The Objectivism Online Meta-Blog

What’s So Super About the Super Bowl?

What’s So Super About the Super Bowl?:

When more than 150 million Americans tune in to watch the game, advertisers pay up to $4 million for 30-second commercial spots, and a nation consumes food on a scale rivaling Thanksgiving, Super Bowl Sunday can safely be declared a de facto national holiday. As Evan Weiner, a sports writer for the New York Sun, put it: “The Fourth of July is America’s birthday party, but Super Bowl Sunday has become America’s biggest party.”

What explains the popularity of a game that annually ranks among the most-watched single-day events? Certainly, the gambling, the glitzy commercials, and social events play a part in attracting a wider audience. But something more fundamental is at play: the nature of football itself.

Football is a uniquely intense and dangerous game that demands equal parts physical and mental effort. Its athletes study, memorize, and practice extensively choreographed plays that they must execute with pinpoint precision—and maximum exertion—all while risking serious injury.

Moreover, since NFL teams play just 16 regular-season games, compared with 162 in baseball and 82 in basketball and hockey, each play from scrimmage holds considerably more weight. Add to this football’s single-game, win-or-go-home elimination playoff system, which, unlike those of comparable sports (e.g., the World Series, the NBA Finals, the Stanley Cup) leaves no room for error, and you begin to see telling differences.

True, some Super Bowls have been so lopsided that by halftime they were no longer worth watching. Yet despite its relatively short history, the Super Bowl has produced some stellar contests and many dramatic, critical plays that have attained folklore status.

Fans will never forget Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway’s dive into a gang of Green Bay Packers, who spun him like a helicopter prop, to sustain what became a tie-breaking drive in Super Bowl XXXII. Also etched forever in the minds of fans is the image of St. Louis Rams linebacker Mike Jones tackling Tennessee Titans wide receiver Kevin Dyson to stop him one yard short of tying the game on the final play of Super Bowl XXXIV. And then there was New England Patriots kicker Adam Vinatieri’s last second, game-winning field goal against the Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI.

Super Bowl XLVI, between the New York Giants and New England Patriots on Sunday, has no shortage of pre-game elements of intrigue. Chief among them is that the contest is a rematch of the Super Bowl four years ago, in which the upstart Giants, a 12-point underdog, derailed and defeated the Patriots, who otherwise were headed to immortality as the second undefeated team in NFL history.

On Sunday, restaurants, bars, and pizza-delivery chains across the nation will rake in big bucks thanks to the mass appeal of the big game. That appeal is rooted in the immense value fans derive from watching superlatively honed athletes who demonstrate exceptional determination and ability in a seriously dangerous contest with near equals.

Is it any wonder the Super Bowl has reached the status of a national holiday?

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.

Related:

• Did God Help the Patriots Beat the Broncos?


• That First Season by John Eisenberg

Image: Creative Commons by Jack Newton

Happy Randsday!

Happy Randsday!:
Harry Binswanger recently brought up a brilliant suggestion he made on his mailing list last year, which I second, and agree should go viral. He has come up with a good name for the anniversary of Ayn Rand's birth, as well as a fitting way to celebrate it.

To celebrate Randsday, you do something not done on any other holiday: you give yourself a present. Randsday is for getting that longed-for luxury you ordinarily would not buy for yourself. Or for doing that long-postponed, self-pampering activity you cannot seem to fit into your chore-packed schedule.

Randsday is for reminding ourselves that pleasure is an actual need, a psychological requirement for a human consciousness. For man, motivation, energy, enthusiasm are not givens. Pathological depression is not only possible but rampant in our duty-preaching, self-denigrating culture. The alternative is not short-range, superficial "fun," but real, self-rewarding pleasure. On Randsday, if you do something that you ordinarily would think of as "fun," you do it on a different premise and with a deeper meaning: that you need pleasure, you are entitled to it, and that the purpose and justification of your existence is: getting what you want -- what you really want, with full consciousness and dedication.

I have had Ayn Rand's birthday marked in my calendar for years and yet, despite my appreciation for the depth, breadth, and great originality of her artistic and intellectual work, it had never occurred to me to treat it like the holiday it truly is, in the etymological sense of the word (i.e., "holy day", but with an emphasis on what is actually holy). I have now corrected my calendar to read, "Randsday" when February 2 rolls around.

I celebrated my first Randsday early, yesterday afternoon. For some time, I'd known about a pub in a part of Boston that is off my beaten track just enough to cause me to not go every time I thought it would be fun to see an Arsenal match in a pub full of other fans. This was something that could well be worth doing regularly, if the atmosphere of the place was right, but I needed to find out one way or the other. The place did not quite live up to expectations, but I finally got that out of my system. I now better appreciate the place I usually go when I do go out for a game, and I had fun exploring Boston a little bit. The baby was hardly any trouble, and the afternoon trip saved my wife from being dragged to this particular pub on a weekend.

In fact, there are a few other promising-sounding pubs that I'll probably explore like this from time to time, now that I've gotten a solo trip under my belt -- of that range and time extent, with the baby -- and still had a good time. Oh, and this reminds me that I can tackle a few more mini-tours of Boston whenever the weather is nice.

Thinking long-term, I had a pretty good first Randsday. I hope you do, too.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: (1) Changed a sentence to not read like I'm running around Boston with a "baby under my belt". (2) Clarified a sentence.

There is No ‘Right to Work’ Against an Employer’s Consent

There is No ‘Right to Work’ Against an Employer’s Consent:

People have the right to associate voluntarily and to contract by mutual consent. Those rights have long been under assault by the “progressive” left; now they are attacked by conservatives as well. Today Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana, signed a “right to work” bill that further erodes freedom of contract.

Conservative writer Liz Peek praises this bill on the grounds “that union labor costs and work rules have become an obstacle to job growth.” No doubt her claims about unions are true. But the problems arise from various federal statutes, including the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act signed by FDR in 1935, that violate the rights of employers and employees to contract as they see fit. One practical result has been to hamstring the American auto industry, as Daniel J. Mitchell pointed out even before the auto bailouts.

The conservative solution, as articulated by Peek, merely compounds previous violations of freedom of contract with new ones, apparently on the grounds that two wrongs somehow make a right. In her view, the bill is good because it “prohibits contracts requiring workers to pay union dues.” But why should the government be in the business of setting the terms of employment contracts? Employers should be free to hire whomever they want on whatever terms the parties mutually agree to accept.

More broadly, there is no “right to work” against an employer’s consent, any more than there is a “right to health care.” A right refers to a freedom of action—such as the right to seek employment or medical care from willing partners—not to an entitlement to a specific good, service, or outcome. People have the right to work for others only insofar as the employer freely consents to the terms of employment. (Of course, people always have the right to work for themselves using their own labor and resources.)

The solution to rights-violating labor laws is not to impose more rights-violating labor laws, but rather to repeal them all and restore liberty of contract.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.

Related:

• Mitch Daniels: Business is “One of the Noblest of Human Pursuits”


• America’s Unfree Market

Image: Bob Glass

Cumulative Consequences

Cumulative Consequences:

Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish, recently inveighed against the higher education racket in “Free Market Socialism” (January 28tth). Among other observations, he noted:

Mass education also devalues the actual education being received. Today's college students know less than yesterday's high school graduates. Today's high school graduates know less than a middle schooler from 50 years ago. And there is no way around that. Tossing everyone into the same system and expecting the same results leads to a lower quality system.

The post-World War II G.I. Bill, passed by Congress to keep countless returning and unemployed soldiers busy and distracted and out of trouble while bureaucrats and policymakers continued to regulate an economy which otherwise would have boomed sooner and faster than it did following the war, was the beginning of higher education’s addiction to and dependence on federal money. Private and public universities and colleges were introduced to the federal teat. The intervention co-opted the “Greatest Generation” and set another precedent for government intervention in the economy and the culture, an unchecked intervention which inexorably and ultimately led to control.

And to the “degree mills” that exist today. Of course the greatest beneficiaries of a mandated college education are the very ones who are in positions of government power or who teach socialist economics, history and “diversity” in those very same institutions.

By way of seconding Greenfield’s points on economics and politics, it should be observed that President Barack Obama has a college education. Why, he was even a “professor” of Constitutional law at the University of Chicago. One imagines that this stint was on-the-job training for how later to usurp the Constitution. Well, both Bushes, and Clinton, and Carter and virtually every president going back to the early 19th century have had a college education. I think George Washington and Lincoln are the only exceptions. And except perhaps for the Adams’s and Jefferson, those graduates invariably made a mess of things, or wisely refrained from trying to apply their college-imbibed learning to policymaking.

Some people wonder whether or not the dumbing down of education (and of Americans) was an “accident.” I don’t think it was a conspiracy. It’s an issue of philosophical disintegration, aided and abetted by government intervention.

