The Objective Standard Blog
The Objective Standard Blog: January 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Rational Science versus Sacrificial Politics
Posted by John David Lewis and Paul Saunders
The Obama administration continues to appoint radical environmentalists who want us to commit industrial suicide on behalf of nature. Meanwhile, top-rank scientists continue to renounce claims of a coming climate disaster.
The latest scientist to voice his conclusions is retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon. As chief of several NASA programs from 1982 to 1994, Theon was responsible for all weather and climate research, and oversaw the work of Dr. James Hansen. Hansen is NASA’s foremost proponent of man-made global warming—and a strong supporter of Al Gore. Hansen has compared coal trains to Nazi death trains, and has lobbied for the prosecution of coal industry executives. Hansen also claims to have been "muzzled" by the Bush administration.
Dr. Theon has repudiated all of this. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009.
Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.
As regards computer software models—the primary source of support for the claims of global warming advocates—Dr. Theon writes: "Climate models are useless."
Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.
Dr. Theon is in good company. A U.S. Senate Minority Report released in December 2008 names more than 650 international scientists who are dissenting from man-made global warming fears. This is greater than twelve times as many scientists as the 52 who co-authored the UN reports that American bureaucrats continue to cite. These 650 scientists include: Aerospace engineer, physicist, and NASA Administrator (April 13, 2005 to January 20, 2009) Dr. Michael Griffin; Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman to receive a PhD in meteorology; Geophysicist and former astronaut Dr. Phil Chapman; Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt; Apollo 7 Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham; Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette (formerly with NASA's Plum Brook Reactor); Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist and former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center; Climatologist Dr. John Christy; Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer; and Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA's Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility.
In summary, while the vast majority of scientists are going in one direction—repudiating claims of a man-made climate disaster—politicians are going the other direction—embracing such claims and shackling industry on those “grounds.” Why? Why, as the scientific case for man-made global warming collapses, are politicians all the more determined to impose draconian controls on industry?
The answer is morality. Politics is directly dependent upon morality. Politicians who follow a morality of sacrifice will impose laws that enforce that “ideal.” Conversely, those who follow a morality of rational self-interest will act to protect our rights—including our rights to productive action.
The observations, analyses, and conclusions of scientists have never deterred those who are committed to the morality of sacrifice. This latest disparity between science and politics is yet another example of this fact.
Labels: Environmentalism, Individual Rights and Law, Science and Technology
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Why Israel Attacked the Gaza
The "news" we have heard about the Israeli military action in the Gaza strip has often focused on the deaths of "civilians." This obfuscates the fact that the majority of casualties were Hamas warriors in civilian dress. When the Israelis retaliate, the press reports it as Israeli "aggression." Every dead child then becomes a propaganda weapon for Hamas. The more dead civilians, the better it is for Hamas.
Here is a concrete example of how Hamas warriors intentionally position themselves in civilian buildings, incite the Israelis to respond, and then cash in for propaganda purposes. In a slip on Alarabiya-TV, an announcer states that a missile had just been launched from the basement of the press building: "Hamas fires Grad Missiles from foreign Press building in Gaza January 2009—Unintentional News from Alarabiya-TV."
The press later reported the Israeli response, "IDF hits the foreign Press building," without reporting the missile that triggered the retaliation by the Israeli Defense Forces.
The press building incident is a microcosm of the entire conflict. Hamas has launched thousands of missiles from densely populated areas against civilians in Israel. For Hamas, the entire population of the Gaza is an expendable resource to be used to create the propaganda needed to continue the war.
Thanks to Boaz Arad for bringing this to my attention.
