Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Here's one for the "Great But Overdue" file: The Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship has a beautiful new web site at www.anthemfoundation.org. For those of you unfamiliar with that excellent organization, their mission reads:

The Anthem Foundation provides grants for the benefit of academic professionals engaged in serious, scholarly work based on the philosophy and writings of Ayn Rand, and provides resources to others in academia interested in understanding her ideas.

They have done -- and continue to do -- great work. If you'd like to support their efforts, you can do so here.

A Different Kind of Christmas Card

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Objectivist graphic designer John Powers has created these terrific "alternate Christmas cards":



From the website:

Isaac Newton Christmas Cards

Celebrate reason and science on December 25th, instead of the same old bearded mystic!

I like to send Christmas cards, but as an atheist, I have had to limit myself to the hundreds of bland cards that neutrally say "Happy Holidays." I decided that if it's okay for (almost) everyone else to stamp, seal, and deliver their philosophy to me every Christmas, I'll do just the same.

Sir Isaac Newton's ideas helped to rescue mankind from drudgery and propel it into the space age. I am a lover of reason, and I love it unashamedly, and I want my friends to know it too. They will this Christmas. Yours can, too.

Details

Outside: "On December 25th, a Savior was born. He revealed eternal Truth, bringing Joy to millions. He astonished the world with His command over Nature. He changed history forever."

Inside: "Happy Birthday, Sir Isaac Newton. December 25, 1642 - March 20, 1726".

Web site and greeting card designs are copyright © 2008 John Powers.

(John also did free web design for the FIRM site.)

Happy Thanksgiving!

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Happy Thanksgiving, One and All!

As always, I'm most thankful for my husband Paul. He's a great man, and he's my man. And life is so very good with him.

This year, I'm also particularly thankful for the company of my loyal but aged dog Kate. She's likely to have surgery next week to remove a large fatty tumor recently discovered in her abdomen. It might be malignant, but we hope it's benign. Whatever it is, we hope that it can be removed safely, so that we can enjoy some more time on this earth with her doggie perfection.

What are you thankful for?

Those to Whom I Would Like to Offer My Thanks

By Scott Powell from Powell History Recommends,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Humor Me

By noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

As a change of pace, I would like to respond to or rebut some reader comments made about a trio of movies mentioned in “A Mess of Pottage” (November 24) on the Rule of Reason site, particularly about The Manchurian Candidate and His Girl Friday. President-elect Barack Obama and his plan to expand FDR’s welfare state programs, together with the looming threats of Islam, Russia and other predators, including Congress, are not going away any time soon, so there will be plenty of time and opportunity to discuss them in the future.

Some readers agreed with my very brief endorsement of The Manchurian Candidate. It is a very serious, revealing, and compelling drama. But, believe it or not, some critics treated it as a comedy or satire! I can only surmise that these critics’ intention was to deny the seriousness of the story and infect the minds of anyone who saw it soon after its release. Virtually the sole humor in it is expressed by one of the villains, Yen Lo (played by Khigh Dhiegh), the apparent mastermind behind the Sino-Soviet plot to install a president in the White House who could help facilitate the Communist conquest of the United States. This humor attacks the U.S. and Lo’s immediate victims, and is not funny. But, in the context of the story, Lo’s humor plays a legitimate role. It underscores his and his co-conspirators’ evil, much as Ellsworth Toohey’s humor underscores his evil in Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead.

My only reservation about the film is that it credits evil men with too much intelligence or with a species of omniscience, that is, with a capacity for successful long-range planning or with the ability to make the unreal appear to be real. Recall, for example, those notoriously failed Five-Year Plans, and our own government’s actions to “fine-tune” or “manage” the economy, a policy failure which it refuses to acknowledge and which Obama plans to exacerbate with his own Lenin-esque New Economic Policy.

It seems that two readers of the “Pottage” commentary have based their objections to the humor in His Girl Friday on what very little Rand wrote or spoke about humor. While she addressed or identified some fundamentals concerning humor, I do not think she exhausted the subject, perhaps having had little time or interest to devote to it. She did remark, however, that

“Humor is a metaphysical negation. We regard as funny that which contradicts reality: the incongruous and the grotesque.”*

And,

“What you find funny depends on what you want to negate. It is proper to laugh at evil (the literary form of which is satire) or at the negligible. But to laugh at the good is vicious.”**

Rand wrote what I would say were general guidelines to humor, and sketched out the parameters of what is legitimate and vicious humor. There may be in the Rand archives at ARI as-yet unpublished material on the subject. I am reminded of the plot of The Name of the Rose (1986), set in a medieval monastery about a lost book or treatise by Aristotle on comedy (with Sean Connery as the detective monk).

Some comedies are funny, other comedies not so funny, and still others not funny at all. His Girl Friday (1940) is uproariously funny. It does not rely on sight gags or humor as crude as that of The Three Stooges or even of the Marx Brothers. Its humor is just a shade above subtle, and pokes fun at the metaphysically negligible, such as Rosalind Russell’s fiancé and the Mayor and his lackey sheriff. This was the second film version of the 1931 production, and far superior to it. It was based on the play co-written by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur (1928), who also collaborated on the screenplay of another “screwball” comedy, Twentieth Century (1934), and on three non-comedic dramas: Spellbound (1945), Notorious (1946), and Gunga Din (1939).

The central story line of His Girl Friday is the hilariously unscrupulous campaign waged by Walter Burns (Cary Grant), the editor-in-chief, to keep his best reporter, Hildy Johnson (Russell), from leaving his newspaper and his life. (In the original play and first film version, Hildy was a male role, and no romantic relationship between Burns and Hildy was suggested or insinuated). Burns entertains no dichotomy between his paper and Hildy; they are one and the same, and he is in love with them both. Of course, all the actions Burns takes to keep Hildy are exaggerations of actions that could be taken in real life: setting up Hildy’s insurance salesman fiancé for several falls, beating other newspapers to a breaking story, getting the goods on a pompous, two-faced politician and his cronies.

As for Hildy, she is tempted to leave the career of a “newspaperman” (that’s what she calls herself) for the sedate existence of a housewife (“…and in Albany, too,” Burns kids her), and possibly because her romance with Burns hasn‘t progressed beyond chasing the news together and the occasional bedroom fling.

Burns and Hildy are divorced, but the divorce isn’t working (now, that’s funny). Burns knows Hildy better than Hildy knows herself, and it doesn’t take long for him to convince her that Bruce Baldwin (played wonderfully down to the meanest mannerism by Ralph Bellamy) is not the man for her and that the conventional life Bruce promises her would be suffocatingly dull.

Burns succeeds in keeping Hildy. She is a value to him. That makes him, if not the hero of an epic, then the hero of a satire on newspapers. “Screwball” comedy like His Girl Friday is not supposed to be taken seriously. It is a kind of dessert to be enjoyed after a main course. Both Rule of Reason commentators implied that since the film did not adhere to the defining attributes of an epic or serious drama, then it couldn’t be good. No one is supposed to take seriously the bête noire of the story, the pathetically meek and unstable Earl Williams, scheduled to be executed for shooting a policeman but whose timely pardon by the governor is suppressed by the corrupt mayor. He escapes in the most ludicrous circumstances and winds up hiding in a roll-top desk. Another commentator asked,

“How can you laugh at a woman convincing a murderer that it isn’t his fault that he used a gun to kill a man because, after all, the purpose of a gun is to kill?”

In this instance, one can’t. Hildy, in the prison interview scene, isn’t trying to convince Williams that it wasn’t his fault; she is simply probing the mind of a lunatic to find a context in which to write her story, and in the bargain mocking Marxist economics (production for use, not for profit, etc.). And, one doesn’t laugh at Hildy; one merely appreciates her sense of a news story and the lengths to which she will pursue it. So, one laughs with her as she pursues it, such as when she literally tackles the bailiff who can grant her the prison interview with Earl Williams.

What is also humorous is Hildy’s futile efforts to combat Walter Burns’ constant scheming to stymie her impending marriage to Bruce Baldwin. She is foiled by him everywhere she turns. By the film’s end, she is furiously pounding out the story on her typewriter, taking her cues from Walter Burns, while Bruce is on the far periphery of her consciousness, contradictory to her character and rendered negligible. She is at home, and Walter Burns has won.

His Girl Friday is one of my favorite comedies. Each line of dialogue in it feeds the next at a nonstop pace; it is the dialogue that establishes the context for the action, instead of the other way around, which is the standard practice in most comedy. It is from this and other films (not all comedies, of course, not to mention plays and novels) that I learned how to craft dialogue for my own stories.

Rand wrote,

“Good natured, charming humor is never directed at a value, but always at the undesirable or negligible. It has the result of confirming values; if you laugh at the contradictory or pretentious, you are in that act confirming the real or valuable.”***

That statement can apply to much of what could be called benevolent comedy. A comedy can feature admirable, eccentric, or likeable characters caught in preposterous or absurd situations. American instances of this in film are Bringing Up Baby (1938), The Philadelphia Story (1940), Ball of Fire (1941), and Born Yesterday (1950). British instances are The Importance of Being Earnest (1952), The Lavender Hill Mob (1951), and The Man in the White Suit (1952). There are many more instances of this level of comedy in film, too numerous to mention here.

Humor -- the benevolent, non-vicious kind, at least -- also is highly contextual. Someone who might enjoy the television series Fawlty Towers may be left cold by My Name is Earl; conversely, someone whose measure of good comedy is The King of Queens may be unmoved by P.G. Wodehouse Theatre. The context and what enjoyment one derives from any of these television series, or any comedy, both depend on one’s sense of life: Is it benevolent and rational, or malevolent and eclectically chaotic?

Does a person need a laugh track to prompt him that something funny has happened or has been said? Should a comedy require a person’s full focus to detect, appreciate or evaluate its humor, or should it patronize his mental passivity? Does one enjoy seeing a good character get his “comeuppance,” or a bad character his? Is one willing to suspend belief in order to enjoy a light-hearted, benevolent comedy, or should one emulate the Classicists, and approach it in a second-hand, doctrinaire frame of mind?

If Aristotle truly wrote a treatise on comedy as a companion or supplement to his Poetics, these and other questions might have been answered. Except for plot, characterization, and resolution, the requisites for great drama are not all applicable to comedy. Drama is the broader literary form and subsumes all the criteria necessary for good comedy. Some of the greatest literature also includes unparalleled humor.

What did not amuse Queen Victoria might have amused me.


*Chapter 11, ”Special Forms of Literature,” in Ayn Rand -- The Art of Fiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers, edited by Tore Boeckmann, Plume softcover, 2000, p. 165.
**Ibid, p. 166
***Ibid, p. 166

PRODUCTIVE MAGAZINE AND NOZBE

By Martin Lindeskog from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I need to follow Nozbe's 10 steps to productivity. First I have to clear my desk and "clear" my head. I will take some time this Thanksgiving weekend to go through paper stuff. I have promised myself to get a fresh start in 2009, cleaning out my email inbox, sort my papers by setting up the "right buckets" and then stick to a "getting things done" system. I got inspired by quickly browse through the first issue (November) of the Productive! Magazine.

I have to check if I could start to synchronize my mobile phone with my computer and then doing a test with a web-based productivity system called Nozbe and add it to the email program and Netvibes start page.



Mashable has compiled a list of 40 great resources for making lists.

I must say that I like "low tech" tools like my Field Notes memo book for taking notes. I wonder if it could be a good idea to get some kind of digital voice record (dictation machine) for my "notes to self" popping up. [Editor's comment: Have you used any mind mapping program?]



I have ordered the book, The Now Habit: A Strategic Program for Overcoming Procrastination and Enjoying Guilt-Free Play.

Sowell on Economics?

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A question: Are Thomas Sowell's books worth reading? I'm particularly interested in his books on economics, namely Basic Economics, Applied Economics, and Economic Facts and Fallacies. I don't need these books to be philosophically perfect, but I'd like them to be good and clear on the economics.

I'm skeptical because I read his book Marxism: Philosophy and Economics some years ago. Although I read it carefully, I learned absolutely nothing from it. It was just a long string of floating abstractions that illuminated nothing. So I'm reluctant to try again, but I'd like to read some economics -- or rather listen, and he seems to be the only potentially decent author available on Audible.

So what say you?

Some reflections on leadership

By David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Yesterday I read Clay Shirky’s essay “A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy” from Joel Spolsky’s book “The Best Software Writing I.” Clay makes some great observations on group dynamics, but that’s not my point.

What struck me is how utterly useless the leadership training seminars I’ve attended were. I learned more from a single essay than a lifetime of worthless and sometimes counter-productive seminars. From the Boy Scouts to assorted honor societies, to leadership training events in college, nowhere did I learn the basics of conflict resolution, group psychology, rule-making heuristics, and project management. Typical leadership training usually consists of variations of “trust” exercises - as if trusting people actually makes them trustworthy. (Teaching people to trust others blindly actually results in leaders too jaded by failure to trust others or to train them to rise to the occasion.)

I think the problem may be that that leadership is treated as an intuitive/emotional process that must be learned by repetition and inspiration rather than a scientific analysis of the principles of group dynamics. The worst school is the one that views talent as genetic, as it conspires to actively prevent improvement through study and hard work.

I’ve never thought of myself as a great leader, but I’ve learned some basic principles of leadership and group dynamics through trial and error:

• Don’t expect order to arise naturally or try to organize roles anew for each effort: effective groups have commonly understood and accepted roles (officers) and procedures (Robert’s Rules of Order, etc)
• Delegate responsibility whenever possible, but monitor progress and reassign as necessary (”trust, but verify”)
• Besides carrying out the group’s goals, training a replacement should be a leader’s #1 job.
• Never make enemies by accident. Attempt to resolve disputes privately first, and failing that, diplomatically. Beware of interpersonal conflicts and sexual (”macho”) dynamics masquerading as ideological differences.
• Avoid making enemies, or dwelling on the competition. Burning effigies will build group identity, but will destroy objectivity and shift resources and the agenda away from the group’s original purpose. (An especially common mistake is to make enemies of ex-members, as they are often the most capable of inflicting harm.)
• Standards for membership should be strict and explicit enough to exclude anyone who does not share the group’s goals or values. Any stricter or vaguer, and they will be hijacked to exclude people due to interpersonal conflicts.
• Make yourself available for private feedback (initiating it yourself if necessary) and take suggestions seriously.
• Lead by example. This one they do teach, but rarely do they explain the implication: A leader must work harder and with more dedication than than anyone else, because members judge their contribution by the most visible member. If you ask someone to scrub the toilets, you better show how to clean one spotless first.

Nationalization Is Theft

By Thomas A. Bowden from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Nationalization Is Theft
November 25, 2008

Washington, D.C.--A huge Venezuelan gold project known as Las Cristinas is the latest victim of dictator Hugo Chavez’s long-running socialist power grab. “This mine will be seized and managed by a state administration” with help from the Russians, said Mining Minister Rodolfo Sanz. Rights to the mine had been purchased by a Canadian company, Crystallex International Corporation.

“It’s not surprising that brutes like Chavez grab gold, oil, and other resources from the companies that discover and mine them,” said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “What’s more puzzling is the lack of moral indignation at a system that condones the theft of private property.

“Ownership of natural resources belongs by right to the companies whose entrepreneurs, engineers, and drillers transform hidden potential into actual wealth. Government’s role is to protect those owners’ rights, not violate them.

“Just as a bodyguard’s task is protecting clients from physical attacks, a government’s function is safeguarding people and property against criminals and foreign invaders. A bodyguard who claimed to own his client’s house, cars, and jewelry would be immediately fired. Yet governments continue to claim a moral right to all natural resources within their borders, as if ownership could be conjured from the barrel of a gun.

“Power-grasping dictators like Venezuela’s Chavez and Russia’s Putin assert moral authority to treat foreign investors the way they treat their own citizens--as cattle to be herded, milked, or slaughtered for society’s sake. But nationalization, stripped of all rationalization, is naked theft. A blow for justice will be struck by the first public figure to denounce it as such.”

########

 

Ending Piracy Should be a U.S. Government Priority

By Yaron Brook from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Ending Piracy Should be a U.S. Government Priority
November 24, 2008

Washington, D.C.-- “It is unbelievable that one of the top news stories, today in the 21st century, is that pirates are seizing ships, cargo and people off the high seas,” said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

“The Gulf of Aden is a major international shipping route. The Somali pirates are snatching cargo destined for all corners of the globe. To the extent that American commercial interests are being impacted, the U.S. government should immediately and decisively secure the shipping route by whatever military means necessary. Why have a navy if not to safeguard the rights of Americans to participate in and benefit from trade on the high seas?

“The American government should act swiftly: the ransom money collected by the pirates is at least in part being filtered to Islamic totalitarian groups, which have openly declared ‘Death to America.’ Our failure to act is providing additional strength to our known enemies.”

 

Where will this come from?

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The Troubled Asset Relief Program, is, at $700 billion, the largest such outlay in history by the Federal government, but it is hardly the full dollar cost of the current financial crisis. Also passed in 2008 were the $30 billion Bear Stearns, the $150 billion American International Group, and the $200 billion Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailouts. This is nearly $1 trillion in bailouts for 2008 alone. In addition, the Federal Reserve may have already lent (as of last Friday) another $2 trillion on an emergency basis to prop up the economy, over half of that in the seven weeks following a relaxation of collateral standards on September 14.

And, by now, we should all know that "loan" is all but a government code-word for "present-day wealth transfer to the unproductive, to be paid for by future productivity on the part of other members of society". Via Matt Drudge, there is news this morning that the Democrats are mulling an additional $700 billion "stimulus" package and the Fed "pledges" -- our words are becoming as inflated as our currency eventually will be -- have topped $7.4 trillion!

So, using the financial crisis as an excuse, the federal government has definitely saddled us with about $1 trillion, may soon definitely saddle us with another $700 billion, and there is (for the moment) a $7.4 trillion ceiling on any loans made by the Fed that turn out to be bad.

The United States is home to roughly 300 million people. Every $1 trillion is thus about $3,000 for every man, woman, child, and infant alive today. About half are working age. (For the sake of argument, we'll pretend that all are privately-employed and all people at this age actually work.) The government can raise this money only by means of force, which is to say, by taxation, inflation, or otherwise confiscating private property.

If you work, you have thus already taken out a loan (in the form of "bailout" packages) for about $6,000 to hand over to complete strangers -- well, not complete strangers: you do know that they're spendthrifts -- and you may be on the hook for as much as another $48,000 (in "pledges", as of today), courtesy of Uncle Sam.

You didn't want to take out a loan or can't afford to? Tough nuts. The government does not care about what you think, except possibly at election time. Your loan is just a small part of the price anyone who has ever felt entitled to government favors or supported government welfare of any kind has accepted (knowingly or not) and is forcing on those of us who do not.

This is precisely the opposite of what the government should be doing.

The time to start working to end this sorry state of affairs is now. My recommendation is to support those who are working long-term to improve our choices at the ballot box by making better bosses of the people who choose our elected officials.

The notion that we exist to serve others and that, therefore the government ought to use us to insulate others from their mistakes or irresponsibility is a philosophical error, and cannot be corrected unless more people become aware of better philosophical ideas and how to apply them. Only then will there be enough voters to cause politicians to take seriously the idea that they should be protecting us from thieves rather than joining them.

-- CAV

Absent a Moral Defense of Capitalism

By Gina Liggett from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

On a Nov. 20th NPR radio interview, David Wessel, Pulitzer-prize-winning Economics Editor of the Wall Street Journal sounded rather optimistic. Despite calling our present economy "as fragile as at anytime since Roosevelt took over," he predicted that the Obama team would get right to work even before inauguration to hold off another Great Depression.

He said the challenge for Obama will be basically threefold: 1. like Roosevelt during the Depression, Obama will have to reassure the American people, that is "make us feel better," by whom he appoints and how he describes the economic situation; 2. put together a huge fiscal stimulus package consisting of tax cuts and increase in government spending; and 3. deal directly with the housing crisis by helping people whose mortgages are worth more than the value of their home.

He summed up his personal reaction to the economic crisis by saying he was "quite impressed by the diligence of the people in the government who are charged with this and how creative they've been and inventive in trying to respond to it."

In an October panel discussion at his alma mater Haverford College he explained the causes of the present crisis -- that complicated interplay of Federal Reserve interest rates, the across-the-spectrum failure of economic checks and balances by rating agencies and regulators, the "democratization of credit" for homeownership, the "morally criminal" predatory lending practices, faulty assumptions about ever-increasing housing prices and unsecured lending by investment banks, and the under-appreciated connection between the housing market and banking system.

He then describes the timeline of the government's reaction to each emerging crisis: a huge Fed rate cut in January, the historic loan to Bear Stearns (a non-Federal Reserve bank), the quick and efficient nationalization of Freddie and Fannie, Treasury Secretary Paulson's sweeping authority granted by Congress, the $700 billion bailout legislated by Congress in a 400-page bill, Barney Frank, Democrat chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, being unable to refute the argument that "if you help Wall Street, why can't you help Main Street," and the spill-over protectionist reaction by central governments in Europe and Asia.

Mr. Wessel's comment about the historic economic crisis: "I don't think this was a problem caused by government, but government permitted it to happen."

Despite a couple of disparaging remarks Mr. Wessel made about businessmen and choosing a career on Wall Street, maybe I can't explain Mr. Wessel's reaction to the crisis on the fact that he's worked his entire career as a journalist and never as a businessman who has had to meet payroll, answer to shareholders, negotiate with unions, comply with regulations, pay ever-rising costs of employee health care, pay taxes, pay Worker's Compensation taxes, hold the line on production costs, etc. etc. ... and still survive.

I also can't necessarily explain it by the fact that the college economics department co-sponsored the talk with the college's Center for Peace and Global Citizenship, which:

"...exists to expose all members of the Haverford community, but especially students, to the key global issues of the day so that they can better equip themselves to help solve these problems after they leave Haverford's campus. In this regard, the CPGC is one of the most visible examples of the College's Quaker ethos, grounded in testimonies of peace, lives of service, and a concern for the world at large." (emphasis mine)

Regardless, what I can say is that one of society's best-recognized experts on the American economy makes absolutely no defense of capitalism in anyway whatsoever. He not only credits government in "creatively" tackling the crisis, he tacitly accepts the premise that government bureaucrats, regulators and legislators should play a fundamental and sweeping role in managing the economy. Furthermore, he flagrantly denies that government is the problem.

Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute , has spoken a lot about the economic crisis lately. He correctly explains that if capitalism is to survive, it needs moral sanction to counter the altruist ethics that infects our society today. As Objectivists know, Ayn Rand provided that philosophic moral justification for the total separation of state and economics: the morality of rational egoism.

We have a separation of church and state that is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, and yet we still are fighting tooth-and-nail against the Religious Right to uphold it.

And we don't even have that much of an explicit defense of capitalism. How then is capitalism to survive in an environment when leading knowledgeable and educated intellectuals like Wessel can look the facts straight in the eye, and be blind to the conclusions?

As Dr. Brook states in his talks, obviously the fact about capitalism's success is simply not enough; the fact that government interference in the economy wrecks havoc is simply not enough. We must make the moral argument that laissez-faire capitalism is not only practical, it is morally right.

The Barbary Wars and the Lessons from History

By noreply@blogger.com (Doug) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The recent hijacking of a crude oil tanker by Somali pirates [1] raises important issues in foreign policy. Historian and best-selling author Michael Oren [2] as well as my friend and fellow Objectivist Ole Martin Moen [3] have drawn parallels between these recent pirate attacks and the attacks by the ruthless Barbary pirates at the turn of the nineteenth century. Given this renewed interest, I wanted to share some of my thoughts on the Barbary Wars that I gathered from reading Frank Lambert’s The Barbary Wars: American Independence in the Atlantic World as well as from Michael Oren’s Power, Faith and Fantasy: The United States in the Middle East: 1776 - Present.

I think the Barbary Wars are an excellent case study in what a proper foreign policy ought to be. To quickly overview the conflicts, the Barbary Wars were two wars fought between the United States of America and three of the Barbary States (i.e., Algiers, Tunisia and Tripoli) in the early 19th century. The first Barbary war was fought in 1801-1805 and the second Barbary war was fought during 1815. The sources of conflict is that the pirates would routinely hijack merchant vessels in the Mediterranean Sea to demand both ransom for the captured sailors as well as tribute for use of the waters.

Both Barbary Wars are often touted by conservatives as an excellent example of how to combat to state-sponsored terrorism. However, I suspect it is a mistake to label the first Barbary War as a full success. The most obvious question to ask is, if the handling of the first Barbary War was so ideal, why did Algerian pirates resume abducting U.S. sailors in 1807? Moreover, why did the war essentially resume in 1815? I suspect the reason, is that the United States failed to achieve a decisive military victory, the negotiated peace was premature and the approach to settling the conflict was unprincipled.

Consider the negotiated settlement at the end of the first Barbary War. Before the conflict ended, the Tripolitan pirates originally demanded $200,000 for captured U.S. sailors as well as tribute for using the Mediterranean seas. However, instead of paying the full $200,000, U.S. diplomat Tobias Lear talked the Tripolitan leadership down to letting the U.S. pay them $60,000. Lear rationalized the payment by claiming that it was for ransom but not for tribute and President Jefferson applauded these negotiations [4]. I cannot think of a worse example of Pragmatism in foreign policy. Furthermore, this treaty also did not demand the relinquishment of all U.S. property captured through piracy or financial restitution for the past crimes of the pirates.

This settlement is especially outrageous since the U.S. had two major points of leverage against the Bashaw of Tripoli. First, the U.S. recently gained occupational control of the Tripolitan city of Derna, thanks to William Eaton’s heroic 500 mile march through the Libyan desert. Second, the U.S. had the military might to remove the current Bashaw Yusuf Karamanli from power and replace him with the exiled ex-bashaw Hamet Karamanli, who was fighting with the U.S. during the war. (As a side note, this might not have been a wise decision, but I merely wish to argue that it is a point of leverage.)

The second Barbary War seems to be a much better example of how to properly negotiate peace at the end of a conflict. Unlike the treaties at the end of the first conflict, which was negotiated, the terms of this treaty were essentially dictated by war hero Stephen Decatur. Moreover, Decatur demanded [5]:

* All future vessels bearing a U.S. flag are to pass unmolested throughout the Mediterranean without tribute. (this is also stated in the first treaty.)

* Tunisia pay $60,000 in restitution to the U.S. for two captured vessels and an indemnity of $30,000 from Tripoli for a ship captured in the previous war.

* All captured U.S. sailors be released without a single cent of ransom. With regards to Tripoli, Decatur also demanded that all European prisoners be released. (I am presently unclear if Decatur made a similar demand towards Tunisia and Algiers.)

* The U.S. hostilities toward Barbary vessels would not cease until the treaty was signed.

The leadership of Algiers even requested that Decatur return two particular captured Algierian vessels to their country. Decatur did agree to do this, however he deliberately and emphatically did not include this in the terms of the treaty. Decatur wanted the Barbary states to know that he was dictating the terms of the treaty, that they were in no position to negotiate and that his returning of these ships was an act of generosity on his behalf and not an obligation. With terms like these, I find it no surprise that the Second Barbary War was also the last Barbary War.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/17/kenya.tanker.pirates/index.html

[2] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122731000016149251.html

[3] http://www.olemartinmoen.com/

[4] The Barbary Wars by Frank Lambert, pg 154, 2007.

[5] Ibid., pg 192-194.

FROG Media Output: Fall 2008

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

At the 2008 OCON conference, Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate issued a rousing call to Objectivists to engage in intellectual and cultural activism. This was the concluding message of their superb three-part lecture series "Cultural Movements: Creating Change". A room full of over 400 Objectivists gave them a standing ovation.

Members of the Front Range Objectivism Group (FROG) here in Colorado have responded to their challenge. The following is the summary of our published media output between September 7, 2008 and November 22, 2008:

• OpEds: 15
  
• Letters to the Editor: 28 (including New York Times, Economist and Wall Street Journal)
  
• Articles: 1
  
• Media Citations: 2 (New York Times, Salon.com)
  
• Television Appearances: 3
  
• New Media -- Online Contests Winners: 2
  
• New Media -- Online Debates: 1

(Full details are listed at the end of this post. I've done my best to include all the OpEds and LTEs that I know about, but if I inadvertently omitted someone's contribution, then please let me know and I'll update the tally.)

I chose this time period (Labor Day until just before Thanksgiving), because it coincided with people returning from their summer and Labor Day vacations and with the election season shifting into high gear. As many know, the news/politics cycle is relatively slow before Labor Day, heats up during September, October, and November, and then slows down again during Thanksgiving and the winter holidays. In 2008, this time period included politically important events such as the bailout crisis and the election.

All of us at FROG are amateurs with regular day jobs, writing in our free time with a budget of zero dollars. Hence, no think tank in Washington DC can claim a better output-to-expenses ratio!

We all wrote on topics of our own choosing, based on our personal interests. We covered a broad range of topics, including the financial crisis, health care reform, abortion, church-state separation, and various state and local ballot initiatives, all with the purpose of applying Objectivist ideas to issues of importance to ordinary Americans. Each of us participated as little or as much as was appropriate within the full context of our busy lives, in a non-sacrificial fashion, according to the principles discussed by Debi Ghate and Tom Bowden in their 2008 OCON special workshop, "How to Be An Agent of Cultural Change".

The list also includes some "new media" recognition from non-Objectivists, specifically the "Anti-Socialized Medicine Blog Post Contest". This contest ran weekly for 4 consecutive weeks in September 2008, sponsored by the David All Group, a conservative media consulting firm in Washington, DC. It was open to all bloggers (not just Objectivists). The winner each week received $50 from the David All Group, as well as free publicity on multiple conservative websites and blogs. Members of the Front Range Objectivism Group were the contest winners for 2 of those 4 weeks.

Similarly, I've included the participation of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine) as a "Verified Expert" in the online forum "OpposingViews.com" as part of their "universal health care" debate.

This list does not include our own personal blog posts, online comments that we've left on news websites linking to material from ARI/ARC (or The Objective Standard), or private letters we've written to our elected officials.

Nor does it include some important activities prior to September 7, 2008, such as the "white paper" that Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh issued in August 2008 on Amendment 48 ("Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person"). Their paper has been downloaded over 3700 times, and has been cited by the national media at Salon.com.

Nor does it include the websites that Diana created to inform Colorado voters of various state ballot initiatives (and which generated multiple local media inquiries and requests for interviews).

The battle is not over by any means. But all the participants here in Colorado have greatly enjoyed our activism and we have experienced first-hand the truth of Ayn Rand's adage, "Those who fight for the future live in it today."