Take the G.I. Bill mentioned in the beginning. Aside from becoming addicted to and dependent on government subsidies, in order for private and public universities and colleges to admit hundreds of thousands of discharged G.I.’s to school – countless among them not really after such an education, but they couldn’t find work, so, what the hell – the schools had to lower their admission standards and settle for minimal criteria. Of course, there were exceptions to the rule; many veterans took to “higher education” like ducks to water and did well, usually in the sciences and in engineering.

One unfortunate result of this is that G.I. Bill beneficiaries, when they went into the private sector, were inculcated with the “You’ve got to have a college education to get anywhere” mantra and succumbed to hiring and employment requirements, which they easily met but imposed on a new generation of job applicants. Consciously or not, they helped to foist upon that generation an unnecessary and unrealistic policy for living.

But, just as I had no use for a college education – no law mandated having a college education to pen a novel, and no publisher, either – I don’t think most veterans back then had a use for it, either. They’d done their duty for their country, and perhaps many wrongfully thought that a subsidized education was the least the country owed them. After all, they’d been drafted, that is, the government had required service of their lives and bodies and appropriated those lives and bodies for the duration.

The initial lowering of admissions criteria was the beginning of the dumbing down. No mastermind or secret society conspiracy was behind it, no government master plan to lobotomize Americans could ever be drawn up. That is the stuff of dystopian novels. There’s no such thing as an omniscient or omnipotent evil, just occasional and random concessions by the rational to the occasional and random irrational in acts of futile and suicidal pragmatism.

To pose an analogy: We wound up applying all sorts of car-making rules, including emissions and safety standards, and the steel-bodied 1939 Packard ends up being a General Motors dog-cart, less safe and certainly more expensive.

That is, higher education began early in the 20th century turning out graduates who had to know that Heraclitus was a Greek philosopher, how to perform trigonometry, how to parse and analyze the Constitution, and had been introduced to the literary canon. Now it turns out expensively educated graduate students who may think Heraclitus is either a rock band or a mutation of herpes, cannot balance their checkbooks and for whom simple math is an arduous challenge, have been taught that the Constitution needs “reforming,” and who won’t bother with the literary canon because it can’t be “texted” (not that universities are pushing the canon, anyway, that would be too “elitist” and discriminatory against lesser literature).

And with the dumbing down come shorter attention spans and conditioned appetites for quick fixes and instant gratification.

It’s a matter of cause and effect. Ideas matter, and have consequences. And the G.I. Bill, together with a government reluctant to relinquish control of the economy, was a bad idea opposed by few.

The consequences and results are cumulative in nature, if not checked, opposed or questioned. This rule applies to all realms.

From the minimalization of the American mind and spirit, we turn to the practiced delusions of the political oligarchy.

In his article, “Weaponizing the Passenger Plane” (January 30th), Greenfield noted:

The war against us has been made possible by a leadership that is unable to identify the problem, let alone formulate a meaningful response to it.

I disagree. The war against us was made possible, and continues to be made possible, by a leadership that is evasive, that will not identify the facts of reality – at least, not publically – because those facts will challenge or contradict their most fundamental premises. Novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand called this “blanking out,” that is, knowing the facts but shoveling them beneath an impenetrable carpet of rationalizations and excuses. Holder, Napolitano, Obama, and the rest of that crew know that Islam is an ideology more than it is a theology, that it is essentially political in nature because it governs every aspect of an individual’s life and also the contents of his mind. Not surprisingly, these are also the ends of liberalism. They recognize the peril posed by Islam. Yet they will not identify it in public and formulate efficacious polices to combat Islam. Instead, they ally themselves with Islam in a replication of the non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

This constitutes a refusal to think. Why do they refuse to think? Because every one of them recognizes a symbiosis between the secular tyranny they prefer and Islamic tyranny. To question one is to suggest that both species of tyranny are prime candidates for intellectual interrogation. If you question the rightness of Sharia Law and assert its incompatibility with individualism and liberty, it is but a short step to question the rightness of the altruist premises of, say, ObamaCare and assert its incompatibility with individualism and freedom. You simply remove Allah and Mohammad from the picture and substitute a bureaucrat or politician and his champion in academia. And from there one must logically question the moral underpinnings of the welfare state. Rebuttals, refutations, and repudiations would follow exponentially from one premise to another.

Privately, a refusal to think will earn one many just desserts, usually death or tragedy. But a public official’s refusal to think, regardless of the issue, affects everyone else, especially the electorate.

I don’t say that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Holder and the rest of them know this as clear, objectified knowledge. They don’t dare pursue their secret, gloppish, unformed suspicions to their roots. They simply sense the threat as a feral warning that they shouldn’t “go there” if they wish to retain their power, never have it questioned, and rest easy in their hubris. It would interfere with and imperil their agenda to enlarge an omnivorous welfare state complemented by a growing police state. That’s the symbiosis between, say, ObamaCare and the TSA. There are other symbioses festering in Washington – it’s too long a list to include here, feel free to name anything or any action that has not been the subject of controls, including speech – but they’re all cut from the same collectivist cloth.

The rot or cancer of federal controls – and this also applies to any government’s interference in the economy, state or municipal, the scale and object of intervention and control are immaterial – may, like the G.I. Bill, have benign and good-intended origins but foster unintended consequences, with the result always being the same: the steady accumulation of power by the state and the steady extinction of liberty.

The Grey: A Great Reminder of Crucial Truths

The Grey: A Great Reminder of Crucial Truths:

Could you survive deep in the Alaskan wilderness and make your way out with only the resources from a crashed airplane?

That’s the stark challenge faced by the seven protagonists of the movie The Grey, starring Liam Neeson. An airplane carrying Alaskan oil field workers crashes during a storm, and they must battle harsh winter conditions and a pack of aggressive wolves while attempting to find their way back to civilization. In addition to spectacular cinematography and spellbinding action scenes, the movie demonstrates surprising philosophical depth in delivering its theme: “What does it really mean to fight for one’s life?”

The movie also dramatizes three related principles that are easy to forget during everyday life but that are made vividly clear in the context of the movie:

1) Man’s basic means of survival is his reasoning mind.

The wolves in The Grey survive using their claws, fangs, and instincts in accordance with their basic nature. Humans, however, cannot survive in this fashion. We lack the fur to keep us warm in subzero temperatures, claws and fangs to kill prey (or to protect ourselves against predators), and instincts to dictate our actions. To survive, we must use our minds, rearrange nature, and create the goods we need. Reason is our basic means of doing so.

2) Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.

Do you need to start a fire? Then you must identify the nature of the material at hand and proceed accordingly. Do you need to cross a violently rushing river? Then you must devise a method that holds the weight of a full-grown man; you must respect and apply the laws of physics. Wishful thinking, bluster, or drunkenness won’t make reality bend to your desires or make your problems go away. The only way to solve your problems or accomplish your goals is to face reality head-on, heed the facts, and act accordingly.

3) Modern man is extremely dependent on the benefits of technology.

Technology is an incredible enhancement to our lives. I would rather be typing a movie review on my MacBook Air in the comfort of my living room than shivering in a dark cave wondering whether I’ll be eaten by wolves tonight.

But it’s easy to take for granted the benefits of industrial civilization until we are reminded (in fiction or in real life) what life is like without those benefits. In Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, Hank Rearden hosts a fancy party during a storm. During the party, Francisco D’Anconia tells him:

“[Y]ou are able to have summer flowers and half-naked women in your house on a night like this, in demonstration of your victory over that storm. And if it weren’t for you, most of those who are here would be left helpless at the mercy of that wind in the middle of some such plain.”

The Grey reminded me how grateful I am for the many entrepreneurs, engineers, and businessmen who have created our modern industrial civilization. Without them, we wouldn’t enjoy the iPads, cell phones, automobiles, central heating, and electricity we so easily take for granted. Instead, we’d be like the protagonists of The Grey, struggling mightily against raw, untamed nature, hoping to survive another day.

For this reason, although The Grey is not a political movie, it also helped me better appreciate Ari Armstrong’s recent blog post, “Great Producers Deserve Our Gratitude, Not Obama’s Tax Hikes.”

In the hubbub of everyday life, it’s easy to forget some basic truths about man, nature, and the fundamental role of reason in our lives. A gripping tale of novel and dire circumstances, The Grey reminds us of what we must never forget if we want to live.

Gingrich Seeks to Violate Rights of Women and Doctors to Engage in Fertility Care

Gingrich Seeks to Violate Rights of Women and Doctors to Engage in Fertility Care:

The spectacle of Newt Gingrich—of all people—trying to dictate the family planning of others is ludicrous.

Yet Gingrich’s recent call for more rules controlling in vitro fertility treatments raises an important issue: Under the proposed anti-abortion “personhood” laws that Gingrich endorses, common fertility treatments would be outlawed. The result would be that many women who wish to have children would be legally barred from getting pregnant.

