation in Middle East political debates, widely circulated Arabic essays and television appearances on CNN, FOX News and Al-Jazeera. She named the Islamic threat to the West as “a battle between modernity and barbarism which Islam will lose.” Her outspokenness has brought her both threats and praise. Dr. Sultan is currently working on a book to be titled “The God that Hates.”
For more information: e-mail media@aynrand.org
### ### ###
Dr. Yaron Brook is available for interviews now and after this event.
Contact: Larry Benson
E-mail: media@aynrand.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550, ext. 213
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® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Events, Foreign Policy and War, Religion
Monday, October 06, 2008
Bush Bails Out Subprime Automakers
Washington, D.C.—President Bush just signed into law what the Wall Street Journal describes as “a low-interest loan package to aid U.S. auto makers.”
“Have we learned nothing from the subprime mortgage fiasco?” said Alex Epstein, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “We are embroiled in a credit crisis, rooted in government policies that promoted and backed reckless, low-interest loans to subprime home buyers—loans that could eventually cost Americans trillions of dollars in bailouts and losses. And now, when lenders on the private market understandably won’t lend $25 billion to car companies that often shed billions by the quarter, the government is making reckless, low-interest loans to these subprime automakers?
“Obviously, our government has learned nothing from the crisis. But it has taught industry a terrible lesson: you fail, you get a bailout.”
### ### ###
Mr. Epstein is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on business issues.
Mr. Epstein’s op-eds and letters to the editor have appeared in such publications as the Wall Street Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Canada’s National Post, and the Washington Times. He is also a contributing writer for The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal of culture and politics. Mr. Epstein has been a guest on numerous nationally syndicated radio programs.
Alex Epstein is available for interviews.
Contact: Larry Benson
E-mail: media@aynrandcenter.org
Phone: (949) 222-6550 ext. 213
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
Columbus Day Celebrates Western Civilization by Thomas A. Bowden
On October 12, 1492, Christopher Columbus discovered the New World, opening a sea route to vast uncharted territories that awaited the spread of Western civilization. Centuries later, the ensuing cultural migration culminated in the birth and explosive growth of the greatest nation in history: the United States of America.
It is fitting that we have set aside a day to honor the Great Explorer. On one level, Columbus Day honors the man himself for his many virtues. Columbus was a man of independent mind, who steadfastly pursued his bold plan for a westward voyage to the Indies despite powerful opposition—a man of courage, who set sail upon a trackless ocean with no assurance that he would ever reach land—a man of pride, who sought recognition and reward for his achievements.
We need not evade or excuse Columbus’s flaws—his religious zealotry, his enslavement and oppression of natives—to recognize that he made history by finding new territory for a civilization that would soon show mankind how to overcome the age-old scourges of slavery, war, and forced religious conversion.
Thus, the deeper meaning of Columbus Day is to celebrate the rational core of Western civilization, which flourished in the New World like a pot-bound plant liberated from its confining shell, demonstrating to the world what greatness is possible to man at his best.
On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose philosophers and mathematicians, men such as Aristotle, Archimedes, and Euclid, displaced otherworldly mysticism by discovering the laws of logic and mathematical relationships, demonstrating to mankind that reality is a single realm accessible to human understanding.
On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose scientists, men such as Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein, banished primitive superstitions by discovering natural laws through the scientific method, demonstrating to mankind that the universe is both knowable and predictable.
On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose political geniuses, men such as John Locke and the Founding Fathers, defined the principles by which bloody tribal warfare, religious strife, and, ultimately, slavery could be eradicated by constitutional republics devoted to protecting life, liberty, property, and the selfish pursuit of individual happiness.
On Columbus Day, we celebrate the civilization whose entrepreneurs, men such as Rockefeller, Ford, and Gates, transformed an inhospitable wilderness populated by frightened savages into a wealthy nation of self-confident producers served by highways, power plants, computers, and thousands of other life-enhancing products.
On Columbus Day, in sum, we celebrate Western civilization as history’s greatest cultural achievement. What better reason could there be for a holiday?
Mr. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights and is the author of The Enemies of Christopher Columbus. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Science and Technology
Friday, October 03, 2008
How Not to Defend Free Markets
Washington, D.C.—In response to the financial crisis, traditional defenders of free markets have criticized certain controls passed by U.S. regulatory agencies, but are not calling into question the legitimacy of the agencies themselves. But, argued Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, “It is insufficient and indeed counterproductive to criticize a few failed policies of the Fed and the SEC, without challenging the existence of these market-dictating agencies in the first place.