So as we get ready to celebrate the Thanksgiving holiday, I'd like to extend my own heart-felt thanks to my fellow FROG members as well as to all the other Objectivists around the country who have been fighting for reason, individual rights, and capitalism.

And I also welcome Objectivists in other parts of the country to post on their own activism successes these past few months.

Thank you all, and have a Happy Thanksgiving!

-- PSH

Front Range Objectivism Group Media Output:
Fall 2008 (Sept 7, 2008 - Nov 22, 2008)

Summary:

• OpEds: 15
  
• Letters to the Editor: 28
  
• Articles: 1
  
• Media Citations: 2
  
• Television Appearances: 3
  
• New Media -- Online Contests Winners: 2
  
• New Media -- Online Debates: 1

Detailed List:

OpEds: 15

• Paul Hsieh, "Free market reforms healthier than Amendment 56", Rocky Mountain News, 9/19/2008.
  
• Brian Schwartz, "'Worthy Cause' Tax, It's Not Your Penny to Give", Boulder Daily Camera, 9/25/2008.
  
• Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong, "Abortion and Abolition", Boulder Weekly, 10/9/2008.
  
• Diana Hsieh, "Why Amendment 48 Is Polling 39 Percent", Pagosa Daily Post, 10/10/2008.
  
• Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Mark Your Colorado Ballot For Liberty", Grand Junction Free Press, 10/13/2008.
  
• Ari Armstrong, "Faith-based Politics Costs Colorado Republicans", Capitalism Magazine, 10/15/2008.
  
• Diana Hsieh, "Abortion is a Woman's Right", Pagosa Daily Springs, 10/23/2008.
  
• Brian Schwartz, "It's Not Your Penny to Give", Colorado Daily, 10/26/2008.
  
• Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Time to Speak Out for Free Speech", Grand Junction Free Press, 10/27/2008.
  
• Brian Schwartz, "Vote No on 1B and Donate Your Own Money", Longmont Times-Call, 10/31/2008.
  
• Diana Hsieh, "There's Nothing Wrong with Abortion, But 48 Is Wrong", Rocky Mountain News, 11/3/2008.
  
• Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Ayn Rand Doesn't Need A Bailout", Grand Junction Free Press, 11/10/2008.
  
• Paul Hsieh, "How the GOP Lost My Vote", Denver Post, 11/13/2008.
  
• Paul Hsieh, "The Future of Social Security?", Capitalism Magazine, 11/18/2008.
  
• Paul Hsieh, "Asking for Trouble in Health Care", Colorado Springs Gazette, 11/22/2008.

Letters to the Editor: 28

• Paul Hsieh, "The Massachusetts Way", New York Times, 9/7/2008.
  
• Ari Armstrong, "Amendment 48 Smoke Screen", Pagosa Daily Post, 9/19/2008.
  
• Brian Schwartz, "The $700 Billion Plan", Boulder Daily Camera, 9/27/2008.
  
• Tom Hall, "Fate of Her Unborn up to Each Woman", Rocky Mountain News, 9/29/2008.
  
• Gina Liggett, "Amendment 48, the 'Personhood' Measure", Denver Post, 9/29/2008.
  
• Diana Hsieh, "Amendment 48 Would Fabricate Rights for Fertilized Eggs", Grand Junction Sentinel, 9/29/2008
  
• Paul Hsieh, "Markets and Bailouts", Denver Post, 9/30/2008.
  
• Paul Hsieh, "Keep government out of benefits arena", Rocky Mountain News, 10/2/2008.
  
• Diana Hsieh, "Eggs Aren't People", Colorado Daily, 10/7/2008.
  
• Brian Schwartz, "Amendment 59 Raises Taxes", Denver Post, 10/7/2008.
  
• Ari Armstrong, "Carroll too quick to invoke Depression", Rocky Mountain News, 10/13/2008.
  
• Brian Schwartz, "Count on taxes rising if Amendment 59 passes", Rocky Mountain News, 10/14/2008.
  
• Paul Hsieh, "Running for cover", Economist, 10/14/2008.
  
• Paul Hsieh, "Obama's plan would move us toward government health care", Rocky Mountain News, 10/16/2008.
  
• Brian Schwartz, "Mandatory Voting is Immoral", Boulder Daily Camera, 10/18/2008.
  
• Paul Hsieh, "Freedom to Choose", Economist, 10/23/2008.
  
• Brian Schwartz, "Capitalism and Socialism", Boulder Daily Camera, 10/25/2008.
  
• Paul Hsieh, "Whose Health Plan Is Best?", Denver Post, 10/26/2008.
  
• Brian Schwartz, "Beware Udall's Health Care Policy", Boulder Daily Camera, 11/1/2008.
  
• Hannah Krening, "Surprised By Election Results", Rocky Mountain News, 11/5/2008.
  
• Paul Hsieh, "GOP Recipe", Las Vegas Review-Journal, 11/11/2008.
  
• Joe Collins, "On Freedom", Las Vegas Review-Journal, 11/12/2008.
  
• Paul Hsieh, "Voters Still Want Small Government", Rocky Mountain News, 11/13/2008.
  
• Paul Hsieh, "Compassionate Conservatism Is Dead. What's Next?", Wall Street Journal, 11/14/2008.
  
• Gina Liggett, "The Republican Party Has Gone Bankrupt", Denver Post, 11/15/2008.
  
• Brian Schwartz, "Stop the Bailouts, Try Freedom", Boulder Daily Camera, 11/15/2008.
  
• Bryan Armentrout, "Disgusted with a GOP that's 'Democrat Light'", Rocky Mountain News, 11/17/2008.
  
• Brian Schwartz, "Amendment 59 backers should send refunds to schools", Rocky Mountain News, 11/21/2008.

Articles: 1

• Paul Hsieh, "Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America", The Objective Standard, Fall 2008.

Media Citations: 2

• Ari Armstrong/Diana Hsieh paper mentioned in "Did You Just Call Me A Zygote?", Salon, 9/16/2008.
  
• Diana Hsieh mentioned in, "For Atheists, Politics Proves to Be a Lonely Endeavor", New York Times, 10/17/2008.

Television Appearances: 3

• Brian Schwartz, Channel 54 (CCTV), "Worthy Cause" Tax interview, 10/8/2008.
  
• Ari Armstrong, Channel 31 (Fox), Amendment 59 interview, 10/13/2008.
  
• Ari Armstrong, Channel 4 (CBS), Election Night commentary, 11/4/2008.

New Media -- Online Contests Winners: 2

• "Anti-Socialized Medicine Blog Post Contest", Week 2 winner, Paul Hsieh, "UK Doctors Withholding Treatment Information From Patient", 9/8/08.
  
• "Anti-Socialized Medicine Blog Post Contest", Week 4 winner, Brian Schwartz, "Single-Payer Health Care: Immoral and Deadly", 9/24/08.

New Media -- Online Debate: 1

• Opposing Views: "Should the U.S. Have Universal Healthcare?", 11/14/2008.
  (FIRM participated as one of the "Verified Experts" on the "No" side of the debate.)

Come work for Match.com and I’ll give ARI $6,000

By David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way,cross-posted by MetaBlog

My employer, Match.com, offers a $3,000 referral bonus for salaried employees. It also offers a 100% matching program for gifts to charitable organizations.

If anyone gets a job at match.com through me, I will use the referral bonus with the matching gifts program to give the Ayn Rand Institute $6,000.

So, if you are interested in a job in a great environment in north-central Dallas, here is the list open positions.

If you’re interested, please send me your resume with your contact info, and I’ll do the rest.  

If you get an interview, be sure to mention me, so I can put in a word for you. They offer a $1000 bonus for hourly positions - I will donate $2,000 in that case.

Feel free to let anyone else who may be interested know about my offer too.

(Certain conditions and limits apply, but I promise to contribute 100% of the “free” money I do get.)

The Morality of Gambling (Show 086)

By Brandon from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Back from his trip to Seattle, Mosley returns this week to host the show. After querying the chat room for show topics, he and Arthur decide to discuss the morality of gambling.

Topics include: taking advantage of other people’s irrationality; gambling as not categorically immoral; gambling with false belief of luck vs. rational understanding or skill; gambling as possibly a form of rational recreation; gambling as skill or luck or combination of both; morality and responsibility of casino owners; analogy to bar owners and tobacco companies; fraud vs. asymmetric information; morality of card counting; stock markets and gambling; Arthur and Leonard Peikoff anecdote; playing the lotto.

Also, for those interested in the relevant topic of addiction, feel free to check out Show 056 where that is discussed (mp3, iTunes).

BLOGGER AND PODCASTER MEDIA NETWORK

By Martin Lindeskog from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

After Larry Genkin's comment on my post, BLOGOSPHERE VERSUS MSM, I had to check out the Blogger & Podcaster Media Network. Here is an excerpt from Jason Kincaid's article, Blogger And Podcaster Media Network Looks To Turn Long Tail Blogging Into A Full-Time Job.

Larry Genkin, the founder and editor of Blogger and Podcaster Magazine, is looking to help the long tail of bloggers turn their hobby into a lucrative job. He has started the Blogger and Podcaster Media Network, a consortium of bloggers and related companies looking to help bloggers of all sizes effectively monetize their sites without having to worry about having a relatively small audience. The site is currently open for signups, but won't go live until early next year.

At launch the BPMN is a rollup of companies including Genkin's magazine, Fuel My Blog (A bloggers' social network based in the UK), Podcast Pickle (a podcasters' social network), and SocialRank, a company similar to Sphere that monitors blogs for related and popular content.

Each of these companies will help promote the new network, and will also offer technology to help bloggers build out their site (for example, they'll be able to use SocialRank's technology). The BPMN will also try to partner with large media companies to help give blogs more exposure. To help each blog get started, the company has partnered with PR NewsWire, which will offer each blogger a promotion package Genkin says is worth $2000. (Washington Post / TechCrunch, October 28, 2008.)

For more on The Long Tail, read Larry Genkin's post, The Must Know Business Principle of The Digital Age and his article, Power (and a Six Figure Salary) to the Blogosphere's "Little Guys".

I have signed up for a free membership to the Blogger & Podcaster Media Network. You are welcome to write my name in the "referred by" field, if you sign up too.

I said in July that my podcasting show would start again in September. I am waiting for further updates on the situation from Prodos. I intend to keep my radio station on BlogTalkRadio, as a test laboratory, but I am not sure how much time I will spend on it. The same goes for my channel on LiveVideo. I haven't had a show yet and I am not sure if I will use this platform in the future. I will check out Ustream.tv and see if this site could be my future live video broadcasting home.

Mean Bankers

By softwareNerd from Software Nerd,cross-posted by MetaBlog

In Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, Ch X: a businessman wanna-be whines "... I worked like a dog, trying to get somebody to lend us the money. But that bastard Midas Mulligan put me through the wringer." Mulligan is portrayed as a tough banker who was able to identify people with good credit (who would pay him back, and then some) from bad.

It was he who had invested in Rearden Steel at its start, thus helping Rearden to complete the purchase of the abandoned steel mills in Pennsylvania. When an economist referred to him once as an audacious gambler, Mulligan said, "The reason why you'll never get rich is because you think that what I do is gambling." [Atlas Shrugged]

I was reminded of Mulligan, when I read the following description of James Stillman, a prosperous banker from the late 1800's:

"A caller would enter Stillman's office, assured, perhaps a little enthusiastic. Without a word the dark, elegant little man at the big clean desk would motion him to a chair upon which the light fell full. He would look at him, quite impassively, through veiled, impersonal eyes. The man would begin stating his case.

Minutes would pass. The caller would make assertions that seemed to require response. Not a sound from the grave, composed Buddha at the desk, whose eyes seemed to have penetrated through the other to some distant spot in the room. The visitor would fidget, cough, and finally finish what he had come to say.

Invariably would follow a long, cruel pause.

Then, as if from far away, [Stillman] would begin to speak. In low, impressive tones he would rip the proposal to shreds". (Source: John Wrinkler, quoted in Money of the Mind, James Grant, 1992 page 67)

Consider this though: despite the description above, Stillman is said to have made many loans, actively prospected for new business, and his bank expanded rapidly. [Source: James Grant 1992]

If only we had some more mean bastards running our banks, we would be in better shape today.

BLOGOSPHERE VERSUS MSM

By Martin Lindeskog from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

What is your take on the article, Oh, grow up, in The Economist? The author states the following: "Blogging is no longer what it was, because it has entered the mainstream."

The rest of the world may well have missed the unfolding of his tragedy. Behind it, however, is a bigger trend. Blogging has entered the mainstream, which—as with every new medium in history—looks to its pioneers suspiciously like death. To the earliest practitioners, over a decade ago, blogging was the regular posting of text updates, and later photos and videos, about themselves and their thoughts to a few friends and family members. Today lots of internet users do this, only they may not think of it as blogging. Instead, they update their profile pages on Facebook, MySpace or other social networks.

They may also “micro-blog” on services such as Twitter, which recreate the raw, immediate and intimate feel of early blogs. Twitter messages, usually sent from mobile phones, are fewer than 140 characters long and answer the question “What are you doing?” Tellingly, Evan Williams, the co-founder of Blogger—an early blogging service that is now owned by Google, the Wal-Mart of the internet—now runs Twitter, which he regards as the future.

As for traditional (if that is the word) blog pages, these tend increasingly to belong to conventional media organisations. Nearly every newspaper, radio and television channel now runs blogs and updates them faster than any individual blogger ever could. (The Economist, November 6, 2008.)

A part of the blogosphere has transformed into blog networks with individual bloggers gathered at a specific place, e.g., Pajamas Network. I don't think it is a contradiction to both be an individual blogger, writing and publishing blog posts and at the same time belonging to a network of other bloggers. As I said in my post, THINKING IN WRITING:

I will try to follow some kind of weekly schedule, but now and then I will take a break from my EGO blog, concentrating on other assignments, for example writing pieces for other sites and preparing interviews for my podcasting show. I want to get into the right flow and start to microblog on a regular basis. (EGO, November 11, 2008.)

[Editor's note: I will write a short Twitter message on this blog post later on...]

The Left and the Right vs. Free Speech

By Don Watkins from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The Left and the Right vs. Free Speech
November 6, 2008

Washington, D.C.--Calling for a return of the Fairness Doctrine, Senator Chuck Schumer noted that some of the same people who oppose such “equal time” mandates support restrictions on broadcasting they deem offensive. According to Don Watkins, a writer for the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, “Schumer’s comments highlight an ominous fact: that both the left and the right are opponents of free speech.

“Conservatives have long supported the FCC’s war on so-called indecency, arguing that broadcasters should not have the right to engage in ‘offensive’ speech. The liberals, meanwhile, have been eagerly trying to resurrect the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which would allow the government to dictate which ideas deserve how much airtime, and lead many radio stations to avoid discussing controversial issues altogether.

“In fact, this is a disagreement without a difference: both sides endorse the principle that the government should be dictating what Americans can and can’t say--they just want to use the censor’s pen to support their own political agendas.

“Whoever values free speech should oppose government regulation of the airwaves. Freedom of speech is the freedom of every American to say whatever he wants, regardless of how offensive others find it, through any medium he can rightfully access. There seem to be no such defenders among liberals or conservatives--and that is truly offensive.”

 

A Mess of Pottage

By noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Having recovered from a despairing disgust with Barack Obama’s successful bid for the presidency, I turned my attention to some other matters one could say are cultural partners to that victory deserving of brief attention. While Obama assembles his administration, recruiting some leftover veterans of the Bill Clinton era and some other choice political Pharisees and mountebanks to fill various posts, the news media, which enjoys a larger viewership than newspapers have of readerships, continues to offer through their news desk anchors regurgitated items with patronizing and earnest disingenuousness in cadence with Entertainment Tonight-style segments such as NBC’s Matt Lauer in Belize and ABC’s Diane Sawyer on the “hot seat.”

This is in addition to end-of-broadcast special reports on “making a difference” and “the American spirit,” which focus on “giving back,” “community service,” and other episodes of dutiful selflessness.

All three major news channels, for example, have devoted at least five minutes to where Obama’s two daughters will go to school in Washington -- a private school, of course, their parents justifiably wary of public schools, into which the president-elect wishes to pour even more billions-- and their rooms in the White House. Also, the news media waits breathlessly for the selection of the new White House dog, placing almost as much importance on that as on the composition of Obama’s cabinet.

One can take only so much of this kind of pap before developing chronic nausea.

I recently finished reading Albert Jay Nock’s Memoirs of a Superfluous Man (1943) and will probably also read his Our Enemy, the State (1935). Nock was a prolific cultural, political, and social critic in the early 20th century, and has been claimed by libertarians and anarchists of various stripes as one of their intellectual fathers. He is a writer one would like to like. Many of his observations on politics and the arts are so congruent with Ayn Rand’s later, similar, but more fundamental observations that one cannot help but suspect that she read his articles in the many periodicals or his many books.

Nock was a pessimist. He came to believe that no matter how perfect a limited government was established, replete with power- and corruption-proof safeguards and checks and balances that would ensure individual liberty and capitalism, it was an incorrigible aspect of human nature for men to find a way to circumvent its architecture, and in the end transform a republican pantheon into a shanty town brothel. There was no point in educating the masses, he wrote, because they would sooner or later take the path of least resistance and favor politicians who promised to convert the marble columns and floor into generous helpings of Brunswick stew for public consumption. He abhorred the “materialism” he witnessed in individuals who sought to secure their material well-being through the pursuit and acquisition of political power over others. He seemed also to have had reservations about individuals who sought that value without wanting to acquire political power.

An ardent admirer of Thomas Jefferson, Nock tempered his admiration of the Founder when discussing the subject of universal public education, which Jefferson advocated. Nock did not believe, as Jefferson did, that education, compulsory or otherwise, necessarily improved one’s intelligence or capacity for independent thought.

“I think…he [Jefferson] would have risked a wry smile at the spectacle of our colleges annually turning out whole battalions of bachelors in the liberal arts who could no more read their diplomas than they could decipher the Minoan linear script. He might also find something to amuse him in the appearance of eminent shysters, jobholders, politicians, and other unscholarly and unsavory characters, on parade in gowns and hoods of the honorary doctorate.”*

Or addressing graduating classes on the value of selfless service to the community or the nation. However, not once in the Memoirs did I encounter a hint that Nock regarded man as a “being of volitional consciousness.” He was one himself, but he seems to have overlooked the fact while implicitly denying most other individuals that defining attribute.

Nock rarely involved himself in any political movement of his time, choosing rather to remain a detached observer and commentator, and consequently superfluous.

“If all I had casually seen…was of the essence of politics, if it was part and parcel of carrying on the country’s government, then obviously a decent person could find no place in politics, not even the place of an ordinary voter, for the forces of ignorance, brutality and indecency would outnumber him ten to one.”

The recent presidential election would seem to confirm the truth of Nock’s assertion; it matters not who would have won this round of politics, Obama or McCain, for each offered a different style of fascism or statism. But that is no excuse to simply resign one’s self to the alleged inevitability of decline and destruction. This is what Nock did and it is what he recommended others do, asking his successors to address the “Remnant” and hope for the best.

I concluded that Nock was a kind of fastidious, Epicurean Robert Stadler, the scientific villain in Rand’s Atlas Shrugged who wailed that since there was no reasoning with people one had to compromise one’s principles and accept the status of being rational but irrelevant, and that since most people were ignorant, brutal and indecent, the sole way to deal with them was with force.

Nock did not advocate force to compel men to be rational, but neither was he a consistent exponent of the primacy and efficacy of reason, except among the cultivated and discriminating few (the “Remnant”) whom he thought may or may not have any power or chance to effect cultural change for the better.

One saving grace of Nock was his agreement with Aristotle (and with Rand) that

“History…represents things only as they are, while fiction represents them as they might and ought to be; and therefore of the two, he adds, ‘fiction is the more philosophical and the more highly serious.’”(Nock’s own translation from the Greek from Aristotle’s Poetics.)**

If he had lived long enough (he died in 1945), Nock might have observed the commercial successes of Rand’s The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and their influence in the culture, and perhaps retracted his earlier dismissal of those novels’ millions of readers as interchangeable “mass-men,” the willing dupes and playthings of criminally-minded politicians.

Speaking of Aristotle’s judgment of fiction and history, Stephen Adams in The Daily Telegraph, in a November 6th article, “Novels ‘better at explaining world’s problems than reports’,” discussed that very subject without once mentioning Aristotle. The subject of his article is how fiction can better communicate ideas and the “real life” of people in or from the Third World.

He quotes Dr. Dennis Rodgers of Manchester University’s Brooks World Poverty Institute:

“Despite the regular flow of academic studies, expert reports, and policy position papers, it is arguably novelists who do as good a job -- if not a better one -- of representing and communicating the realities of international development….And fiction often reaches a much larger and diverse audience than academic work and may therefore be more influential in shaping public knowledge and understanding of development issues.”

Adams cites three prize-winning novels written by Third World authors, Brick Lane, The Kite Runner, and The White Tiger, as instances of (naturalistic) fiction which, as far as one can determine, not so much have shaped public knowledge and understanding as complemented public policy and sanctioned diversity and multiculturalism.

While some Western academics are lauding fiction as a handmaiden of government social programs, Hollywood continues its bungee free-fall into unreality and fantasy. Bankrupt to the core, except when it has left-wing messages to convey, and unable or unwilling to depict real life heroes and real world conflicts, it has turned more and more to animation, comic books, and graphic novels for material to sustain box office revenues. As evidence of this trend, one website carries an article by Martin Anderson, “75 comics being made into films.”

A goodly number of the stories are set in grim futures or in parallel universes, while many others feature magic or heroes with super powers. Only one of them looks promising, The Megas, scheduled for release in 2010.

“Megas postulates an alternative America where the founding fathers created an aristocracy instead of a democracy, and centers on a detective investigating the seedy underbelly of the American royal family.”

The Founders created a rights-protecting republic, not a democracy, as practically everyone today believes they created; the terms, as I have often stressed elsewhere, are not synonymous. But the story line is similar to Robert Harris’s novel Fatherland, in which Nazi Germany won World War Two, and a German police detective in the 1960’s investigates the seedy underbelly of the Third Reich to learn that the Holocaust really happened. One can only suppose that the story idea’s originator was inspired by the fact that many Americans wished to make George Washington a monarch.

All of these films are in some stage of production, but upon their release it is doubtful I will want to see a single one.

It is interesting how fiction -- or movies -- often apes reality. Many years ago I saw for the first time The Mouse that Roared (1959), little realizing at the time that the story line, in which a postage stamp-sized European country declares war on the U.S. for the sole purpose of being defeated and thus qualifying for massive injections of American monetary aid, took its inspiration from history. Is this not what happened in the 1950’s, and has happened recently with Mexico, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Colombia, and other countries that hate America a little less because of our no-strings-attached aid and financial rescue programs? Peter Sellers in his triple roles in Mouse was at least amusing, while his real life counterparts are not.

Art emulated history before history was even made in John Frankenheimer’s The Manchurian Candidate (1962), a controversial political thriller based on Richard Condon’s novel that pre-dated John F. Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas the following year. Few films can match its production and esthetic qualities. Its level of intelligence and suspense is impossible to achieve in Hollywood today. (The recent remake of it is utter and politically correct rubbish.) The Manchurian Candidate demands one’s full focus to appreciate a single scene or single line of dialogue, much as Howard Hawks’ newspaper comedy, His Girl Friday, is a perfect, non-stop integration of dialogue and action requiring one’s full, undivided attention.

Recently I revisited The Manchurian Candidate, and was struck by the performances of James Gregory, as Senator John Yerkes Iselin, and Angela Lansbury, as Mrs. Iselin. Gregory plays an addle-headed, buffoonish politician very reminiscent of President George W. Bush. He is putty in the hands of his power-seeking wife, who was too evocative of Hillary Clinton, and who schemes to put her husband in the White House by mostly foul means. She predicts that her husband, at the climax of his party’s nomination convention, will rally “a nation of television viewers into a hysteria that will sweep us up into the White House with powers that will make martial law look like anarchy….”

Perhaps we will have a foretaste of that, now that a demagogue has been swept up into the White House to work with a very simpatico Congress.


*Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, Hallberg Publishing, 1994 edition, p. 264.
** Ibid. p. 161.

The Wisdom of the Crowd

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I know I'm late getting to this, but after seeing several different blogs point to this video, it finally dawned on me that it must be pretty good.

It is.

This is coming from someone who tends not to watch video clips since you can't skim.


Observe in only ten minutes how Peter Schiff stood his ground, often in the face of open ridicule, on a series of national television appearances as he accurately predicted the collapse of the Housing Bubble.

His arguments are solid. If any of the idiots who pooh-poohed his contention that market fundamentals were lacking had had any sense, they would have been unnerved by his calm, certain demeanor -- and then checked their premises at the first opportunity.

Plus, the video is funny. Schiff -- with some help from a thing commonly known as "reality" -- has made complete asses out of the whole lot of them.

I think I'll follow Mike N's lead by making a list of Schiff's opponents for future investment reference. It is worth noting that the Dow, which hit something like 7,500 yesterday, was about 13,000 during at least one interview on the clip, and one economist was predicting that it would hit 16,000 within the year.

My thanks to all who recommended this video. You have dispensed justice and investment advice at the same time! Who says morality isn't practical?

-- CAV

PS: Kendall J posts more on "The Continuing Collapse" over at The Crucible and Column.

Updates

Today: Corrected an error and added a PS.

Quick Roundup 380

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Internet "Fairness" without the "Doctrine"

Reader Dismuke sent in a couple of interesting items yesterday. Regarding the first, he comments:

I have been wondering how the Left will eventually try to find a way to impose a de facto form of censorship on the Internet. Turns out that South Korea is already blazing the path for that in the name of stopping cyber-bullying.

This he follows with an excerpt from a posting at The Far Eastern Economic Review:

The proposed legislation 1) requires real-name identification system for all who post comments online; 2) mandates portals to delete "malicious entries" within 24 hours of receiving complaints; 3) requires sites with more than 100,000 visitors, rather than the current 300,000, to verify user identities. Violators -- both providers and consumers -- can face jail time and/or substantive monetary fines. And the national police has been deployed to "hunt, arrest, and punish" individuals who upload falsities and pernicious rumors.

I agree that a proposal like this is very likely down the pike, but the prevention of "bullying" as an excuse here seems unlikely, and a more likely excuse, the prevention of "hate speech" would probably draw too much fire.

So how will the Democrats try to excuse and disguise this power-grab? "Transparency". Such a possibility caused a small stir about a year and a half ago, although one prominent conservative commentator dismissed the notion as "hysteria".

What is "transparency"? It is the claim that forcing people to identify themselves will shame them into civility, in the name of improving the public debate. This is a form of the "hate speech" excuse, except that we are supposed to be distracted by the desire for improved public political debate. Here's an excerpt from the article I blogged. It was written by Tom Grubisch of The Washington Post:

If Web sites required posters to use their real names, while giving the shield of pseudonymity when it's merited, spirited online debate would continue unimpeded. It might even be enhanced by attracting contributors who are turned off today by name calling and worse. Except for the hate-mongers, who wouldn't want that? [bold added]

There's a sample at the end of the kind of "argument" we can expect. (I'd take name-calling over that any day.) The operative method of this scheme is force. And there are so many ways it would be open to abuse that it is mind-boggling to contemplate.

Let's take him up, for the sake of argument, that exceptions would be granted for whistle-blowers. To be able to post anonymously, for example, you'd have to convince a potential political opponent to his satisfaction that using your real name would be dangerous to yourself. Oops! Too late. You have to do that to get a pseudonym first! And if you aren't granted a pseudonym, you get to decide whether to risk getting the rest of your story out or face recriminations when only the civil servant you had to approach has the full story.

Read the whole post. It's quite good, if I say so myself.

Oh. One thing on the FEER article: It protests at one point that "no government can really control cyberspace". That's not how to argue against such measures because it cedes the moral ground, which is ours. Government censorship is wrong because it violates individual rights.

Furthermore, the government needn't "control cyberspace" with an iron fist, anyway. All that needs to be done to stifle freedom of speech is to terrify most dissenters and make examples of the rest. Would-be censors know this, and such an argument risks causing complacency among everyone else.

Obama's Turn as "Dealer"

Dismuke also pointed me to this article, which I'd seen a few times, but never read. It describes in gory detail the problems Obama faces in any attempt to implement a "New New Deal".

Mr. Obama must be looking around and beginning to suspect he will be pouring his political capital, along with considerable taxpayer capital, down bottomless holes for the next four years. He won't be building a legacy as the new FDR, but cleaning up after the last one.

That's the best we can hope for, and probably unrealistic. Obama thinks that socialism is good, and too many people think that it will work "this time", thanks to pragmatism.

This does remind me of a novel I once heard of, about someone who rose to the top of a totalitarian dictatorship, but was somehow intellectually honest and realized how unworkable it all was, and began to reform it. If this rings a bell to anyone, please let me know!

If Obama made a similar journey, or even had something like Boris Yeltsin's supermarket epiphany, I would be very pleasantly surprised. And relieved. And, considering whom he surrounds himself with, concerned.

Pragmatism and Disillusionment

Mike N makes a very perceptive comment on one of the myriad ways pragmatism -- failing to think in terms of principles -- is getting in the way of the fight for individual rights.

One has to wonder how many other perceptive men like Mr. Hoekstra will continue to be disillusioned by the repeated failures of their party, simply because they aren't thinking in terms of principles.This is a shame.

I recall that shortly after the repeal of the "Fairness" Doctrine, a very common thing I'd hear about on talk radio was the fact that many people had felt isolated, as if they were the only ones who disagreed with the way the left ran everything.

Having talk radio and other alternative media has helped on that psychological level, and having facts easily accessible also helps in the battle for freedom, as Glenn Reynolds has indicated in his An Army of Davids. But without principles, this will all be for naught. Facts alone cannot lead to meaningful change without principles to guide their application, and positive emotions will be overwhelmed with a feeling of helplessness since principles ultimately make one's mind effective, by guiding its thinking, and hence one's actions.

Jay Walking

Brian Phillips, in an excellent post favoring the privatization of education, alludes to a recurring feature on Jay Leno, "Jay Walking".


I followed the link and had to post this segment, which I dedicate to the "self-esteem" mongers of the modern educational establishment and their pragmatic enabler, John Dewey.

-- CAV

How Free Is Speech?