“Personhood” laws would arbitrarily declare eggs at the moment of fertilization to be the legal equivalent of a born child, conferring full legal rights to zygotes. Among many other things, such laws would ban common fertility treatments that involve harvesting multiple eggs from the woman, trying to fertilize those eggs, and then implanting one or more of the resulting zygotes in the woman’s uterus. Because these procedures typically produce extra zygotes that are later destroyed, “personhood” laws declare them to be murder.

If doctors were forbidden from fertilizing more than a single egg at a time, that would dramatically increase the cost of fertility treatment and dramatically reduce the chances of success. As a result, many women who wish to have children would be legally prevented from doing so. (For details, see a 2010 paper on the subject by Diana Hsieh and me.)

Thus, “personhood” laws would violate the rights of women and their partners to seek fertility care as well as the rights of doctors to administer it—a violation of the founding rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And yet, even though they would prevent many women from having children of their own, the “personhood” laws are preposterously called “pro life” by their advocates. They are in fact profoundly anti-life, and it it time for Americans to recognize them as such.

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.

Related:

• The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties
  
  


• Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society
  
  

Image: Creative Commons by Gage Skidmore

Bastiat on Crony Government

Bastiat on Crony Government:

Via RealClear Politics is a link to a blog that excerpts a comment made by the economist Frederic Bastiat 150 years ago that is, I agree, as "fresh as a daisy". Here is the excerpt:

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law -- which may be an isolated case -- is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.

Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it. [bold added by Adam Sharp]

Notice the clarity here! Bastiat states that the government is acting the part of a criminal enterprise above the law. Note, too, the recognition that controls breed controls, from the standpoint of the crime victims seeking reprisals. (Other victims will also run to the government for "redress" when the economic distortions caused by central planning inevitably -- but not always obviously -- harm their interests. This "redress" will also excuse the creation of more economic controls, rather than the repeal of the ones already on the books.)

The only thing I can add here is that I strongly object to the term "crony capitalism". Capitalism exists only when the state does not attempt to run any part of the economy, and political cronies can only exist when it does. Perhaps "crony government," a term I recall Harry Binswanger suggesting, would be a better. Whatever we call it, we should keep from blaming capitalism by association for a problem it does not cause.

-- CAV

Updates

Today: Changed "Other crime victims" to "Other victims" in parenthetical comment.

Dr. Peikoff on Objectivism Versus Applications Thereof

Dr. Peikoff on Objectivism Versus Applications Thereof:

On Monday, Dr. Peikoff released a podcast with the following question:

Do you distinguish official Objectivist doctrine from Ayn Rand's personal views?

His answer was excellent: it's a brief but clear explanation of the meaning and implications of the "closed system" view of Objectivism. That's what I advocate, what I practice, and what I defended in my recent blog post. If you're interested in these matters, I recommend listening to his answer. (It's only 2 minutes, 31 seconds long.)

Here's the transcription, courtesy of D Jason Fleming:

Philosophy is broad principles, about the nature of the universe, the means of knowledge, the nature of man, and then the value doctrines that all that leads to. All this is interconnected. In a proper philosophy, it's one system, as in Objectivism.

Now that does not mean that every specific application of that philosophy is inherent in the philosophy. A philosopher can hold views that do not necessarily follow from the philosophy, but are its application to a realm where facts are established by science, or observation, or some other appropriate means.

Philosophy is wide abstractions. That does not entail specific choices or specific interpretations of how they apply to concretes. For instance, take my theory of history presented in the DIM book. I make a definite distinction between official Objectivst doctrine and Peikoff's theory of history. Now, I believe that my theory is based on Objectivism, but it does not follow from Objectivism, it is not therefore Objectivism as such. It is my application and each person has to decide is this the correct application or not? It is not subjective, but it's still not a question of what is the philosophy, but what is its applications? And in that regard, Ayn Rand and I and others can disagree without anybody contradicting the philosophy.

Remember also that there are personal options in applying broad philosophic principles. You can say that, for instance, "sex is good" is a philosophic principle, but that does not necessitate any special particular position or clothing, et cetera. It does specify that the general principles of morality apply, such as fraud, force, evasion, et cetera. But as apart from that, there are many different interpretations and complete options which would be personal, not official.

So: yes, but without that implying a contradiction or a subjective viewpoint.

Hear, hear!

Rick Santorum on Pregnant Rape Victims

Rick Santorum on Pregnant Rape Victims:

Rick Santorum says that pregnant rape victims should "accept the gift of human life" and "make the best out of a bad situation." And yes, that's what every advocate of "personhood for zygotes" must say.



As Ari and I said in The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties:

In [a] 2004 survey, around 1.5 percent of women who got an abortion cited rape or incest as the cause of the pregnancy. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term when the pregnancy was caused by a sexual assault victimizes her yet again. Even if she gives up the child for adoption, she must live with the ever-present physical reminder of her assault for the duration of her pregnancy. Moreover, the woman might feel a torturous conflict over the born child: she might desperately want to raise her own child, but abhor the thought of raising the child of her rapist.

That last point, I think, is particularly important.

Progress in New Jersey

Progress in New Jersey:

The WSJ has an interesting update on Governor Christie's progress in New Jersey. A few excerpts:

Economically, unemployment in the state has fallen to 9% from a high of 9.8%. With almost 3.9 million people working, New Jersey has added almost 60,000 private-sector jobs since he took office, while shedding more than 21,000 government jobs. Reforms of the pension and health programs for government employees will save taxpayers an estimated $120 billion over the next 30 years. A new limit on local property-tax increases appears to be working.

Mr. Christie says that he can now push for the tax cuts that he promised would happen if the state controlled its spending. The governor made that promise while seeking the job in 2009, and he recalls the skepticism at various newspapers during the campaign: "They looked at me like I was an alien." Because many media folk couldn't believe the state government could afford to reduce tax rates, "They just basically accused me of lying to get elected."

[...]

Having spent his first two years playing defense against unsustainable spending, Mr. Christie is eager to start competing with neighboring states for jobs, talent and capital. Step one was to decide which tax reform would be the biggest draw for new residents and new businesses. He chose to attack the income tax because "that will be the thing that will make us the most competitive from a jobs perspective." His decision was made easier when he saw neighboring New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo push through an income-tax increase in December.

"When Governor Cuomo raised taxes over here that made it even more attractive for me to go after the income tax . . . from a competitive perspective." He adds that with Gov. Dannel Malloy also enacting a tax increase in Connecticut last year, "it's a strategic decision as much as a philosophical decision."

New Jersey has a long way to go. This week the Tax Foundation again rated it dead last among the 50 states for its overall business tax climate. As for individual income taxes, Mr. Christie notes that since 2003 the top marginal rate has risen to 8.9% from 6.25%. If Mr. Christie succeeds in knocking that top rate down to a flat 8%, Jersey will still be above Connecticut's 6.7%. But since Connecticut now edges New Jersey for the country's highest property taxes, according to the Tax Foundation, the Garden State is at least in the ball game.

Activism Recap

Activism Recap:

This week on We Stand FIRM, the blog of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine):

• 23 January 2012: CO High Risk Pools and D4PC Response by Paul Hsieh
  
• 23 January 2012: Snopes Disputes Neurosurgery Rationing Claim by Paul Hsieh
  
• 24 January 2012: Medicaid Coercion by Paul Hsieh
  
• 25 January 2012: CO Considering Repealing Health Insurance Exchange by Paul Hsieh
  
• 26 January 2012: Par8o: Why EMR is a Four Letter Word to Most Doctors by Paul Hsieh
  
• 27 January 2012: Orient on Quitting Medicare by Paul Hsieh
  
• 28 January 2012: WSJ Debate on ACOs by Paul Hsieh
  
• 29 January 2012: Blog for Surgery Center of OK by Paul Hsieh

This week on Politics without God, the blog of the Coalition for Secular Government:

• 23 January 2012: Rick Santorum on Free Speech by Diana Hsieh
  
• 25 January 2012: Saudi Textbooks: Atrocities in Print for Children by Diana Hsieh
  
• 27 January 2012: Rick Santorum on Pregnant Rape Victims by Diana Hsieh

This week on Mother of Exiles:

• 23 January 2012: Give Thanks by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela
  
• 24 January 2012: Government-Created Black Markets by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela
  
• 25 January 2012: Weekly Quote by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela
  
• 26 January 2012: More Evidence of Immigrants Being More "American" than Americans? by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela
  
• 27 January 2012: Famous Immigrant of the Week - Oscar de la Renta by Kelly McNulty Valenzuela

This week on the blog of Modern Paleo:

• 23 January 2012: Questions on Menopause and Weight Gain by Diana Hsieh
  
• 24 January 2012: Announcement: PaleoFX by Diana Hsieh
  
• 27 January 2012: Question of the Week: Liver by Diana Hsieh
  
• 27 January 2012: The Paleo Rodeo #097 by Diana Hsieh
  
• 28 January 2012: Objectivist Links by Diana Hsieh

Are "Soft Landings" really softer?