Labels: Individual Rights and Law
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Set the Market Free: The Cure for the Financial Crisis
What: A talk arguing that the financial crisis was caused by the government and can be cured only by the free market. A Q&A will follow
Who: Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
Where: Mary Graydon Center Building, Room 3. 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016
When: Wednesday, January 28, 2009, at 7 pm
Admission: FREE and open to students and the public
Description: Virtually everyone today regards the financial crisis as a failure of the free market. In this talk, Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, will argue that in fact it is the un-free market that has failed. It was not capitalism that held interest rates below the rate of inflation, spurring massive amounts of borrowing and a housing boom. It was not capitalism that gave us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which promoted subprime lending and helped fuel the boom. It was not capitalism that gave us deposit insurance and the "too big to fail" doctrine, which encouraged risky financial practices. These, and many anti-capitalist measures like them, Dr. Brook will argue, laid the groundwork for the financial crisis. The only cure, according to Dr. Brook, is to set the market free. But to do that, Americans must embrace capitalism as a moral system--one that should be defended without guilt.
Bio: Dr. Yaron Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights and a contributing editor of "The Objective Standard." A former finance professor, he has been published in academic as well as popular publications, and his opinion-editorials appear in major newspapers. He is frequently interviewed on national TV and radio. Dr. Brook lectures on Objectivism, business ethics and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Business and Economics, Events, Individual Rights and Law
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
'The Financial Crisis: Causes and Possible Cures' By John Allison
The media, politicians, and even many businessmen have blamed today’s financial meltdown on capitalism. But in this talk, John Allison—the longest-tenured CEO of a top-25 financial services company—will argue that this crisis is a legacy of the government’s anti-capitalist policies.
Mr. Allison will use his unique inside view of the financial services industry to show how massive government intervention into the U.S. economy—from the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 to a reckless crusade to encourage home-ownership—laid the groundwork for an unsustainable real estate boom. And he will show how the government’s response to the inevitable bust—a frenzied series of bailouts, nationalizations, and “stimulus” efforts—is only making things worse.
Finally, Mr. Allison will explain the underlying philosophical reasons for the crisis, and discuss the immediate and long-term solutions. He will show that capitalism, far from being the cause of today’s crisis, is its only cure.
Event Details:
Thursday, January 29th, 2009
Doors open: 6 PM
Lecture and Q & A: 6:30 PM
National Building Museum—Great Hall [map]
401 F St NW
Washington, DC 20001
Red Line Metro, Judiciary Square
This event is free to the public. A video recording will later be posted on the ARC Web site.
John Allison is chairman of the board of BB&T Corporation. He began his service with BB&T in 1971, became president in 1987 and was elected chairman and CEO in 1989 (serving as CEO until the end of 2008). During Mr. Allison’s tenure, BB&T has grown from $4.5 billion to $137 billion in assets.
For information on other upcoming events, visit our events page.
To view video recordings of previous Lecture Series events, visit our Lecture Series Web page.
For more information:
Phone: 949-222-6550
E-mail: events@aynrandcenter.org
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Business and Economics, Events
Big Government, not Big Media, Threatens Free Speech by Don Watkins
Self-appointed consumer watchdogs—including Obama’s recent pick for FCC chair, Julius Genachowski—have long complained about media consolidation. So it was no surprise that when the FCC recently loosened restrictions barring companies from owning a newspaper and TV station in the same city, these critics went apoplectic and are now urging the House to follow the Senate in blocking the measure.
Media consolidation supposedly threatens free speech. A few conglomerates, critics warn, have seized control of our media outlets, enabling these companies to shove a single “corporate-friendly” perspective down our throats. As Senator Byron Dorgan put it, “The free flow of information in this country is not accommodated by having fewer and fewer voices determine what is out there. . . . You have five or six corporate interests that determine what Americans can see, hear, and read.”
Leave aside that Dorgan’s comments are hard to take seriously in the age of the Internet: his position is still a fantasy. Media consolidation is no threat to free speech—it is the result of individuals exercising that right.
All speech requires control of material resources, whether by standing on a soapbox, starting a blog, running a newspaper ad, or buying a radio station. Media corporations simply do this on a larger scale.
Consider the critics’ favorite bogeyman, News Corp. When Rupert Murdoch launched the company, he and his fellow shareholders pooled their wealth to create a communications platform capable of reaching millions. They further expanded their ability to communicate through mergers and acquisitions—that is, through media consolidation. As News Corp.’s owners, shareholders were able to exercise their freedom of speech by deciding what views their private property would (and wouldn’t) be used to promote—the same way a blogger decides what ideas to champion on his blog. Like most other media companies, News Corp. even extended the use of its platforms to speakers from all over the ideological map—including opponents of media consolidation.
