The Objective Standard Blog

The Objective Standard Blog: November 2009

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

The Source and Nature of Rights, Part II

Posted by TOS Admin at 10:39 AM

Part two of Craig Biddle’s six-hour seminar, The Source and Nature of Rights, given at Universidad Francisco Marroquín in October, has been posted to UFM’s website and is accessible for free. In this section, Mr. Biddle begins presenting the principles of Ayn Rand’s ethics that give rise to her theory of rights.

Labels: , ,

Capitalism: The Only Moral Social System

Posted by TOS Admin at 12:34 AM

Craig Biddle’s talk Capitalism: The Only Moral Social System, given at Universidad Francisco Marroquín on October 28, has been posted to UFM’s website and is accessible for free. Enjoy!

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Don't Say Grace, Say Justice

Posted by Craig Biddle at 6:42 PM

The religious tradition of saying grace before meals becomes especially popular around the holidays, when we all are reminded of how fortunate we are to have an abundance of life-sustaining goods and services at our disposal. But there is a grave injustice involved in this tradition. It is the injustice of thanking an alleged God for the productive accomplishments of actual men.

Where do the ideas, principles, constitutions, governments, and laws that protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness come from? What is the source of the meals, medicines, homes, automobiles, and fighter jets that keep us alive and enable us to flourish? Who is responsible for our freedom, prosperity, and well-being?

Is freedom a gift from God? It is not. Freedom, the absence of physical coercion, is a political condition resulting from the rational, principled thought and action of men—men such as Aristotle, John Locke, the Founding Fathers, Frederick Douglass, and American soldiers.

Did God make the ambrosia that melts in your mouth, or the asthma medicine that keeps your child alive, or the plush recliner in which you relax, or the big-screen TV on which you watch your favorite show? Did God create the jetliners that bring friends and family from afar, or the stealth bombers that keep the barbarians at bay, or the music that warms your heart and fuels your soul?

Since God is responsible for none of the goods on which human life and happiness depend, why thank him for any such goods? More to the point: Why not thank those who actually are responsible for them? What would a just man do?

Justice is the virtue of judging people rationally—according to what they say, do, and produce—and treating them accordingly, granting to each man that which he deserves. If someone spends the day preparing a wonderful meal, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for doing so. If someone provides his family with a warm, safe, comfortable home, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked for providing it. If a policeman or fireman or doctor saves someone’s life, justice demands that he, not God, be thanked. If a loving spouse or child or parent or friend provides you with great joy, justice demands that he, not God, be acknowledged accordingly. If a philosopher discovers the principles on which freedom depends—and if others put those principles into practice—justice demands that they, not God, be given credit.

To say grace is to give credit where none is due—and, worse, it is to withhold credit where it is due. To say grace is to commit an act of injustice.

Rational, productive people—whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself—are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend. This holiday season—and from now on—don’t say grace; say justice. Thank or acknowledge the people who actually provide the goods. Some of them may be sitting right there at the table with you. And if you find yourself at a table where people insist on saying grace, politely insist on saying justice when they’re through. It’s the right thing to do.

Labels: , , , , ,

Bob McDonnell on Liquor Stores: Right Direction, Wrong Reason

Posted by Michelle Minton at 2:48 PM

According to a recent article in the Washington Post, newly elected governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell submitted a proposal to privatize state-run liquor stores. While we should applaud McDonnell’s push toward privatization, we should condemn his reason for the push as wrong.

In Virginia the only place one can purchase hard liquor is at a store owned and managed by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (the ABC), which severely limits the number of stores and the variety of beverages they carry. Nearby DC, though saddled with its own regulations, has more liquor stores serving a greater variety of beverages at lower prices; thus many residents of VA cross into DC and purchase their adult beverages there. This, of course, results in diminished revenue for the VA government, and this is why McDonnell and company want to privatize the state-run liquor stores. The government can reap greater revenue, they argue, by selling the state-run stores through a public auction, eliminating the cost of managing the stores, while increasing competition with neighboring states and thus increasing tax revenue.  

McDonnell is right that privatizing the liquor stores will result in greater profits for stores, more variety for consumers, and increased tax revenue for the state, but this is not the reason that liquor sales should be privatized. They should be privatized because of individual rights.