Are "Soft Landings" really softer?:

Bernanke Explains Central Banking

Bernanke Explains Central Banking:

For those of you wishing to gain some insight into our genius overlords' thinking, these four classes by Ben Bernanke (Central Planner in Chief) might be of interest.

Obama Should Help End All Energy Subsidies, Not Play Favorites

Obama Should Help End All Energy Subsidies, Not Play Favorites:

President Obama is schizophrenic in his energy proposals.

In a Thursday address at Buckley Air Force Base, Obama said he wants “the same set of rules for everyone.” Yet, on one hand, he said he wants to end subsidies and “taxpayer giveaways” to oil companies, while on the other hand he wants to establish “clean energy tax credits” and mandates that compel people to use politically favored energy sources.

In other words, Obama wants one set of rules for productive oil companies and a different set of rules for his political cronies who run parasitical “alternative” energy companies like Solyndra. Instead, Obama should call for the elimination of tax-funded subsidies and the even-handed lowering of taxes across the board.

A business subsidy—corporate welfare—is an abomination. As Mike Brownfield argued for the conservative Heritage Foundation last year, “The left’s anti-subsidy rhetoric is right on. Ending all energy subsidies, including those for oil and gas, would be good for American taxpayers and consumers.” More importantly, it would protect their rights to control their own wealth. Why, then, do some people condemn corporate welfare for oil companies even as they champion it for their own pet projects? Brownfield notes that, for such activists, “vilifying an industry [oil] is their end game.”

The problem of discriminatory taxes is trickier. However, clearly the wrong approach is to confuse subsidies with tax breaks. A subsidy involves forcibly confiscating the wealth of some parties and giving it to other parties. A tax break involves letting a business keep more of the wealth that it produces and properly owns. The two things are fundamentally different.

That said, the federal government ought not play favorites by punishing some businesses with higher tax rates. Discriminatory taxes violate the basic principle of equality under the law.

The solution to discriminatory taxes is not to impose even higher taxes on the historically favored businesses. To do so would be to act on the flawed principle that two wrongs somehow make a right. Instead, the proper approach is to start by dropping everyone’s taxes to the lower rate. Obama should not try to raise net taxes on oil companies; he should reduce net taxes on everyone paying more.

But Obama refuses to demand “the same set of rules for everyone.” Instead, he wants to pick the winners and losers in the economy—the rights and well-being of energy companies and their customers be damned.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.

Related:

• Interview with Alex Epstein, Founder of Center for Industrial Progress


• Energy at the Speed of Thought: The Original Alternative Energy Market

Image: Creative Commons by Bernard Pollack

Warren Buffett Immorally Calls for Tax Hikes on Top Producers

Warren Buffett Immorally Calls for Tax Hikes on Top Producers:

Warren Buffett so loves the idea of higher taxes on the wealthy that the proposal to accomplish that even bears his name: the “Buffett Rule.” This week Buffett seconded Barack Obama’s call for “a minimum effective tax rate of 30 percent on those who earn a million dollars or more,” Reuters reports.

The “Buffett Rule” is based on the tired lie that (in the words of the Reuters reporter) “millionaires [pay] a smaller share of income taxes than middle-class taxpayers.” While it is true that the tax rate for capital gains is “only” 15 percent, generally the wealthy pay far more taxes than everyone else (as reports by the AP and the Heritage Foundation confirm).

But the reason not to raise taxes on the wealthy is not that they currently already pay a greater share of their income in taxes than others pay. The reason is that the wealthy, like others, have the right to use their earnings and property as they judge best. Indeed, as I have argued, that fact justifies dramatically lowering taxes on the wealthy.

As for Buffett, he is already perfectly free to write a check to the federal government for whatever amount he wishes, up to his entire fortune. Instead of acting with the courage of his convictions, Buffett recently wrote an extra check to the Treasury for what is to him a paltry sum of $49,000. As of November, he was worth $39 billion (about a quarter of a percent of the federal debt). If he seriously believes federal politicians and bureaucrats can spend his billions more intelligently than he can, he is free to let them try.

But for Buffett to advocate that the government forcibly seize more wealth from producers is immoral—and for the government to seize their wealth is a violation of their rights. Great producers who earned their money building the companies and technologies that enhance and prolong our lives should be free to use their resources according to their own discretion and for their own self-interested purposes.

Related:

• To Give Americans a “Fair Shot,” Obama Should Stop Violating Our Rights


• The American Right, the Purpose of Government, and the Future of Liberty

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Shipping Industry as Example of the Business Cycle

Shipping Industry as Example of the Business Cycle:

I'm a proponent of monetary policy having the potential to create boom - bust cycles (which I guess makes me a "bubble head" in some people's estimation). This article on the boom and bust in container shipping (created in large part by artificial Chinese demand) is an interesting case study.

Great Producers Deserve Our Gratitude, Not Obama’s Tax Hikes

Great Producers Deserve Our Gratitude, Not Obama’s Tax Hikes:

In his State of the Union address, Barack Obama said the wealthy need to pay higher taxes in order to pay their “fair share.”

As Newt Gingrich told Newsmax, Obama’s plan apparently would entail doubling the capital gains tax to 30 percent, something Gingrich justifiably characterizes as he “most destructive anti-jobs proposal by a president in my lifetime.” (The tax hike would be on top of the double taxation already applied to capital gains.)

But Obama’s proposed tax hikes are not merely economically destructive, they are the antithesis of actual fairness. Toward genuine fairness, a good first step would be to dramatically cut taxes on those who produce enormous wealth. Such producers earn their money by creating the technologies, products, jobs, and effective business practices that keep us alive and help us flourish. They deserve to use their resources as they judge best rather than see their earnings looted by federal politicians and the special-interest groups that many of those politicians serve. And yet, rather than applaud the giants of industry whose productivity enhances our lives in myriad ways, federal politicians punish them with insanely high taxes. (James Pethokoukis reviews relative tax burdens for the American Enterprise Institute, and I discuss the matter in a piece for Pajamas Media.)

To puff up his claim that forcing the wealthy to pay higher taxes is somehow more “fair,” Obama presumes that their wealth automatically belongs to the federal government. If politicians allow wealthy producers to keep more of the money they earn, he argued, then that is a “special tax subsidy,” no different than if the government hands the wealthy the money that somebody else earned.

The federal government should forcibly seize more of the earnings of the wealthy, Obama argued, in order to give that money to someone else, whether “a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet.” Elsewhere in his speech Obama suggested that politically-connected parasites posing as businessmen also deserve more corporate welfare. But, regardless of which interest groups win the federal payouts, Obama’s principle is the same: the wealth of the great producers should be forcibly confiscated and turned over to those who did not produce it but allegedly need it or profess to need it.

In other words, one’s “unalienable rights” to one’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” must make way for the collectivist doctrine: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Fairness does not mean letting the federal government forcibly confiscate more of the wealth of those who produce the goods, services, businesses, and jobs on which our lives depend. It means limiting the government to the protection of each person’s rights to his property and earnings, whether that person earns ten thousand dollars every year or ten billion.

Related:

• To Give Americans a “Fair Shot,” Obama Should Stop Violating Our Rights
  
  


• The Justice of Income Inequality Under Capitalism

Image: Public Domain

Re-Checking Some Premises

Re-Checking Some Premises:

On Some Recent Controversies

On Some Recent Controversies:

Yesterday on Facebook, I was alerted to a new web site attacking me: CheckingPremises.org. The web site claims to be "in response to the danger that some, who may seem in agreement with the philosophy, are in fact subverting it." It has pages on "The Brandens," "David Kelley," and "Libertarianism," with a few perfunctory links. Then, under "Current Controversies," you'll find six pages on me, albeit with little of substance. The site claims:

We believe [Diana Hsieh] has revealed herself to not understand and/or to not agree with certain aspects of Objectivism. In addition, we have serious concerns about the nature, frequency, and tone of her public disagreements with Dr. Leonard Peikoff.

The purpose of the web site is clearly to attack me, and I was expecting that something like that might happen. As many of you know, a handful of people have been loudly condemning me on Facebook in recent weeks, demanding that our mutual friends un-friend me, and so on.

The site is not something that I can take too seriously. A handful of people -- none of whom I know, except to barely recognize a few names -- think poorly of me. Mostly, I regard the site as an embarrassment to Objectivism: it deserves to disappear into the ether.

For obvious reasons, the creators and supporters of this web site are not welcome in my life, including online. They are not entitled to post belligerent comments on my Facebook wall or in these NoodleFood comments, as happens periodically. They should have had the good sense to unsubscribe themselves from my OLists, rather than obliging me to remove them. Most of all, they're not entitled to violate my rights, such as by reposting video segments from my webcast without my permission. (Happily, I was able to remove such a video with a DMCA takedown request.)