“As Exhibit A, consider the response to the SEC’s recent war on short selling. The Wall Street Journal, regarded as a strong defender of free markets, wrote that ‘[T]he SEC first clamped down on so-called naked shorting—a reasonable move under any circumstances, even if there’s no evidence of widespread naked shorting of financial stocks in this panic. But Mr. Cox didn’t stop there. The SEC has also temporarily banned any short selling of hundreds of financial stocks, a list that has grown to include the likes of General Motors. Then, when the SEC was reminded that selling a stock short is a legitimate part of many unimpeachable hedging strategies, it relaxed the prohibition for certain types of sales while continuing to expand the list of “protected” stocks. . . . If the SEC wants to help restore calm, it would stop issuing new emergency rules in the dead of night and bring some transparency and calm to its own rule-making.’
“In praising some of the SEC’s actions, while criticizing others, the Wall Street Journal is conceding a disastrous principle: that financial markets should be controlled by government at all.
“Under capitalism, the proper role of the government in financial markets is to protect individual rights by banning force and rooting out fraud. This requires objective laws that do not permit would-be central planners to tinker with markets when they don’t like the results. But the SEC’s regulatory authority allows it to coercively prevent individuals from engaging in voluntary transactions like short selling whenever it decides those transactions do not serve the ‘public interest.’
“Since the ‘public interest’ is an indefinable standard compatible with any interpretation or rationalization, this means in practice that SEC goons can arbitrarily unleash their regulatory club on financial markets whenever they feel it’s warranted. For example, see Chris Cox’s blitzkrieg of contradictory emergency orders attacking short sellers.
“The basic principle behind regulation is that the government can use force, not to protect individual rights, but in an attempt to engineer ‘socially desirable’ outcomes, i.e., outcomes different from what would result from the voluntary choices of individuals on a free market. That is the same premise that underlies all disastrous attempts at central planning—from the Soviet Union to modern-day Venezuela.
“If the Wall Street Journal really wants to defend capitalism, this is the premise it must oppose. Instead of prodding government regulators to be better central planners, it should call for a complete end to government control of financial markets. This is the lesson all defenders of capitalism must learn: you cannot defend capitalism by conceding the legitimacy of its opposite.”
### ### ###
Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He is a regular contributor to Forbes.com and a contributing editor of The Objective Standard. His articles have been featured in major newspapers such as USA Today, the Houston Chronicle, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Providence Journal and the Orange County Register. Dr. Brook is often interviewed on radio and is a frequent guest on a variety of national TV shows, having appeared in the new Fox Business Network, FOX News Channel (The O’Reilly Factor, Your World with Neil Cavuto, At Large with Geraldo Rivera), CNN (Talkback Live and the Glenn Beck Program), CNBC (Closing Bell and On the Money), and C-SPAN. Dr. Brook, a former finance professor, lectures on Objectivism, capitalism, business and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.
To interview Dr. Brook or book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson: 949-222-6550, ext. 213 media@aynrandcenter.org
For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
In Defense of Speculators and Short-Sellers by Amit Ghate
Everywhere today government bureaucrats and media pundits blame unwanted price movements on speculators and short-sellers. If prices are “too high”—it’s the fault of greedy speculators; if prices are “too low”—it’s the work of evil short-sellers. To hear these critics tell it, speculators have the ability to create artificially high prices, while short-sellers can wantonly destroy sound companies. (Ignore for now the obvious question: “Where are the short-sellers in markets that are 'too high' and the speculators in markets that are 'too low'?")
The critics then claim that since neither speculators nor short-sellers perform any positive economic function, barring them from the marketplace is an appropriate remedy, one that’s long past due. (Recently the United States did just this by making some shorting illegal.)
So to begin, let’s ask what the critics consider a “correct” price? Clearly it’s not the price which obtains when all market participants are free to engage in trade based on their best judgment, because this is precisely the free-market price—a price which they so vociferously condemn. But if “too low” and “too high” aren’t judged relative to the free market, what is the standard? Stripped of euphemism: their wishes.