Do News Corp.’s resources give Murdoch an advantage when it comes to promoting his views? Absolutely. Free speech doesn’t guarantee that everyone will have equal airtime, any more than free trade guarantees that every business will have the same amount of goods to trade. What it does guarantee is that everyone has the right to use his own property to speak his mind.
Some of today’s most prominent voices, such as Matt Drudge, have succeeded without huge financial resources. But regardless of how large a media company grows, it can never—Dorgan’s complaints notwithstanding—determine what media Americans consume. It must continually earn its audience. Fox News may be the leading news channel today, but if it doesn’t produce shows people want to watch, it will have all the influence of ham radio. Just think of how newspapers and the big-three network news stations are losing audiences to Web-based sources.
Now consider the actual meaning of government restrictions on media ownership. The FCC is telling certain Americans that they cannot operate a printing press or its equivalent. Such restrictions cannot protect free speech—they are in fact violations of the right to free speech. There is no essential difference between smashing someone’s printing press and threatening to fine and jail him if he uses one; either way, he can’t use it to express his views.
What galls critics of media consolidation is not that News Corp. stops anyone from speaking—it’s that they don’t like the choices Americans make when free speech is protected. In the words of one critic: “[M]arket forces provide neither adequate incentives to produce the high quality media product, nor adequate incentives to distribute sufficient amounts of diverse content necessary to meet consumer and citizen needs.” Translation: Can you believe what those stupid consumers willingly pay for? If I got to decide what Americans watched, read, and listened to, things would be different.
In order to “correct” the choices Americans make, these critics demand that the FCC violate the free speech rights of some speakers in order to prop up other speakers who, absent such favors, would be unable to earn an audience. In short, they want a gun-wielding Uncle Sam—not the voluntary choices of free individuals—to determine who can speak and therefore who you can listen to.
The critics of media consolidation are frauds. They are not defenders of free speech—they are dangerous enemies of that freedom.
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 © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Atlas Shrugged and the Financial Crisis
A radio interview with Alex Epstein on the Morning Magazine show, recorded on January 14, is now available online.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, The Arts
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Ayn Rand Institute Now Offering Impact Newsletter Free on the Web
Impact, which remains available in a print edition for ARI donors of $35 or more each year, delivers the latest news and progress reports on ARI’s programs, along with interviews of Objectivist intellectuals and monthly highlights of different aspects of Ayn Rand’s philosophy.
The new, free electronic format will serve as an excellent way of introducing newcomers to ARI’s goals and programs. Additionally, visitors may now view a three-part introductory video on ARI’s home page, which provides information about Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and the Ayn Rand Institute.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Labels: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Life After VanDamme Academy
The following is an interview with Evan Storms, a VanDamme Academy graduate currently in the process of applying to college. Perhaps my favorite part of the interview was his answer to my request for the interview itself: "Considering what I gained from your school, I would write a doctoral thesis for you if you needed it; but I can settle for the interview."
When did you attend VanDamme Academy?
I attended VanDamme Academy for two-and-a-half years from 2003 to 2005, from sixth to eighth grade.
Where had you gone to school prior to that, and how did your experience there differ from your time at VDA?
Before VanDamme Academy, I attended a reputedly exceptional public elementary school in Laguna Hills. My education there differed from my experience at VanDamme fundamentally. Where VanDamme offered a logically-structured, ordered curriculum, my elementary education consisted of unconnected lessons seemingly chosen at random; science would cover volcanoes one week, and the anatomy of a frog the next.
Where do you attend high school, and what have been the strengths and weaknesses of your experience there?
I attend Fairmont Preparatory Academy in Anaheim. Academically, the school is, to the best of my knowledge, the strongest in the area. Fairmont offers a wide range of AP and otherwise advanced courses, generally taught by knowledgeable teachers who present their material clearly and logically.