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

William E. Perry recently sent me (and some other friends) the following thoughtful commentary on the state of free speech in America. I am posting it here with his permission:

Paul Hsieh's NoodleFood post Leaving the Country? Pay the Price! about the exit tax contained in the HEART bill has given me serious concerns. It is another measure removing freedoms that was attached to a complex bill with a deceptive name. It is reminiscent of the internet gaming restrictions attached to the safe ports act.

Ayn Rand said that we should continue to fight and attempt to influence events as long as free speech remains. Lately I've been questioning whether we really have free speech in this country.

When the CEO of a major bank is afraid to speak out publicly even though he was forced to sign over part of his company to the government for a bailout that they didn't need, I question whether we really have free speech. That was the case recently with the CEO of Wells Fargo. After the meeting detailed in the linked article, Wells Fargo has made statements about the use of the bailout money, but no statement about why they accepted it, or the pressure that was put on them.

We have speech codes in colleges, although FIRE fights very hard to limit the worst effects of them.

We have limitations on advertisements during elections due to McCain-Feingold. We have state level restrictions on political speech as well. Unrestricted political speech is necessary for a free country.

There is a strong movement toward reinstating the "fairness" doctrine, which is a further limitation on speech.

On the other hand we do have free speech in some contexts. Yaron Brook and the other ARI intellectuals are not stopped from making their statements in media venues. The people on the OActivists list are not stopped from writing Letters to the Editor and op-eds -- and many of them are published.

Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) and the Coalition for Secular Government (CSG) have had major successes thanks to the hard and smart work of Lin Zinser, Paul Hsieh, Diana Hsieh, Ari Armstrong, Gina Liggett and others.

So I think that we have free speech to some extent, but it is not a fully robust freedom of speech. At what point do we decide that we don't have freedom of speech to the extent that it is safe to speak?

I'm not advocating leaving the country (to go where?); I'm not advocating setting up some kind of Galt's Gulch. I've even been considering starting a group to deal with a looming issue that is very important to me, and doing advocacy about it with FIRM and the Coalition for Secular Government as models.

Rand famously said, "It's earlier than you think," when asked about some types of advocacy. That has become an overused cliche in some circles. But now I wonder whether it is later than we think.

Here's my reply to him, somewhat edited:

I think that your concerns about free speech are very real -- particularly having dealt with some of Colorado's campaign finance laws these past few months. The federal and state governments won't outright ban speech anytime soon, as is happening in Europe and Canada. However, they are increasingly regulating it with campaign finance laws and the like. These laws are so burdensome that most people would rather shut up than attempt to comply with them -- and risk legal action if they do so wrongly.

More generally, my thought from the first serious talk of the financial bailout has been that perhaps we have less than the 20 years that Yaron Brook speculated at OCON to turn around the culture. That's a very scary thought. Unless more Objectivists ramp up their advocacy efforts, we might go down in flames just as we're gaining a real foothold.

Personally, my plan is to (1) finish my dissertation and then (2) speak in every forum open to me, full-time. I do plan to actively fight for free speech, because like you, I think it's in very serious danger.

I will have more to say about the burdens of campaign finance laws -- including my own experiences with them -- in future posts.

Basically though, I would say that:

1. It's earlier than some might think -- meaning that it's too early for direct political action like running decent political candidates.
   
   
2. It's later than some might think -- meaning that we have very little time to enact the necessary philosophical revolution.

Time-wise, we're stuck between a political rock and a philosophical hard place. However bad that might be, there's only one way out -- namely fighting for our ideas in public forums of all kinds.

Mad in China

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Via RealClear Politics comes an interesting New Republic article on the effects of the current financial crisis on China. Among them, the discontent I have noted before is spreading to the more affluent, urban areas.

Things could get very ugly there.

Beijing can afford a $580 billion stimulus package because it has nearly $2 trillion in reserves. But for all its cash, China's actions may not be enough. Aredux of Beijing's 1989 Tiananmen crackdown is not a good option: Two decades ago, the number of educated protestors was far smaller, and China had less interest in protecting its global reputation. At the same time, China has granted enough freedoms that average Chinese now demand wages, fair housing, and other rights. So, unless Beijing can get its economy going again, they are likely to face the first sustained wave of protests in decades. Thus far, China has kept the labor protests separate from one another, preventing them from developing a common theme or a common leader. But if China's downturn turns into an outright recession, the country could face its first serious threat to the regime. [link dropped, bold added]

It's too bad for many reasons that, "this nominally communist country now [only] seems more capitalist than Wall Street"[bold added].

The people here have come to expect the fruits of capitalism (e.g., high wages and a good standard of living) while remaining ignorant of the nature of capitalism. True, they may blame the government when things turn sour, but this will likely be for the wrong reasons. Anyone who expects a government to be able to turn things around by any means other than simply protecting individual rights will be repeatedly disappointed.

A blind rebellion is unlikely to result in China ending up free. Worse, capitalism will get the blame for the uneven and unsustainable growth pattern that has resulted from foolhardy attempts at central planning on both sides of the Pacific.

-- CAV

The Chavez Difference

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Thanks to a combination of his own policies and plummeting oil prices, Hugo Chavez is facing setbacks to his plans to export socialism abroad, as well a popular discontent at home. As I noted yesterday regarding China, but perhaps to an even greater degree, the people have come to expect the government to bring them prosperity. This lack of self-reliance will result in just another dictator unless a major cultural change occurs among the public there. A real revolution will not occur until the people demand a government that will leave them alone to pursue their own prosperity.

Several passages about the article stand out. (The whole thing is worth reading for its sneak peak into Venezuela.)

First, the anti-oligarchy -- read anti-capitalist -- rhetoric el loco rode to power is wearing thin:

The area around the Caracas Country Club used to sit on thick foundations of old money, but no longer. These days many of the old members cannot afford their subscriptions.

The club no longer tries to shame them into doing so, as it once did, by pinning their names up on public display - there are simply too many defaulters.

Meanwhile the Chavistas, as the president's fans are known, buy so many Hummers that the vehicles have their own assembly plant in Venezuela.

Petro-money has seen sales of Rolexes rise sevenfold and clubs like Sawu, where the new elite pour Johnnie Walker Blue - that elixir of the ultra rich - into their Coca-Colas, flourish.

The fact that the institutions of privilege have merely changed hands increasingly angers ordinary people who were promised everything and have been given very little.

...

Chavez has long railed against the Venezuelan ''oligarchy", clans he claims used to rule the country and control its wealth. But among the poor, incidents such as "Suitcasegate" are prompting accusations that the Chavistas have become an oligarchy themselves.

The article fails to report one substantive change Chavez has wrought. In capitalism, which Venezuela has never tried, the newly wealthy would generally be the most productive and money would have little to do with political power due to separation of economy and state.

The old order, a far cry from such a state, still had the merit of being closer to this ideal in certain industries, such as oil. But now, with political flunkies occupying many key positions, such vital industries are being run into the ground by actual oligarchies -- of incompetents. The economy is substantially worse off than it was before, regardless of how the pouring of Johnnie Walker Blue seems to fool the media into thinking otherwise. Even for a "natural resource" such as oil, some minimal level of competence and conscientiousness is required to obtain it and make it usable.

In short, Chavez, who started out by equating wealthy captains of industry with sows at the government trough, has now installed real oligarchies. The people of Venezuela will pay for this in that the industrial infrastructure will have largely transformed into a government bureaucracy. But that's really just salt in the wound of their having lost their freedom long ago.

Second, I am reminded of a couple of points I have made about Chavez at various times. Of his "selling" of socialism to people not yet enjoying its "largesse", I once said:

It is worth noting to whom the great benefits of socialism are being touted: Those naive souls imported into Cuba [at Venezuela's expense] for the "free" [eye] operations. Anyone already under Castro's thumb is left to deal with shortages even though the Cuban economy is said to be improving at a 9% per annum clip. Ironically, [reporter] Gary Marx mentions blackouts. In one sense, then, while the Cuban government is restoring site to foreigners, it is blinding its own citizens! Or perhaps if Marx were a better spinmeister reporter, he'd say something like, "the almost-daily restoration of sight to the customers of the state power company also fits neatly into Castro's agenda".

The people of Venezuela are now wondering about this loudly. The rest of Latin America should take note.

Meanwhile, their president sends millions overseas to help like-minded socialist regimes in Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Cuba. Workers are now protesting: "How come he has money for them and not for us?"

And then, Chavez is acting even more frequently like the non-powerful person I once said he was: "Faced with crucial poll defeats, Chavez is showing the strain. As the elections near, he is lashing out in a manner more commonly associated with the continent's [other] dictators."

If Chavez melts down, and that's a big "if" since Iran, China and Russia will doubtless prop him up if they possibly can while the United States whistles and keeps kicking a can down the road, it may at least be entertaining in the short term.

-- CAV

What Does It Mean to Be Objective?

By Michael from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I had a discussion today with the editor of the paper for which I work. I had, days before, handed in a piece on an AIDS awareness event. Sections of my piece were taken and combined with another author’s piece in order to avoid the printing of some facts which I brought up in the original piece. Now, I understand why the piece was not run in its originality. It was not my best work and was written in a slight state of emotional flurry, and some of the information I highlighted in my account might have caused a backlash. I do not blame them for not running it, and was in fact surprised that they used even parts of it. Discussing this though, one editor commented that the piece I turned in was too “sensational” and another commented that I should not “sensationalize” things. The main editor did not say that I was unobjective in my reporting per se, but that I focused too much on one aspect. I then commented that we perhaps did not have the same understanding of “objective.” I told her that being objective meant being totally honest and truthful. She agreed, but with the caveat that one should be unbiased as well. This began my thinking; what exactly does it mean to be objective, and how does this effect the nature of thinking and with a more specific focus on the field of journalism?

Objective means, quoting from the Merriam Webster Dictionary, “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.” Bias means “an inclination of temperament or outlook  ; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment.” Another definition listed for objective is; “relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy b: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.” So then, it is possible, using those definitions, that a part of being objective is to be “unbiased.” But what do these terms mean when people use them today? Objective, using the provided definitions, can be perhaps rephrased as relation of facts without imparting value to your narrative. Is this how the term is used today? Today, unbiased is often related to telling a story without taking a side or without presenting any facts in a manner which could lead to or hint at judgement. Is this being objective though? The other definition of objective states “relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence.” Can an account be objective if certain facts are ignored or unstressed in the name of being unbiased? I do not think so.

Now as to the event I attended as part of my job for the school paper; it was an AIDS awareness event sponsored by the Beacon of Light Baptist Church. This was by no means a secular event. In the first minutes of the ceremony the entire room broke out into dance and Gospel music. The guest-speaker, a gynecologist, told the audience half-way through her own presentation that AIDS was the Devil’s way of “taking us out.” Afterward an Evangelist came on and related how her husband had gotten AIDS by cheating on her with another man. She also related to the audience not to “go gay.” During the Question and Answer period the guest doctor stated that there was “no such thing as safe sex,” and then went on to make several unverified statements attacking the effectiveness of condom use.

All of this information was cut from the final article.

I was told my article was sensationalistic. What I was reporting was sensational. To be objective in this matter, it was not well written, and I perhaps did not take the greatest care in conveying these facts in a manner that did appear totally rational. I did make note of the valid scientific information presented, but this does not change the fact that the presentation was a religiously motivated and attempting to scare young African American women into religious abstinence with misinformation and mystic beliefs. I do not think that is objective in the least to ignore these facts at all, even in the name of being “unbiased” or “fair.”
To be objective is to consider all the facts of reality, and, as a corollary, judging them and giving them value. To ignore certain facts in the name of being “unbiased” is to be dishonest. Just as you do not want to give facts that create a false image of an entity, you should not withhold information which would do the same. It perhaps is true that the man who reports should not hand judgement to those he reports to, but it is not his place to decide which facts should and should not be included solely on the basis of bias. Facts are facts and nothing can change that. Some facts are not essential, such as the ethnicity of the man the Evangelist’s husband slept with. Some facts, such as the rhetoric and obvious motivation of the assembly, are. Not making explicit judgement is part of the reporting process, but avoiding facts because they would lead to a negative judgement is not objective in the least.

Was my article objective though? Looking it over now with a cool head, I feel that it is. It does not seem that sensationalistic looking at it now after several days have gone by. It could use some editing and touching up, I can see that now. One phrase does come across as perhaps condescending, although that is a honest mistake on my part and not an act of conscious malevolence.

Ultimately, to be objective is to take in all facts of reality and integrate them, even those that would make people uncomfortable or angry. Anything less is simply evading the truth in part, and in whole.

"And Now, Let Us Pra....GLOAT!"

By Gina Liggett from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The Religious Right has been driving a sledgehammer into the wall of separation of church and state for 30 years, and has enjoyed an especially-intimate relationship with the politically powerful for eight years running. They have achieved significant successes: Bush's faith-based initiatives, the partial-birth abortion ban, the passage of parental-notification laws, the Bush appointments of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and the constitutional amendments against gay marriage just passed in Florida, Arizona and California. There are doubtlessly many other successes I've left out, especially at the state and local level.

Now, bow your heads and let us gloat. Because the Religious Right had some significant defeats this election, and I think its time to celebrate!

First and foremost, let's sing a hallelujah to the crushing, sweeping, stunning blow to Amendment 48 in Colorado. Hip-hip-horrrahhhh!! Your possibility of getting sued in court by a fertilized egg claiming its right to your body and property is just not gonna happen!

Washington state passed the nation's second assisted suicide law in the country! Now individuals who are suffering and who rationally decide to end their life with dignity have more opportunity to do so humanely. This is a "right-to-life" issue: the right to choose to control your life, and that includes ending interminable suffering, even if evangelical Christians don't want you to.

Another attempt to severely ban abortion in South Dakota failed! Hurrah!! Proponents tried to make a previous draconian abortion bill more palatable by allowing rape and incest victims or women in danger for their health to have an abortion if necessary. Oh, gee, thanks for the crumb, but all women in South Dakota will get to retain at least most of their right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy according to their decision.

And candidates favored by the Religious Right suffered some losses at the polls. Hurrah!! In five of eight Senate races, the Religious Right's favorite candidate lost (Colorado, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina and South Dakota); and two races are in a run-off (Georgia and Minnesota). In eleven races for the the House, six incumbent Representatives favored by the Religious Right were ousted (Colorado, Florida, Idaho, North Carolina, Michigan and Virginia). And three incumbents held off religious challengers (Indiana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania). This means that it will be more difficult for evangelicals to forcibly decide for all of us that we should abide by a biblical morality.

Nah-nah-nah-nahhhh-nahhh!!

Cheers to us all! The Wall of Separation of Church and State is still there. It's big!!! It won't come down... for the time being, at least!

Ayn Rand Bookstore Clearance Sale

By Brandon Byrd from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

An exciting surprise at this year's OCON was the opportunity to purchase audiocassette versions of Ayn Rand Bookstore products at the low low price of $4.95 a tape. Needless to say, I stocked up. Now you can too! From the ARB website:

The Ayn Rand Bookstore is pleased to announce a clearance sale on all audiocassette products published by the Ayn Rand Bookstore, while supplies last.

In order to clear out our existing audiocassette supplies, we are now discounting prices to $4.95 per cassette. A single-cassette item will be $4.95; a two-cassette product will sell for $9.90; and so on. In some cases, prices are now as much as 75% below list price.

Sale prices will remain effective until all of our audiocassette products are sold out. Audiocassette products will later be reintroduced in other formats.

Listen and learn!

Don't Bailout U.S. Automakers--Untie Them

By Alex Epstein from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Don’t Bailout U.S. Automakers--Untie Them

November 20, 2008

Washington, D.C. --Politicians across the spectrum are calling for an auto bailout, arguing that we cannot allow such large companies to fail.
 
“If U.S. automakers cannot find a market fix for their problems, they must fail,” said Alex Epstein, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “They should go through bankruptcy proceedings so that creditors and owners can redeploy their assets as efficiently as possible.
 
“Every day these companies remain in existence in their current form, they are destroying shareholder wealth and wasting worker effort. To preserve these companies with a bailout would be obscenely unfair. Every dollar of a bailout would come at the expense of those who did nothing to cause the auto mess.
 
“There is one thing the government does owe the auto companies, however: freedom. For example, however the industry shakes out, automakers must be liberated from CAFE fuel economy laws that arbitrarily dictate what kind of cars they must sell, forcing them to sell millions of small cars that have no chance of profitability given consumer preferences. The auto industry must also be liberated from the Wagner Act, which gives unions the coercive negotiating power that railroaded the Big Three into their lavish, unprofitable wage and health plans. If a liberated Big Three can rejuvenate themselves, great; otherwise, a liberated next generation will be able to succeed where they failed.
 
“Economic freedom is what created the American automotive industry and made it the envy of the world. Economic freedom is the only thing that can bring it back.”

###  ### ###

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: David Holcberg          
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.”

                                                                                          RSS 

Drop the SEC Investigation Against Cuban

By Alex Epstein from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Drop the SEC Investigation Against Cuban
November 19, 2008

Washington, D.C. --Billionaire Mark Cuban is under investigation for “insider trading” by the SEC.
 
“This case is a travesty,” said Alex Epstein, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “Cuban is accused of selling his stock in Mamma.com after the CEO told Cuban that the company would be making a new stock offering that Cuban thought was a bad idea. But there is nothing wrong with this whatsoever--unless Cuban had a contractual obligation or fiduciary duty not to act on the information. And if Cuban violated a contract, which there is no evidence of, then that is the injured party’s--the company’s--job to pursue, not the SEC’s. In all likelihood, if there is anyone who violated a contractual obligation, it is the CEO who divulged confidential, unsolicited information--not the famous billionaire recipient who just happens to make a juicy target for SEC bureaucrats thirsting for another high-profile case to justify their regulatory power.
 
“The question of ‘insider trading’--when employees and investors of a company can act on certain information--should be left entirely up to private contract, such as restrictions on CEOs shorting their own stock. The criminalization of ‘insider trading’ has authorized the SEC to terrorize those whose only sin was to be a savvy investor. The Mark Cubans of the world deserve to be left free to make investment decisions under a government with clear laws against force, fraud, and breach of contract--not to spend years of their lives enduring witch hunts and prisons.”

###  ### ###

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.”

                                                                                    RSS

The Menace of Pragmatism

By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

PRESS ADVISORY
AYN RAND CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
555 12th Street NW, Suite 620 N, Washington, DC 20004

November 20, 2008

The Menace of Pragmatism
How Aversion to Principle Is Destroying America

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

What: A talk explaining the influence and the destructive nature of pragmatism in our culture. A Q&A will follow.

Where: National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, 13th floor, Washington, DC 20045.

When: Monday, December 8, 2008, at 6:30 pm.

Admission: FREE. The public and media are invited.

Description:

Shouldn't we be pragmatic?

While Americans disagree vehemently about all manner of moral and political issues, beneath that disagreement rests the shared presumption that the way forward is always through moderation and compromise. In intellectual method--i.e., in our way of addressing problems and disagreements--Americans are united as pragmatists. Contrary to pragmatism’s image of reason and practical good sense, however, pragmatic methodology is actually self-destructive.

This talk explains what pragmatism is and the countless ways it is manifested across the cultural spectrum. It analyzes the major elements of pragmatism’s appeal as well as its fundamental errors. It also surveys the vast damage that pragmatic methods inflict, damage that is spiritual as well as material. Finally, the talk considers the most effective means of dethroning this pervasive--and destructive--mindset.

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

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

###  ### ###

Dr. Tara Smith is available for interviews now and after her talk.

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.”

The Continuing Collapse

By Kendall J from The Crucible & Column,cross-posted by MetaBlog

As some of us have continued to say, it will continue to get worse until fundamentals are addressed. Money was given to banks, but balance sheets were not restructured. As such it is only a temporary delay in financial troubles. As long as financial markets are stopped up, demand freezes, and the longer that persists the more impact it has on actual demand. A general slow down ensues, and real firms, the worst run, and most at risk, begin to falter. Voila, autos slump; retailers are next.

The financial bail-out has failed. Primarily this is indicated by the precipitous drop in selected financial stocks after they were infused with cash. Bank of America, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs are off more than 50%. There was no need to hide which banks were in trouble, since the bailout wouldn't work, we were bound to find out by watching their stocks.

Some suggest that this is not yet as bad as The Great Depression, pointing at the jobless rate as a key indicator. However, we must remember that in the Depression our economy was much more self-providing than it is now. Most of our manufacturing has been moved off shore to places like China. If you look at what's happening to factories, and unemployment there, it is not pretty.

Our government continues to throw money at the problem, and attempt to improve things by stimulating consumers to buy. However, this is attempting to change the cause by stimulating the effect. It is doomed to failure. What does the Federal Government risk through this policy? It already is close to lowering interest rates as much as it possibly can (to 0% effectively). But that is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Lower rates are what got us into this problem, and it only encourages poor investing. Capital has already been destroyed. What we need is higher rates to spur conservative investing and capital preservation, but this does not fit with the stimulatory policy of the monetarist Fed. While sound policy guarantees a protracted recession, doing the opposite is now almost sure to guarantee a depression. The Fed has thrown so much money at this, that it now threatens the viability of the dollar as a currency of standard. If dollar confidence erodes enough, expect massive dollar flight and a significant decline in dollar values, making the problem even worse. We're in a deflationary period now, but that is due to real demand destruction. If the Fed continues its stimulatory policy, expect the deflation cycle to turn to rapid inflation.

We also do not need industry bail-outs. This phenomenon is nothing more than poorly run company "pigs" to an ever widening trough. The other half of the US auto industry is fine. Why do we continue to reward failure? Every bail-out, the financial one included, has done nothing but reward those who have failed to manage their companies well, and punished those who have succeeded. While some advocates of a bail-out continue to think that it can be structured in such a way as to force Detroit to restructure, Megan McCardle points out that things have become so cynical back in Washington, the those who support the auto bailout there now nakedly see it for what it is, a cash grab, "Hail Mary" play. Yet, they advocate it anyway. My God, what have we become!

Citi begs for help, and Wells Fargo has "help" forced upon it. A free market would work in reverse. Wells would gobble up Citi, but as long as the govt is in play, Citi resists, holding out for a hand-out. When strong banks suggest that they will use bail-out funds to make acquisitions, the one rational, helpful action in this crisis, tax payers howl.

This crisis could have been avoided. If the government had only stayed out when the banking sector worsened, and let the natural course of bankruptcy restructure sick balance sheets.

There are letters being penned to my congressmen, and I'm planning a few LTE's as well. Now more than ever, there is only one thing to advocate, lasseiz faire!

How Socialism Comes to America

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

In TIA Daily Rob Tracinski writes of Obama's planned $50 billion bailout of the "Big Three" Detroit auto manufacturers:

It is actually a plan for de facto nationalization which will turn the Big Three into permanent wards of the state whose purpose is not to make a profit but to serve the "social goals" set by government.

Obama is backing a plan to pump $50 billion into the big American automakers, while also establishing "a czar or board to oversee the companies"—call it Gosplan—which will supervise "a restructuring of the auto industry." That's exactly what Detroit needs to recover: the benefit of government central planning.

In essence, this is a plan for nationalization of the American auto industry under a new government-appointed board of directors who will supposedly tell the Big Three how to make a profit again.

Blinkered pragmatists will sputter, "But the government is not seizing the property, so it's not socialism!" No, that would be socialism on the communist plan. This is socialism on the fascist plan, in which the property remains nominally in private ownership, but the government dictates what the owner will do with his property. In America the dictation is called "regulation." In this case the dictator will be an "auto czar."

As Tracinski goes on to demonstrate, this is being done to protect a powerful pressure group, the unions. If the Big Three went bankrupt and were bought up by other auto makers, the power of the United Auto Workers would suffer.

American fascism makes corporations bureaucratic managers of the welfare state. Instead of just paying workers, corporations also provide health care and retirement pensions. These functions, along with a sea of regulations, give corporations two missions: make a profit and serve as a mini-welfare state. By passing welfare state functions to the corporations, the government expands the welfare state, but evades any censure for the expansion or any blame for the corporations' failures.

The Democrats are driving this intervention in auto manufacturing, but is there any doubt they were emboldened by the Republicans' bailout of Wall Street? (The Republican led bailout started at $700 million, then was revised to $1 trillion. Now the cost is estimated at $1.8 trillion. The plan has been around less than two months.)

Michael Barone writes,

The Detroit Three are taking advantage of the passage of the $700 billion financial bailout to argue that they, too, need government money to go on.

The conservative David Brooks thinks the bailout is a bad idea, but gets the cause wrong:

It is all a reminder that the biggest threat to a healthy economy is not the socialists of campaign lore. It’s C.E.O.’s. It’s politically powerful crony capitalists who use their influence to create a stagnant corporate welfare state.

But if America had a laissez-faire capitalist economy, then C.E.O.'s would have no influence and no recourse but to pursue a profit in the free market. By Brooks' thinking, if we just had virtuous people in the private sector, then statists such as Obama would never dream of increasing state intervention in the economy.

America's descent into fascism proceeds by the script written by Ludwig von Mises. Government intervention (regulations and government backed union power) have created a crisis in automobile manufacturing. This crisis does not inspire the government to withdraw its intervention, but to increase it with a $50 billion subsidy and the creation of an auto czar who will dictate even further to the industry. In the end we will have the same result as communism, but with private ownership serving to hide the extent of state control.

We are at a turning point in America. The state is about to make an enormous power grab. In addition to the de facto nationalizing of Wall Street and the auto industry, House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support are plotting to nationalize 401k pension funds. This plan would give the government trillions of dollars in pension funds to spend now; the money would be replaced by government IOU's like the nonexistent social security trust fund. With Obama in the White House and increased Democrat majorities in the Senate and House, can this looting be stopped?

Christianity is an Impediment to Success in Engineering and the Sciences

By noreply@blogger.com (Doug) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Dr. Dewey H. Hodges, a Professor of Aerospace Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, likes to wear his faith on his sleeves. For example, in the Powerpoint slides of the introductory lecture of his graduate class on advanced dynamics, Dr. Hodges reveals that the "most important person in [his] life is Jesus Christ", that the "most important aspect of [his] life is that he is [Christ's] servant" and that any aspect of his course is praiseworthy "because of Christ" [1]. Dr. Hodges continues to indicate anyone who believes that "a Christian cannot possibly be a knowledgeable engineer or scientist" is "misinformed". He then goes on to cite Sir Isaac Newton and the famous Renaissance mathematician Leonhard Euler as prime examples of practicing Christians who were monumentally successful in the sciences. Dr. Hodges then informs the class that out of the "56 universally acknowledged fathers of modern science, all but two professed faith in Jesus Christ."

Leaving the discussion of the appropriateness of this content for a graduate course in aerospace engineering aside, one must recognize that the claim that one cannot be a good Christian and a good scientist/engineer is very misleading. To whatever small extent this may be true, this message misses the more important point that taking Christianity seriously is a major impediment to being a good scientist or a successful engineer. When consistently practiced, Christianity demands a complete rejection of all that makes advancements in the science and engineering disciplines possible. The philosophical essence of religious faith demands the blind embrace of ideas in absence of evidence or proof. This is in stark contrast to a proper foundation for sound science, which requires that truths be corroborated with sensory evidence or logical inference from such evidence. In other words, good science mandates an uncompromising adherence to reason.

Christianity in particular has furiously opposed any form of scientific progress that challenges perceived Biblical truths. These include the violent persecution of astronomers who advanced a heliocentric view of the universe, to the criticism of the use of geological techniques to determine the age of the Earth, to the opposition of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection and to the modern objections to the morality of therapeutic cloning. In fact, it is when Christianity was most prevalent in the Western World that the West saw the fewest advances in science, medicine and technology [2].

Thus, while there are certainly many practicing Christians who are successful scientists and engineers, we must recognize that their success derives from their commitment to reason and is in spite of their Christian faith. No achievement of the human intellect has ever stemmed from religious devotion and any claim that Christianity is not diametrically opposed to reason is outrageous.

[1] The full lecture, including the Powerpoint slides, can be viewed in its entirety here: http://dcrs.video.gatech.edu/tools/viewer.php?media=dcrs&id=28360
[2] For more on this important history, see: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/tragedy-of-theology.asp

Harnessing the Networked Masses

By noreply@blogger.com (C. August) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Recently, an Op-Ed column in the Wall Street Journal stated that Barack Obama had run his campaign in a capitalist manner and proposed that he govern the country in the same fashion. Columnist Bret Swanson, in a seeming defense of entrepreneurialism (he strangely never uses the word "capitalism"... not once), exhorts President-elect Obama to learn from his campaign and foster "the unforeseen abundance that entrepreneurship can bring" to help the economy.

Swanson claims that Obama's campaign relied on individual initiative by grooming his supporters and then unleashing them on the web and on the streets - as opposed to the command-and-control, centralized McCain campaign that couldn't make heads or tails of the "Internets." He describes the "entrepreneurial" quality of Obama's campaign in primarily web-centric terms, listing the "8,000 web-based affinity groups" and millions of web volunteers and donors, and how his "even temper and relentlessly consistent message . . . encouraged supporters to take risks." This is held up as celebrating individual achievements.

The proposed "heavier hand of government" that comprises Obama's policies, including restricting free trade and "higher tax rates on capital and entrepreneurs," apparently runs counter to the actions of the successful campaign, and "do not reflect his campaign's deep trust in individuals."

Against this background, Swanson proposed an intriguing thought experiment.

Mr. President-elect: What if as your campaign raised more and more money it was taxed away and given to Mr. McCain to level the field? Or think of this: What if you were not allowed to opt out of the public financing scheme that left Mr. McCain with a paltry $84 million, about a quarter of your autumn total? [emphasis added]

Now, this is a great example that should show even the most myopic person the realities of taxing the great producers to pay for welfare state programs. Sadly, this is not at all what Swanson means by this example.

Not once does Swanson make a principled defense of capitalism, or the moral right of every individual to keep the product of his efforts without fear of forced government redistribution. It's not that he holds that government intervention in the economy is wrong, per se, he just thinks that if Obama wants to "raise the revenue he needs for his lofty priorities", he had better leave the "diffuse networks of entrepreneurs" free enough that he doesn't choke them to death. You can't tax a dead man, at least not enough.

Under the guise of promoting capitalism, Swanson has mapped out a blueprint for Obama to treat entrepreneurs the same way he treated his campaign automatons; fill them full of vagaries and promises, a frothy mix of hopes and dreams and change, all members of a cause greater than themselves, and then let them loose to do whatever it is that those entrepreneurs do to create wealth that he can tax.

Swanson's ideas amount to "we don't quite understand what it is that makes these fellows so productive, but it seems that freedom has something to do with it. We need them to keep going, so let's lay off the yolk a bit so we can keep working them. Somehow, they'll get us out of this recession."

