Today at 1 pm eastern time on Fox News, Yaron Brook will be on Dayside to discuss the war with Iraq.
From the Fox News website:
Two members of the Ayn Rand Institute (search) have written an op-ed piece about Iraq, saying, "Fighting a compassionate war is immoral; it is costing the lives of American soldiers in Iraq and emboldening our enemies throughout the Islamic world." Elan Journo (search) and Yaron Brook (search) add, "...When in the nation's defense a President sends troops to war, morally he must resolve to soundly defeat the enemy while safeguarding our fources and citizens. But America's attention has been diverted to rebuilding Iraqi hospitals, schools, roads and sewers..."
They go on in greater detail, but that's their general theme — that we need to stop doing compassionate acts and pummel the enemy ‘til it's totally defeated. What do you think?
Yaron Brook will be on “DaySide†on Friday, and I'd like to share with him your questions/comments. E-mail them to me at: dayside@foxnews.com.
It looks like this may be the main story of the program, so check it out!
American liberals looking to hide their sense of guilt over their failed policies continue to turn to Asia in general, and China in particular as their new idealism. According to the US State Dept, Asia continues to be the destination of 20% of American tourists. As American comfort with Asia grows, leftist apologists seek to blur the distinctions between nations such as mainland China's dictatorship, and the free Republic of Taiwan. There are continued attempts in the US news media to sell the American people on the superiority of Chinese culture.
Many interpretations of Maos leadership make him sound like an American statesman that "feels the pain" of the Chinese people. Instead I would contend that he is a consummate politician...
Objectivists who understand the pscyhology of Ivy Starnes know the reasons why leftists bow before Chinese illusions of superiority. It is the attempt to turn their guilt over either their particular failure as individuals, or the obvious failures of their policies, into a superior sneer.
Certainly Asia has not made some of our particular mistakes regarding altruism, in terms of creating a welfare state culture of freeloading bums. But Asians also do not enjoy our legal freedoms or respect for individual rights. That their culture has things to offer Americans is true, but that does not automatically elevate it to a superior position as suggested by many leftist apologists.
The danger in this being that if we do get involved in a shooting war over Taiwan
..........
work in progress
I always find it interesting how Ayn Rand's critics will stop at nothing to tear down Objectivism. While surfing the web tonight, I found an interesting review for Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal on BarnesandNoble.com. The reviewer, Mark Pumphrey of Library Journal, seems to assert several points with little regard for what the book actually says or the facts of reality.
For instance, to quote Mr. Pumphrey:
Americans have seen many of the abuses come to pass that Rand, writing in 1946, claimed would never happen if free enterprise were just left to its own devices, so many of her arguments will be lost on a modern listener.
The book Mr. Pumphrey is reviewing is Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Yet he gives a publishing date of 1946, a year which would correspond to the beginnings of The Fountainhead's popularity. (For the record, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal was first published in 1966.) For a reader who is not familiar with Ayn Rand's books, Mr. Pumphrey makes it sound as if she's from a different time, and, that because of this, her ideas are irrelavent today. It's simple to believe this if you ignore the fact that she only died 23 years ago and that thousands of readers still discover her books for the first time today.
After distorting the time period in which the book was published, Mr. Pumphrey then goes on to assert that free enterprise is now, or has been since 1946, left to its own devices. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we all know, restrictions on businesses have only worsened since 1946 and they continue to worsen yet today. To point the finger at a few criminals and say they are representative of capitalism is a strong distortion at best. At least, though, Mr. Pumphrey bothers to give us an example of what he means, though.
For instance, the antitrust laws forced railroad barons to use illegal payoffs to forge ahead with expansion, and they shouldn't, therefore, be blamed the antitrust laws are the real problem [sic]
So, Mr. Pumphrey, should the railroad barons, who were doing their best to run a business and make a living, be blamed for the restrictive laws which choked their businesses and forced them to become outlaws if they wanted their business to survive? How are they at fault? Mr. Pumphrey doesn't tell us. Instead, he levies an attack against Ayn Rand's style:
Narrator Anna Field's cold, crisp voice is actually well suited to such a heartless piece as this.