Moreover, the school allows considerable academic freedom; it has, for example, allowed me to create my own independent study philosophy course, and has created two new math classes so that I can continue to advance. The number of intellectually ambitious students at the school, however, is small. And despite the strengths of the higher level courses, the curriculum in general emphasizes memorization over understanding, with the widespread use of multiple-choice testing and the heavy reliance on textbooks.
What have been some of your most important achievements since your time at VanDamme Academy?
Since attending VanDamme Academy, I have excelled in every facet of my academics: I have earned nearly perfect grades, taken and earned fives on eight AP exams, and been recognized as a national merit scholarship finalist.
Where have you applied to college, and why?
Though I applied to many schools, I am only sincerely interested in attending two: Duke and Stanford University. Both schools offer strong general academic programs, so that, whichever course of study I ultimately choose, I will be able to study under a first-class department.
How do you think your experience at VanDamme Academy shaped you?
At VanDamme Academy, I gained the foundations of an independent mind. I learned that ideas have consequences, are important, and are worth pursuing. I learned to think logically, to allow myself no half-formed knowledge or superficial understanding. I learned to appreciate great literature, to analyze facts scientifically, to write with clarity. And I learned that the sublime is possible to the man who thinks.
Labels: Education
How to Stop the Next Madoff
Washington, D.C.—“Want to stop the next Madoff? Gut the SEC,” says Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.
“Part of the reason Madoff’s misdeeds went undetected is that the Securities and Exchange Commission spends most of its time doing things the government has no business doing. The only legitimate job of a securities law enforcement division is to protect investors against the specific crimes of theft, fraud, and breach of contract.
“But the SEC plays a much different role. Its mandate is to attempt to make investing ‘safe’ by controlling every aspect of financial markets, from dictating the composition of mutual fund boards to mandating public release of executive compensation numbers that shareholders want kept private to determining when executives are allowed to sell stock—‘insider trade’—instead of leaving that to the discretion of a company’s owners.
“In pretending to guarantee to investors that their investments are sound, which is impossible, the SEC encourages the kind of blind group-think that characterized the Madoff investors. And with the SEC devoting itself to a sprawling array of elaborate witch-hunts, such as the ‘insider trading’ case against Mark Cuban, what time or attention does it have for real fraud?
“The answer—as is clear from the fact that a 29-point, 17-page report on Madoff, submitted in 1999, 2001, and 2005, entitled The World’s Largest Hedge Fund is a Fraud slipped through its cracks—is none.”
### ### ###
Dr. Yaron Brook is available for interviews. To interview Dr. Brook or book him for your show, please e-mail media@aynrandcenter.org
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
Watch and Learn from Hugo Chavez
Washington, D.C.—Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has halted construction of a private shopping mall in downtown Caracas as a first step toward confiscation. “We’re going to expropriate that and turn it into a hospital—I don’t know—a school, a university,” said Chavez on his weekly radio show.
“Americans can learn an important lesson from the spread of socialism in Venezuela,” said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “What is Chavez counting on when he grabs a private building and vows to make it into a hospital, school, or university? He’s counting on his listeners to excuse the seizure of private property because a higher moral purpose is supposedly being served.
“Chavez is relying on the fact that socialism embodies the world’s moral ideal of individual sacrifice for the ‘common good.’ History has taught him that no opponent will denounce that ideal. And so he climbs to the moral high ground, turning his back on socialism’s dismal historical record of economic decline, lost freedoms, and human misery.
“As long as the moral ideal of self-sacrifice remains unchallenged, socialism will continue to spread—not only in the third world, but in America as well.
“There is a rational alternative. It’s laissez-faire capitalism, which upholds the individual’s moral right to live and work for his own sake, not society’s. But to establish freedom we must dig up the moral roots that continue to nourish socialism worldwide.”
### ### ###
Thomas A. 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 the Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes.