When the government forbids a store from selling liquor, the government thereby violates the store owner’s rights to liberty (freedom to act on one’s judgment) and property (freedom to use and dispose of one’s property as one sees fit). The proper role of government is not to manipulate markets or increase tax revenue, but to protect citizens’ rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The government has no moral right to regulate the sale of liquor.

Virginians should demand a free market in the liquor industry for the same reason they should demand a free market in all industries: because individuals and businesses have a moral right to produce and trade according to their own judgment, free from interference by the government.

Labels: ,

Saturday, November 14, 2009

The Source and Nature of Rights, Part I

Posted by TOS Admin at 8:41 PM

The video of part one of Craig Biddle’s six-hour seminar, The Source and Nature of Rights, has been posted to the website of Universidad Francisco Marroquín. In this first hour, Mr. Biddle surveys common theories of rights—from God-given rights to man-made rights to so-called “natural” rights—and explains why each fails to ground rights in reality. In part two, which has yet to be posted, he begins his presentation of Ayn Rand’s theory of rights.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Lin Gilbert's Rationing Story

Posted by Paul Hsieh at 1:02 PM

Canadian Lin Gilbert tells of the wait she endured for over two years for her MRI and spine surgery, and the toll it took on her life:

In Canada, health care is never truly a "right". She was repeatedly told that she hadn't suffered for long enough to receive the surgery she needed, and that older patients were ahead of her on the waiting list.

Do Americans really want this kind of medical system?

(Via Instapundit.)

Reposted from We Stand FIRM

Labels: ,

The Objectivist Club Network's Mentoring Program

Posted by Craig Biddle at 12:52 AM

Here's a note from Matt Gerber of The Objectivist Club Network:

The Objectivist Club Network is launching a new program: providing guidance and assistance to individuals who want to start a new Objectivist community club. There are dozens of community groups currently in existence, many of them are incredibly vibrant and having a noticeable impact on their community at large. OCN has learned a lot about how to start and run a successful Objectivist club; we want to apply this knowledge to help in starting new community clubs.

If you want to start a club or if you know fellow Objectivists who have expressed intent to do so, please visit or have them visit http://www.oclubs.org/mentor-community/

We are going to select a few individuals to participate in our structured mentor program to help them build a successful club in their area. This is a limited trial of our new community mentor program before we do a wider roll out. Applicants must have a good grasp of Objectivism, be passionate about the philosophy and its application to daily living, be able to motivate like-minded individuals towards building a community group, and understand how to delegate responsibilities.

If anyone has any questions please don't hesitate to contact me!

Best,

Matt
mattgerber@oclubs.org

P.S. The Objectivist Club Network (OCN) is an organization dedicated to helping all Objectivist Campus and Community Clubs. OCN is not affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute, although we support it and its programs, and we regularly communicate with ARI to ensure our respective organizations are not duplicating efforts.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The Berlin Wall and the Meaning of its Fall

Posted by Craig Biddle at 2:03 PM

Here’s a superb 2-part discussion by Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate about the history of the Berlin Wall and the significance of its fall.

Labels: , ,

Monday, November 09, 2009

The Day Communism Crumbled: Remembering the Fall of the Berlin Wall

Posted by Craig Biddle at 3:21 PM

Here’s a great discussion with Yaron Brook and Terry Jones on PJTV about the fall of the Berlin Wall. (Free registration may be required.)

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=2681

Labels: ,

20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall

Posted by Craig Biddle at 2:37 PM

Here’s a nicely done video by the folks at CEI commemorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall (HT Michelle Minton):

Labels: ,

Friday, November 06, 2009

The Best Option For The Public

Posted by Paul Hsieh at 3:42 PM

In the November 4, 2009 Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby outlines the best option for the public. (Hint -- it's not the "public option".)

From his article, "An option for public: less government, more choice":

A government-run health insurer would radically tilt the health-insurance playing field. It would amount to a new entitlement program, able to undercut the price of private insurance by squeezing hospitals and doctors, reimbursing them at below-market rates. "Just like Medicaid and Medicare," which also underpay medical providers, the public option would force hospitals and doctors to charge private insurers more. Insurers would be compelled to raise their premiums, eventually losing millions of customers to the government plan.