Mr. Pumphrey proceeds to assert that Ayn Rand is heartless. Why is a woman who championed individual rights and the right to be happy and free heartless? He never tells his readers. He seems to believe that this will be universally understood. His review ends with this sentence.
Suprisingly, Mr. Pumphrey says he recommends the book.
Like many of Ayn Rand's other "critics," Mr. Pumphrey asserts that he has offered a reason as to why Ayn Rand is wrong. Yet, all he manages to do is assert a few arbitrary statements on the philosophy and distort the year the book in question was published. He then leaves us on a note of criticizing her character. Mr. Pumphrey does not seem to be concerned about truth or reason. Of course, that may be the entire point.
The latest death toll from Dec 24th’s tsunami in Asia is at 150,000 and rising. 400,000 thousand people have become refugees and 94,081 have been confirmed dead in Indonesia alone. (Reuters as of 1/04/05) A tragedy of this magnitude deserves our consideration, especially of two questions: why did so many die, and what can be done to minimize the destruction of such events?
Conventional explanations abound. Environmentalists blame overpopulation, deforestation, and tourist exploitation; Marxists blame the West for the poverty of poor nations; politicians claim that a lack of emergency preparedness, housing regulations, and tax funds are to blame, and that coerced charity is the fix; religionists assure us that man and science are powerless against nature, and if anything, man must now pray and sacrifice his wealth to the suffering because suffering is man’s natural state, appeal to God is the only remedy, and altruism is the moral ideal.
While there is some truth in these answers, they are all fundamentally mistaken about the significance of natural events to man’s condition. They are right in that the tsunami is a powerful natural event that neither government regulations, nor charity, nor prayer, nor even our current technology can make a dent in. They are also right in stating the poverty is the primary factor of the death toll, and that better buildings, warning systems, emergency preparedness systems, and better science can save many lives.
The errors in the conventional analysis are the claims that more state controls, sacrifices, Luddist primitivism, or acceptance is the solution. The absence of freedom and technology coupled with an altruistic moral code is in fact the very cause of the death toll.
Note the huge contrasts between the death tolls suffered at the hands of nature in primitive and industrialized societies. An earthquake in California that kills a few might kill dozens of thousands in Iran or India. A seasonal tropical typhoon in the Indian subcontinent kills hundreds or thousands while a much more powerful hurricane kills one or two in Florida. A drought-induced famine killed 1.2 million in Ethiopia, but a La Niña-induced drought in the Southeast U.S. managed to slightly raise food prices. (And a 50 year long drought in the USSR killed 30 million.) There has never been a case of mass death in a modern, industrialized society, but death by natural disasters is a yearly occasion in the rest of the world. Why is that?
It is not the lack of regulations or a lack of democratic government – countries like India and Benin are democracies and have plenty of regulations, yet their populations remain at poverty levels. Luxuries like buildings codes are neither possible nor desirable in these places: no one could afford such housing, and if states attempted to enforce them, homelessness would be the main result. Besides, who is more qualified to judge the safety of his property– the owner, or some meddling bureaucrat? All the emergency systems in the world are useless when telephones and radios are rarities.
It is not a lack of charity that caused so many to perish – and no amount of charity can cure the tribalism, religious fundamentalism, traditionalism, and xenophobia that keep the majority of the world’s population poor. In Indonesia, a helicopter carrying aid was welcomed by the arrows and spears of frightened natives who had probably never seen an aircraft. An Israeli group that shipped 70 tons of aid to Sri Lanka (more than any other country) was denied entry by its Islamic government. Shortly after the disaster, the UN was immediately on the scene to form housing camps – for its personnel, and immediately formed assessment teams to coordinate other assessment teams, while American GI’s did all the work and were blamed for their competence. Both groups are there at the American taxpayer’s expense, but even $2 billion in aid won’t replace wrecked fishing boats, flooded rice paddies, and washed out tourist hangouts – only the self-interest of the affected individuals can do that.
The only real solution to natural disasters is to allow free men to pursue their self-interest – including their regard for their own safety. Ultimately, only the creation of a wealthy, technological society can overcome the challenges of nature.