For example, they wish—contrary to all relevant facts—that oil be priced at $20/barrel and that Lehman’s stock trade at $80/share. Never mind that environmental policy has prevented the drilling of oil and the development of nuclear power for decades now, or that Chinese and Indian oil consumption is growing relentlessly; forget too that Lehman chose to leverage itself at 35:1 and made riskier trades year after year—if these critics wish for a price, then that should be the price, facts be damned!
But of course, attempting to set prices by wishing doesn’t—and can’t—work, not for Lenin, Stalin or Brezhnev; or for Paulson, Bernanke and Bush. If prices are to reflect reality, they must be the result of an objective process of discovery and judgment performed by interested actors.
So just as doctors specialize in identifying and evaluating the facts affecting health and disease, speculators and short-sellers specialize in identifying and evaluating the facts pertinent to market prices. They make it their business to understand economic facts like supply and demand, and then risk their capital on their judgment, properly profiting if they’re right and losing if they’re wrong. Thus in a free market, rather than prices being set by wish or decree, they are set by a rational process, one which benefits from the knowledge of all who participate.
For instance, if speculators believe that future oil supplies won’t match demand, they buy oil, increasing its price. If they’re right, and oil prices continue to increase, they sell their positions, profiting from their insight but also capping prices as their supply comes to market; furthermore, their initial effect on prices signals to the market that greater oil supplies are needed and reduced oil consumption is appropriate—efficiently allowing market participants to adjust their actions to the facts.
So too for short-sellers. If they judge that Enron is cooking the books, or that Lehman is insolvent, they can seek to profit from their insight by short-sales. These lower stock prices in the present and convey to the market that there are potential problems with the companies, helping others avoid losses in the stocks. And if shorts are proved correct, rather than exacerbating any price slide, they actually mitigate price declines when they buy their positions back. (Of course, short-sellers, like speculators, only profit if their judgment is correct. If they short a productive, undervalued firm, say, e.g., Wal-Mart or Apple, they lose when the actual facts belie their predictions.)
Consider the recent failure of Lehman, where critics claim that short-sellers caused the decline by obscuring and distorting the company’s true value. The facts say otherwise. When the government shopped Lehman to potential buyers, opening the books to them, not a single buyer emerged, not at any price! Everyone who examined the company concluded it was worthless. This was the fact that short-sellers grasped earlier than others—it wasn’t a fact they created.
Speculators and short-sellers don’t create facts, they seek to identify and respond to them; and in the process they help adjust prices to economic conditions and establish smooth and liquid markets. As a result—instead of being scapegoated and banished—they should be respected and welcomed for the productive role they play in our markets.
Amit Ghate is a guest writer for the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, a division of the Ayn Rand Institute. He is a full-time trader who often speculates and shorts.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
The Ayn Rand Center Responds to the Financial Crisis
Americans are now facing an historic economic crisis. What was the cause? What is the cure? How do we prevent it from happening again?
While pundits and politicians blame the current housing and financial crisis on "greedy" businessmen and lax regulators, and are frantically urging the government to expand its control over our economic lives, the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights has launched a new Web page to defend a different view—that the actual cause of the crisis is government intervention, and the only cure, laissez-faire capitalism.
We invite you to check out our collection of essays, op-eds, lectures, and interviews arguing for a rational approach to this crisis—an approach you will not find anywhere else.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Op-eds, press releases and letters to the editor produced by the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights are submitted to hundreds of newspapers, radio stations and Web sites across the United States and abroad, and are made possible thanks to voluntary contributions.
If you would like to help support ARC's efforts, please make an online contribution at http://www.aynrandcenter.org/support.
This release is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Center, and cannot be reprinted without permission except for noncommercial, self-study or educational purposes. We encourage you to forward this release to friends, family, associates or interested parties who would want to receive it for these purposes only. Any reproduction of this release must contain the above copyright notice. Those interested in reprinting or redistributing this release for any other purposes should contact media@aynrandcenter.org. This release may not be forwarded to media for publication.
The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, 555 12th Street NW, Suite 620 N, Washington, DC 20004
Labels: Announcements, Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
Blog Feed
Click the button below to subscribe to our blog's feed.
Get the Feed
Subscribe to the journal for people of reason.
Topics
- Announcements
- Ayn Rand and Objectivism
- Business and Economics
- Education
- Environmentalism
- Events
- Foreign Policy and War
- Healthcare
- History
- Individual Rights and Law
- Philosophy
- Psychology
- Religion
- Science and Technology
- The Arts
Blog Archive
- Recent Posts
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
Advertisement
Advertisement