Neither Obama nor Swanson understand or respect the individual right of each person to follow his own course, or that a society in which this is possible is the prerequisite for the "individual initiative" and the "technology [that] allows us to leap, obliterate or ignore" the various obstacles in the way, whether they are man-made or not. Swanson takes technological advances as a given--as if they are magic that invades our brains from "the ether"--trusting that even though government throws regulatory roadblocks up that stifle innovation, the spark of ingenuity somehow always hops right over.

At the core, both Obama and Swanson see the enigmatic producers of the world only as a key resource in wielding power. This is not a new concept, as despots of all stripes have long relied on the virtues of their subjects to feed their tyrannical regimes. It is perhaps just a new variant on the theme, made novel by the appeal to social networking and the web, but the meaning is the same: it is the duty of the productive members of the collective to carry the rest on their backs.

Swanson ends his appeal to his brand of pseudo-capitalism with this cynical bit of advice for President-elect Obama:

Mr. Obama should throw away his tax-regulate-and-centralize white papers. Instead, he should follow his campaign playbook and trust the networked masses. The best way to harness their power is to undo the reins. [emphasis added]

Welcome to Despotism 2.0

Real Life Crow Epistemology

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Although I think it would be a stretch to call what crows are doing here "reasoning", crows may be smarter than people generally give them credit for:

Crows make monkeys out of chimps in mental test
17 September 2008

Crows seem to be able to use causal reasoning to solve a problem, a feat previously undocumented in any other non-human animal, including chimps.

Alex Taylor at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and his team presented six New Caledonian crows with a series of "trap-tube" tests.

A choice morsel of food was placed in a horizontal Perspex tube, which also featured two round holes in the underside, with Perspex traps below.

For most of the tests, one of the holes was sealed, so the food could be dragged across it with a stick and out of the tube to be eaten. The other hole was left open, trapping the food if the crows moved it the wrong way.

Three of the crows solved the task consistently, even after the team modified the appearance of the equipment. This suggested that these crows weren't using arbitrary features – such as the colour of the rim of a hole – to guide their behaviour. Instead they seemed to understand that if they dragged food across a hole, they would lose it...

The Loss of Values Due to Contradiction

By Gina Liggett from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Two current events I have selected have nothing in common, except for being in the news. Well, they also pertain to underlying rational values that are at risk of being destroyed by their own best advocates. Why? Because their champions are trying to operate under contradiction.

On the heels of the joyously-resounding defeat of Colorado's "personhood" amendment comes another threat to abortion in Colorado. This time a private citizen, Mark Hotaling, is suing Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and Boulder Valley Women's Health center for violating the state's constitution. He claims that federal dollars received by these clinics are illegally being used to perform abortions. Hotaling says he's just standing up "for the will of the people and the constitution." For this, he's getting moral support from Ms. stand-up-for-the-people Kristi Burton, the evangelical who got Amendment 48 on the ballot "to empower the citizens to have a choice" about when life begins. And he's getting financial and legal support from the influential Religious Right group, the Alliance Defense Fund.

In the other story, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the $700 billion bailout plan won't include the purchase of troubled assets from banks after all, a turn-around from the original plan. And unlike the rescued financial sector, the American auto industry might not get the additional help it's been asking for. Stock exchanges revolt in their roller-coaster tumble with daily bad news about the economy and over worries of how governments will fix it.

What values are at stake here?

In the first story, the value is the right to abortion. As writers on this blog and on Politics without God have argued, abortion is an absolute, inviolable right. Ayn Rand explains the right to abortion in her famously clear and pithy way: "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being."

In the second story, the value is free trade. Free trade is the unencumbered right for free individuals and companies to voluntarily exchange goods or services with each other to their own mutual benefit on terms they both agree on. Because humans must create what they need to survive and thrive, and because they can't individually make everything they need, a market for such exchange is required. It reflects the sum of "all the economic choices and decisions made by all the participants," thereby creating wealth.

In a society based on rational principles, it is possible to protect the right to abortion under any and all circumstances; and it is possible for free trade to proceed to any degree of wealth that can be created by human ingenuity. But not so in a society where contradiction is introduced and enforced.

In the first story, the women's health and abortion clinics vociferously defend a woman's legal right to abortion as granted by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade. Yet they are willing to accept the expropriated earnings of wealth from others in society in the form of government grants in order to survive. While the clinics in the lawsuit deny directly using federal funds for abortion, they still must play by the arbitrary and ever-changing rules of those who hold the monopoly on force (i.e., the government). In the end, the right to abortion becomes conditional.

In the second story, the biggest intervention in the marketplace in American history has just happened. But decades of regulation, restrictions and biased preferences haven't led businesses to rise up and crusade for their right to free trade. It's led to just the opposite: the despairing cry for help using the expropriated earnings of others in society in the form of bailouts. Business are boldly proud and assertive when things are going well; but when things are not, they crumble under pressure and want a quick fix by any means from those who hold the monopoly on force (i.e., the government). In the end, the right of free trade becomes conditional.

It is a contradiction that we can uphold and pursue rational values that require freedom while accepting the conditions set by those who hold the monopoly on force. We have nobody to blame but ourselves: American citizens, with their endless special-interest appeals to their legislators, have allowed this untenable situation to unfold.

You can't be free and sleep with the devil. Or, as Ayn Rand more eloquently puts it: "a contradiction cannot be achieved in reality and... the attempt to achieve it can lead only to disaster and destruction."

Abortion rights are being chipped away every year. And we are in a worsening financial crisis of unprecedented proportions. The only way out is to eliminate the contradiction. The only way out is to hold government to its proper, non-contradictory function of protecting individual rights. And it is the citizens who must take this corrective action.

Global Shenanigans

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I should have seen this coming, but somehow didn't: My schedule's gettin' squeezed like a zit on prom night. Or something like that. Possible light blogging through the end of the week as I switch back in to Houston mode....


Reader Dismuke alerted me yesterday to an interesting story that I bet I wouldn't have otherwise heard of: A particularly glaring example of scientific incompetence or outright fraud has cropped up yet again in the laboratory of a major contributor of climatological data that allegedly supports claims that human activity is causing the earth's climate to warm.

Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record....

But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that ... GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. [Translation: We want even more grant money. --ed] This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.) [bold added]

Somehow, I don't expect to be hearing Heidi "Lysenk0" Cullen calling for any type of censure against James Hansen any time soon -- or for a formal retraction of her claims that privately-funded climate research is inherently biased. (And see the interesting quote by James Spann at that last link.)

Having brought this up, it really serves more to alert us of the possible unfolding of a cautionary tale about the hazard of politicization of science that comes with the territory of government funding. The global warming debate, as I have said here many times, continues being engaged in the wrong way:

This is what happens when everyone in a "debate" is actually in full agreement on the essential issue, yet refuses to discuss it, instead electing to prattle incessantly about something entirely tangential. In the misnamed "global warming" debate, both sides agree that the government ought to "do something" about climate change. This fundamental premise is almost never questioned or even named.

But laymen all over the place are arguing themselves blue in the face over whether climate change is occurring and, if so, how. Unfortunately, this second debate would remain (properly) confined to scientists if more people understood the proper role of government, namely the protection of individual rights. Not setting the Earth's thermostat.

Not to downplay the sloppy (at best) science here, but the real debate is the one that still isn't happening.

-- CAV

Is There a There There?

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

It is early yet. The election was one week ago. Obama will be President-Elect until January 20, 2009.

After one week it looks like the defining theme of Obama's presidency will be his famous self-definition, "blank screen." I think it was Tallulah Bankhead who said, "Deep down I'm really quite shallow." I'm beginning to think this a good description of Obama. At his core he has no core. He is a man whose essence is the desire to show other people what they want to see.

What would you expect from a Democrat blank screen? The Democrat status quo. Ron Radosh writes,

The appointment of Rahm Emanuel is more evidence for what I suggested the other day, that Barack Obama will seek to govern from the political center. As Ben Smith and John Harris suggest on Politico.com today, one must not confuse Emanuel’s tough game playing with ideology. As they and others have argued, Emanuel’s reputation is that of a centrist, who has often sought to reign in the left-wing of his party, “who does not share the reflexively liberal views of many of his House colleagues.” That judgment was seconded by Rep. Jim McCrery (R-LA) who said that Emanuel “is closer to the center, from a policy standpoint, than many of the Democratic Party.” It was also shared by Lindsey Graham, who said that while a “tough partisan, he understands the need to work together.” Graham called him “honest, direct, and candid” and a man who will “work to find common ground.”

Max Boot sees Encouraging Signs From Obama:

I worked for the other guy in the presidential race, but I have been cheered so far by the early indications of how the Obama administration is shaping up. Scuttlebutt has it that the front-runners for Treasury secretary are economist Larry Summers and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner. Either one would be a good, centrist choice. So, too, would be Jim Steinberg, a deputy national security adviser for Bill Clinton, who is now a rumored choice for national security adviser in the Obama administration.

It goes almost without saying that nothing would signal Obama’s moderate credentials more than retaining Bob Gates at Defense. So it is encouraging to read in the Wall Street Journal that the president-elect is “leaning toward” such a move, and that Gates “would likely accept the offer if it is made.” As the Journal notes: “the defense secretary strongly opposes a firm timetable for withdrawing American forces from Iraq, and his appointment could mean that Mr. Obama was effectively shelving his campaign promise to remove most troops from Iraq by mid-2010.”

Going with the status quo is better than the wildest fears of the right, that Obama would try to create a socialist dictatorship from day one. However, in a time when Republicans socialize Wall Street with some trillion dollars and Democrats want to nationalize 401k plans, the status quo is bad enough. There is no widespread movement to cut spending and dismantle government intervention in the economy.

But what choice does Obama have, if he wants experienced hands in his administration, than to choose from, well, those who have experience? Radical leftists are a double risk in that they have no experience. In today's climate, when politicians are terrified of taking blame for anything that goes wrong, it's hard to see how the Democrat establishment would let Obama fill his administration with unknown faces.

Another sign of Obama's deep down shallowness -- an amateurishness that merits watching in the coming years -- is his uncertainty and flip-flopping, the same stuff we saw during the campaign.

First, he was for involuntary servitude for college students, then he decided that it should be voluntary and pay $40 per hour! Then he deleted his website and we have no idea what he wants.

Then, he was for the Polish missile-shield when he was talking to Poland's president, but backtracked when he was talking to the U.S. press. (Now, Poland is kowtowing to Obama, saying it was all a misunderstanding.) This is an echo of Obama's NAFTA gaffe with Canada, which was also blamed on a misunderstanding with one of Obama's advisers.

This morning he was for closing Guantanamo Bay, and having the detainees face criminal charges in U.S. criminal courts, courts using the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or new, specially created national security courts. This evening, he has backtracked yet again.

"There is absolutely no truth to reports that a decision has been made about how and where to try the detainees, and there is no process in place to make that decision until his national security and legal teams are assembled," said Denis McDonough, a senior foreign policy adviser for the transition team, in a statement.

So where did those original reports come from? According to the AP, Obama's legal advisers.

One hand doesn't know what the other is doing so we end up with many conflicting statements. Mr. President-elect has to keep "clarifying" the positions his subordinates keep releasing on his behalf. It's almost like he has no leadership experience whatsoever.

If this goes on, then Obama will quickly disappoint his more intelligent supporters.

Competence isn't just a technique you learn from reading management books. It rests on having firm convictions. A man who can be blown one way or another by any gust of wind will be incompetent. All the evidence we have so far, from the campaign and one week as President-Elect, points to a man without principles, a man who can change 180 degrees on an issue if the need of the moment requires it.

I find all this immensely encouraging. If my analysis is correct, then Obama will be the second Democrat president in a row who was a social metaphysician -- a man who primary orientation to reality was not the facts but what others think of the facts.

A man without a core is easy to push around. Look at what the Republicans did to Clinton, a Democrat who was so intimidated by the right that he declared the era of big government to be over. The best thing that could happen to America right now is a neutered Obama worrying about uniforms for school children.

But it is still early and Obama could have big surprises in store for us. Clinton had to suffer the national health care debacle before his presidency diminished. Plus, Obama will not be hampered by Clinton's sexual appetite and risky behavior.

Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, "There is no there there." Will Obama be an Oakland president?

UPDATE: From Gabriel Melor:

Obama appears to be abandoning his promised commitment to end government torture.

Melor concludes:

The Administration-elect is only a week old and already it's foundering because of a lack of leadership.

Post Mortem

By Paula Hall from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I followed this political season more closely than I've followed any other. There's the narrative that this just wasn't the Republicans' year, the brand is too tarnished. There's the narrative that Obama is a cool customer, and the narrative that McCain squandered his honorable "maverick" brand. There's the it's-the-economy-stupid-redux narrative. There's the Obama's-shady-associations narrative.

What to make of these narratives? Which one is true?

None, I think. It's all euphemism. I think that every four years, but perhaps in this presidential election cycle in particular given Obama's historic candidacy, the American electorate trots out its metaphysical angst for all to see. And there's a big rush to put the just-so stories out there to cover it up.

The angst to which I refer? It's your garden variety can-I-cope-with-reality angst. American voters get the opportunity to choose which story they prefer to tell themselves about why the problem isn't within, but in the world they never made.

Some people tell themselves that someone is trying to take what they have, some "other." That other might be after their money, or after the spiritual values that they claim make them feel good about themselves. When they seek an answer to why their self-image is threatened, they look down at the threat from "below," from the people they consider beneath them in moral stature. These people run Right with the Republicans.

Some people tell themselves that others got unfair advantages, that those others have forced inequitable bargains on everyone else. When they seek an answer to why their life seems harder than they feel they deserve, they see the threat as coming from "above," from people who get to enjoy the high life because of the luck of the draw. These people run Left with the Democrats.

Both today's Left and Right are really two sides of the same coin. (Yes, I know, depressingly unoriginal observation, there.) They're both asking for the same thing -- they want the government to steal from someone and give to them what they feel themselves incapable of producing on their own. Those on the Right are looking for unearned moral status. Those on the Left are looking for unearned material wealth. Neither those on the Left nor on the Right realize that asking for the unearned is always a single problem, and that there's no real difference between them.

The Right needs to wash out its soul with soap and water. The Left needs to recognize the crook that looks back at them when they look in the mirror.

I sometimes despair of either side accepting that theirs alone is the responsibility for living and enjoying the good life.

Quick Roundup 379

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Paul Hsieh in the Denver Post

Paul Hsieh's excellent editorial on "How the GOP Lost My Vote" (via Noodle Food) was recently published in the Denver Post.

[T]he government's role is to protect each person's right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party's embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous.

If a woman chooses not to have an abortion for reasons of personal faith, then I completely respect her right to do so. But she cannot impose her particular religious views on others. Other women must have the same right to decide that deeply personal issue for themselves.

And he hasn't even touched the sprint towards socialism we have witnessed during the Bush administration, which would be bad enough alone!

Having said that, he indirectly does cover it: The Republican's "compassionate conservatism" is really just the misuse of the state to force everyone to practice the Christian "virtue" of charity.

Two Good Editorials on Greenspan

Harry Binswanger noted yesterday the publication of two good editorials on Alan Greenspan that appeared in smaller newspapers. One appears in Montana's Big Sky Business Journal and is by someone I've never read before, Evelyn Pyburn. She opens her article this way:

Anyone who has ever read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, both of which are novels by Ayn Rand, knows that the most dangerous traitor of all is the compromiser. Quite ironically as a former Ayn-Rander, Alan Greenspan proved Rand’s point most dramatically before Congress, last week.

The other one appears in the Grand Junction Free Press, and is by Linn and Ari Armstrong.

Objectivist Roundup

Blogging while I travel is a very hasty affair, and I frequently forget to contribute to roundups as a result. So this week, I am not in the roundup, which is posted over at Rule of Reason.

It's not about her.

Stephen Bourque isn't just alive and kicking. He's blogging, too, and has a good post on why mentioning Ayn Rand every fifth word isn't exactly the best way to raise the level of an intellectual discussion:

With this in mind, I would not wish to grant my intellectual foes a favor by contributing, however inadvertently, to the idea that Objectivists are followers of a "gospel according to Rand." When I argue points with friends and colleagues, I do not frame my statements in the form, "Well, Ayn Rand said..." or, "As an Objectivist, I believe that..." Why should this convince anybody? Listeners (or readers) who disagree with Ayn Rand to begin with will not be convinced by merely repeating her position on matters, and those who are unfamiliar with her work should not take her - or anyone else's - word for it. Anyone who is worth arguing with should care only about facts and their connections to principles. Mentioning Ayn Rand every few sentences would do more harm than good.

His focus is on intellectual activism, but he takes LB's essay, also worth a read, on the personal importance of the philosophy as his point of departure. And watch out for an interesting identification there regarding a common saying. I was lucky enough to have had my teach me that very distinction when I was very young. And no, Dad was not an Objectivist and, I am sure, had never heard of Ayn Rand at that age.

-- CAV

Close But No Cigar

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

While I often disagree with Mark Sisson, I found his recent blog posts criticizing "The Zone Diet" (of Barry Sears) and "The Paleo Diet" (of Loren Cordain) to mirror my own thoughts. You can read his posts here:

• What's Wrong With The Zone Diet?
  
• What’s the Difference Between Primal and Paleo?

Note that "The Paleo Diet" in this case refers to the specific diet developed by Loren Cordain, not the broad category of what I (and others) refer to as "paleo" diets, of which Mark Sisson's primal eating plan is just one type.

Also, while I'm not so familiar with The Paleo Diet, I do know The Zone -- and Mark's criticisms are spot-on. You can find more in this post by Richard Nikoley. As I said in the comments on that post:

The Zone was my first introduction to "paleo"-type diets about ten years ago. It definitely helped me get my blood sugar under some control: mostly by eating more protein, I stopped crashing and burning as I had been doing on a regular basis. So in that respect, it was good.

However, the allowed calories from carbs was simply way too high -- such it was easy to eat "in the Zone" while still eating tons of processed carbs, including sugars and grains. So I maintained my quasi-addiction to carbs on the diet. As a result, I achieved nothing like the results I've gotten over the past few months.

It's frustrating to think that Sears understands so much, yet ultimately misses the boat so completely.

And that's just one problem among many.

Bush Is No Champion of the Free Market

By Yaron Brook from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Bush Is No Champion of the Free Market
November 14, 2008

Washington, D.C.--In a recent speech on the financial crisis, President Bush said, “If you seek economic growth, if you seek opportunity, if you seek social justice and human dignity, the free market system is the way to go.”
 
According to Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, “It’s true that free markets are the source of economic prosperity and individual liberty--but President Bush, while he may pay lip service to free markets, has been a consistent opponent of them.
 
“Did Bush abolish the countless regulations and controls strangling businessmen? No. But he did sign into law Sarbanes-Oxley--the largest expansion of business regulation in decades. Did Bush consistently push for free trade? No. But he did give us a new steel tariff. Did Bush attempt to roll back America’s massive welfare state? No. But he did pass the prescription drug benefit, the largest new entitlement program since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Did Bush curtail government spending? Far from it. Bush presided over an unprecedented increase in the federal budget: from $1 trillion at the time he took office to more than $3 trillion today. This is to say nothing of Bush’s response to the financial crisis. He has completely evaded his administration’s responsibility for the Fed and housing policies that created the housing bubble. Instead, he has led the chorus blaming the market and calling for unprecedented handouts, bailouts, and nationalizations as the cure.
 
“If Bush is a friend of the free market, who needs enemies? By praising the free market while systematically undermining it, Bush has done more to discredit capitalism than any open critic could. Like a con artist who undercuts the reputation of Mercedes by selling lemon look-alikes, Bush has now led people to associate his failed policies with capitalism. That association needs to be erased. We must make it clear: Bush is no friend of free 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.”

                                                                                           RSS 

A Philosophical Critique of Heterophenomenology

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Christian Beenfeldt, Oxford graduate student in philosophy and occasional writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, recently published a paper in the Journal of Consciousness Studies entitled "A Philosophical Critique of Heterophenomenology." Here's the abstract:

In this paper Dennett's method of heterophenomenology is discussed. After a brief explanation of the method, three arguments in support of it are considered in turn. First, the argument from the possibility of error and self-delusion of the subject is found to ignore the panoply of intermediate position that one can take with regard to the epistemic status of first-personal knowledge. The argument is also criticized for employing an epistemic double-standard. Second, the argument from the neutrality of heterophenomenology is found to be defeated by the fact that, contrary to Dennett's claims, third-person, functionalist and instrumentalist assumptions substantially underpin and inform the method. Similarities between heterophenomenology and the Turing Test are furthermore explored, and it is shown that a weaker version of the neutrality claim also fails. Third, the argument from the appeal to the standard practice of science is shown to substantially rest on an equivocation on the term 'heterophenomenology' and is therefore rejected. Finally, it is suggested that the use of introspective reports is not inherently at odds with sound scientific procedures.

I haven't read it yet, but it looks of interesting! (It should be available for free via university accounts.)

A Post-Election Autopsy

By noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The Republican Party has entered into a state of post-traumatic shock after its resounding defeat in the 2008 presidential election. Christian conservatives are licking their wounds. Conservatives are engaged in a half-hearted pep rally about how Republicans can reclaim Congress and the White House, or are wandering off in various stages of dazed soul-searching. "What did we do wrong?" "What hit us?" "Where did that come from?"

Some conservative columnists and bloggers have even begun to question whether the G.O.P. has anything of substance to offer the electorate in terms of political philosophy. (It certainly has not been freedom, or capitalism.) Others are accusing president-elect Barack Obama and the Democrats of advocating socialism in the guise of populism.

These last are right, but they cannot pursue the truth any real distance without jettisoning their own collectivist political philosophy and ethics of altruism.

And while these last are more honest than their colleagues, it is doubtful they will connect the dots and concede that the very political agenda Obama slyly put over most American voters is simply a more consistent, more vigorous version of what the Republicans have endorsed or tried to co-opt from the Democrats for decades. The Republican Party for too many years can be likened to Cervantes's Sancho Panza, a credulous squire obediently following the lead of a shrewd, dissembling Don Quixote out not to save America, but to conquer it.

President George W. Bush and many of his predecessors in office helped to prepare the ground on which Obama now triumphantly stands with their own programs of altruism, collectivism and appeals to selflessness and self-sacrifice. What is to wonder about? Obama and Company owe George Bush and the Republicans so much. The president-elect and his amoral cronies in and out of Congress wish to implement their own "No American Left Behind" program to ensure that as many Americans as possible are enlisted in the march to full-scale statism.

"The thing that truly depresses me," wrote Burt Prelutsky in his article, "All the News That's Fit to Censor" on November 10th, "is that millions of my fellow Americans know the truth, but simply don't seem to care." The root of his depression is the fact that the news media and Obamaniacs are emotionally and psychologically insulated against all revelations about Obama's questionable political past, his disreputable associations, the role of ACORN's voter fraud, the suspicious sources of a big chunk of Obama's campaign donations, and his socialistic agenda. It is not likely many members of the press will seriously pursue any of those avenues of investigation. They want to believe.

Without defining what he meant by "hope" and "change," Obama persuaded countless rudderless and predisposed Americans that he was the man of the moment. After all, he makes Americans and the news media feel good, so what have facts got to do with that? They must not be allowed to get in the way to spoil the euphoria or shatter expectations.

Making whole populations feel good about their futures has been a device of ambitious power-seekers for millennia.

In the meantime, the news media is still beating the team of dead horses that pulled the Republican gun carriage through the two-year war of the presidential campaign, one of them vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe. But Obama's $650 million war chest is beyond the scope of the news media's concerns, and also that of the Federal Election Commission. His image as a Messiah armed with a bag of miracles at all costs must not be sullied, and woe to those who attempt to examine more closely his cash cows or his ideology. Most news anchors, journalists, and editors speak and write about Obama from a realm of self-induced myopia. They want to believe, and not doubt, suspect, question, or think.

"Obama can deny it all he likes," wrote Prelutsky, "but anyone who subscribes to the belief that we should adopt a fiscal policy based on 'From everyone according to his abilities to everyone according to his needs' is a disciple not of Warren Buffett, but of Karl Marx." But Warren Buffett, together with George Soros and countless other very well-heeled rich, are apparently disciples of Marx, as well, for they supported Obama, knowing full well what he represented. They did not care, either.

"When I suggest that socialism often leads to tyranny," wrote Prelutsky, "I am not indulging in right-wing hyperbole. After all, aside from control of capital and the means of production, one of the essentials of all dictatorships is central control of the media. In 2008, the left already controls most of the MSM, not to mention the liberal arts departments on most college campuses."

The news media surrendered their moral and philosophical press passes to Obama a year ago.

Prelutsky might have added most high schools, middle schools and pre-schools. Also, socialism is tyranny. What leads to it is the unwillingness or inability of freedom's defenders to oppose on rational moral grounds the incremental encroachments of statism that are the benchmarks of a mixed economy. And from socialism a country is led to dictatorship, once a population has been softened up for a final assault.

And a population can be softened up if the minds of countless individuals have been softened up beforehand. It would be interesting to learn, for example, how many college-age Americans voted for Obama as a consequence of their liberal arts education, a pedagogical venue largely in the control of leftists and nihilists. It is no secret that they dominate the subjects of political science, economics, and literature in most universities and colleges, and react with voluble outrage when accused of indoctrinating their charges. They invoke their "academic freedom of speech" while upholding campus speech codes that restrict or deny students their freedom of speech if that speech conflicts with their politically correct criteria of what is permissible.

But, A is non-A, writes Patricia Cohen in her New York Times article of November 3rd, "Professors' Liberalism Contagious? Maybe Not." She reports that most academics think that the left-liberal dominance of the humanities is a myth invented and perpetuated by envious "right-wingers." She quotes two political scientists who claim that "There is no evidence that an instructor's views instigate change among students."

"If there has been a conspiracy among liberal faculty members to influence students, 'they've done a pretty bad job,' said A. Lee Fritschler, professor of public policy at George Mason University and an author of the new book 'Closed Minds? Politics and Ideology in American Universities' (Brookings Institution Press).

"The notion that students are induced to move leftward 'is a fantasy,' said Jeremy D. Mayer, another of the book's authors....When it comes to shaping a young person's political views, 'it is really hard to change the mind of anyone over 15,' said Mr. Meyer, who did extensive research on faculty and students."

But college students can be and are softened up beginning in primary schools with an insidious combination of politically-correct textbooks, mandatory group think and "team work," and the subtle or not-so-subtle power of teachers to punish non-conformity and reward conformity to comply with local school board and federal and state guidelines. Combine those factors with speech codes and mandatory or "voluntary" community servitude and a host of other collectivist imperatives extorted from 15-year-olds, and helpless students, by the time they reach a college campus, will be unable to think or speak for themselves.

What is more, no "conspiracy" of left-liberals was necessary for professors to corner the market in the humanities. They are simply the beneficiaries of the ongoing pandemic destruction of philosophy in Western culture over the last century or so, which entailed the abandonment of reason, which in turn led to the disparagement of freedom and the advocacy of statism as the panacea for all "social" problems, all of which most of them have aided and abetted throughout their careers.

Is America headed for fascism? All political and cultural indications point in that direction. But I have been saying for years and years that if fascism ever comes to this country, it will not emulate the concrete manifestations of German Nazism or any other European style statism. No gangs of brown-shirted thugs roaming the streets, no jackboots tramping in unison on parade, no swastika emblazoned banners flying over government buildings will appear to alert one to the phenomenon. (Not so curiously, one can see these manifestations adapted by Islamist groups in the Middle East, together with the Nazi salute.) Substitute T-shirts, sneakers, and smile buttons, and one will have the American style of fascism.

What was disturbing were the Obama rallies during the campaign. Not a few commentators have remarked how similar they were in spirit and size to Hitler's Nuremberg shows of "solidarity." Obama spoke emotively, seductively, saying nothing but promising everything, and his audiences responded wildly in answer, thinking nothing but believing he had said it all. Audience and speaker blended into a single beast in a scary gestalt, transcending the sum of their emotions to become a force ready and willing to brush aside or crush any evidence of individual, rational resistance, in a kind of reverse demonstration of Orwell's Two Minutes Hate in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

People who participated in those rallies, or who see Obama as their earthly savior, have carried that spirit beyond into their everyday lives. Because they are governed by their emotions, they are not capable of calm argumentation or debate. To question Obama's motives, means and ends, is to invite a cold stare or a livid flaring of the eyes in reply. These people have put themselves outside the bounds of rational discourse. There is literally no reasoning with them.

Edward Rothstein, writing for The New York Times on November 4th in his article, "What Would George Bailey Do?" hauled out that hoary old cinematic chestnut, It's a Wonderful Life, and painted the bailout in terms of a run on Bailey Brothers Building & Loan Association. While his article is a skeptical critique of both the government's and Wall Street's actions, whether he realized it or not, it was a good choice for an analogy. After all, George Bailey sacrifices his values and goals repeatedly to serve the "general good." Rothstein concludes:

"What is strange is that now we depend on the state to re-establish trust by rescuing and even nationalizing financial institutions, relying on the same authority that gives paper money its value. But after the events of the last century, can anyone fully believe that the state should be the ultimate standard for trust and fiscal faith? And would even a real-life George Bailey be able to coax us into confidence, let alone belief that good intentions have power over principles of finance? We are in for perilous times."

Perilous and dangerous times, to be sure. The times ahead of us will be perilous, because of the government's powers to enforce obedience and conformity with little chance of dissention; and dangerous, because so many Americans are comfortable with those powers, and see in them the ingredients for "hope" and "change."

It is interesting to note that early in the 1770's, the British government forbade importation into the American colonies muskets and gunpowder, to reduce the ability of the colonists to resist by force the force that would be initiated by the Crown. Soon after news of Obama's election as president, gun sales in this country skyrocketed on the bet that the new president and Congress would so severely limit gun purchases and ownership that the market - and the right to bear arms - would simply cease to exist.

Take that bit of news as you will.

Making Rational Judgments (Show 080)

By Brandon from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The topic for Show 080 arose from a conversation between Mosley and regular listener iheartcells. Mosley made a comment about the status of homeless people, saying that they are lazy people who made bad decisions. iheartcells asked, “Are you sure that you have enough information to make that judgment?” In the show Mosley and Arthur discuss this.