Here, I'd like to explain my views on some of the controversial topics, so that anyone confused by this brouhaha can know where I stand and judge me accordingly. If you have any further questions, please e-mail me privately.

For me, discussion between thoughtful and friendly Objectivists -- not just on the proper application of our common philosophic principles, but on a wide range of practical topics -- is a huge value. In such discussions, reasonable people will disagree from time to time, particularly on complex topics. Such disagreements can provide an excellent opportunity to question assumptions, consider new facts, understand opposing views, and more. That's a value to me -- and to many others too.

Such friendly discussion doesn't happen automatically: it requires purposeful effort. The people involved in the discussion need to focus on the substantive issues. They need to strive to be rational and benevolent, including in their assumptions about and treatment of others. They need to give others the necessary time to think through the issues on their own. They need to consider the judgments of experts carefully, yet come to their own rational, independent conclusions. By such means, disagreements can be friendly, or at least civil, and even a passionate disagreement need not cause rifts among good people.

I learn lots through such discussions with my fellow Objectivists, and I hope that others do too. That's part of the purpose of the various OLists, and I'm proud of the success of those lists.

If Objectivists don't nourish and protect that kind of rational culture, then a self-destructive culture of suspicion, hostility, and dogmatism will take its place. Then, any disagreement -- even if trivial, even if outside the scope of Objectivism -- will become grounds for denouncing someone else as dishonest and attempting to ostracize them. Any connection with a condemned person will be grounds for your condemnation too. People will fear speaking their minds, and some will even forego thinking for themselves.

That kind of repressive culture actively undermines the virtues of rationality, justice, and independence. It's not compatible with the fundamental principles of Objectivism, nor is it the kind of culture that can revitalize America.

To promote a rationally benevolent Objectivist culture does not mean eschewing moral judgment, nor that every Objectivist will join hands to sing kumbaya. A person may falsely describe himself as an Objectivist, meaning that he rejects core principles of the philosophy in word and deed. Such people, as well as the dishonest critics of Objectivism, should be judged and treated according to their merits (or lack thereof). Moreover, some Objectivists just might not wish to work together due to personal conflicts. That's to be expected -- and while sometimes unfortunate, that's hardly unusual for intellectual movements.

As for me, I occasionally disagree with other Objectivists -- including with scholars and intellectuals who I like and respect -- on various topics. When their publicly-stated views are relevant to my projects or of sufficient interest to me, I might discuss my disagreement publicly. That's been my longstanding policy. People familiar with my history know that I've spoken out on controversial topics before, and that I've sometimes taken heat for doing so. That's nothing new for me.

Of course, I'm always interested in substantive arguments against my views. I'm happy to change my mind when I see that I'm wrong -- or at least to accept that my opponents have a better case than I realized. However, I'll never accept someone else's say-so, nor hide my views because I think they might be unpopular. That's just not the kind of person I am, nor the kind of person that I'd ever want to be.

As it happens, Dr. Peikoff has said some things in recent podcasts that I disagree with, sometimes very strongly. Twice, I've made my disagreement known -- in my webcast discussions of compulsory juries (May 2011) and the transgendered (Oct 2011). (In the debate about the NYC Mosque, I blogged my view before Dr. Peikoff's podcast on the topic, and I continued to disagree with him on that issue.) Given that Dr. Peikoff and I happen to share some similar interests in practical philosophy, such periodic disagreements are hardly surprising.

On the whole, I've tried to be careful in my tone and manner, as is evident from my writings on the NYC Mosque and John McCaskey's Resignation. Alas, I didn't take proper care in my discussion of compulsory juries. Unfortunately, some people wrongly interpreted my enthusiasm for the topic as enthusiasm for criticizing Dr. Peikoff. I didn't intend any disrespect, and I regret that I could be interpreted that way. (I say more on this later.)

Because I expect to disagree with other Objectivists from time to time, particularly on applications of the philosophy, I don't regard my occasional disagreements with Dr. Peikoff as of much significance. I almost always agree with him, so disagreements are a kind of interesting philosophical mystery that I like to unpack. Sometimes, after further reflection, I find that I was wrong, and that Dr. Peikoff is right. But that's not always the case.

Of course, I regard Dr. Peikoff's books and courses as a huge value: I've learned more from him over the past two decades than I can properly express. As I routinely tell people, anyone who wants to deeply understand Objectivism simply must read his books and listen to his major courses. Nonetheless, I've never thought myself duty-bound to agree with Dr. Peikoff, nor to be silent about any disagreements, due to that appreciation for his work. To remain silent would not be respectful: it would be either patronizing or cowardly.

Unfortunately, a few Objectivists seem to regard any disagreement with Dr. Peikoff as some kind of personal attack on him. That's wrong. To criticize a person as wrong -- even very seriously wrong -- on some particular issue is not the same as condemning the person. Good people can be very seriously wrong sometimes. To personalize mere disagreements over ideas by interpreting them as personal attacks is unwarranted, as well as unfair. It's also toxic to the Objectivist movement, as that approach erodes the much-needed culture of independent thinking and rational judgment.

Notably, my occasional disagreements with Dr. Peikoff and other Objectivists are not disagreements about the principles of Objectivism -- like that humans have free will or that integrity is a virtue. At most, they concern the application of Objectivist principles to circumstances and questions not considered by Ayn Rand. As such, they're outside the scope of Objectivism. They are the kinds of peripheral issues about which Objectivists sometimes disagree, and when they do, they should do so civilly, particularly if they wish to succeed in their own lives and change the culture.

Remember, Objectivism does not encompass all philosophic truth. It's the philosophy developed by Ayn Rand, and it's a closed system. Hence, even the best scholarly work done by Objectivists since Ayn Rand's death cannot be regarded as part of Objectivism. As Leonard Peikoff himself explains in Fact and Value:

"Objectivism" is the name of Ayn Rand's achievement. Anyone else's interpretation or development of her ideas, my own work emphatically included, is precisely that: an interpretation or development, which may or may not be logically consistent with what she wrote. In regard to the consistency of any such derivative work, each man must reach his own verdict, by weighing all the relevant evidence. The "official, authorized doctrine," however, remains unchanged and untouched in Ayn Rand's books; it is not affected by any interpreters.

Objectivism doesn't have a theory of induction or a theory of children's rights. It doesn't tell us who to vote for in 2012 or whether Agora was a good movie. Many Objectivists have views on these topics, and those views might be more or less consistent with Objectivist principles. However, there is simply no such thing as "the Objectivist position" on the NYC Mosque or "the Objectivist position" on gun rights or "the Objectivist theory of induction." (People often loosely describe new philosophic works that are consistent with and based on Objectivism as "Objectivist," and that's fine. However, such works are not part of the "official, authorized doctrine" of Objectivism.)

To claim that my few disagreements with Dr. Peikoff on issues outside the scope of Objectivism prove that I don't understand or don't agree with Objectivism is just plain wrong. Although Dr. Peikoff understands Objectivism thoroughly, he's not immune from error, particularly in the application of Objectivist principles to current events or new questions. Everyone must judge for himself the truth of Dr. Peikoff's claims, as well as their consistency with Objectivism.

Personally, I take the closed system view of Objectivism very seriously, particularly because I thought long and hard about it some years ago. (See my essays Ayn Rand on David Kelley and The Open System, One More Time.) I'm an Objectivist because I agree with and practice the principles of Objectivism. I don't claim to speak for Objectivism, nor do I regard my new philosophic work as part of Objectivism. (That's part of the reason why my webcast is "Philosophy in Action," not "Objectivism in Action.") I regard my philosophic work as compatible with Objectivism. But it is my own work, and others can and ought to judge its compatibility for themselves. As always, I welcome substantive comments and criticisms, particularly from an Objectivist perspective.

As for some of the particular objections raised against me, I'd like to explain a few points that might not be apparent from a distance. (I've explained much of what follows to people who inquired with me, usually to their satisfaction. A person's action and motives are often not what others suppose from afar. That's why justice often requires inquiring with a person about the facts in a civil way before judgment.)

NYC Mosque

All of Paul's and my blog posts are collected here, in reverse order: NYC Mosque.

This issue was hugely controversial among Objectivists. It is a complex and difficult subject, partly because the debate concerned what people ought to do given that our government refuses to do the right thing, namely protect us against terrorist threats from Islamists by declaring war against states that sponsor terrorism. With the proper course closed off, our only options were "bad" and "worse," and Objectivists were arguing over which was which. (That's similar to debates about the proper rules for government schools: since government schools ought not exist, plausible arguments can often be made both for and against some proposed rule.)

I stand by the concerns that Paul and I raised in our blog posts, but I understand -- mostly thanks to Amy Peikoff's posts -- why others saw the matter differently. I was, and still am, disturbed by Dr. Peikoff's manner in his podcast discussion, and I found much of his argument unpersuasive on its own.

Mostly though, I think that Objectivists ought to be able to disagree about this kind of topic in a friendly or at least civil way.