To interview Mr. Bowden or book him for your show, please e-mail media@aynrand.org
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law
Friday, January 09, 2009
'Green' vs. Good
Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Institute has an excellent op-ed in today’s Washington Times titled “Environmental angst: Going ‘green’ doesn’t work.” Here’s an excerpt:
Why is it that no matter what sacrifices you make to try to reduce your “environmental footprint,” it never seems to be enough? Well, consider why it is that you have an “environmental footprint” in the first place.
Everything we do to sustain our lives has an impact on nature. Every value we create to advance our well-being, every ounce of food we grow, every structure we build, every iPhone we manufacture is produced by extracting raw materials and reshaping them to serve our needs. Every good thing in our lives comes from altering nature for our own benefit.
From the perspective of human life and happiness, a big “environmental footprint” is an enormous positive. This is why people in India and China are striving to increase theirs: to build better roads, more cars and computers, new factories and power plants and hospitals.
But for environmentalism, the size of your “footprint” is the measure of your guilt. Nature, according to green philosophy, is something to be left alone to be preserved untouched by human activity. Their notion of an “environmental footprint” is intended as a measure of how much you “disturb” nature, with disturbing nature viewed as a sin requiring atonement. Just as the Christian concept of original sin conveys the message that human beings are stained with evil simply for having been born, the green concept of an “environmental footprint” implies that you should feel guilty for your very existence.
Read the whole thing and pass it along. As Lockitch makes clear, if the environmentalists had their way in full, man would cease to exist—and to the extent that they have their way at all, we suffer the consequences. Every thinking person needs to be aware of the nature of this movement.
Labels: Environmentalism
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
This is Your Future on 'Universal Healthcare'
Paul Hsieh has an excellent op-ed titled “Universal healthcare and the waistline police” in the Jan 7 issue of the Christian Science Monitor. It begins:
Imagine a country where the government regularly checks the waistlines of citizens over age 40. Anyone deemed too fat would be required to undergo diet counseling. Those who fail to lose sufficient weight could face further "reeducation" and their communities subject to stiff fines.
Is this some nightmarish dystopia?
No, this is contemporary Japan.
The Japanese government argues that it must regulate citizens' lifestyles because it is paying their health costs. This highlights one of the greatly underappreciated dangers of "universal healthcare." Any government that attempts to guarantee healthcare must also control its costs. The inevitable next step will be to seek to control citizens' health and their behavior. Hence, Americans should beware that if we adopt universal healthcare, we also risk creating a "nanny state on steroids" antithetical to core American principles.
Other countries with universal healthcare are already restricting individual freedoms in the name of controlling health costs. For example, the British government has banned some television ads for eggs on the grounds that they were promoting an unhealthy lifestyle. This is a blatant infringement of egg sellers' rights to advertise their products.
In 2007, New Zealand banned Richie Trezise, a Welsh submarine cable specialist, from entering the country on the grounds that his obesity would "impose significant costs ... on New Zealand's health or special education services." Richie later lost weight and was allowed to immigrate, but his wife had trouble slimming and was kept home. Germany has mounted an aggressive anti-obesity campaign in workplaces and schools to promote dieting and exercise. Citizens who fail to cooperate are branded as "antisocial" for costing the government billions of euros in medical expenses….
Read the whole thing, and pass it along. The future is closer than one might think.
Labels: Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law
Monday, January 05, 2009
What to Resolve This New Year by Alex Epstein
Given the devastated state of many Americans’ finances, our New Year’s resolutions will take on greater significance this year. To “get out of debt” was often a casually stated goal to be set as midnight approached and forgotten soon after; today it is rightly recognized as a fundamental necessity of life.
Unfortunately, the New Year’s commitment to self-improvement is widely viewed with cynicism—in part because New Year’s resolutions go so notoriously unmet. After years of watching others—or themselves—excitedly commit to a new goal, only to abandon the quest by March, many come to conclude that New Year’s resolutions are an exercise in futility that should not be taken seriously. “The silly season is upon us,” writes a columnist for the Washington Post, “when people feel compelled to remake themselves with New Year’s resolutions.”
But this attitude is false and self-destructive. Making New Year’s resolutions does not have to be futile—and to make them is not silly. Done seriously, it is an act of profound moral significance that embodies the essence of a life well-lived.