Topics in the show include: Mosley and iheartcell’s discussion; making unwarranted judgments; judgments as not just for the bad, but for the good; today’s negative connotation with judging others; different types of judgment; justice as a virtue of making rational judgments and acting accordingly; judgments as requiring rational standards; the need for and evaluation of evidence; judging friends; moral agnosticism; the morality of being overweight; making assumptions; the source of the need of rational judgment as self-preservation; praising the good as of primary importance; rash judgments; judgment applied to the financial crisis.

In the end, Mosley concluded that he did not have enough information to make his judgment, with the understanding that judging others and making sure that one does so rationally is of crucial importance.

On this topic, Ayn Rand said:

One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.

Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.

To see more of what she had to say on this and other issues, feel free to check out The Ayn Rand Lexicon.

Labor Unions & Free Markets (Show 075)

By Brandon from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog

These notes were written by a listener, Steve, who is a member of the talkObjectivism Facebook group.

Is there something wrong with labor unions? Mosley questions the source of his dislike for unions: Maybe people have a right to collaborate in order to fight for their needs, higher wages, etc.

When unions are in private companies, there is a ceiling to claims that unions can make. When the company can no longer make a profit, the union can’t keep demanding raises and benefits. (The current GM troubles are a good example of this). When unions are in government industries, there is no ceiling to the costs of demands, because the government (therefore the taxpayer) has an essentially bottomless pocket.

One example of unions and related government/labor issues is the minimum wage. We discussed the alleged benefits of government mandated wages. While some claim these mandates benefit “the poor,” in fact they only benefit those who are already employed at some level above the minimum wage. When minimum wage levels are increased, the pool of capital available for labor has to be distributed among fewer people. This means people get laid-off, or at least not hired. Historically, every time the minimum wage has been increased, unemployment has gone up. Since the minimum wage keeps the unemployed from entering at the bottom of the economic ladder, it keeps unskilled laborers (who are willing to work for less) from competing with the more experienced, higher paid workers.

A coalition of “bootleggers and Baptists” is formed. Those who honestly believe (however misguided) that wage increases benefit people are joined by the labor union elders who have a stake in protecting themselves from competition.

Mosley goes on to explain the background of the Pittsburgh public port authority system, and rumors of a private system coming along. Steve calls in with the story of the Trans-Santiago bus system as told by Professor Mike Munger of Duke University, on the EconTalk podcast put out weekly by the Library of Economics and Liberty. The Chilean government municipalized what was once an open market of over 300 private bus companies. The bus market used to run in the black, about a $60 million dollar per year industry. After outlawing private buses and municipalizing the service, the government bus system is now about $600 million in the red.

Arthur calls in to remind that in weighing any two “imperfect systems” there is a difference between a government system and a private system. Government systems tend to be stagnant, and can only be as good as the committee that engineers it. In a public system, the goods and services offered improve through a constant process of trying to satisfy the consumer. Arthur also points out that all goods have to be produced by someone, even when they are paid for by the government (the taxpayer). The government doesn’t produce - it can only redistribute the funds of those who do.

Stop Blaming Capitalism for Government Failures

By Don Watkins Yaron Brook from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Stop Blaming Capitalism for Government Failures

By Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

Speaking of the financial crisis, French president Nicolas Sarkozy recently said, “Laissez-faire is finished. The all-powerful market that always knows best is finished.”

Sarkozy was echoing the views of many, including president-elect Obama, who assume that the financial crisis was caused by free markets--by “unbridled greed” unleashed by decades of deregulation and a “hands off” approach to the economy. And given this premise, the solution, they say, is obvious. To solve this crisis and prevent another one, we need a heavy dose of Uncle Sam’s elixir: government intervention. Whether it’s more bailouts, stricter regulation, a new round of nationalizations, or some other scheme, the only question since day one has been how, not whether, government is going to intervene.

And the issue is wider than the financial crisis. Millions of Americans don’t have health insurance? Well, says Obama, that’s because we’ve left the health-care system to the free market. The solution: a complete government takeover of medicine. A few companies engaged in accounting fraud? It must be because we didn’t impose enough regulations on businessmen. The solution: rein in corporations with Sarbanes-Oxley.

But while capitalism may be a convenient scapegoat, it did not cause any of these problems. Indeed, whatever one wishes to call the unruly mixture of freedom and government controls that made up our economic and political system during the last three decades, one cannot call it capitalism.

Take a step back. In the lead up to the “Reagan Revolution,” the explosive growth of government during the ’60s and ’70s had left the American economy in disarray. A crushing tax burden, runaway inflation, brutal unemployment, and economic stagnation had Americans looking for an alternative. That’s what Reagan offered, denouncing big government and promising a new “morning in America.”

Under Reagan, some taxes were reduced, inflation was subdued, a few regulations were relaxed--and the economy roared back to life. But while markets were able to function to a greater degree than in the immediate past, the regulatory and welfare state remained largely untouched, with government spending continuing to increase, as well as some taxes. Later administrations were even worse. Bush Jr., often laughably called a champion of free markets, presided over massive new governmental controls like Sarbanes-Oxley and massive new welfare programs like the prescription drug benefit.

None of this is consistent with capitalism. As the economic system that fully recognizes and protects individual rights, including the right to private property, capitalism means, in Ayn Rand’s words, “the abolition of any and all forms of government intervention in production and trade, the separation of State and Economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of Church and State.” Laissez-faire means laissez-faire: no welfare state entitlements, no Federal Reserve monetary manipulation, no regulatory bullying, no controls, no government interference in the economy. The government’s job under capitalism is single but crucial: to protect individual rights from violation by force or fraud.

America came closest to this system in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The result was an unprecedented explosion of wealth creation and consequent rise in the standard of living. Even now, when the fading remnants of capitalism are badly crippled by endless controls, we see that the freest countries--those which retain the most capitalist elements--have the highest standard of living.

Why then should capitalism take the blame today--when capitalism doesn’t even exist? Consider the current crisis. The causes are complex, but the driving force is clearly government intervention: the Fed keeping interest rates below the rate of inflation, thus encouraging people to borrow and providing the impetus for a housing bubble; the Community Reinvestment Act, which forces banks to lend money to low-income and poor-credit households; the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with government-guaranteed debt leading to artificially low mortgage rates and the illusion that the financial instruments created by bundling them are low risk; government-licensed rating agencies, which gave AAA ratings to mortgage-backed securities, creating a false sense of confidence; deposit insurance and the “too big to fail” doctrine, whose bailout promises have created huge distortions in incentives and risk-taking throughout the financial system; and so on. In the face of this long list, who can say with a straight face that the housing and financial markets were frontiers of “cowboy capitalism”?

This is just the latest example of a pattern that has been going on since the rise of capitalism: capitalism is blamed for the ills of government intervention--and then even more government intervention is proposed as the cure. The Great Depression? Despite massive evidence that the Federal Reserve’s and other government policies were responsible for the crash and the inability of the economy to recover, it was laissez-faire that was blamed. Consequently, in the aftermath, the government’s power over the economy was not curtailed but dramatically expanded. Or what about the energy crisis of the 1970s? Despite compelling evidence that it was brought on by monetary inflation exacerbated by the abandonment of the remnants of the gold standard, and made worse by prices controls, “greedy” oil companies were blamed. The prescribed “solution” was for the government to exert even more control.

It’s time to stop blaming capitalism for the sins of government intervention, and give true laissez-faire a chance. Now that would be a change we could we believe in.

Yaron Brook is the president of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Don Watkins is a writer at the Ayn Rand Center. 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.”

                                                                                         RSS

Objectivist Round-Up - November 13, 2008

By noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Provenzo) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Welcome to the November 13th 2008 edition of the Objectivist Round-Up. This week presents insight and analyses written by authors who are animated by Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. According to Ayn Rand:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

"About the Author," Atlas Shrugged, Appendix.

Without any further adieu, it is my pleasure to present this week's round-up:

Edward Cline presents Of Subversion, Subservience, and the Suffocation of Freedom posted at The Rule of Reason, saying, "Those of you who value their freedom, you know what is now expected of you, to argue, while you still can, for the reinstatement of a republic of reason."

Darren Cauthon presents My Argument Against Voting posted at Darren Cauthon.
Greg Zeigerson presents Two Topics: The U.S. Elections and The Merging of Man and Machine posted at Zigory.

Khartoum presents The American Dream -- As Possible As It's True. posted at Philosophy, Law and Life., saying, "Capitalism has been vindicated -- yet again. A fascinating new memoir, Scratch Beginnings, tells the story of Adam Shepard who finished grad school and went to check if the American Dream could ever really come true."

Khartoum presents Free Speech Forum Pisses Off Audience Members. posted at Philosophy, Law and Life., saying, "The members of the audience stormed out of a panel discussion hosted by the American University's Objectivists' free speech forum. The forum sought to discuss the nature of free speech and how totalitarian Islam was a threat to free speech."

Andy Clarkson presents Reason As The Basis Of Human Interaction posted at The Charlotte Capitalist.

Rational Ryan presents The Preposterous Premise of Proposition 8 posted at The Dirty Kuffar, saying, "Examines the recent decision in California to ban gay marriage, the motivations and the false premise any ban on gay marriage carries."

Paul McKeever presents Banking and Morality: 100% Reserve versus “Fractional” Reserves posted at Paul McKeever, saying, "this blog post, made in response to a vlogger who advocates fractional reserves, preceded my video response to his video (my video response is now available here: http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2008/11/05/new-video-fractional-reserve-banking-versus-ayn-rands-ethics )."

Burgess Laughlin presents Asymmetrical Debate? posted at Making Progress, saying, "This post wrestles with the problem of the conflict of reason and mysticism in society. Exercising reason, which is rare, requires a great deal of time and effort, but mysticism, which is common, requires neither. How can reason possibly win?"

KLB presents Measure Q and the Lending Crisis in Education posted at The Undercurrent, saying, "Los Angeles recently passed Measure Q, a $7 billion dollar bond measure to fund public schools. This is on top of the $19 billion worth of bond measures already passed to prop up the L.A. public school system over the last eleven years. Must we keep pouring money into a dysfunctional educational system that has shown itself clearly incapable of translating that money into a quality product?"

Michael Labeit presents On the Purpose and Productiveness of Entrepreneurship posted at Philosophical Mortician, saying, "The role of entrepreneurship as well as of the profit/loss system has been thoroughly corrupted by Marxist "thought." Dr. Ludwig von Mises eviscerates the Marxist and anti-profit arguments in his monograph "Profit and Loss" as well as laboriously explains and the defends to virtue of entrepreneurship and of the profit/loss system. Entrepreneurs, Mises holds, are our allies not our enemies. This essay is a brief synopsis for those who wish to understand the nature of entrepreneurial profit but who may not possess the time necessary to read and fully understand Mises's monograph."

Beth Haynes presents Thoughts after the election posted at Wealth is not the Problem, saying, "I am not sure exactly how this works, so if you could refer me to a source or explain a little more, I'd greatly appreciate it. But, it looks interesting enough to give it a try and see what happens! Thanks, Beth"

Adam Reed presents Objectivist Activism Report: The Defeat of Proposition 4 posted at Born to Identify, saying, "When I began my activism for the recent elections, the Christo-Fascists had placed two propositions for constitutional amendments on the ballot. All the pollsters were predicting that Proposition 4 would win, and Proposition 8 would lose. I estimate that my OpEds reached about a million voters. Proposition 4 lost with 223,088 votes from the half-way mark. I consider it likely that my OpEds contributed to this result. All while opponents of Proposition 8, the second Christo-Fascist warhorse, managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory."

Paul Hsieh presents The Future of Social Security? posted at NoodleFood, saying, "Why do some liberals want the government to confiscate private 401(k) retirement accounts? To "protect" American workers, of course!"

Shaun Connell presents Will You Survive the Financial Storm? posted at Financial Planning, saying, "One thing is certain: the next few years will unveil more and more global economic restrictions, crises and "hard times." Don't be among the losers -- learn how to turn economic hardship into profit by rationally analyzing your situation."

K. M. presents Book Review: NEXT posted at Applying philosophy to life, saying, "A review of Michael Crichton's novel NEXT that raises issues of patent laws, intellectual property and role of government in research"

C. August presents America Urges Government to 'Do Something!' posted at Titanic Deck Chairs.

Myrhaf presents Is There a There There? at Myrhaf.

Cogito presents Determinism Versus Causality: Frozen Abstractions at Cogito's Thoughts saying "A somewhat disorganized post discussing what I think is an example of the frozen abstraction fallacy that occurs in the thinking of many."

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of objectivist round up using our carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags: objectivist round up.

Walking Cultural Activism: One Nation

By Greg Perkins from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Tammy and I thought it would be great to produce a series of T-shirt designs for those occasions when it is appropriate to wear our ideas on our sleeves. Bonus points if they aren't just provocative but actually spark some good engagement!

Who Owns The West?

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog


This map shows clearly how much of the Western US is owned by the federal government:

The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) - nearly 30% of its total territory. These federal lands are used as military bases or testing grounds, nature parks and reserves and indian reservations, or are leased to the private sector for commercial exploitation (e.g. forestry, mining, agriculture). They are managed by different administrations, such as the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of Defense, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Tennessee Valley Authority.

This map details the percentage of state territory owned by the federal government. The top 10 list of states with the highest percentage of federally owned land looks like this:

1. Nevada 84.5%
2. Alaska 69.1%
3. Utah 57.4%
4. Oregon 53.1%
5. Idaho 50.2%
6. Arizona 48.1%
7. California 45.3%
8. Wyoming 42.3%
9. New Mexico 41.8%
10. Colorado 36.6%

The following thought then occurred to me. One day, the US is going to face a financial crisis due to the insolvency of Social Security that will make the current mortgage crisis look like chump change in comparison. And everyone who advocates privatizing Social Security also points out that there would be huge transition costs.

So the question is whether those costs (or overall transition costs of moving from the current mixed economy to a fully consistent system of laissez-faire capitalism) could be covered by selling off those Federal lands? It might conceivably have to be done in stages to avoid depressing the market by dumping all that land on the market at once.

But there is something appealing about the idea of paying for the transition costs of privatizing our economy by a method which also privatizes a big chunk of US government assets.

Why We Need Principles

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Matt Drudge links to a story detailing what I regard as my worst nightmare: A government that has decided to actively violate freedom of speech. No excerpt can do this justice, but here's a taste.

An internet blogger and a writer who disguised an attack on Burma's dictator in the form of a love poem were among dozens of activists sentenced to draconian jail terms as the junta ordered a fresh crackdown on dissidents.

Nay Myo Kyaw, 28, who wrote blogs under the name Nay Phone Latt, was sentenced to 20 years and 6 months in jail by a court in Rangoon. The poet, Saw Wai, received a two-year sentence for an eight-line Valentine's Day verse published in a popular magazine.

Aung Thein, the lawyer for the men, was given four months in prison on Monday for contempt of court during his defence.

...


Mr Saw Wai’s poem, entitled 14th February, was ostensibly a Valentine's Day verse published in January last year in a weekly magazine. "You have to be in love truly, madly, deeply and then you can call it real love," it read. "Millions of those who know how to love, Laugh and clap those gold-gilded hands."

The first word of each line, however, spelt out a message about the leader of the country's military government: "Power Crazy Senior General Than Shwe". Mr Saw Wai was charged with harming "public tranquillity". [bold added]

That is just the sort of thing I could imagine doing (and have done, but not in a political vein). I suspect that the "alternative" being immorally forced on Saw Wai by his government is: "Your life or your life!" That's what being silent or -- worse, being told to write only what one knows to be ugly and wrong -- is for someone who loves to write. And, now that I think of it, that is the ultimate, though not always so stark, choice any tyranny puts to us, and which gives meaning to the motto, "Live free or die."

But that's not what got me going. What really got my attention was the following foolishness from the reader comments by one James Beckton of Airstrip One:

Socialism has nothing to do with Burma's situation. The country is run as selfish regime. China supplies regime expertise and equipment while all the big powers including China extract raw materials and profit. The population are treated as a disposable nuisance. Just the same as Congo and Zimbabwe.

First of all, given that freedom of speech can and does greatly accelerate the discovery of the truth, which man must have to survive and flourish, to call a regime that suppresses freedom of speech "selfish" borders on the patently absurd. This is not to say that it is unimportant to defend the virtue of selfishness whenever possible, for its opposite, altruism, is what is used to justify socialism and dictatorship, including the poet's very sentence! The rulers of China, Burma, Congo, and Zimbabwe are anything but "selfish".

No, what got my attention was that asinine statement that socialism has "nothing to do with this". Socialism is a political system in which the government owns the means of production (i.e., it fails to recognize the property rights of its citizens to the point of perpetually violating them). As such, it is a species of tyranny and it is one step down the road to Rangoon. (Yes. I know, it's "Yangon" now. And it's no longer the capital. And I bet quite a few Burmese would take colonial status over this any day. So let's do talk about keeping up to date.)

The very idea that a government that violates individual rights in one area (property) will not eventually also do so in another (speech) is folly. In such a case, either the principle that man has rights is unknown or it is already being flouted, and sooner or later, some lowly prole -- I mean, individual human being -- will inconvenience the government by exercising what rights haven't yet been trampled.

I have often spoken of a "dictator fantasy" in which people like this apologist for socialism (or Obama's more fanatical supporters) seem to think that the despot they want in power will rule as he, personally, sees fit. This is clear evidence of a lack of principled thought, and the proliferation of people with this fantasy is a direct result of the prevalence of the philosophical approach of pragmatism.

-- CAV

President Coolidge on Taxes and Government Efficiency

By noreply@blogger.com (Doug) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A friend of mine brought the following short address by President Calvin Coolidge to my attention.

I recommend that you all watch this. A few pleasantly surprising sound bytes made by President Coolidge includes:

the cost of government is forced upon all citizens ... every tax dollar taken forces everyone to work, part-time, for the government.

The emphasis is mine. I find it truly impressive to hear a 20th century U.S. president acknowledge taxes as a use of force instead of an admirable sacrifice or a moral duty. Of course, President Coolidge is not calling for the abolition of taxes; he is just honestly stating the reality of what they are. Here is another refreshing quote:

I want the people of America to work less for the government and more for themselves. I want the people to have the rewards of their own industry. This is the chief meaning of freedom.

From what I recall from Robert Sobel's Coolidge: An American Enigma, Coolidge viewed taxes as a necessary evil to fund the basic functions of government. Needless to say, Coolidge's perception of what was necessary went beyond police, military and a court system as it included public works and schools. However, as a general standard, he seemed to strive to avoid expanding the government's role beyond its current functions, he seemed to work to improve the overall efficiency of government so as to reduce the tax burden on America and he tried to let the "business of America [be] business". Of course, it would have been much better had the Coolidge Administration actively fought to undo the Pure Food and Drug Act, the Interstate Commerce Commission or the Anti-trust laws. Nevertheless, Coolidge's Administration still sounds very good relative for the early 20th century.

The address that I have posted ends with a general call for more efficiency in government spending. I have no idea to what extent Coolidge delivered on this last point. Every politician calls for more efficiency in government spending. None are going to (explicitly) call for the government to be more wasteful. However, this still sounds more believable when Coolidge calls for it.

Contrast the overall spirit of Coolidge's speech (to the extent we can tell with limited context) to the various speeches of modern politicians. Most politicians today never acknowledge that taxes are forced upon Americans. Most politicians today also insist that their economic policies will only negatively impact the wealthiest of Americans as opposed to affecting all taxpayers. Most importantly, politicians today brag about how many new government programs they have helped create, as if they are bragging points to be itemized on a resume. Almost no politicians today call for less government. How far things have fallen.

Volition & Determinism (Show 082)

By Brandon from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Last week on Show 081 Mosley and Arthur began to discuss their views on the nature of volition. Arthur presented a perspective, as he cautioned, that may not be in complete coherence with the Objectivist position. Dr. Paul Hsieh, of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) and the NoodleFood blog, wrote us an email that offers his views from an Objectivist perspective and indicates where he differs with Arthur. After review, Arthur still maintains his position, but believes that Paul brings up several important points which he proceeds to discuss.

Topics include: TalkObjectivism blog and content; upcoming Objectivist events (see post below for more information); Paul’s email; choice and being able to do otherwise; the introspective evidence for volition; development of life compared to development of volition; volition and deliberation; determinism as an excuse; “could have done otherwise” as shorthand; determinism as necessary for understanding; genetic influences on behavior; what is under volitional control; sexual attractions; can choices be foreseen; volition and animals; consciousness as an action process; emotions; and much more.

A Nation of Followers

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

My brother is a tattoo artist. He reports he is getting college girls who want the Obama O tattooed on them. (Is this better than a tramp stamp?)

Have you ever heard of people getting a tattoo of a politician's symbol? Did any Republican girls get W tattoos in 2000? Obama is an entirely new phenomenon. He brings a cult of personality into American politics.

Peggy Noonan notes,

...[The GOP] lost the vote of two-thirds of those aged 18 to 29. They lost a generation!

Two thirds of young voters voted for Obama. Most of these people, I suspect, did not question Obama when he said in his typically gaseous victory speech,

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.

It did not occur to them to ask, "Where? What the hell are you talking about, Obama? Exactly what is your goal?" Instead, they cheered. Wherever you want to take us, our leader, we will follow.

Some Obama supporters, like Peggy Joseph, who thinks voting for Obama means she won't have to pay for her own gas or mortgage, are the product of the welfare state. These people have been taught all their life to look to the state for handouts.

Others are the fruit of progressive education. These are socialized people. They are collectivists terrified to think for themselves. They want to be told by the group what is cool, what is hip, what bears the stamp of approval of the group. Obama is so cool! Let's get his tattoo!

Those who do not go along with the group will be denounced as unpatriotic, racist and selfish. The popular phrase, "They just don't get it" will be used. It's a convenient phrase for those who follow the vibe of the group, as it obviates any rational argument. You either feel it or you don't, you get it or you don't.

These people are ready for a dictatorship. They are a collective waiting to be told what to do.

You can't have a dictatorship without a significant portion of the population that is willing to follow orders blindly. Benjamin Franklin's words haunt us. When asked what they were creating in the Constitutional Convention, he said, "A republic -- if you can keep it."

We cannot keep it with a nation of people who are unquestioning, passive sheep.

UPDATE: Revision.

Leaving the Country? Pay the Price!

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

In the wake of Barack Obama's election as 44th President of the United States, some people have talked about leaving the country. However, an Instapundit reader noted that the US government may impose a stiff exit tax for the more productive people seeking to leave:

..."Going John Galt" is not that easy -- Congress quietly passed an "exit tax" earlier this year to penalize any (somewhat) high net worth US resident that decides to vote with their feet.

As quoted in the links below, the U.S. government, through the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Act of 2008 (the HEART bill, for short, and I am not making this up), effective June 17, 2008, imposes an "exit tax" on certain citizens and long-term residents who expatriate or terminate their long-term residency. Such individuals, called covered expatriates, will be deemed to have sold all of their worldwide property for its fair market value on the day before expatriating or terminating U.S. residency, and will be liable for U.S. tax on the amount deemed realized in excess of $600,000 (subject to cost of living adjustments).

Covered expatriates are: citizens and long-term residents who (a) have an average annual U.S. tax liability for the previous five years of $139,000 (adjusted for inflation), (b) have a net worth of at least $2,000,000 on the expatriation date, or (c) fail to certify compliance with all U.S. federal tax obligations for the previous five years.

Link 1
Link 2

And regular NoodleFood commenter Jim May gets a mention from Instapundit with this quote:

...I left Canada for the greater opportunity and freedom in America. I never expected Canada to follow me here.

I still agree with Dr. Leonard Peikoff's assessment in his November 3, 2008 podcast -- I'd still rather stay in the US and fight for good ideas than leave, at least at this point in time

401(k)s and IRAs to be nationalized?

By David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way,cross-posted by MetaBlog

When Argentina moved to nationalize pension funds, the media correctly identified it as a “grab” and people took to the streets in protest. I think Americans might just roll over, however.

read more | digg story

John Allison Lecture at Duke

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

From John Lewis:

Spread the word, please! Announcing a very special event:

A Lecture by Mr. John Allison, President and CEO of BB&T Corporation: "Financial Trauma: Causes and Possible Cures"

November 19, 2008, 3:30 PM

Griffith Theatre, at the Bryan Center, Duke University (Directions)

As the world struggles with the current financial crisis, we should listen to the executives of successful financial institutions. BB&T is such an institution.

Mr. Allison will outline the causes of today's financial chaos, including the errors that led to the crisis. He will discuss the broader implications for the economy, including the effects on the housing and mortgage industries, and offer economic and political suggestions for both short-term and long-term cures.

John A. Allison became CEO of BB&T on July 7, 1989. At the end of 1989, BB&T was ranked 96th largest bank in the nation with $4.8 billion in assets. After 60 bank and thrift acquisitions, and the implementation of innovative training and measurement programs, the former eastern North Carolina farm bank has grown to become the nation's 14th largest financial holding company. Assets have increased from $4.8 billion, when Allison began his tenure as CEO, to $137 billion today.

Sponsor: The Program on Values and Ethics in the Marketplace, Duke University

Contact: John Lewis, john.d.lewis (at) duke.edu

Wow, now that's a lecture I wish I could attend!

The Halloween Show (Show 083)

By Brandon from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog

For Halloween weekend, Mosley and Arthur discuss various relevant topics starting with the supernatural then moving on to Halloween and the significance of the various activities surrounding it. Toward the end of the show, they discuss the election, which is almost here.

Being somewhat distracted in the chat room, I was not able to note all the topics, but they include: the supernatural; ghost stories for entertainment; philosophic significance of Halloween; dressing up and trick-or-treating; haunted houses; horror movies; fiction vs. non-fiction movies & TV shows; benevolent and malevolent universe premise; the election; Obama & religion; lesser of two evils; voting; and more.

We hope you enjoyed the show and will see you next week!

Steve Ditko - Part 2 (Show 072)

By Mosley from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog

We continued our discussion about Steve Ditko and how his Objectivist views shaped his artwork and career. Thanks to Javier Hernandez, we were able to get Blake Bell, the writer of the new book about Steve Ditko, and Mort Todd, who worked closely with Steve on several projects since the 1980s. This was a very interesting show. If you enjoyed last week’s show you are going to love this one.

If you would like to learn more about Blake and his book, visit ditko.comics.org. His book Strange and Stranger: The World of Steve Ditko is out now and you can pick it up at Amazon.com.

Todd Mort also has a few sites I would like to plug. Sadistik is a project where he translates Italian photo comics to English. You can also check out his media company at ComicFix.com.

I would like to thank everyone that was on the show. It was a lot of fun and I look forward to talking with you again sometime.

In Defense of John Allison’s Moral Character

By noreply@blogger.com (Doug) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I disagree with Nick Provenzo’s post alleging that Mr. John Allison is guilty of giving the “sanction of the victim.” Other readers of this webblog have expressed their agreement with Nick’s post. For example, in the comments section, Ed Cline refers to John Allison’s recent press release as a “defection”. There are also several anonymous posts that are far more incendiary but are not worth deigning to address.

Rest assured that I found the BB&T press release [1] to be a grave concern. The particular statement that expresses open support for the U.S. Treasury’s efforts to achieve financial stabilization is the most unsettling part. At first glance, this certainly seems unnecessary and unjust. However, Burgess Laughlin raises the valid point that it is unclear to what extent Mr. Allison, as CEO, has control over this statement compared to, say, the Board of Directors. We also presently have no idea of Mr. Allison’s motivation for releasing this statement. The fact is, there is presently an enormous amount of uncertainty surrounding this press release.

Nevertheless, if any of us who value Objectivism is to judge Mr. Allison properly, then we must consider the entire context of his actions and his public statements. First, consider Mr. Allison’s many ostensible commitments to spreading Objectivism. He:

• Gives speeches promoting Objectivist principles in business. [2]
• Oversaw that BB&T would not lend money to any commercial developers that acquired property from private citizens through eminent domain. [3]
• Responsible for financing the start and expansion of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism, where Objectivist intellectuals Dr. C. Bradley Thompson and Dr. Eric Daniels hold research positions. [4]
• Is probably one of the biggest financial supporters of both the Ayn Rand Institute and the Anthem Foundation.
• Created numerous BB&T programs to get Atlas Shrugged in particular and Objectivism in general taught in universities. For example, see [5, 6].
• Probably converted hundreds of productive businessmen into Objectivists.
• Serves as a shining example of what an individual can accomplish who lives his life and conducts his business according to Objectivism [7].
• Stuck his neck out to e-mail all of Congress with a resounding critique of the recent bailout proposal at the end of September [8] and blamed the government for the crisis two weeks ago [9].
  

In my opinion, John Allison has probably done more to effectively spread Objectivism than just about anybody sans a handful for ARI intellectuals and employees. This strongly suggests that Mr. Allison is not an individual who concedes the sanction of the victim at the slightest increase of pressure.

Second, before making our judgment, we should recognize that even Yaron Brook expresses the necessity for the short-term economic stabilization of the housing market, the banking industry and the stock market [10]. Of course, this does not say that supporting the Treasury’s efforts for financial stabilization is justified, especially since Dr. Brook goes on to suggest free market solutions to achieve this stabilization. Nevertheless, Dr. Brook’s opinion still suggests that it is not unreasonable to support some effort for stabilization.

Lastly, I wanted to address the broader issue of life and philosophy. Being an Objectivist does not mean that you refuse to file your income taxes because not doing so will result in your incarceration. Nor does being an Objectivist mandate that you actively and publicly denounce Islamic Totalitarians, as it could force you and your family to go into hiding for fear of your life. Being an Objectivist also does not require that you risk your life by defiantly standing in front of the tanks at <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />Tiananmen Square. Simply put, it is a contradiction in terms to demand that an Objectivist choose between his life and an allegedly higher philosophic cause.

Again, this is not to say that the infamous press release is worded well or is morally justifiable. However, we must not forget that it is only moral for John Allison to take a defiant stance if it will make his own life better. It is not moral for him to martyr himself to ignite an Objectivist cultural revolt that he may not be able to enjoy.

In summary, I do not think it is fair to debate John Allison’s commitment to Objectivism. His actions prior to this press release show he has lived his life and conducted his business according to Objectivist principles. Furthermore, as previously discussed, he has been monumentally successful in spreading Objectivism. Further still, there is presently an enormous amount of uncertainty underlying both the motivation for releasing the press release as well as the amount of creative control Mr. Allison had over its content. We should take the full scope of his life as well as this great uncertainty into account when judging Mr. Allison’s integrity. Anyone who values Objectivism owes him this much.