John McCaskey's Resignation

Paul and I have already said all that we wish to say about this matter in these posts. We think that our concerns about Dr. Peikoff's letter were warranted, and we think that the dispute between Dr. Peikoff and Dr. McCaskey could and should have been handled better by ARI.

Compulsory Juries

As I said earlier, I should have been more careful in how I expressed my disagreement with Dr. Peikoff in my webcast discussion of compulsory juries. As my regular webcast viewers know, I love wrangling with difficult issues, particularly when I think I can cut through them clearly. I was enthused about this particular topic, and I knew that my arguments on it were solid. I didn't intend any disrespect to Dr. Peikoff: I was too focused on the substantive issues to even think about that. That was a mistake, of course, and I don't intend to repeat it. (It's easy to make such errors in speaking extemporaneously, as everyone who speaks extemporaneously knows.)

My views on the issue have not changed: I do not think that compulsory juries are compatible with individual rights, particularly given Ayn Rand's clear rejection of the draft and compulsory taxation. Moreover, a compulsory jury is an attempt to force men to think, and that's something that Ayn Rand knew to be impossible and dangerous. Also, I think that my summary of Dr. Peikoff's stated views was fair. Mostly, I quoted him at some length. Although he was uncertain whether juries would be used in a free society, he clearly stated that they could be compulsory, if so.

Dr. Peikoff didn't offer any substantive justification for his views in his two podcasts. After my webcast, Amy Peikoff attempted to defend his view in this blog post by appealing to tacit consent to a social contract. Her argument fails for the reasons given in this comment by NS. (When preparing for the webcast, I thought that Dr. Peikoff's remarks perhaps suggested an appeal to social contract. However, I never would have attributed that view to him, not even provisionally, because I've long known that social contract theory is wholly incompatible with individual rights.) Also, for more on the errors of social contract theory, I'd strongly recommend reading Harry Binswanger's April 29th, 2011 post to HBL. (That's only available to subscribers of HBL, but it was sent to me as the "HBL Monthly Enticement" on May 30th, 2011.)

I've not yet seen any plausible defense of Dr. Peikoff's views, and I hope that he reconsiders his position at some point.

Anencephalics

I discussed the rights of the the severely mentally disabled in a May 2011 webcast. My basic view is that normal children, as well as mentally impaired children, have all the usual rights to care from their parents. However, in the rare cases of complete mental incapacity -- such as in the horrifically tragic cases of anencephalic babies, where only the brain stem exists -- rights cannot apply. Rights are not inherent in our DNA; they're based on the role of reason in man's survival. Hence, if a child is proven in court to have zero current or future capacity to reason -- or, as in the case of the anencephalic, not even the potential for consciousness -- then that child could be humanely enthanized by its parents.

On hearing this view, any thinking person will immediately inquire about the logical implications of saying that anencephalic babies have no rights. Consider the extreme cases: Does that mean that they could be treated like any other animal, e.g. used for medical experiments, kept as a pet, or even eaten for food? (UGH!) The thought is repulsive, undoubtedly, but that's not a reason to refuse to think about it. An honest person's thinking is guided by facts, not emotions, and refusing to examine the logical implications of views under consideration is just evasion. (I was asked about this very issue in a discussion over dinner with some Objectivist friends prior to the webcast. It's a natural question.)

In the webcast, I said that using such babies as a food source, even if legally permitted, would be morally horrifying. That feeling would be pretty near universal, however, so I couldn't imagine that any kind of widespread problem with that would ever exist. That wasn't a pleasant thing to say, but I didn't want to evade the question.

Later, someone seemingly determined to misrepresent what I said in the webcast -- as if I was all in favor of eating babies for breakfast -- questioned me about my views. Part of that discussion showed up in these NoodleFood comments. I found the whole discussion pointless and irritating, but I was thinking through my views as I posted comments. Hence, some of what I said earlier in that thread is definitely wrong. My current view can be found in this comment. Basically, I can imagine a few far-fetched scenarios in which consuming human flesh would not be horrifyingly immoral, provided that no rights were violated in doing so. (I'm still uncertain about Case #3: I feel an overwhelming sense of revulsion at the thought of doing that, but I'm uncertain that every rational person would necessarily feel that way. When in doubt, I will not condemn.)

The whole topic is so ridiculously far-fetched that I just can't see any point in further discussion of it. I'd be far more interested to hear a well-reasoned defense of some kind of legal protections for anencephalic babies, even if not rights. (That could have fascinating implications for laws pertaining to the treatment of animals.) Of course, any such attempt would have to be based on the Objectivist theory of rights, as opposed to the intrinsicist view. That intrisicist view says that rights are inherent in human nature, and it leads to granting rights to zygotes.

If anyone wants to assess my understanding of rights, I'd recommend reading my two published writings on the nature and basis of abortion rights, both co-authored with Ari Armstrong:

• The 'Personhood' Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception, particularly the section on Individual Rights and Abortion (2010)
  
• The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties (2012)

I'd also recommend reading my two graduate papers on the follies of animal rights:

• Animal Wrongs (PDF, 2004)
  
• On the Margins of Humanity (2005, PDF)

The second paper discusses what rights humans without any capacity for rational thought might have, and the implications of that for claims about animal rights.

The Transgendered

I strongly disagree with Dr. Peikoff's moral condemnation of the transgendered and their surgeons. In this December 13th, 2010 podcast, he claims that transgenders are engaged in "a war against reality." He also says that the doctors who perform sexual reassignment surgery are "corrupt without qualification," and he likens them to the doctors who performed experiments in Nazi concentration camps. In this June 20th, 2011 podcast, he claims that a person's sex is immutable, that sexual reassignment surgery does not change it, and that such surgery destroys a person's capacity for sexual enjoyment. In this January 2nd, 2012 podcast, he says that transsexualism is a "metaphysical assault on reality" and "a thorough corruption" that he would "never voluntarily associate with." He thinks that gay groups should be opposed if they welcome transsexuals. (Note: This third podcast was posted after my webcast discussion.)

I briefly registered my strong disagreement in this webcast discussion: Restrooms for the Transgendered in Transition. I regard Dr. Peikoff's views on this subject as terribly ill-informed and his moral condemnations as unjustified. I was particularly disappointed because his moral condemnation of transsexualism seems exactly like the moral arguments against homosexuality that used to be common in Objectivist circles.

Given that I know some transgendered Objectivists -- and that OHomos @ OList.com welcomes transgenders -- I didn't want to remain silent about these repeated public condemnations of the transgendered, particularly not when I was answering a question on the transgendered in my webcast. Others have spoken up too, and I'm glad of that. People -- particularly the transgendered -- should know that Dr. Peikoff doesn't necessarily speak for other Objectivists on this topic. Also, I wanted transgender Objectivists to feel welcome in the forums that I manage.

In the webcast, I said that Dr. Peikoff's comments on this topic are "horribly ignorant" and "armchair philosophizing." I stand by those remarks, strongly-worded as they are. Dr. Peikoff doesn't seem to be aware of the basic claims about the psychology of transgenderism. He would likely disagree with those claims, but a fair judgment of the transgendered and their doctors requires some familiarity with them. His remarks are premised on other critical factual errors, as Trey Givens discusses in this blog post. Moreover, in light of the strength and vehemence of Dr. Peikoff's repeated condemnations of the transgendered, I don't think my language was out-of-proportion. Of course, my criticisms are limited to his comments on this particular topic, which I regard as a striking exception to the keen insight that I've enjoyed in Dr. Peikoff's lecture courses, time and again.

Privacy Lies

For many years -- probably more than a decade -- I've been interested in the question of the morality of lies to protect one's privacy. That's part of my broader interest in the virtue of honesty -- as evidenced by my two published papers on the topic: "Dursley Duplicity: The Morality and Psychology of Self-Deception" in Harry Potter and Philosophy and "False Excuses: Honesty, Wrongdoing, and Moral Growth" in the Journal of Value Inquiry. Privacy lies are of particular interest because Objectivists often disagree about them, and I enjoy sorting through such moral tangles. However, there's more to the story.

For many years, I knew that Nathaniel Branden condemned such lies in very clear terms in his "Basic Principles of Objectivism" course. (That course was originally given at NBI, and it was approved by Ayn Rand.) However, the version of that course available to the public (which I own) was actually re-recorded after his break with Ayn Rand. I worried that, particularly on this issue, Branden might have changed the content. Recently, I was able to get my hands on a rarity: the original lectures recorded at NBI. To my surprise, the discussion of privacy lies was exactly the same as in the publicly available versions. Moreover, Ayn Rand didn't seem to change her view later in life: her remarks in the Q&A of Dr. Peikoff's "Philosophy of Objectivism" course indicate that she still regarded lies for the sake of privacy as wrong in 1976.