Consider what a New Year’s resolution consists of: we look at where we are in some area of life, think about where we want to be, and then set ourselves a goal to get there. We are tired of feeling chubby and lethargic, say, and want the improved appearance and greater energy level that comes with greater fitness. So we resolve to take up a fun athletic activity—like tennis or a martial art—and plan to do it three times a week.
Is this a laughable act of self-delusion? Hardly. If it were, then how would anyone ever achieve anything in life? In fact, to make a New Year’s resolution is to recognize the undeniable reality that successful goal-pursuit is possible—the reality that everyone at one time or another has set and achieved long-range goals, and profited from doing so. Indeed, not only is it possible to achieve long-range goals, it is necessary for success in life. To make a New Year’s resolution is also to recognize the undeniable reality that secure finances, rewarding careers, and romances do not just happen automatically—that to get what we want in our lives, we must consciously choose and achieve the right goals. We must be goal-directed.
Unfortunately, a goal-directed orientation is missing to a large extent in too many lives. It is all too easy to live life passively, acting without carefully deciding what one is doing with one’s life and why. How many people do you know who are in the career they fell into out of school, even if it is not very satisfying—or who have children at a certain age because that’s what is expected, even if it’s not what they really want—or who spend endless hours of “free time” in front of the TV, since that’s the most readily available form of relaxation—or who follow a life routine that they never really chose and don’t truly enjoy, but which has the force of habit?
Too often, the goal-directedness embodied by New Year’s resolutions is the exception in lives ruled by passively accepted forces—unexamined routine, short-range desires, or alleged duties. It is the passive approach to happiness that makes so many resolutions peter out, lost in the shuffle of life or abandoned due to lost motivation. More broadly than its impact on New Year’s resolutions, the passive approach to happiness is the reason that so many go through life without ever getting—or even knowing—what they really want.
It is a sad irony that those who write off New Year’s resolutions because so many fail reinforces the passive approach to life that causes so many resolutions—and so many other dreams—to fail. The solution to failed New Year’s resolutions is not to abandon the practice, but to supplement it with a broader resolution—a commitment to a goal-directed life.
This New Year’s, resolve to think about how to make your life better, not just once a year, but every day. Resolve to set goals, not just in one or two aspects of life, but in every important aspect and in your life as a whole. Resolve to pursue the goals that will make you successful and happy, not as the exception in a life of passivity, but as the rule that becomes second-nature.
If you do this, you will be resolving to do the most important thing of all: to take your happiness seriously.
Alex Epstein is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on business issues. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Labels: Psychology
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Republican Socialists
Washington, D.C.—“Republicans routinely criticize the policies of Barack Obama and other Democrats as socialist,” said Alex Epstein an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “But their endorsement of Barack Obama’s imminent, trillion-dollar ‘stimulus plan’ shows that they buy into socialist ideas just as much as the Democrats. Indeed, Republican leader Mitch McConnell’s explanation of his party’s approach to a ‘stimulus plan’ would make Leon Trotsky proud: ‘We should have a simple test: Will the . . . trillion-dollar spending bill really create jobs and grow the economy . . .?’ “What is socialism, if not the idea that the government should seize citizens’ wealth and control industry in the name of creating jobs and growing the economy? If the government has the political right and economic ability to conduct this ‘simple test’ with a trillion dollars of stimulus, why not just nationalize the whole economy outright, and have McConnell, Obama, and a handful of czars tell us what to do and where to spend our money? “A party that truly understood what is wrong with socialism would recognize the injustice and impossibility of central planners expropriating and dictating citizens into prosperity. It would recognize that wealth creation and economic prosperity are the result of protecting the rights of productive individuals to plan, produce, and trade on a truly free market—absent the massive government manipulation of interest rates and home-buying that brought about the current disaster. The Republicans have not earned the right to call anyone socialist—except themselves.”
### ### ###
Alex Epstein is available for interviews. To interview Alex Epstein or book him for your show, please e-mail media@aynrand.org.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
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