[1] http://bbt.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=717

<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDAn51D_YxY

[3] http://www.bbt.com/about/media/newsreleasedetail.asp?date=1/25/06+9:48:52+AM

[4] http://www.clemson.edu/newsroom/articles/2008/october/BBTgift.php5

[5] http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=as6BR0QV4KE8&refer=us

[6] http://www.utexas.edu/news/2008/03/20/lib_arts_ayn_rand/

[7] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/05/allison_on_stra.html

[8] http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5293

[9] http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2008/10/13/daily50.html

[10] Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein on "Real Orange" (KOCE) October 19, 2008, around 2:30 into the video clip. The video can be viewed here: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_financial_crisis

BB&T to participate in U.S. Treasury program

By noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Provenzo) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

As you may have already heard, BB&T, led by long-time Objectivist John Allison, has elected to participate in the Treasury Department's capital purchase program [Press release here]. I for one am disappointed by Mr. Allison's stand for the following reason. To my knowledge, no one forced Mr. Allison to say this:

"We support the Treasury's efforts to stabilize the credit markets and restore confidence in the financial system," said BB&T Chairman and CEO John A. Allison.

Mr. Allison may have had no choice when it came to accepting government control over his bank. He may have had his reasons as we all do when faced with a mixed economy. Nevertheless, Mr. Allison was under no obligation to publicly praise the government for its latest encroachment.

There is a concept in Objectivism that describes such conduct. It is called the sanction of the victim. With all due respect to Mr. Allison for his support for Objectivism, he just did so via press release.

Quick Roundup 377

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Mankiw on the Youth Vote

Greg Mankiw's conjecture on why the youth vote was so heavily Democratic:

I am not enough of a political scientist to be sure, but recent conversations I have had with some Harvard undergrads have led me to a conjecture: It was largely noneconomic issues. These particular students told me they preferred the lower tax, more limited government, freer trade views of McCain, but they were voting for Obama on the basis of foreign policy and especially social issues like abortion. The choice of a social conservative like Palin as veep really turned them off McCain. [bold added]

Or, as Paul Hsieh recently informed the GOP -- who asked -- awhile back:

The Republican Party must promote the strict separation of church and state. I used to support the Republican Party because I believe in individual rights, free markets, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms.

However, the Republican Party alliance with the religious right on "social issues" like abortion and gay marriage has turned off many former supporters such as myself.

The proper function of the government is to protect individual rights, as philosopher Ayn Rand notes:

"Man's Rights"

"The Nature of Government"

The government should not force one group's religious views on everyone. Hence, I no longer have a home in any political party. To paraphrase a quote from Ronald Reagan, "I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me." [bold added, raw URLs converted into hyperlinks]

I agree.

As the GOP begins soul-searching after its well-earned thrashing, activism like this can potentially have a big effect, and it will become particularly important as Barack Obama maintains and perhaps expands the foothold for theocracy that Bush introduced in the form of "faith-based" government initiatives.

In any event, although the Congressional Dems will not be able to keep themselves from overreaching, it is somewhat reassuring that even Froma Harrop doesn't see a leftist mandate in the electoral tea leaves (although her idea of center is farther to the left than mine).

Objectivist Roundup

C. August has posted it over at Titanic Deck Chairs.

He also beat me to posting the above hilarious video from The Onion on Obama supporters, but it's so good I want it here, anyway. I like the fact that it makes fun of his supporters for exactly the same reason I did yesterday!

China Issues First Order to Obama

Notice the why and the what:

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and a top UN official urged industrialised nations Friday to alter their lifestyles and investment modes as part of efforts to tackle global warming.

"The developed countries have a responsibility and an obligation to respond to global climate change by altering their unsustainable way of life," Wen was quoted as saying by Xinhua news agency.

Developed nations should also help developing countries respond to climate change, Wen said at the opening of a two-day international meeting on global warming in Beijing.

The gathering in Beijing, which is being attended by representatives from 76 nations, is focusing on the development and transfer of technology that can help tackle climate change ahead of next month's talks on creating a new global treaty on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. [bold added]

Translation: "Don't forget to pass the goodies before you turn out the lights!"

An Email ...

... to forward to that relative in your life who can't resist sending schmaltzy emails to everyone he can think of!

In 1986, Peter Davies from Newfoundland was on holiday in Kenya after graduating from Memorial University . On a hike through the bush, he came across a young bull elephant standing with one leg raised in the air. The elephant seemed distressed, so Peter approached it very carefully.

He got down on one knee, inspected the elephant’s foot, and found a large piece of wood deeply embedded in it. As carefully and as gently as he could, Peter worked the wood out with his knife, after which the elephant gingerly put down its foot. The elephant turned to face the man, and with a rather curious look on its face, stared at him for several tense moments. Peter stood frozen, thinking of nothing else but being trampled. Eventually the elephant trumpeted loudly, turned, and walked away. Peter never forgot that elephant or the events of that day.

Twenty years later, Peter was walking through the Toronto Zoo with his teen-aged son. As they approached the elephant enclosure, one of the creatures turned and walked over to near where Peter and his son Cameron were standing. The large bull elephant stared at Peter, lifted its front foot off the ground, then put it down. The elephant did that several times then trumpeted loudly, all the while staring at the man.

Remembering the encounter in 1986, Peter could not help wondering if this was the same elephant. Peter summoned up his courage, climbed over the railing, and made his way into the enclosure. He walked right up to the elephant and stared back in wonder. The elephant trumpeted again, wrapped its trunk around one of Peter legs and slammed him against the railing, killing him instantly.

Probably wasn't the same elephant.

I'd get ready to forward one of the schmaltzy ones, but change the payload before sending. (HT: Mom)

-- CAV

When Raw Means Not Raw

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Recently, Liriodendron pointed me to this May 2008 post by Stephan of Whole Health Source on the pasteurization of almonds. He writes:

I bought about a pound of almonds yesterday for a backpacking trip I'll be doing this weekend. I like to soak raw almonds, then lightly toast them. It sweetens them and breaks down some of their anti-nutrients.

When I arrived at the grocery store, the only raw almonds they had were from California. I prefer to buy domestic products when I can, but in case you haven't heard, "raw" almonds from California are no longer raw. They are required to be sterilized using steam or antiseptic gases, despite their relative safety as a raw food.

The worst part is that they are not required to label them as pasteurized; they can still be labeled as raw. The Almond Board's argument is that there's no difference in quality and pasteurized almonds are safer. I find this highly offensive and deceptive. It flies in the face of common sense. If you walked up to someone in the street and asked them what the phrase "raw milk" means, would they say "oh yeah, that means pasteurized"? A raw seed can sprout. A pasteurized seed can't. Remember all those enzymes that break down anti-nutrients when you soak beans, grains and nuts? Denatured by heat.

I tried soaking them like I would regular raw almonds. I covered them in water overnight. In the morning, I noticed that the soaking water was milky and had an unpleasant smell. The outer layer of the almonds (the most cooked part) was falling apart into the water. They also didn't have the crisp texture of soaked raw almonds.

Tonight, I toasted them lightly. They definitely taste "off", and the texture isn't as good. There's no doubt about it, pasteurized California almonds are inferior. Despite my preference for domestic products, I'll be buying Spanish almonds the next time around. If enough of us do the same, we'll hit the Almond Board in the only place that counts: its wallet.

Here's what Wikipedia says about the change:

Because of cases of Salmonella traced to almonds in 2001 and 2004, in 2006 the Almond Board of California proposed rules regarding pasteurization of almonds available to the public, and the USDA approved them. Since 1 September 2007, raw almonds have technically not been available in the United States. Controversially, almonds labeled as "raw" are required to be steam pasteurised or chemically treated with propylene oxide. This does not apply to imported almonds.

According to this blog post, organic almonds are pasteurized with steam, whereas non-organic almonds may be treated with propylene oxide.

Some months ago, I noticed that the whole, raw almonds I occasionally bought at the grocery store had a chemical taste to them -- almost gasoline-like. They were inedible. I thought perhaps that I'd just gotten a bad batch, but when I tried them again a few weeks later, the taste was the same. Now I wonder whether that taste is some kind of residue from the propylene oxide.

Since then, I've switched to buying my whole almonds at Whole Foods. They're organic, and they taste fine. However, I'm pretty sure that, contrary to their label, they're not raw but instead pasteurized with steam. I'll have to ask a manager whether the "raw almonds" are actually raw or not. If not, I'll probably order some unpasteurized almonds direct from the farm. Or perhaps I can find a local grocer who stocks imported almonds. I want my raw foods to be raw, with all their enzymes intact, dammit. Is that really too much to ask?

In the final paragraph of his blog post, Stephan notes:

One of the most irritating things is that the new rule is designed to edge out small producers. I can't see any other reason for it. Raw almonds are a safe food. Far safer than lettuce. Should we pasteurize lettuce? Pasteurization requires specialized, expensive equipment that will be prohibitive for the little guys. I'm sure the bigger producers will generously offer to fill the production gap.

Sadly, large food producers often seem eager to use the power of the government to prevent their smaller competitors from providing consumers with much-wanted goods. It's very frustrating -- and very wrong.

Alan Greenspan Is Not John Galt

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

John Lewis published an excellent letter to the editor on Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand in the News & Observer yesterday:

Wrong Analogy

In Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," her hero, John Galt, refuses to accept the position of economic dictator. Alan Greenspan accepted such a position as head of the government's central bank, and his dictates were enforced over an economy burdened with thousands of pages of regulations.

Greenspan's own flawed ideas have nothing in common with Rand's philosophy. Nor was the U.S. economy ever set free of government control. Had Froma Harrop (Other Opinion, Oct. 30) discussed the content of Rand's philosophy along with the actual state of business regulation, this would have been clear.

John David Lewis, Durham

Great letter, John!

Yes Sarah, Africa Is a Continent

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The more news like this about Sarah Palin we hear, the less likely we are to see her as a candidate in 2012:



And that's good news!

Nationalization Is Theft

By Thomas A. Bowden from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Nationalization Is Theft
Venezuela, Russia, and other countries that nationalize natural resources are violating private property rights.

By Thomas A. Bowden

For years, the Canadian operator of a huge Venezuelan gold project known as Las Cristinas has been seeking an environmental permit to start digging. Well, Crystallex International Corporation can stop waiting--the mine is being nationalized as part of dictator Hugo Chavez’s long-running program of socialist takeovers. “This mine will be seized and managed by a state administration” with help from the Russians, said Mining Minister Rodolfo Sanz.

It’s not surprising that a brute like Chavez would want to grab the 16.9 million ounces of gold estimated to lie buried in the Las Cristinas reserve. But what’s more puzzling is why--when gold mines, oil rigs and refineries worth billions of dollars are nationalized by regimes such as Venezuela and Russia--the ousted companies can muster no moral indignation, only tight-lipped damage appraisal.

The reason, in a nutshell, is that resources like gold and petroleum in their natural state are universally regarded as public property that cannot be extracted by private companies except with government permission, revocable at will. “Venezuela will not accept that foreign organizations tell them what to do with their own resources,” said a local journalist recently.

But unexploited natural resources are unowned, not publicly owned. Ownership--the legal right to use and dispose of material resources--cannot exist until someone actually brings those resources under human control. A dictator cannot, by decree, bring hidden gold or oil deposits to the surface. Only the knowledge and effort of entrepreneurs, engineers and drillers can transform that hidden potential into actual wealth. Ownership is the law’s recognition that those particular producers deserve the legal right--as against every person on earth who didn’t tap that potential--to control the wealth they created.

Consider that Arabs wandered for centuries across desert sands that concealed vast petroleum deposits, but it was Western investors who actually made Middle Eastern petroleum valuable. These companies searched for many years in a vast wilderness, moving in frustration from one dry hole to another, risking utter failure and financial ruin. Eventually, by virtue of their ingenuity, courage and perseverance, world markets were flooded with oil that Middle Eastern governments should have deemed private property--100% private.

Instead, those governments muscled in, claiming public ownership based on nothing but their sovereignty over the geographical areas where oil deposits happened to reside. First through royalties, then by extorted royalty increases, and finally by outright nationalization, the descendants of nomads whose meager possessions fit on a camel’s back could now build palaces, buy airplanes and fund terrorism from the seemingly endless profits generated by Western technology and ingenuity.

But all this was a perversion of sovereignty. After all, why are states entrusted with exclusive power to use force within their borders? There’s only one legitimate reason: to protect individual rights, including property rights. Just as a bodyguard’s task is protecting clients from physical attacks, a government’s function is safeguarding people and property against criminals and foreign invaders.

Sovereignty exists to protect private property, not to destroy it. A bodyguard who claimed to own his client’s house, cars and jewelry would be immediately fired. Yet governments that claim to own all natural resources within their borders get a free pass, as if ownership could be conjured from the barrel of a gun.

Today, nationalization is endorsed not only by third world thugs but by the United Nations, which--with America’s full agreement--declared in 1962 that the “sovereign right of every State to dispose of its wealth and natural resources” is “recognized as overriding purely individual or private interests.” Even the victims agree. Said one CEO: “We do not see the issue of nationalization as a violation of the law but as a right of a government.”

This is why power-grasping dictators like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Russia’s Vladimir Putin can claim moral authority to treat foreign investors the way they treat their own citizens--as cattle to be herded, milked or slaughtered for society’s sake. Thus when ExxonMobil recently dared to dispute the pittance Venezuela offered in payment for seized assets, Chavez denounced “those bandits of ExxonMobil,” absurdly declaring they “will never rob us again.”

Nationalization, stripped of all rationalization, is naked theft. A blow for justice will be struck by the first public figure to denounce it as such. In the meantime, companies like Crystallex will continue to be bullied by dictators who know exactly how much they can get away with.

 

Of Subversion, Subservience, and the Suffocation of Freedom

By noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

"So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other."

That might have been the appeal uttered by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to support the subprime bailout, but it is actually an excerpt from president-elect Barack Obama's victory speech, reprinted in the Daily Telegraph (London) on November 5.

Compare that excerpt with:

"The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all."

That was Point Ten of the program of the NSDAP, or the National Socialist German Workers Party, better known as the Nazi Party.

It gets better.

"John McCain and Sarah Palin, they call this socialistic. You know, I don't know when they decided they wanted to make a virtue of selfishness."

That was Obama glibly papering over his attacks on "the rich" in defense of his proposed tax policies, which in spirit are little else but a populist appeal to envy, to counter John McCain's accusation late in the campaign that they were socialistic. Excuse the expression, but it was the pot calling the kettle black. McCain's proposed tax policies were watered down versions of Obama's, and no less socialistic than the Illinois senator's.

And, in the realm of the ludicrous, it is a measure of Obama's superficial grasp of economics that he could accuse McCain of wanting to make a "virtue" of selfishness, when McCain's moral imperatives differ in no way from Obama's, both men invoking selflessness and sacrifice as "virtues" that will help revitalize the country's economy. Obama, however, was too preoccupied with his own appeal to voluntary servitude to take notice of McCain's. If he had noticed it, and belabored the point, perhaps even an Obamaniac would have seen or at least sensed there was no difference between them.

It is also a measure of Obama's ignorance and of his patronizing arrogance that all throughout the campaign he expressed concern about the plight of the middle class, which he seeks to make dependent on government largesse and favors.

"It combats the selfish spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility." [Italics mine.]

"It" being the Nazi Party, in Point Twenty-four of the Nazi program. The italics are mine, selfish substituted for "Jewish-materialistic." If one were able to ask any member of Congress if he agreed with the italicized statement in Point Twenty-four (without identifying its source), that the needs of the many trump the freedom of the individual, one would receive an affirmative. And, given the fact that the Democrats have taken virtually complete control of Congress, and that the Democratic Party's determination to "reinvent" America is in accordance with the "change we seek" to make -- that is, the change Obama seeks to make -- the Democratic Party may as well be redubbed the National Socialist Democratic American Party.

It may strike some as a wild idea, but all one need do to see the parallels is compare Obama's program for "change" with the Nazi program for "change" to grasp how closely the programs mesh in means and ends. Omit all references to Jews and Germans in the Nazi twenty-five point program, and in the appropriate points substitute individualism and private property for what Hitler and the Germans were obsessed with nationalizing, stealing, eradicating or "changing," and one has the Democratic Party platform.

Others may assert that I am being too easy on Obama and the Democrats, and claim that Obama especially is a communist. Certainly the junior senator grew up in the company of adults who were communists or sympathetic to communism, and his activist work in Chicago before he ran for Illinois office was blue-printed by Saul Alinsky, the man who wrote a manual or two on how to "change" politics and society and who has also been praised by Hillary Clinton, who was less successful in applying his ideology.

But fascism, or National Socialism, or Nazism, in fundamentals is merely watered-down communism, a glittering fool's gold side of the same ideological coin. It merely allows one to strive in the illusion that one has private property and a modicum of dissent, but expects one to shut up and take one's orders from on high in service to the "general welfare" or the "public good." Communists, when they nationalize everything, take the blame when things go wrong, and Party heads roll.

Under fascism, if things go wrong, it is the nominally private sector that will take the blame for failed policies and plans and receive the punishment, not their governmental authors and enforcers. This is what happened with the collapse of the subprime mortgage industry. That whole scam was socialism with a twist of Wall Street. The debacle gave Congress, the president, and both presidential hopefuls the excuse to blame "greed" and impose more controls, especially in the matter of suborning financial institutions that were in better shape than their failed or failing colleagues.

As has been widely noted elsewhere, the parallels of current events with events in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged are eerily applicable. Think of the Steel Unification plan that the government tried to talk Henry Rearden into, a scam that was intended to save Orren Boyle's inefficient and looting steel company by enslaving Rearden's. The same extortionate, larcenous plan can be seen in the bailout. The recent enlistment of BB&T in the bailout is a singular instance of the government's program to leave no instances of solvency unshackled and independent of control.

To subvert the ideas of the Founders is to require obedient subservience to Obama's vision of a socialist America in the name of "patriotism."

I am picking up here where Nick Provenzo left off in his November 3rd posting on the parallels of Obama's agenda with fascism, but have instead focused on the language of fascism as expressed by Obama from a few of his unacknowledged sources, the language of absolutism in politics that he slickly disguised in American patois.

"The Promise of American life is to be fulfilled -- not merely by a maximum amount of economic freedom, but by a certain measure of discipline; not merely by the abundant satisfaction of individual desires, but by a large measure of individual subornation and self-denial....The automatic fulfillment of the American national Promise is to be abandoned, if at all, precisely because the traditional American confidence in individual freedom has resulted in a morally and socially undesirable distribution of wealth."*

Barack Obama would certainly agree with that assertion, because, among other recommendations, its author called for the expansion of executive authority, the growth of federal regulations and control of not only the economy, but of the personal lives of Americans to redirect them from their individualism to achieve social and nationalist ends, among them a morally and desirable redistribution of wealth. To make that possible, Obama proclaims, America must "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

Constraints, or obstacles to his quest for power? But, allow us to let Obama speak for himself.

"This is our time...to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth -- that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, We Can."

From beginning to end in his campaign for the presidency, Barack Obama appealed to emotion, not to facts, not to men's reason, not to their repugnance for selfless service to causes higher than themselves. I do not believe, as some commentators claim, that the Americans who voted for Obama were "lulled" by his emotionalist oratory. These are the Americans whom Ayn Rand might have said had "let it go" -- "it" being the idea of a great nation founded on the recognition of inviolate individual rights and the liberty to enjoy them without interference or coercion -- and have settled for a demagogue who offers hope and promises change.

In the name of the values the Founders argued and fought for, I would deem such Americans "Tories for statism."

"Hope and change" are what Hitler promised the Germans who enthusiastically supported him even while he and the Nazis were impoverishing them in pursuit of the German "dream." They believed him even when scandals broke concerning the racketeers, incompetents and charlatans that Hitler had assembled around him or who were appointed to the various ministries, just as Americans who support Obama will repress knowledge of the racketeers, incompetents and charlatans Obama is assembling for his White House staff and cabinet.**

Point Twenty-three of the Nazi platform should concern anyone reading this who is certain that the best way to counter Obama's and Congress's perfidious subversion of America is to spread the ideas of the Founders, of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of one's own happiness. That Point in no way conflicts with the agenda of the Democrats, which is to adopt censorship but call it "fairness" and "equal opportunity."

"We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press....Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands."

While Obama is in office and while the Democrats control Congress, expect a demand to revive the "Fairness Doctrine," in addition to renewed demands to regulate the Internet. The federal government already monitors the Internet to detect terrorist plots and its actions often render it sluggish and even inoperable. There is no reason to doubt that a government which regards Americans answerable to the state for their ideas and opinions and whose freedom of speech would be deemed counter to the general good and a destructive influence would not refrain from silencing critics by every foul and coercive means imaginable.

Obama cheerleaders, you will have asked for the incipient totalitarian regime that is about to take office. All others who value their freedom, you know what is now expected of you, to argue, while you still can, for the reinstatement of a republic of reason.

* Herbert Croly, The Promise of American Life (1909), Northwestern University Press, 1989, p. 22. Croly, founder of The New Republic with the guilt-soaked money of multi-millionaires, was a proto-fascist writer whose books influenced and were admired by a number of reformers, ambitious politicians, and dictators. It is noteworthy that he was heavily influenced by Auguste Comte, the French founder of Positivism and sociology who coined the term altruism. For the link between Croly's Progressivism and the collectivist policies that have been adopted and continue to be implemented in the U.S. beginning with Teddy Roosevelt, see Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

**See Ian Kershaw's nonpareil two-volume biography of Hitler, Hubris and Nemesis for the kinds of men Hitler chose to consult on foreign and domestic policy and to run Nazi Germany. The Hitler "cult," subscribed to by countless Germans, discounted any revelation of the ubiquitous criminality of Hitler's "inner circle," just as Obama's political antecedents are discounted by Obama cultists, as well as the shady and murky backgrounds of the people he is now picking for his administration. But the best philosophical exposé of both Nazi Germany and modern America is Dr. Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America (1982).

An Army of Gadflies

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Finally, this last, protracted, and almost meaningless presidential election is over!

Or so you hoped.

Unfortunately, the enemies of liberty never sleep, be they supremely animated by hatred of the individual, or animated corpses under the control of those who are.

Those enemies of the individual pursuit of happiness who marched in lockstep under the banner of "Change" to elect Barack Obama to the Presidency are not done yet. They remain organized and awaiting orders from their smiling master, and that master plans to use them.

A powerful new lobbying force is coming to town: Barack Obama's triumphant army of 3.1 million Internet-linked donors and volunteers.

In a mass e-mail thanking them, written moments before his Grant Park victory speech, Obama put them on notice. "We have a lot to do to get our country back on track, and I'll be in touch soon about what comes next," he wrote.

Many are eager. "I'm going to be sitting at the phone, asking, 'What do you want me to do next? I'm ready,' " said volunteer Courtney Hood, 37, a mother of three from Owings, Md.

...

Joe Trippi, the Internet politics guru whose computer geeks made Howard Dean a contender in 2004 and who went on to design Obama's socially networked campaign machine, offers a provocative and educated guess.

Trippi predicted that Obama would use his forces, first and foremost, to intimidate congressional foes of his agenda, rally his allies and forge "one of the most powerful presidencies in American history." [bold added]

Read the whole thing. The best we can hope for is that Trippi is merely projecting his own masturbatory fantasy of power-lust onto the man he foolishly hopes will rule according to his own daydreams. But I doubt it.

If Obama is as bad as he could be, he has a tactical head-start any aspiring dictator would envy: An army of second-handers without business of their own worth minding, and looking to fill the void of meaninglessness in their own lives by fighting for an altruistic cause, is already ready and willing to do his bidding.

Who knew that one day, every annoying neighbor you ever had, every jackass who ever yelled at you at work for putting a soda can in the trash (where, by the way, it belongs), and every yokel communist who ever started spamming you with left-wing "news" links would one day be harnessed like this? This is clever, amusing in a way, and chilling all at once.

Gadflies of the world, unite!

And normal people, read this. Know thy enemy. For he will be in your face soon.

-- CAV

PS: I suppose that this means we could nickname our community-organizing new President "Lord of the Gadflies".

Updates

Today: Added a PS.

Credentials for Activism

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Paul and I recently received the following inquiry from Miranda Barzey. I thought it of general interest, so I'm posting it and our replies here, with her permission. Miranda wrote:

What's the importance of credentials when writing or arguing for a cause? Is it important to have an MD or PHD when trying to persuade other people of an idea's creedence, namely Objectivism? Can an average, everyday, YOUNG person make an argument and be taken seriously without the pieces of paper backing them up? What about when trying to reach a large group of people? It just seems to me that a good argument is a good argument despite the background of the person giving it. What do you think?

Paul wrote the following in reply:

That's an excellent question, Miranda! Here's my quick 2 cents' worth:

For technical subjects (law, medicine, engineering), the credential helps somewhat. If I needed to resolve a biochemistry argument, I'd definitely give more weight to someone with a PhD in biochemistry than someone with a masters' degree in English Literature.

For public policy, it's helps a little bit. But mostly it's a proxy marker to show that the person has done some level of advanced education and thus presumably is not just some random person with an opinion.

Of course we all know that this sort of proxy may have very little to do with the merits of the argument. For example, there are Nobel Prize winners in economics (like Paul Krugman) who support all sorts of bad ideas like "universal health care", when they should know better.

Yes, ultimately it's the quality of the argument that should matter. And it usually does. But for better or worse, the credential might help you get an initial hearing. But in sustained debates and discussions with a fair-minded audience, the quality of arguments (including reasoning and evidence used) and often the tone/demeanor (especially on the internet) make more difference in the end.

And I wrote:

This is a great question to pose to the OActivists list. You're welcome to join it, if you meet the list qualifications.

Let me just say the following, in addition to what Paul said:

It's hard to have credibility as a young person: I've noticed that people take me more seriously in my 30s than they did in my 20s, even when my views haven't changed one iota.

What every speaker needs is credibility -- at least to get his/her foot in the door. An audience needs some reason to think that this person will have something interesting and informed to say, rather than just a bunch of ill-conceived opinions. A degree can provide that, as can personal experience or proven expertise (e.g. working in a field for some years, authoring an issue paper, etc).

That kind of credibility is hard for a young person to gain, precisely because they're young. However, you need not be discouraged. A great deal of really important activism is totally (or mostly) blind to credentials. If you write a letter to the editor or web comment, no one will know how old you are. The same goes if you write an op-ed. (For an op-ed, I would definitely draw on people who do have experience in a given field -- i.e. act like a journalist in part -- to give your writing more credibility and power.)

Finally, I should mention that pursuing an advanced degree -- particularly one that will give you a title -- requires years of grueling work. So I don't recommend doing that unless you have a real interest in the topic and eagerness to learn it. The work is just too hard to do for a mere piece of paper.

Further thoughts?

The Future of Social Security?

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

One of the slowly-simmering issues I try to follow is the future of Social Security. Eventually, the current Ponzi scheme is going to go bankrupt, and right now there's no morally principled reform on the horizon. So one big question is what sort of response to this brewing problem can we expect, given the current political and cultural climate?

Last week, there were a couple of high-profile news stories that indicate which way we'll be headed. And it's not a pleasant picture.

First, there was a 10/22/2008 Wall Street Journal story about the Argentinian president's attempt to nationalize their current private retirement accounts:

"Argentina Makes Grab for Pensions Amid Crisis"

...President Kirchner painted the move as an attempt to help workers weather the financial crisis. The value of private retirement accounts in Argentina has probably fallen in recent months due to a declining stock market, economists say. President Kirchner said in a speech: "The main member countries of the [Group of Eight] are adopting a policy of protection of the banks and, in our case, we are protecting the workers and retirees."

Buenos Aires economist Aldo Abram, among many other economists, wasn't buying that argument. "They were in a tight situation and this was an accessible source of funds," he said.

The step requires approval of Congress, where the governing Peronist party has a majority. Opposition leader Elisa Carrio vowed to contest it, saying, "The government measures aren't designed to better the retirement system but rather to plunder the funds of the retirees."

The current financial crisis is being used as a pretext to confiscate that money, in the name of "protecting" the Argentinian workers. Of course, in reality it's just a way for a bankrupt government to attempt to steal enough money to keep going for a little while longer.

The second story was from the 10/23/2008 issue of US News & World Reports on a proposal to nationalize private 401(k) retirement plans in the US:

"Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans?"

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return.

By taking over this huge pot of private 401(k) retirement money, but promising to pay out only a pittance to the nominal "owners", the government would (quite literally) make out like bandits.

Although this is just an academic proposal at the moment, these ideas have a way of leaping from academia and think tanks to the floor of the US Congress in a surprisingly short period of time.

Several of my friends and co-workers have independently told me that they fear that their own private retirement money will no longer be available to them by the time they retire. (They already recognize that Social Security won't be). The government might not engage in a complete confiscation this private money. Instead, they might use an indirect approach, such as imposing, say, a 40% tax on any balance over $1 million on 401(k) accounts. That way, it would only harm evil "millionaires", whom the government would claim could easily afford such a tax.

Or it might be mandatory conversion of private 401(k) accounts into government accounts as proposed by Ghilarducci, where the government would then control which retirees could receive any money, and how much.

Another less likely possibility (which some libertarian groups advocate) is that the government might propose some sort of faux-privatization scheme, in which our current Social Security system was replaced by a system of "private" accounts (but still heavily regulated by the government). In that case, there is still the worry that current 401(k) plans would have to be folded into these new accounts (in the name of "efficiency"). Such a pseudo-privatization would merely gives the government more control over private assets, not less. Hence, this would still not protect Americans from the possibility of confiscatory taxation of those nominally "private" accounts -- not if there were political and economic pressure to do so, as I predict there will be.

Given that (1) there are lots of working Americans who will not have saved enough for retirement, and (2) there will not be anywhere near enough Social Security money to pay for these people, the gloomy scenario predicted by my friends may not be too far-fetched.

Furthermore, I predict that many statists will argue that the need of those who didn't save outweighs any alleged claims of "right" to the money by those who actually did save, and that the savers have an obligation to bail out the non-savers. This would be the predictable end result of the altruist morality that is too-prevalent in our culture.

Based on numerous conversations, those who have been responsible and who have saved enough money for their retirements are understandably angry at the prospect that they will be punished for their frugality in order to reward those who didn't exercise proper long-range thinking and failed to save when they could have.

What they need is the moral sanction to be told that this money is rightfully theirs and that it's therefore wrong for the government to steal their money to give to others.

Most of society won't give them that sanction. Objectivists will.

Hence, the purpose of this post is two-fold: (1) I want to put this issue on more Objectivsts' radar, since I predict it will heat up over the next several years. (2)
I want Objectivsts to be prepared to give the virtuous people (i.e. the savers) their moral sanction at that point in time in the future when they'll be needing it the most.