Obama insists that any public option would have to be self-supporting, properly balancing its premiums and risk and not expecting the government to cover its losses. Sound familiar? The same assurances were made about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Instead, he recommends the following free-market reforms:

* Tear down the barriers to buying insurance across state lines
* Repeal mandatory benefits that make health insurance needlessly expensive
* De-link health insurance from employment

(Read the full text of "An option for public: less government, more choice".)

These are all excellent ideas. Let's hope our politicians are listening!

Reposted from We Stand FIRM

Labels: ,

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Praying Won't Make It So

Posted by Stella Daily Zawistowski at 1:03 PM

I'm a second-year student in the Objectivist Academic Center, and the class is currently working through the difference between the metaphysically given (such as the law of gravity) and the man-made (such as traffic laws). The man-made is the result of choice, and as such is subject to praise or criticism. The metaphysically given simply is what it is, and all the whining, crying, and pleading we do will not change it. Neither will praying.

What's this got to do with health? According to the Los Angeles Times, religious Congressmen have slipped into the healthcare "reform" proposal a provision that insurers be required to pay for "religious and spiritual healthcare," including "prayer treatments" offered by Christian Scientists.

If an individual believes he can deny the metaphysically given, that by praying or paying someone else to pray for him, he can kill the cancer cells growing in his body, or heal a broken bone, that is his problem. He should be left to his own devices. He can go ahead and waste his money on "treatments" that do nothing—that can do nothing. As long as he spends his own money or money given to him voluntarily, he violates no one else's rights, and he will be the only victim of his own poor decision.

But this law would force insurers to act against their own judgment, so that some individuals can indulge their fantasies that their own wishes and prayers can change nature. Any insurer willing to examine the facts of reality—and it had better examine them, if it wants to stay in business— would eliminate coverage of such "treatments," knowing that they would never produce any value in return for the money paid for them. The "religious and spiritual healthcare" provision would force insurers to act against their rational judgment and pay for these services, and it would force those of us who know the difference between the metaphysically given and the man-made to pay for them, since insurers would have to distribute the cost of "prayer treatments" across all customers.

It doesn't seem like a big issue—after all, "prayer treatments" cost an awful lot less than MRIs. But it's an illustrative one. There is no benefit—not "prayer treatments," not in vitro fertilization, not autism therapy, not even heart transplants—that justifies the violation of the rights of insurers to offer coverage on whatever terms they choose, nor the violation of the rights of consumers to purchase the coverage that best suits their personal needs. And that's why a mandate is so evil—it turns decision-making about insurance from a voluntary exchange between insurer and insured into a dictate from bureaucrats and whatever special interest of the month is calling. That insurance mandates are evil is something all the prayer in the world won't change.

Reposted from ReasonPharm

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

'Atlas Shrugged' Survey Delivers Surprising Results

Posted by ARI Media at 6:14 PM

A recent Zogby national online survey indicates that 24.8 percent of the 2,232 respondents have read Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”

When asked why they chose to read “Atlas Shrugged,” 37.6 percent of respondents in the online survey said it was recommended by a friend or colleague, 18.4 percent had it assigned or recommended in school, 9.9 percent read or heard about it in a print/Internet article or radio/TV program, 8.4 percent saw it in a library, and 1.9 percent noticed it in a bookstore.

The survey also indicated that 19.8 percent of respondents have read Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead,” 6.9 percent “Anthem,” 4 percent “We the Living,” and 3 percent “The Virtue of Selfishness.”

In the past two years, national telephone surveys of about 1,100 people have indicated that 8.1 percent of respondents had read “Atlas Shrugged.” The latest online survey was randomly drawn from a pool of several hundred thousand people while the telephone surveys were drawn at random from larger lists of people who own telephones.

Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

Monday, November 02, 2009

Debate: 'Is Government Intervention in the Free Market Moral?'

Posted by John David Lewis at 1:15 AM

This Wednesday, November 4, I will debate UNC Adjunct Professor of Economics Ralph Byrns on the question: "Is Government Intervention in the Free Market Moral?"

When: Wednesday, November 4, 7:00 PM

Where: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Murphey 116

Website:  http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=178947119387&ref=ts

Labels: , , , ,