Colorado's Election Results

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Ari Armstrong has a great review of Colorado's election results. In essence, the religious right was trounced -- badly -- in Colorado. As Ari says, "By hitching their party to the religious right, Republicans have driven themselves to overwhelming losses." I couldn't be happier about that!

In particular, Amendment 48 -- the measure that would have granted full legal rights to fertilized eggs -- was beaten by a stunning margin: 72% against and 27% in favor (87% of precincts reporting). That means -- I suspect -- that such "zygotes are people too" measures won't be tried again in the near future. Hooray!

I'm quite pleased with the small part that the Coalition for Secular Government played in the defeat of Amendment 48. You can find the full list of our op-eds, letters, to the editor, and press releases at the bottom of this page. Our issue paper -- Amendment 48 is Anti-Life -- was downloaded over 3700 times.

The other measure that I actively opposed was Amendment 59, a permanent tax hike. With the help of Ari Armstrong and Brian Schwartz, I created a single-page web site outlining the reasons to vote no on the measure a few weeks before the election. It got about 7500 hits. Despite tons of money spent in favor of it, the measure was defeated: 55% opposed to 45% in favor (87% of precincts reporting). Given the not-so-encouraging polling before the election, that was a delightful surprise.

Go read Ari's blog post for the full details. He has more good news.

The Bright Side

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Barack Obama had to lie in order to win the presidency.

Obama had to lie that he would cut taxes. He had to act tough toward our enemies. He had to turn his back on radical anti-Americans he has allied with over the last 20 years.

Despite the urging of the netroots, Democrats still cannot campaign proudly and honestly as who they are. They cannot say, "I am a liberal. I want to expand government control over your lives. I want to raise your taxes and deny you the right to bear arms. And I intend to appease our enemies abroad."

So maybe America has not moved to the left. Maybe Obama won for superficial reasons in a country full of voters who don't give politics much deep thought. Given a choice of statists, they went with the charismatic young one.

The Republicans have a great thing thing going for them for the next two years: the Democrats control the Presidency, Senate and House.

Remember, the Jimmy Carter presidency led to the second best president of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan.

National Surveys Show Atlas Shrugged Is Widely Read

By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

National Surveys Show Atlas Shrugged Is Widely Read
November 5, 2008

Washington, D.C. -- For the second year in a row, a question included in a Zogby International omnibus telephone survey of American adults indicated that 8.1 percent of respondents have read Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged. The surveys conducted in October 2007 and again in October 2008 indicated that more than 17 percent of U.S. college graduates have read the novel. That is a remarkable number for a serious, intellectual novel of more than 1100 pages whose theme is the role of the mind in man’s existence.

Sales of Atlas Shrugged since its publication have reached a total of 6,500,000, with a record annual sale of 180,000 copies in 2007--the 50th anniversary year of the novel. The numbers indicated in the Zogby surveys implies three or more readers of each copy sold.

These millions of readers of Atlas Shrugged must recognize recent political and economic events as a disconcerting echo of scenes from the novel. The novel records a future society gradually collapsing from the cumulative effect of ever-increasing government intervention in the economy and in the individual lives of citizens--with catastrophic consequences. Each step in the disintegration of society becomes a justification for further government intervention and suppression of freedom until the economy is abandoned by its few remaining productive citizens.

In her 1964 lecture “Is Atlas Shrugging?” Ayn Rand described writing Atlas Shrugged “with a brief rule I had set for myself: The purpose of this book is to prevent itself from becoming prophetic.” The commitment of the Ayn Rand Center is to serve that purpose in two ways, by insuring an ever-increasing readership for Atlas Shrugged, and by the application of her ideas as the best antidote to contemporary economic folly and threats to individual rights.

### ### ###
 
Ayn Rand Center experts are available for interviews on this topic.

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.

CONTRARIAN VIEW ON OPEN FORUM

By Martin Lindeskog from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I have a new post on Open Forum. The piece is titled, Contrarian View Versus Mainstream Opinion, and it is covering business magazine covers as a contrarian indicator for making investing decisions, Alan Greenspan's "shocking" statement and a real defense of speculators on the financial market, and a golden book tip. Please feel free to spread the good word and submit a "yes" vote if you find the post useful. You are of course welcome to write a comment.

The Next Two Years

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Fred Barnes of The Wall Street Journal explains why he sees a much larger lurch to the left under President Obama than there was under either Carter or Clinton. We will now get to see whether he is right:

A sharp lurch to the left and enactment of a liberal agenda, or major parts of it, are all but inevitable. The centrist limits in earlier eras of Democratic control are gone. In the short run, Democrats may be constrained by the weak economy and a large budget deficit. Tax hikes and massive spending programs, except those billed as job creation, may have to be delayed.

But much of their agenda -- the "card check" proposal to end secret ballots in union elections, the Fairness Doctrine to stifle conservative talk radio, liberal judicial nominees, trade restrictions, retreat from Iraq, talks with Iran -- doesn't require spending. And after 14 years of Republican control of Congress, the presidency, or both, Democrats are impatient. They want to move quickly.

Democrats had large majorities when Jimmy Carter became president in 1977 (61-38 in the Senate, 292-143 in the House) and when Bill Clinton took office in 1993 (56-44, 258-176). So why are their prospects for legislative success so much better now?

The most significant change is in the ideological makeup of the Democratic majorities. In the Carter and Clinton eras, there were dozens of moderate and conservative Democrats in Congress, a disproportionate number of them committee chairs. Now the Democratic majorities in both houses are composed almost uniformly of liberals. [links and bold added]

Left unaddressed is whether the public will tolerate this agenda once it has been put into place and its effects have been felt. Part of such resistance, which would manifest during the mid-term congressional elections, will inhere in how -- damnably to Obama -- selfish Americans still are. But part could have been aided by the Republicans not having behaved so much like Democrats themselves to have screwed up the economy badly as it is. What will there be to provide contrast to the results of the policies of certain failure about to be enacted by the Democrats?

The Republicans lost this election in large part because they did not stand up for the principle of individual rights, resulting in there being no substantive difference in theory or practice between themselves and the Democrats. Furthermore, since we have a good start on a Democrat economy already, stand by for the Democrats to blame anything bad on the Republicans, and for the contrast in economic conditions between now and a couple of years hence not to be as great as it ought. Conceivably, the Republicans have already lost the mid-terms.

Furthermore, as the hypocritical, less-consistent altruists in this election, they lost the moral high ground to the Democrats. Let me be the first to state that I want an alternative: Proudly selfish politicians who understand that rational self-interest is what made America great.

Republicans, there's your path to recovery.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Corrected typos.

Meet the New Boss

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

A year ago I predicted that a Republican would win in a landslide on November 4, 2008 because Hillary Clinton would be the Democrat nominee and America would never elect someone that far left as president. Today Barack Obama, who is even farther to the left than Hillary, won a solid victory as president.

I might have been right 20 years ago, but America has changed. It looks as if America has moved to the left.

People make much of Obama being the first black president, and indeed that is a good sign that America is not a racist nation. The ideal that all men are born equal lives in our country. Aside from this, I can find little to celebrate in an Obama victory. He is pro-choice, and the religious right has suffered a temporary setback; these are good things.

The bad far outweighs the good. Obama has promised some trillion dollars in new spending. He will probably appease our foreign enemies. As Biden said, he will be tested by enemies who smell weakness. He wants all Americans to sacrifice for the good of the collective. Reviving the Fairness Doctrine is a threat. Three Supreme Court Justices will retire in the next four years, and they will be replaced by the worst judges imaginable.

And the maddening thing is that we know very little about who Obama really is, so we don't know how bad the next four years will be. Is he your typical Democrat? Or is he a radical leftist with a hidden agenda? There were a lot of troubling little things during the campaign, such as Michelle Obama's ominous statement, "Barack Obama will require you to work." These folks don't seem to understand that in a free country the president does not force people to work.

But then, with large Democrat majorities in the Senate and the House, just being a typical Democrat might be bad enough to seriously expand state power and destroy liberty in America.

Well, congratulations to Barack Obama. And to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. It's their show now. Let us see what Democrat power brings to America.

UPDATE: In my channel surfing last night I heard Jeffrey Toobin on CNN say something about how wonderful it is to see "gender diversity" in the crowd at Obama's rally. Gender diversity. In other words, there were men and women there. As if only men go to Republican rallies, I guess.

New Leftist jargon leads one to sheer blithering idiocy.

A False Friend of Liberty

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Note: I meant to post this some weeks ago, but the bailout derailed that plan. While it pertains to the just-past election, it's still relevant.

The absurdity that Ron Paul is a defender of liberty should now be at an end, given his endorsement of the worst possible candidate for president, Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.

The Constitution Party seeks to impose Biblical law on America. I was going to quote some relevant sections of their platform, but the Preamble says it all:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

Let's consider what that would mean in practice.

On abortion:

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born. ...

We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government - legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body. ...

In addition, we oppose the funding and legalization of bio-research involving human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells.

Finally, we also oppose all government "legalization" of euthanasia, infanticide and suicide.

On drugs:

The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered.

On marriage:

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.

... Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

... We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.

Gambling:

Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states.

On immigration:

We favor a moratorium on immigration to these United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration.

On the judiciary:

We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments, and condemn those who persecuted him and removed him from office for his morally and legally just stand.

On statehood:

We acknowledge that each state's membership in the Union is voluntary.

By endorsing a candidate from the Constitution Party, Ron Paul has clearly shown that he's no friend of liberty. Instead, he's endorsed a theocratic government in which Christians would force everyone to comply with the demands of their faith at the point of a gun.

The fact that Ron Paul is still regarded as a defender of liberty within libertarian circles shows -- yet again -- the effects of rejecting any philosophical foundation for liberty. The word "liberty" loses all of its meaning, such that statists (and kooks) of all stripes are regarded as pro-liberty friends and allies.

I like this guy!

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

On the eve of the likely ascent of the Obamassiah to the Presidency, it is worth taking a look back in American history to a man who sounds like his total opposite, from his understanding of the value of freedom to his love for America, Samuel Adams.

The following comes from a book review of a biography of the patriot in The Wall Street Journal that I found on a brief visit yesterday to RealClear Politics:

On March 5, 1770, a lone British private guarding the customs house found himself taunted by unruly Bostonians. Several British soldiers came to protect him. The crowd grew larger and started pelting the soldiers with snowballs. One of the soldiers was knocked down, and, as he came up, fired into the crowd. In the confusion, other shots were fired and, by the time the smoke cleared, 11 colonists were shot, five of them fatally.

For Samuel Adams the incident demonstrated the tyranny of British rule, and, as importantly, provided an opportunity to galvanize support for the revolutionary cause. The facts surrounding the incident are still in dispute, but, writes Mr. Stoll, "what is certain is that Adams pressed immediately and aggressively to wring every possible bit of political advantage from the bloodshed." He started by giving it a name: the Boston Massacre. [bold added]

And, much later:

If Mr. Stoll's biography lacks the narrative power of books on other Founders, such as David McCullough's "John Adams," the reason may be that the paper trail left by Samuel Adams is frustratingly short. He destroyed much of his correspondence during the revolutionary years, fearful that it could fall into the wrong hands. Some of the letters that remain end with the words "burn this." This Adams wasn't playing for the history books. He was trying to plot a revolution. Mr. Stoll makes a convincing case that Samuel Adams is not just the most underrated of the Founders but also one of the most admirable, down-to-earth and principled (he worked to abolish slavery). [bold added]

Read it all! If you're like me, you'll seriously consider buying the book.

Contrast Adams's somewhat obscure, but heroic life to that of the egomaniac: two autobiographies, his track record as a career politician (and very little else), and the grave threat to individual rights he will surely represent.

Sadly, this contrast cannot be used to raise a successful call to oppose Obama by voting today, for his strongest electoral opponent, John McCain, is very much the same in so far as what he wishes to do to America; and at least Obama will prove an easier target for intellectual opposition should he take office. Like the British of Sam Adams' day, and unlike McCain, he is manifestly anti-American and dangerous.

After this election it will be up to the common citizen, once again, to fight for his freedom no matter who wins. At least Obama is an open enemy.

-- CAV

My Vote Is Cast

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I left the presidential vote blank. I voted for my Republican Congressman, Jerry Lewis. (Hey, lady!) He's a worthless old pragmatist and a champion of pork, but we need Republicans in the Senate and Congress to oppose the coming push for socialism from the Democrats.

I voted yes on Propositions 9 and 11. One was about notifying victims if criminals get bail and the other was about having a commission do redistricting instead of the politicians in Sacramento. Perhaps Proposition 11 will stop outrageous gerrymandering. On all the other propositions I was Dr. No.

There was no line at my polling place, as usual.

I remember on election day in 1992 when Bush was photographed in the afternoon, way before polls closed, carrying a fishing pole as he got in a car. That was the year the bizarre Ross Perot got 19%, which allowed Clinton to win. Bush knew it was over and was already thinking of fishing. It was the last symbolic act of his half-assed presidency. I'll be watching TV this afternoon for any shots of McCain carrying a fishing pole.

I would not expect Obama ever to carry a fishing pole, especially if it looks like he will lose. At that point he will be working hard with his advisers on how they can use legal maneuvers to undermine the election. Leftists are serious about power; they're not about to give up and go fishing.

Miracles Galore

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

One of the most bizarre aspects of serious religious devotion are routine assertions of miracles. Even the most pedestrian events are claimed to be miracles, simply because a person can impose some meaning on them, however contrived. Case in point:

Subject: My Mother

From: S******@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:45 PM
To: r*****@nyc.rr.com

10/24/07

Just wanted you to know

After her fight with Alzheimer's Mother passed in the wee hours of the morning. Last night as they were giving her a pain reliever, we stepped outside and saw a miracle.

Here in Alabama, we have had some really scary weather. I forgot how dark and mean the clouds can get. The sun was setting and suddenly, for a brief moment, we had the most beautiful sunset. In Alabama, this is a rare sight. Suddenly above our heads flew 3 geese. We immediately thought that was my Mother, my Father and the hope for the future giving us a message to be strong and have faith.

Peace,
Amanda

Ohmigod! A beautiful sunset! That's amazing! And wow, three geese! (I particularly love that that's one goose too many, hence the need for a goose to represent something totally different, namely "hope for the future." If only she had another dead relative...)

So along these lines, I propose some further miracles:

"The line was short in the grocery store when I was in a hurry last week!"

"The dog didn't puke on the carpet during my dinner party!"

"My parents had sex at just the right time to conceive me!"

"When I turned on the water spigot, water came out!"

Then again, I'm sure that such ordinary events are routinely claimed as miracles. No reductio ad absurdem of claims to miracles is possible, as the claims of miracles are already absurd.

The Maestro vs. the Market

By Alex Epstein from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The Maestro vs. the Market
By Alex Epstein and Yaron Brook

Alan Greenspan claims that the free market failed to prevent the financial crisis, and that he is “shocked” that his professed “free-market ideology” turned out to contain a “flaw.”

But why should we take him seriously? Greenspan, while once associated with laissez-faire philosopher Ayn Rand, hasn’t advocated genuinely free markets for decades. Remember, this is a man who for two decades reveled in being, as the New York Times put it, “the infallible maestro of the financial system.”

Free markets don’t have “infallible maestros”; they liberate us from such “maestros”--the central planners who have time and again falsely claimed the ability and the right to orchestrate millions of economic lives. Free markets enable each of us to be our own maestro, conducting our own affairs, producing and trading as we judge best, and taking responsibility for the consequences when we fail.

Alan Greenspan’s entire tenure at the Federal Reserve was one devoted to distorting market outcomes in the pervasively controlled financial markets, including the mortgage market. The Fed by its nature wields enormous power over the market as it dictates the money supply and interest rates, which in turn determine lending, borrowing, and bank leverage throughout the economy. Early in Greenspan’s tenure, some expected the onetime opponent of the Fed and supporter of a gold standard to minimize the Fed’s distortion of markets. Instead, Greenspan became our Manipulator-in-Chief, repeatedly inflating the money supply and artificially lowering interest rates to allegedly magnify prosperity. Further, he voiced no substantial opposition to related market-distorters such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which incentivized lenders to make trillions in loans that they wouldn’t have made on a free market) and the cartel of government-supported rating agencies (whose absurd models gave AAA ratings to mortgage-backed securities).

Thus, when Greenspan speaks, he does so not as the voice of a (non-existent) free market in finance and housing, but as the voice of government central-planning--a voice with every incentive to blame the market rather than the Fed’s market-distorting policies.

It is certainly not the voice of the Alan Greenspan who denounced the Fed and defended the gold standard in Ayn Rand’s 1960s compendium Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. That Alan Greenspan understood what free markets are, and explained how they encourage rational, self-interested behavior, so long as individuals were responsible for their own risks. He also explained how government handouts and bailouts reward irrational, destructive behavior. For example, when the government inflates the money supply and manipulates interest rates, it gives financial institutions new currency not backed by real assets, currency that gets funneled into certain sectors of the economy (such as dot-com stocks or houses), and creates artificial booms followed by catastrophic busts. Observe Greenspan’s 1966 analysis of the boom preceding the 1929 crash: “The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market--triggering a fantastic speculative boom.” Sound familiar? What would that Greenspan identify as the cause of the speculative housing boom at the center of today’s crisis--the market or the maestro?

Greenspan is entitled to change his mind, of course; but it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that the market he manipulated for 20 years was genuinely free. And those questioning Greenspan’s actions as Fed chief should not be asking him what he didn’t do to prevent the financial crisis; they should be asking what he did do to cause the crisis by using his enormous power to reward irrational behavior. They should ask him how he can deny that his inflationary printing press, along with the housing welfare state, created the false promise of ever-increasing home values that was at the root of all the market irrationality--from “flipping” houses endlessly for fun and profit to interest-only “liar loans” for poor people to Wall Street’s slicing, dicing, and gambling on dubious mortgage contracts.

If anyone wants to understand the free-market explanation of financial crises, they should read Ayn Rand, or Ludwig von Mises, or even Alan Greenspan of 42 years ago. But to listen to today’s Alan Greenspan talk about free markets is like listening to a Chinese censor talk about free speech.

Nothing good can come, intellectually or politically, from blaming our problems on something that didn’t exist--whether the mythical free market of the housing boom or Greenspan’s mythical free-market ideology. Americans need to understand Greenspan’s true nature as the bureaucrat manipulating the market so that we can investigate the government controls that are the real cause of the present mess, and save ourselves from disasters caused by an even less free market in the future.

Alex Epstein is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (ARC). Yaron Brook, Ph.D., finance, is president of ARC. 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.”

                                                                                                                 RSS

 

OPEN ELECTION THREAD

By Martin Lindeskog from EGO,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Are you in a voting dilemma? Check out the election edition at The Rule of Reason. Both presidential candidates are talking against individualism. McCain is putting "country first" and Obama is explicitly attacking selfishness. Here is an excerpt from Alexandra Marks's article, Sacrifice theme returns to US politics. Both McCain and Obama cite the need for selflessness and service.

Not since President John Kennedy urged Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country” has the rhetoric of sacrifice sat this well with the public. Concern that the US confronts a huge crisis in the form of a global financial meltdown, plus an untapped desire since 9/11 to help the nation more, makes the public more receptive to the idea that sacrifice can be noble instead of just inconvenient. (The Christian Science Monitor, November 2, 2008.)

I recommend you listen to Dr. Leonard Peikoff's podcasting show of October 20 and his answer to the question regarding the election and watch Marina "Hot For Words" discussing the origins of some political words on the O'Reilly Factor show.



Related: My post, MTV CHOOSE AND LOSE ON MYSPACE.

Quick Roundup 376

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Light Blogging Possible

I have a very full plate this week. If I skip blogging entirely now and then, that's why.

Blogroll Updates

Fans of Brian Phillips will now find his blog listed as Live Oaks, its new name, rather than as Houston Property Rights.

I have also added three new blogs: Ping-Ponging towards Fascism; Quent Cordair Fine Art, Director's Corner; and Wealth is not the Problem. The first was the most recent host of the weekly Objectivist Roundup. The other two I found via The Aesthetic Capitalist in the post, "Requesting Recommendations for Goodness" and its comments. Note that due to space limitations, the first two are listed as "Ping-Ponging" and "Cordair Director's Corner".

New Mailing List

My site statistics indicate that a few of my readers might be interested in joining Dinesh Pillay's new list, "IndianObjectivists":

IndianObjectivists is a private mailing list for Objectivists either based in India or with an interest in Indian society. Its purpose is to facilitate ideas for activism & also for promoting the philosophy of Objectivism in India

And don't forget that Diana Hsieh also runs three Objectivist lists.

Experimental Blog Feature

For some time, I've been toying around with the idea of hosting the occasional open thread, but have been reluctant to do so: Readership here is small enough that I doubt that a post up for just a few days would attract sufficient "critical mass" for a good discussion without some blog post to kick things off.

On the other hand, I frequently get good news tips from off-topic comments and reader email. Sometimes I can use the news tips, and sometimes not. Now, even if I don't actually blog a news tip, it will still appear somewhere, and that "somewhere" will be a place where other readers can expect to find it.

So I am going to try a sort of semi-permanent comment thread. Each month, I'll start a new open thread and link it to the blog template at the upper right as, "Bulletin Board". And I plan to daisy-chain the individual open thread posts so that one can navigate from one to the next.

Good Reading on Economics

Over the weekend, I found a couple of very informative posts on the financial crisis over at Andrew Medworth's blog. In his more recent post, he comments on George Reisman's essay on the financial crisis. In an earlier post, he discusses the financial crisis, and draws heavily from Gene Callahan's Economics for Real People, which, he notes, is available online.

His posts are both excellent, but one passage reminded me of an amusing restaurant sign from my home state of Mississippi.

As Adam Smith aptly put it in The Wealth of Nations in the 18th century, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Without greed and selfishness -- by which I mean action taken in an individual’s own rational long-term self-interest -- we would all starve to death very quickly.

The rural restaurant sign at the right sums this up very memorably!

Oh? You want the online book? I left it at Andy's, so you'll have to go there to pick it up. And that's just the one useful link I mentioned.

-- CAV

Random Thoughts the Day Before

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

If Obama is elected tomorrow, then for the first time in history America will have a president who loves America less than the President of France loves America. I do not write this in jest; I'm serious. Here is the highlight from President Sarkozy's speech to Congress:

America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who—with their hands, their intelligence and their heart—built the greatest nation in the world: "Come, and everything will be given to you." She said: "Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent." America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance.

Here, both the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That's what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom; she taught them how to practice it.

On Friday Obama said electing him would "fundamentally transform" America. I believe the transformation he has in mind will be the death of the individualism that Sarkozy believes is the "moral value of America." Obama wants to destroy the remnants of individualism and turn American into France.

#

I watched CSNY/Deja Vu over the weekend. This is a documentary of their tour in 2006 to protest the war in Iraq. Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young used to be smug, insufferable, moronic hippies. Now they are smug, insufferable, moronic, fat old hippies. Anyone who goes to any rock star for politics deserves what he gets, and this goes double for hippie rock stars. I knew the politics in this movies would be bad, but I was hoping for some good music. There is none. The songs are cut short to make way for more idiocy.

Not once in the entire film does anyone make a case against the war. Rational argumentation is ignored. Instead we get emotion. We are shown a group of veterans that needs to get together and hug and cry. (My liberal sister, watching with me, said they need to "man up.") We are shown a mother who lost her son in Iraq. She says the war is "just wrong" and then she cries a lot. This is not a film meant to persuade its opponents; it is emotion for those who agree to wallow in. A complete waste of time.

#

We hear a lot of talk about how blacks will riot if Obama loses. Do I detect wishful thinking among the liberals who make these predictions? Is this another form of intimidation? Hey, white people -- vote for Obama or else!

#

Do you remember one of the first things Clinton did as president? It was to throw out his promise to cut taxes. That promise was always a lie. Clinton never had any intention of cutting any tax, but he felt he had to lie about it to win the election.

Is there any doubt Obama's promise of cutting taxes is another lie meant to win an election? Already the Democrats are signaling it's a lie by throwing out different numbers of how much a taxpayer will have to make before he gets taxed-- $250,000, $200,000, $120,000. The top figure is pure fiction meant to win the election. The other figures are meant to confuse and to ease people into the reality that their taxes will be raised when Obama is election.

Sometime around mid-November, I would guess, one of Obama's economists will announce that the deficit is even greater than anyone had suspected -- damn that Bush and those careless Republicans! -- and the tax threshold will just have to be lowered. Everyone will be called to sacrifice.

If Obama is serious about spending and redistributing wealth -- and what else are Democrats serious about? -- then he will have to raise taxes, I believe, on the upper middle and middle middle class.

One option is to start at, say, $60,000 a year, gradually increasing the percentage of the tax increase as you go up from there. Then inflate the hell out of the currency so that your average clerk in a grocery store makes $60,000 a year. Thus you achieve your goal of making everyone in America work a little bit more for the state. The destruction of wealth will be ghastly, but if they cared about the destruction of wealth, they would not be Democrats.

#

All of the items in this post have been attacks on the left -- and yet, I kind of hope Obama wins tomorrow. Why? Clarity.

Obama has attacked the virtue of selfishness. It is clear that he opposes the philosophy of Ayn Rand. As his big government policies fail, many Americans will put two and two together, if they still teach putting two and two together in public schools.

Plus, an Obama presidency will provide limitless content for this blog.

ARC and Obama on Gay Marriage

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The Ayn Rand Institute just published a good press release on California's Proposition 8, arguing that it should be opposed on the ground of the separation of church and state:

Church and State: A Marriage Not Made in Heaven
October 31, 2008

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."

Diana and I wholeheartedly support gay marriage, and Diana has stated her reasons in this NoodleFood post:

The essence of marriage is the total integration of two lives: sexually, legally, socially, financially, geographically, sexually, morally, etc. The fact that most marriages involve two people with contrasting genitalia is not of any grand significance.

What's also noteworthy is that Barack Obama explicitly cites religion as the basis for his opposition to gay marriage, as reported in the October 31, 2008 New York Times:

Hopefuls Differ as They Reject Gay Marriage

Several gay friends and wealthy gay donors to Senator Barack Obama have asked him over the years why, as a matter of logic and fairness, he opposes same-sex marriage even though he has condemned old miscegenation laws that would have barred his black father from marrying his white mother.

The difference, Mr. Obama has told them, is religion.

As a Christian -- he is a member of the United Church of Christ -- Mr. Obama believes that marriage is a sacred union, a blessing from God, and one that is intended for a man and a woman exclusively, according to these supporters and Obama campaign advisers. While he does not favor laws that ban same-sex marriage, and has said he is "open to the possibility" that his views may be "misguided," he does not support it and is not inclined to fight for it, his advisers say...

(The article notes that McCain also opposes same-sex marriage.)

Clearly, Barack Obama has no problems taking political positions based on his personal religious views. Anyone who votes for Obama thinking that he will offer any kind of principled defense of church-state separation is going to be deeply disappointed.

In contrast, there are some Democrats such as Colorado Senate candidate Mark Udall who have explicitly endorsed the principle of separation of church and state:

...I fully support the continued separation of church and state in this country. As our founding fathers recognized when they made religious freedom a fundamental principle of our Constitution, our nation is home to people of a large variety of religious backgrounds and beliefs. Our government has no role to play in selecting those beliefs, in advocating for one religion over another religion, or in supporting the presence of religion in favor of no religion. I will continue to vote against legislation that compromises our country's ability to keep religion and government separate. That includes programs that discriminate against people based on their religious belief or that use government funds to support one religion over another.

Although I sharply disagree with many of Udall's positions on other important issues, I applaud his clear and unambiguous position on this one.

IndianObjectivists

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Dinesh Pillay has created a mailing list for promoting Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism in India. (Hooray!) Here's the basic list description:

IndianObjectivists is a private mailing list for Objectivists either based in India or with an interest in Indian society. Its purpose is to facilitate ideas for activism & also for promoting the philosophy of Objectivism in India.

You can find more -- including the criteria for membership and the link to subscribe -- at this blog post.

Supreme Disappointments

By Tom Bowden from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Supreme Disappointments

Neither McCain nor Obama will nominate judges who understand the Constitution’s basic principle of individual rights.

By Thomas A. Bowden

No matter who wins the presidency--and with it, the power to appoint Supreme Court justices--America’s judiciary will remain locked into a crucial error that corrupts their interpretation of America’s bedrock constitutional principle: individual rights. That error consists in regarding rights as gifts from society, with judges as diviners of the so-called social will.

The most fundamental question a Supreme Court justice must answer is what in fact do the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and happiness include? Only then can he determine if a certain law or government action is securing or violating those rights. But no justice asks this question anymore because none believes it objectively answerable.

Instead, and broadly speaking, judicial conservatives ask what privileges did American society at the time of ratification grant the individual. So when modern legislators make criminal offenses out of abortion, contraception, homosexuality, and other acts said to be frowned upon centuries ago, conservative judges feel duty-bound to stand aside and do nothing. To conservatives, it’s meaningless to ask whether the right to liberty in fact includes the right to use contraception (a question 18th-century Americans may have answered incorrectly). The only question is whether society at that time meant to permit this action.

John McCain has pledged to appoint judges in this conservative mold.

Judicial liberals reject this worship of bygone days. Instead, liberals see constitutional values evolving like a motion picture, constantly updating to reflect current social mores. So when Congress declares federal dominion over every nut, bolt, and button of American industry, liberal judges feel duty-bound to stand aside and do nothing--not because earlier Americans intended to allow such controls, but because modern Americans want them. To liberals, it’s meaningless to ask whether the right to liberty in fact includes freedom of trade and contract (a question that a majority of Americans may be answering incorrectly today). The only question is whether the “will” of today’s society favors permitting such actions.

Barack Obama has pledged to appoint judges in this liberal mold.

But conservatives and liberals are both wrong about rights. It cannot be true that rights come from society. The very concept of a right identifies the actions you can take without anyone’s permission. Rights are not social privileges but objective facts, identifying the freedoms we need to live our lives--whether a majority in society agree or not. This is why the Founding Fathers dedicated their new government to the protection of each individual’s already-existing rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Thus, the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments forbid the government to deprive you of “life, liberty, or property” (except when you have violated someone else’s rights, and even here the government must follow due process, such as holding a trial). The Ninth Amendment safeguards all “rights” not listed elsewhere. These principles encompass all the innumerable actions required for your survival and happiness over a lifetime--the right to make a contract, earn a profit, build a house, make a friend, speak your mind, and so on.

Because the Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land,” judges are duty-bound to strike down statutes that violate rights. This is not improper “judicial activism” but the robust, constitutional power of judicial review.

Judges must never bow to social opinion, historical or current, when exercising judicial review. For example, laws that institutionalized government discrimination against blacks in military service and voting deserved to be struck down, even if political majorities in both the Founders’ generation and modern times favored such rights violations.

To their discredit, today’s judges--conservatives and liberals alike--have all but abandoned this essential safeguard of our liberties.

The arch-conservative Robert Bork once declared that Ninth Amendment “rights” carry no more meaning than an accidental inkblot on the constitutional parchment. And according to Justice Antonin Scalia, there’s nothing in the Constitution “authorizing judges to identify what [those rights] might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.” As for life, liberty, and property, government can smash them at will, if society so wishes. “Does [the Constitution] guarantee life, liberty or property?” asks Justice Scalia rhetorically. “No, indeed! All three can be taken away. . . . It’s a procedural guarantee.”

Judicial liberals don’t dispute that a judge must bow to the “social will”--they simply divine it differently. As one liberal Justice declared, the Constitution “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

While conservatives and liberals squabble about whether society permits you this action or that, they are defaulting on their sacred constitutional duty of judicial review.

America desperately needs a new generation of judges who understand that their function is not to uphold social opinions but to protect our rights.

Thomas A. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Mr. Bowden is a former lawyer and law school instructor who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland. 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.”

                                                                                                                 RSS 

An Obama Militant Youth Group and the Parallels to Fascism

By noreply@blogger.com (Doug) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Anyone familiar with the rise of Fascism in the early 20th century should see the clear parallels in the Obama campaign. The Obama campaign is filled with unjust attacks on free market capitalism, vague promises of revolutionary changes, a platform of unprecedented expansions of government control of the economy and a wide-scale cult of personality. Several specific economic promises of the Obama campaign include:

• universal health care
  
• economy-wide cap-and-trade
• net neutrality
• millions of new green jobs
  
• affordable housing
• a $9.50/hr minimum wage
  
• "21st century regulations" on stock speculation and hedge funds.

Now consider Mussolini's crafting of Fascist Italy. Mussolini's platform included:

• a minimum wage
• an eight-hour workday
• old-age and pension reform
• a large progressive tax on capital [1].

More alarmingly, Hitler's National Socialist (Nazi) Party included provisions on:

• breaking "rent-slavery" (think Obama's war on poverty and his campaign for affordable housing)
  
• confiscating all war profits (think Obama's criticisms of the profits of oil companies when gasoline prices surged)
  
• expansion on a large scale of old age welfare (think Obama's staunch commitment to preserving social security, Medicare and Medicaid)
  
• prevention of speculation in land (think of the blaming of commodity speculators and subprime lenders)
• National health care (think Obama's universal health care)
• media controls. Specifically, restrictions requiring state-licenses for Non-German newspapers, laws abolishing "any financial interest" in German publications, laws forbidding any publications counter to the "general good" as well as legal prosecution of any art or literature that exert a "destructive influence" on "national life." (think Obama's support for net-neutrality and encouraging diversity in media ownership)
  
• a general statement that the state is charged with "providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens." [2]
  

One major similarity that has always been lacking pertains to the absence of an Obama militant youth group. Mussolini, after all, had his blackshirts and Hitler had his Hitler Youth. However, I recently encountered this part-scary, part-laughable video of an "Obama Youth" militant group.



Fortunately, this goofy but militantly disciplined youth group seems to be the product of an extremist Obama fanatic who is not representative of Obama's campaign. Nevertheless, I think the ludicrous worship of Obama displayed by these young men is merely taking the emotional appeal of the Obama campaign to its extreme but logical conclusion.

This post is not intended to be an implicit endorsement of John McCain.

[1] Source is Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. Needless to say, this is not a primary source.
[2] Source is also Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. The quotes are direct from Goldberg's book. I drew all comparisons to Obama's platform.

Richard Dawkins, Dithering as Usual.

By noreply@blogger.com (Doug) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Richard Dawkins is funding a campaign to post the following advertisement on public buses in London: "There is probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." [1]

Probably no god!? There is no god. Richard Dawkins' wimpy arguments from skepticism are not going to have any major impact in the culture--at least not a positive impact.

[1] http://lacomunidad.elpais.com/horasur/2008/10/21/prof-richard-dawkins-drives-support-for-london-s-first-atheist

Participating in Religious Rituals

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Ramana Reddy e-mailed me the following question a few days ago. I am reproducing it here with his permission:

I am 22 and my dad passed away almost 10 years ago. Every year a gathering is arranged in his memory. This is where the whole thing starts getting weird. According to Hinduism (which my family subscribes to), the son is obligated to perform a ritual every year. The ritual presumes the notion of an afterlife and is filled with the stuff of idealism.

I have recently read OPAR [Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand] and have decided to live according to Objectivist principles to the best of my knowledge. In the present case, I have absolutely no problem with a gathering in his memory, but I stand opposed to these customs which believe in the afterlife and the like.

I will probably take a lot of heat for my decision considering the faith of Indian's in God or whatever. It's not the heat that am really worried about (although it makes me a little nervous sometimes), but the correctness of my decision. I would like to be very sure of my decision before I stand trial. I do not know anybody better to ask this question to. Please feel free to answer in any manner you choose to.

If possible, also do elaborate on stuff like marriages in Church or a funeral conducted by a Catholic priest.

I wrote the following very hasty reply:

I don't have time to write much, but I would say that you should not -- as an adult -- actively participate in a ceremony contrary to your beliefs. It's not a problem to attend such a ritual, but to actively participate in it implies that you agree with it. Some of your family members may be angry, but if you don't assert yourself on this point, how many other compromises will they be able to wheedle out of you? Plus, the better family members -- namely those who respect you as an individual -- will get over any initial feelings of anger or resentment.

I'm posting this in the hopes that others will chime in with further remarks in the comments, as that was really far too brief.

William Blackstone (Part 2) - Foundations of Ethics

By softwareNerd from Software Nerd,cross-posted by MetaBlog

In a previous post, I described Blackstone's approach: the laws of nature determine how inanimate objects act; the laws of nature determine what animals must do to subsist. Animals have no choice but to obey nature if they are to subsist.

Next, Blackstone turns to human beings. Unlike the lower animals, he notes, we have the faculty of reason, and must use our reason to understand the natural laws. Reason, he says, leads us to three fundamental principles of human action:

• live honestly
  
• hurt nobody
  
• render to every one his due

Notice the absence of altruism and patriotism. None of those laws says "help your neighbor" or "serve your country". Blackstone may agree that altruism is a virtue, but he does not list it as fundamental. (He notes that Justinian jurisprudence laid down the three fundamentals noted above.)

Next, Blackstone notes that man requires motivation to apply his reason. Man needs something to push him to use his reason, and discover the laws of nature. What is that universal human motivation? His answer: self-love. He calls self-love, "the universal principle of action". Blackstone says that we can reduce the laws of human action (i.e. ethics) to a single precept: "that man should pursue his own happiness." Notice that this is not a statement of Politics; Blackstone is not saying that the government ought to allow people to pursue their own happiness. He makes it clear that this is what people ought to be doing. He says: "This is the foundation of what we call ethics".

(After this, the text goes downhill as Blackstone tries to fit revelation into his epistemological framework. I won't comment on that. )

Here is the text described above:

Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. A being, independent of any other, has no rule to pursue, but such as he ascribes to himself; but a state of dependence will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him, on whom he depends, as the rule of his conduct: not indeed in every particular, but in all those points wherein his dependence consists. This principle therefore has more or less extent and effect, in proportion as the superiority of the one and the dependence of the other is greater or less, absolute or limited. And consequently, as man depends absolutely on his maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker's will.

This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws.

Considering the Creator only as a being of infinite power, he was able unquestionably to have prescribed whatever laws he pleased to his creature, man, however unjust or severe. But, as he is also a being of infinite wisdom, he has laid down only such laws as were founded in those relations of justice, that existed in the nature of things antecedent to any positive precept. These are eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself, in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his due; to which three general precepts Justinian has reduced the whole of the law.

But if the discovery of these first principles of the law of nature depended only upon the due exertion of right reason, and could not otherwise be attained that by a chain of metaphysical disquisitions, mankind would have wanted some inducement to have quickened their inquiries, and the greater part of the world would have rested content in mental indolence, and ignorance its inseparable companion. As therefore the creator is a being, not only of infinite power, and wisdom, but also of infinite goodness, he has been pleased so to contrive the constitution and frame of humanity, that we should want no other prompter to enquire after and pursue the rule of right, but only our self-love, that universal principle of action. For he has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter. In consequence of which mutual connection of justice and human felicity, he has not perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstracted rules and precepts, referring merely to the fitness or unfitness of things, as some have vainly surmised; but has graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, "that man should pursue his own happiness." This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law. For several articles into which it is branched in our systems, amount to no more than demonstrating, that this or that action tends to man's happiness, and therefore very justly concluding that the performance of it is a part of the law of nature; or, on the other hand, that this or that action is destructive of real happiness, and therefore that the law of nature forbids it.

Original text via Posner Memorial Collection (CMU). Audio-recording at Librivox.

"Slave Master"

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The below very good video of a live performance of "Slave Master" by reggae legend Gregory Isaacs I dedicate in advance to our next President, whoever that turns out to be.


"What I require" from a political office holder is the one thing neither Obama nor McCain seems willing to promise, if either has ever heard of it: Freedom, specifically the protection of my individual rights.

Disclaimer for literal-minded, would-be censors: While I have no plans to start setting things on fire any time soon, I do vow unstinting intellectual opposition to whichever fool gets elected next Tuesday.

-- CAV

Some Notes on “John Adams”

By noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Having watched HBO‘s “John Adams“ twice now, I have these observations to make on the production.

First, it was a conscientious, honest within their lights docudrama by Tom Hanks and his co-producers, with casting, directing, acting, and other cinematographic qualities rarely equaled in other contemporary movies, whether made for TV or for the big screen. Its paramount value, however, is that it approached the origins of the American Revolution in terms of dramatizing the fundamental reasons why it happened through the vehicle of John Adams’ thoughts and political career.

It was a brilliant stroke of storytelling to begin it with Adams’ defense of British Captain Preston and his men in court after the Boston Massacre in 1770, and not with Adams’ life before that episode, because it was then that Adams’ character was delineated and subsequently built and expanded upon throughout the rest of the series. He was introduced as a mature, adult thinker with a core set of values and it was shown throughout the story what he did about them.

But, the problem with docudramas is that they are governed by the same artistic philosophy as governs fiction, in that a director of a docudrama must also exercise Ayn Rand’s maxim of an artist’s adhering to a “selective recreation of reality according to his metaphysical value judgments.” Much was left out of Adams’ life, and much included that was distracting or skewed. The tar-and-feathering of the Boston port officer in Part I, although violently realistic and informative (too realistic, for that matter), was of less importance vis-à-vis the idea of the Revolution than the subsequent Boston Tea Party, which was not shown but merely reported in dialogue.

And, in Part 7, which depicted the death of Abigail Adams, we are left with the impression that she died still bearing an animus for Thomas Jefferson (for his alleged and unresolved cabal in the story against Adams while he was president) and that John Adams had not yet renewed his friendship and correspondence with Jefferson, when in fact both of the Adamses had been by that time, at the suggestion of Dr. Rush, corresponding in friendship with him for years.

Also in Part 7, John Trumbull, the painter, was characterized as a witless, posturing cretin left stammering in reply to Adams’ objections to his masterwork, the Declaration of Independence, neither man able to see the value of the painting’s tableau as a dramatic symbol of an epochal event. I do not know what Adams’ actual evaluation of the painting was, but Trumbull was a professional painter and portrait artist and he surely would have known what he had created, and been able to defend his work in answer to Adams’ petty, pedantic objections to the painting, as was shown in the scene.

In fact, that particular scene could be taken as the summation of the whole series, with Adams volubly, sarcastically, and abusively protesting the apotheoses of the event and of the men who signed the Declaration in 1776 by Trumbull, as an expression of the naturalistic premises of the director and producers of the series, as opposed to their absent Romantic ones. Why go to the trouble of shooting that scene, unless it was with the intention of detracting from the significance of the event and compromising the stature of the Declaration‘s signers?

Stephen Dillane’s portrayal of Jefferson was the most troubling. Having read much of Jefferson’s writings and life, I could not purchase the actor’s portrayal of Jefferson as a dreamy, distant, evasive man driven by ulterior motives, when in fact, after the Stamp Act Crisis of 1765-66, he abandoned his original goal of becoming a successful, contented planter/lawyer and became passionately committed to liberty for the rest of his life.

Paul Giamatti’s John Adams was earthy and realistic -- in many instances overly so -- but his performance was more than compensated by his articulate delivery of Adams’ political thinking and arguments. One of the best episodes was Adams’ introduction by Benjamin Franklin to the effete and patronizing French court and aristocracy. Franklin’s portrayal, however, was offensively incredible. Certainly Franklin was a bon vivant and womanizer in London and Paris, but in fact, he was also a germinal political thinker besides an inventor, but the series’ picture of him was that he was a preoccupied, opportunistic, pragmatic hedonist too reminiscent of a non-intellectual Bill Clinton (excuse the redundancy).

Laura Linney’s Abigail Adams was certainly credible and attractive, but the series focused too much on her purported influence on her husband John’s career. That influence relied heavily on dialogue between the characters, but was presented as fact. “Facts are stubborn things,” Adams says during the Boston Massacre trial, but what Abigail and John Adams actually said to each other at any point in their lives is largely unrecorded and so cannot be facts presented as such. This is one of the chief weaknesses of a docudrama, no matter how exquisitely realistic it is made or how closely it hovers on the shore of truth.

Nevertheless, the repartee between John and Abigail was far above what passes for intelligent dialogue on TV or in most movies.

The actor who played George Washington was too silently wooden and too reserved. Washington in fact could curse like a sailor when provoked (as he did often during the French and Indian War and the Revolution), but was also able to express his political views with clarity and precision. The producers and director missed an opportunity to dramatize his refusal to be made a monarch, an action John Adams would have applauded and an event that would have meshed perfectly with the series‘ theme. Finally, among other incongruities, the actor who played George the Third in the scene in which Adams is received by the monarch as the first American ambassador to Great Britain, was far too young, when by that time George would have been middle-aged (and taller). In that scene, he was more like a petulant, spoiled teenager having difficulty organizing his thoughts.

In summary, while I enjoyed “John Adams” enough to watch it twice, and will probably again, the series left a great deal to be desired, and a slightly bad taste in my mouth. I had nearly the same reaction to it as I had when I first saw David Lean’s “Lawrence of Arabia” decades ago: What potential there is in filmmaking! What great stories could be told in the hands of able directors and screenwriters, if only they had the material! It was that film, after all, which convinced me that I must be a novelist. And the story that kept coming to mind as I watched the docudrama “John Adams” was the novel “Sparrowhawk,” which, as a series or as a three-part feature film (à la “Harry Potter” or “Lord of the Rings”), would have done far greater justice to the Founders and the ideas that animated them and to the pre-Revolutionary period than any film produced in the past.

I know for a fact that many people who have read “Sparrowhawk” not only esteem the story, but at this moment know or have a glimmering idea of how much has been lost since Adams’ and Jefferson’s time, and how much must be regained before completing the Revolution, and view with dread or disgust the current contest for the presidency of this country.

Such readers have proven Aristotle’s observation that fiction is more important than history, because it shows men and events as they might and ought to be, rather than how they supposedly “really” were.

Quick Roundup 375

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Brian Simpson on Gold

Over at Capitalism Magazine, there's a column by Brian Simpson on the origins of the financial crisis and the need for a gold standard:

The first thing that [Alan] Greenspan and most other commentators on the crisis must do to understand why the crisis occurred is to learn that the free market did not cause the crisis because the U.S. is not even close to being a free-market economy. Massive government interventions in the market in the form of myriad regulations and financial irresponsibility on the part of the government are really to blame. This makes the "solution" being imposed doubly absurd: more government controls, borrowing, and spending to solve the problems created by government controls, borrowing, and spending.

The best thing about this column is that Simpson does not just stop at refuting Alan Greenspan's ludicrous claim that capitalism caused the crisis. He swats Greenspan aside like a gnat and directly goes on the offensive!

This isn't just intellectual activism. It's leading by example.

Lincoln Quote

Amit Ghate quotes Abraham Lincoln on fighting the good fight uphill:

I have not allowed myself to forget that the abolition of the Slave-trade by Great Britain, was agitated a hundred years before it was a final success; that the measure had its open fire-eating opponents; its stealthy "don't care" opponents; its dollar and cent opponents; its inferior race opponents; its negro equality opponents; and its religion and good order opponents; that all these opponents got offices, and the adversaries none. But I have also remembered that though they blazed, like tallow-candles for a century, at last they flickered in the socket, died out, and were remembered no more, even by the smell. [bold added]

The fight against slavery is an inspiring and informative precedent indeed.

Barney Frank, Octopus

Galileo, on the heels of an excellent post about Alan Greenspan's pragmatism, notes that Barney Frank, as a new part-owner of our banks, wants to dictate executive compensation:

The real price of the $250 billion partial nationalization of America's leading financial firms will be much larger than just this dollar amount. We are only seeing the first signs of it now. Barney Frank and his minions are just fashioning the bibs to their bellies. Their feasting on America's leading banks and investment banks -- starting with Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, and Citibank -- has just begun.

Allow me to make an easy prediction: Our new, self-appointed "captains" of industry will very quickly live up to all the tired old stereotypes about businessmen the left has foisted on America for ages. Hell, Frank is already being chintzy with pay to workers whose initiative is vital to the work of the companies he's trying to run!

Every stereotype has an element of truth to it somewhere. In this case, the element of truth comes from the fact that the stereotype exists in the minds of people engaging in psychological projection.

Bass Ackwards!

Rational Jenn has a couple of very amusing posts up. One starts out with, "The other day, Ryan asked me how to spell 'ass.' Okay, let me back up."

The other is also funny, but got extra points because it contained the word "hobbit", reminding me of my hobbit-like wife, whom I really miss right now.

Two Roundups

Adam Cooke hosts the 68th Objectivist Roundup (scroll down), and C. August an Alan Greenspan roundup.

-- CAV

Free Market Policies Needed to Solve the Crisis

By David Holcberg from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Free Market Policies Needed to Solve the Crisis
By David Holcberg (Guardian, October 15, 2008)

President Bush said the U.S. government will “aggressively” use a “wide range of tools” to resolve the financial crisis.

Apparently, Bush’s “wide range of tools” is not wide enough to contain a single free market policy. All the “tools” our government has aggressively used to date--bailouts, takeovers, bans on short selling, manipulation of interest rates, creation of fiat money out of thin air, increased spending--have been yanked right out of the socialist and fascist toolkits.

We will only get out of the mess created by our government if it cans all of those “tools” that got us where we are and starts freeing the market from its statist policies.

No Copyright Exceptions

By Thomas Bowden from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

No Copyright Exceptions
By Thomas A. Bowden (New York Times, October 28, 2008)

Re “Copyright and Politics Don’t Mix” (column, Oct. 21):

 

Lawrence Lessig’s proposal for copyright reform commits the same error as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. Both take for granted that lawmakers should be carving up speech into political, commercial, artistic, and other categories, and then offering different legal protection according to how society values the output.

 

But speech is speech, and the individual speaks by right, not permission. Just as political speech deserves full First Amendment protection, it deserves full copyright protection as well. Media outlets that profit from disseminating political statements should have ready access to procedures for enforcing their property rights against YouTube or other infringers. That’s not censorship; that’s justice.

Let Them Fail

By Amit Ghate from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Let Them Fail

By Amit Ghate

Everywhere today politicians are blaring that they must save America’s financial institutions, alleging catastrophic risk to the economy were any to fail. Paulson and the entire Bush administration, in a discernible panic, are now pouring $700 billion into the big banks, having already bailed out AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns to the tune of $300 billion.

Capitalism doesn’t work, they declare, but fortunately the government is here to rescue us.

Sadly, they have it all backwards. The credit crisis is just more evidence that whenever the government supplants the free market and attempts to “manage,” i.e., control, the economy--disaster ensues.

Overlooked here is that in a free market business failures are not just normal, they’re crucial for the best products and ideas to emerge. Most restaurants fail in their first three years because customers have other preferences. Many mom-and-pop grocers go out of business because Walmart offers better selection and lower prices. Even whole industries--think typewriters, 8-tracks and horses and buggies--vanish because new inventions and competitors arise.

None of these failures are a problem, nor do they threaten the system. On the contrary, they are an inherent part of the progress which only capitalism makes possible.

So why would failures in the financial industry be any different?

Typically, the answer given is also the one used to rationalize the creation of the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the FSLIC and any number of other government agencies and regulations intended to “manage” the banking system: financial firms carry systemic risks for the nation’s economy and therefore can’t be allowed to fail. As evidence, bank failures from 1870 to 1913 (pre-Fed) are cited, followed by the assertion that their number was simply “unacceptable.”

But every business forms part of the economic system and thus has “systemic” impact. If Microsoft were to fail, thousands of suppliers, customers, and workers would be affected, as would their customers, suppliers, workers, etc. Yet this would be no reason to bail them out. We know that new businesses would arise to fill the void, better for having learned from Microsoft’s mistakes.

And as a historical fact, the U.S. economy during the period 1870 - 1913 grew significantly faster than it did after the Fed was established. True, there were many bank failures in this period, but there were also many business failures in general: banks were actually less likely to fail than were other businesses. The number of bank failures speaks to the dynamism of the period, not to anything fragile in the financial system. Precisely because market mechanisms were permitted to work, depositors, creditors and counterparties all kept a close eye on banks, monitoring leverage and withdrawing funds at the first sign of problems.

When the free market functions--and failure is allowed--people become viscerally aware of risk, with the result that they voluntarily assume less of it.

Conversely, when the government tries to “manage” the economy--when the consequences of risky behavior are shifted from self-interested actors to taxpayers, as was done by the creation of the Fed and its various insurance programs, or when weak financial firms are propped up rather than being allowed to fail--people take on risks they would not otherwise. Banks are less careful, depositors no longer evaluate their institutions, and risks are concealed and amplified until they become catastrophic.

So pre-Fed we had runs on banks, some undoubtedly severe--but with the Fed we’ve had the Great Depression, the S&L meltdown and now perhaps the greatest worldwide credit crisis ever.

An analogy may be helpful here. Historically certain types of forests naturally experienced frequent, but small, wildfires. Because their frequency kept deadwood at a minimum, the fires never grew into large conflagrations. However, when government forestry services instituted fire suppression policies, they eliminated most small fires, but caused deadwood and other fuel to accumulate. When at last a fire came that could not be suppressed, it grew into a devastating inferno.

Learning from their errors, forestry services have abandoned fire suppression policies.

It’s time for our government to do likewise. First, by immediately abandoning its bailout binge, and then by phasing out all of the economic controls by which it attempts to “manage” the financial system--from the FDIC to the Federal Reserve itself. Nothing less can reestablish the freedom essential for a sound and vibrant economy.

Amit Ghate is a guest writer for 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.”

                                                                                                         RSS 

Church and State: A Marriage Not Made in Heaven

By Don Watkins from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Church and State: A Marriage Not Made in Heaven
October 30, 2008

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.”

Gather Darkness

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Recently I discussed the financial crisis with a Christian who has never read a book of economics. He began by denouncing the greedy CEO's on Wall Street. I argued that greed had nothing to do with the problem, but it was entirely the fault of government intervention in the economy. After all, how does it help a greedy CEO to bankrupt his company? He won't get another job if he does. How is it greedy to commit career suicide?

The Christian took my points several times. He is an honest man who wants to know the truth, and he accepted my arguments. Then a few minutes would pass and he would be back talking about greed. I was struck by how he would return to the point of greed even though he understood it was not really the issue. His morality and the premises he had automatized in his subconscious would not let him believe greed was not at fault.

I take this conversation as evidence that the entire political battle in America is really a battle of ethics. You can win economic arguments all day, but as long people think that morality is self-sacrifice, we will never make significant progress in rolling back the state. The 20th century is one long cautionary tale with a clear moral: socialism does not work. And yet both Republicans and Democrats are leaping over themselves to expand government control of the economy. Spending just keeps skyrocketing and liberals crow that the age of the free market is over. No more of that trickle down stuff for America! We're gonna take as much money from the rich as we want and shower in wealth!

Democrats know full well that the battle is moral. They never bother to make complicated economic arguments. In part this is from ignorance: somehow I don't think geniuses such as Henry Waxman or Robert Byrd have spent 10 minutes trying to understand Ludwig von Mises. But their ignorance is not the fruit of sloth. They don't care about economics because they know it's a waste of time. All they need do is mention obscene profits or greed, and conventional morality makes the rest of their case.

#

Those who pooh-pooh the fear that Republicans are becoming the party of religion are not paying attention. On my local right-wing talk radio station, part of Salem broadcasting, all the political ads are meant to appeal to the religious right. There are no ads for McCain (it's California), but there are ads about propositions. The two issues getting advertising are abortion and gay marriage (they're against both). Three of the stars on the Salem network are Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved and Dennis Prager -- all religious conservatives. (Hewitt and Medved, at least, are very much economic pragmatists who denounce "extremism" because they think moderates only can be elected these days. Limbaugh is better in this respect.)

Former baseball pitcher Frank Pastore, who sometimes fills in for Hewitt, has titled his latest column, The Christian Case Against Barack Obama. He does not give any reasons in the column, just advertises some videos in which he supposedly lays out his case. My point is that you see more stuff like this than you used to.

20 years ago we knew that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were part of the Republican Party, but it felt like they were confined to a ghetto within the party. They were the voice of the Bible Belt. I was amused or sometimes disgusted by them, but I never took them too seriously. Now the religion is more widespread. Prager and Medved, intellectual Jews, would not be mistaken by anyone for Southern Bible thumpers.

John McCain had to pick the very religious Sarah Palin in order to win the base of the Republican Party.

President Bush is the religious right's greatest success so far. His pathbreaking presidency has integrated religion with the welfare state. He calls it "faith based initiatives." Dr. Peikoff says George W. Bush is to the religious state as FDR was to the welfare state.

The question of how dangerous the religious right is compared to the socialist/nihilist left, in both the near and long term, is legitimate; however, it cannot be argued any more that the religious right is increasing its hold on the Republican Party. Perhaps it controls the party.

#

In the comments on the last post on this blog I dismissed the idea of trying to predict the future. That was before I read this quote Donald J. Boudreaux uses from the socialist Norman Thomas in the early 20th century:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."

There is a man with a crystal ball.

We seem to be at the beginning of a new period in American history, a dark time of increasing state control. In such a moment people speculate a lot about the future. What will happen? Galileo Blogs thinks we will relive the '70s. (If so, can we do it without the bell bottom pants and leisure suits?) Arthur Laffer says the age of prosperity is over.

Those are educated guesses. We might live through something entirely unlike anything America has yet seen.

One event can change the world. World War I destroyed the benevolent and secure -- leftists would say smug and bourgeois -- culture of the 19th century. Things could never be quite the same after that cataclysm. As I have written several times on this blog, both Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises noted that no one who did not live before WWI can quite understand how positive and benevolent the west was then. The idea that fuels all of Joseph Roth's fiction is a longing for that era, a culture that would never live again. As another writer put it, you can't go home again.

The greatest world-changing event in history is Alaric and the Huns' sacking of Rome in 410 a.d. Until then the city of Rome had been accepted as a metaphysical fact of reality, like gravity or the sun rising in the east or the stars coming out at night. The sack of Rome shocked people throughout the Empire and destroyed their confidence. Augustine wrote City of God in response: all of man's creation on earth is impermanent; only the realm of God is permanent and real. The Roman Empire was over -- it was just a matter of time.

Could such an event happen in America? Yes, if there were a force in the world comparable to the barbarians in the 5th century. If, say, a religion wanted to destroy America and erect a worldwide theocracy -- a religion whose adherents believed God wanted them to kill infidels and who were willing to commit suicide in order to enjoy 72 virgins in paradise -- yes, there might be some danger if such a religion were at war with America. Fortunately, as we have been told, Islam is a religion of peace.

Besides, if such a totalitarian ideology were at war with us, we would quickly destroy all states that sponsored these warriors. We would wipe them out and demoralize their cause for all time. We would not make a half-hearted effort, swatting them down some, then appeasing this enemy and letting him survive to attack us another day. To take such a tremendous risk with America's security would be foolish and suicidal. Our leaders in Washington, D.C. are good and wise; why, they would sooner do something futile and senseless like socialize Wall Street than appease an enemy that wants to destroy us.

One suitcase nuke could change the world.

ABC News on Obama, Ayn Rand, and Selfishness

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Yesterday (October 31, 2008), ABC News posted a story on Barack Obama's defense of higher taxes and his explicit attack against "selfishness".

The news story also mentioned Ayn Rand and her book The Virtue of Selfishness, including hyperlinks to the book and the ARI.

Numerous non-Objectivist blogs have also linked to the ABC story, mostly in support. I think this is an excellent opportunity for Objectivists to add to the public discussion in defense of limited government, individual rights, and egoism.

It's probably not worth adding a comment to the ABC story itself, because there are well over 1000 comments there already. But you can easily leave comments on blogs that are covering the story. For instance, using Google to search for "'ayn rand' selfish obama", I found the following:

http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=%22ayn%20rand%22%20selfish%20obama&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wb

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=%22ayn+rand%22+selfish+obama&btnG=Google+Search

You can then click through to go to various blogs/websites, many of which allow comments.

I've left versions of the following comment on several of them:

The kind of selfishness that Ayn Rand advocated (and which Obama apparently opposes) is a completely noble and moral American virtue. This country was founded on the principle that men and women had the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" free from government interference and tyranny.

Many immigrants (such as my parents) came to this country precisely to be able to work hard, prosper, and give their children a chance for a better life. They came to this country with little more than the clothes on their back, but did well over the years, sent two children to college and medical school, and are now enjoying a well-earned and comfortable retirement. Their lives have been a real-life embodiment of the American dream.

If we want America to remain a beacon of hope to millions around the world, we should re-affirm our commitment to free markets and capitalism, and reject calls for more socialism and "redistribution of wealth".

This country is great precisely because it allows people like my parents to attain selfish goals such as their lives and happiness. Americans should be proud of that fact, not condemn it.

If you've composed something on this topic that you like, then this is a good way to defend Ayn Rand and rational egoism with a minimum of additional effort.