However, Leonard Peikoff has claimed that lies for the sake of privacy are justified. He discusses the issue in Understanding Objectivism, and he has a line about it in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. When I asked him about the issue during an OCON Q&A, he wasn't able to offer a suitable example of what he meant. (I don't mention that to fault him, but rather only to indicate my longstanding interest in this topic, including my attempt to get a better understanding of Dr. Peikoff's views.)

Personally, I'm fascinated by this apparent difference of opinion between Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. I want to consider what each side has to say in depth, and I'd like to see if their views can be reconciled. Mostly though, I want dive into the substantive question, then develop a clear and cogent analysis of these kinds of lies from an Objectivist perspective.

My own view has long been that privacy lies are dangerous (like other kinds of lies) and unnecessary (provided that a person thinks ahead). Ultimately, if Dr. Peikoff disagrees with Ayn Rand on privacy lies, I won't consider that any reason to cast doubt on his understanding of and committment to Objectivism. Given that the topic is so narrow, that would be silly and wrong for anyone to do that.

When I was playing the relevant segments of audio from the tapes of the "Basic Principles of Objectivism" to create MP3s on my computer, I posted a quick status update to Facebook on the topic. I said, "I've been doing some fascinating historical digging on Ayn Rand's view of 'privacy lies' today. Her view, in contrast to that of Leonard Peikoff, was that such lies are wrong, and often downright vicious. And she's right!" In the first comment, I said, "Hopefully I'll have the time to put together a blog post on this topic sometime in the next week or two." Later in that thread, I said more about my sources and my own views.

I thought that people might be curious about the issue, as I was. Naively, I never imagined that people would get upset about the matter. (Alas, I've learned that anything that can be taken out of context via unfavorable assumptions about my motives probably will be. Recently, I posted a simple quote from Ayn Rand on rights. Much to my amazement, some people interpreted that as "quoting Ayn Rand out of context as a weapon against Leonard Peikoff.")

According to my critics, I'm culpable on this issue of privacy lies because I've not yet blogged about it. Of course, if anyone had asked me why, I would have given them a very simple answer: I've been very busy of late, and I have about 20 blog posts that I'd like to write at any given moment. I will blog about it -- although I'm not sure exactly when -- precisely because privacy lies have been such a longstanding topic of interest for me. In the meantime, anyone else can investigate the matter for themselves, as all the sources are public.

Objectivists ought to be able to discuss -- and disagree on -- the morality of privacy lies in way that respects each person's independent judgment and context of knowledge. Ultimately, I suspect that a person cannot coherently advocate for the morality of privacy lies and uphold the virtue of honesty. However, that's far from self-evident, and some might argue that privacy lies don't aim to gain a value but only to keep it. Among Objectivists, any such claims will have to be argued carefully and chewed over thoroughly, as people think through a wide range of cases in light of the virtue of honesty and other relevant principles. Objectivists can foster that kind of discussion by scrupulously respecting each person's independent judgment, rather than demanding deference to experts. I'd like to see that happen, and I hope that my future writings on this topic contributes to that.

* * *

Objectivists will disagree with each other on occasion: that's inevitable. To be happy in our own lives, as well as promote rational ideas in the culture, we must keep those disagreements in perspective. We must take care to practice the virtues and respect them in others. By doing that, we can create a vibrant, healthy, and friendly community of Objectivists. That will attract others to our ideas, and enable us to be better advocates for Objectivist principles in the culture.

I'll continue to promote that kind of Objectivist culture -- and to fight for reason, egoism, and rights in America. I'm proud of what I've accomplished so far, and I'm eager to do even more in the years to come. Surely, I'll err on occasion -- but I'll always strive to correct my errors and do better in the future. I appreciate substantive arguments against my views, but I'll pass on the circular firing squad. I've got too many positive values to pursue and too much statism to fight for that kind of silliness.

Again, if you have any burning questions, please e-mail me privately.

Egypt's GOP

Egypt's GOP:

Over at Salon is an article that likens the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to the Republican Party in the United States.

[T]he Brotherhood is a free-market party led by wealthy businessmen whose economic agenda embraces privatization and foreign investment while spurning labor unions and the redistribution of wealth. Like the Republicans in the U.S., the financial interests of the party's leadership of businessmen and professionals diverge sharply from those of its poor, socially conservative followers.

While I disagree with Avi Asher-Schapiro that the economic interests of wealthy individuals and poor individuals differ, I think this writer has a point. Since privatization, as the term is too-commonly used today, does not necessarily even really mean "privatization", and many people who are said to be "free market" are not really pro-capitalists, but advocates of a less government-controlled mixed economy, I think that the article is right to note that each political party is a coalition between such "free market" types and theocrats. (I wouldn't tout either party as "pro-capitalist".) The article clearly depicts this as a bad thing for the wrong reason: Asher-Schapiro seems to regard any vestige of capitalism in post-Mubarak Egypt as a bad thing.

What is actually bad about this is that Islam (like Christianity) is, in fact, ethically incompatible with capitalism. These businessmen are already soothing foreign investors: If their economic policies really do represent a loosening of the economy, the theocrats in their coalition will be in a position to falsely gain credit when, as often happens, the loosening of state economic controls brings about an economic boom. The "free market" part of this coalition is, like that of the GOP, serving as "useful idiots" for the theocratic part of the coalition, and will, ultimately, either have to leave the coalition or lose after the theocrats entrench themselves and some choice has to be made between businessmen remaining wealthy (or free to enjoy their wealth) and the dictates of Islam.

In the meantime, watch for other unwarranted or premature sighs of relief from the West.

-- CAV

Objectivist Blog Carnival

Objectivist Blog Carnival:

by Jason Stotts

Welcome to the January 26, 2012 edition of the Objectivist Round Up and the 17th time Erosophia has hosted!

Today’s quote is from Jean-Baptiste Say:

Alas, how many have been persecuted for the wrong of having been right?

If you have never read Say, he is worth reading and is a clear writer, even for those without a background in Economics.

——————————-

Burgess Laughlin presents Making Progress: An Activist’s Choices posted at Making Progress, saying, “Who is an activist? What are the choices an activist faces once committed to activism? The answers are as varied as the personal values and individual abilities of the activists.”

Santiago and Kelly Valenzuela presents Give Thanks posted at Mother of Exiles, saying, “Short and sweet, but I love this image and the message it conveys!”

Rational Jenn presents Brain Dump posted at Rational Jenn, saying, “In this post, I give my views about several parenting posts that have recently made the rounds on Facebook and Twitter. The last link and commentary especially will be relevant and, I hope, interesting to Objectivists.”

Rational Jenn presents ATLOSCon Speaker Proposals! posted at Rational Jenn, saying, “ATLOSCon 2012 will be in Atlanta on May 24-27. We are soliciting proposals for classes. The deadline is FEBRUARY 1, so get your proposal in soon!”

Jim Woods presents U.S. Troops in Uganda? Blame Congress, Not Obama posted at Words by Woods, saying, “When Obama sent troops to Uganda in October, many wondered why.”

Paul Hsieh presents Repealing CO Health Insurance Exchange posted at We Stand FIRM, saying, “Here is my invited written statement to the CO state legislature supporting a good bill to repeal last year’s bad law establishing a state health insurance “exchange”.”

Earl Parson presents Sam Maloof Exhibit at the Huntington posted at Creatures of Prometheus, saying, “Iconic furniture craftsman Sam Maloof would have been 96 this week. As part of my ongoing ‘Birthdays of the Great Ones’ series, I reviewed the current exhibition of his work at the Huntington in Pasadena. Maloof developed a highly individualized style over the course of his long career – he was a man with a truly unique vision. Enjoy!”

Diana Hsieh presents On Some Recent Controversies posted at NoodleFood, saying, “Here are my thoughts on how the Objectivist movement might and ought to deal with disagreements, as well as some background on current criticisms of me.”

Edward Cline presents “Strike” One at The Rule of Reason

———————-

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, blog carnival.

U.S. - Other unfunded liabilities

U.S. - Other unfunded liabilities:

"Strike" One

"Strike" One:

The voluntary “blackout” of Wikipedia and other major Internet sites on January 18th in protest of the proposed SOPA/PIPA legislation in Congress had Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged written all over it. It’s likely that these sites’ owners even disdain Rand and her philosophy of reason and individual rights, but, there it was. They heard the wolf packs baying in the distance and coming closer, and took action. Here’s your world without us or our minds and our services. That was the message of the novel and of the blackout.

Moreover, the blackout had consequences. It forced the sponsors and advocates of the legislation to think twice about passing it. Can you imagine what might have happened if doctors had gone on a one-day strike before ObamaCare was passed? Possibly Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would have demanded that National Guard SWAT teams be called up to force doctors to return to their hospitals and clinics. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. There was no strike. That would have revealed the true nature of ObamaCare. It could possibly have delayed or aborted passage of that pernicious legislation. And Vice President Joe Biden would have instead exclaimed, “What’s the big *%#!* deal???”

SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act, House Bill 3261), and PIPA (Protect IP Act, Senate Bill 968) were condemned for two main reasons: the congressmen who drew up the legislation revealed a fatal ignorance of how the Internet works and so were proposing to hand government bureaucrats and law enforcement agencies the power to control its content, rendering the legislation ill-conceived and utterly impotent to combat the piracy of movies, music and even copyrighted written content; or because it would indeed empower the government to police the Internet, ostensibly to protect copyrights and intellectual property, but actually to control content and silence opposition to government policies at the behest of whatever lobby, group, or person had influence over Congress.

Some “strikers” and pundits opposed the legislation for technical reasons, citing the confusing language of the legislation. You can’t start a car without a solenoid, they were saying. It’s really very simple. The car can’t be stolen by pirates either if you remove the solenoid. That means the thieves would have to stop and strip or vandalize the car, giving you enough time to call the cops and see them arrested. Or they could bring their own solenoids, usually stolen from an auto parts store. What you’re proposing is that the guy who buys a used car not knowing it was stolen is a party to the theft, and you’d arrest him and let the thieves go free. That’s not really fighting car-theft, is it? – you cretins.

And your rules would crush the whole used-car market, in which the majority of used car sales are legitimate, but no one would want to risk selling or buying a used car because anyone could claim his car was stolen, even though it might have sat on the lot for ages. So, we refuse to be the patsies and fall guys of bureaucrats and other government knowledge “managers.”

An article by Derek Broes in Forbes on January 20th, “Why Should You Fear SOPA and PIPA?” cuts to the chase. After posing the rhetorical question, “What’s so bad about trying to protect movies and music from being pirated?” Broes notes:

The birth of SOPA and PIPA has been established through the efforts of the lobbying arms of the studios and labels The MPAA and RIAA. SOPA or (Stop Online Piracy Act) is in the Senate and PIPA, or (Protect Intellectual Property Act) is in the House [sic]. Both bills are essentially the ‘same wolf in sheep’s clothing’ so there is really no need to try and differentiate.

If passed, SOPA and/or PIPA will give the Justice Department the ability to shut down almost any blog or website at will, PLUS it will also do absolutely nothing to stop those that pirate movies or music.

Today the studios and labels rely on DMCA take down notices to handle piracy on websites such as YouTube, Vimeo and Facebook. The DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) allows the website to take down the content within a specific period of time after receiving a DMCA notice without penalty.

Broes has the venues of the legislation backwards, but adds that in “most cases all of the companies mentioned above do a fantastic job, and thus far have not done too much complaining about the costs of implementing technology and resources for a successful DMCA compliance structure.” He then wades into the complexities of the Internet and how piracy is practiced on it. This article should be read for the “solenoid” details to better understand how piracy is possible and why SOPA and PIPA would not actually stop it.

If the government, and those behind government, didn’t like Huffington Post or Breitbart.com it would now be legally plausible and simple to shut them down. After all, Huffington Post editors at some point in time have posted links to content from CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and other organizations. These networks could now claim that the Huffington Post was infringing upon their copyrights, and that Huffington editors, under SOPA/PIPA, be charged for each offense and go to jail. Yes jail.

“That would never happen” a friend of mine that works at a major studio told me. My response to him was simple. “I have never known a law that gives the government more power that they have not only used but exceeded the law’s intent to gain even more power.”

Broes concludes:

SOPA and PIPA are dangerous, half-baked solutions that will cost millions of jobs, stifle innovation and ultimately do nothing to stop piracy at all. It [sic] could be used as a solution for those in Government that seek to silence their opposition, even if that was never the intention. Hollywood has many large donors that are huge contributors to Obama so, even though Harry Reid postponed a vote on the bill, you can bet that they will try to wait for the frenzy to calm down before voting on a somewhat different version of the bill and most likely have a different name than SOPA or PIPA. After all, those names are as about as unpopular as members of Congress right now.

And who would be the Alpha Male wolf leading the pack? Cass Sunstein, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and regulatory “czar.”

Alec Rawls in an article on the “Watts Up With That” anti-climate change site, “Regulatory Czar wants to use copyright protection mechanisms to shut down rumors and conspiracy theories” (January 20th), also gets down to brass tacks and opens with:

As Congress considers vastly expanding the power of copyright holders to shut down fair use of their intellectual property, this is a good time to remember the other activities that Obama’s “regulatory czar” Cass Sunstein wants to shut down using the tools of copyright protection. For a couple of years now, Sunstein has been advocating that the “notice and take down” model from copyright law should be used against rumors and conspiracy theories, “to achieve the optimal chilling effect.”

What kinds of conspiracy theories does Sunstein want to suppress by law? Here’s one:
… that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud. [From page 4 of Sunstein's 2008 “Conspiracy Theories” paper.] [Italics Rawls’]

What an odd but cruel metaphor for Sunstein to employ – chilling effect – when advocating the gagging of critics of global warming. Yet Sunstein means it. Rawls poses a real life conundrum:

Suppose you are a simple public-spirited blogger, trying to expose how Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, and other Team members conspire to suppress the research and destroy the careers of those who challenge their consensus views. If Sunstein gets his way, Team members will only have to issue you a takedown notice, and if you want your post to stay up, you’ll have to go to court and win a judgment that your version of events is correct.

Sunstein is for government information “management” of men, to combat what he cynically deems “rumors and conspiracy theories,” that is, truth or the search for truth. He views men as mere sociological units and passive receptors of sense data which their “bias” translates into subjective interpretations of reality. Nothing that men know, that is, men who are not in power to enforce their own subjectivity, has any validity. Reality is unknowable. The peace and quiet of society must be preserved at all costs, even if it means tearing out the tongues of men or addling their minds with “preferred” or "official" truths.

If men sense that they are being tracked by wolf packs – if they sense that a government or president is preying upon their freedom, their wealth, their livelihoods, their lives – then this is simply a group “bias” or a psychosis that the government must combat with knowledge manipulation. Rawls writes:

The path from Sunstein’s 2008 “Conspiracy Theories”” article to his 2009 On Rumors book is straightforward. According to Sunstein’s 2008 definition, a conspiracy theory is very close to a potentially libelous rumor:

… a conspiracy theory can generally be counted as such if it is an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role. [Abstract]

At this time, Sunstein’s “main policy idea” was that:

government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories….

… government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. ["Conspiracy Theories," pages 14-15] [Italics Rawls']

Sunstein wrote in On Rumors:

“….[R]umors [or conspiracy theories] often arise and gain traction because they fit with, and support, the prior convictions of those who accept them. Some people and some groups are predisposed to accept certain rumors, because those rumors are compatible with what they think they know to be true.” [p. 6]

So, if your conviction is that your life is your own, and you notice that various regulatory “czars” assert otherwise, that you must live for the good of the nation and sacrifice yourself to penury, and defer to elitist society managers before you buy a can of soup or light a cigarette or purchase a pair of shoes, and you conclude, with others who hold and share the same conviction, that the government is encroaching on every little aspect of your life and that this enveloping trend seems to be a conspiracy – well, SOPA or PIPA would allow the government to send in its “infiltrators” to set your mind straight. Or perhaps an ATF or DHS SWAT team for a more visceral persuasion, if you persist in your delusion that the government is intent on enslaving you.

Picture a worst case scenario under SOPA or PIPA: The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or the Islamic Circle of America, or the Muslim Public Affairs Council filing a complaint with the government about “rumors and conspiracy theories” being posted on Jihad Watch or The Middle East Forum, and demanding that these sites be taken down as defamatory and disrespectful and malicious, even though all these sites do is report on the crimes committed in the name of Islam and the stealth jihad conquest of the country. Or imagine Ron Paul wishing to have his weird foreign policy statements expunged from the Internet record so that no one could judge him by those statements.

Imagine the doors to all kinds of knowledge shut in your face because Cass Sunstein has diagnosed you as nuts.

Do not be fooled by the ubiquitous photo of a smiling Cass Sunstein. He is a totalitarian of the first rank. But while he is only one of dozens of such creatures in the current administration, SOPA and/or PIPA would empower him to impose his vision of an ideal society

Another website, “Cloud Tweaks,” carries an article by Jeff Norman on the intricacies of “cloud computing” and the inherent dangers of SOPA and PIPA.

Understandably, many would-be cloud users might be warded off by fear of a federal shakedown. Businesses should also be concerned, since their employees might choose to store important information in cloud sites that might be dismantled and rid of their data.

The SOPA/PIPA affair has not concluded by any means. Both Craigslist and Wikipedia warn their users that the bills will continue to lurk in Congress’ shadows, perhaps to eventually resurface in a revamped and less easily overpowered form.

Let us concretize the peril and the stakes this way: the Internet enabled me to research and write this article in record time – one day – whereas in the past researching and writing such an article may have taken me a week. But all the research capabilities were there, thanks to protected IP’s and the skill and knowledge of those “providers” (too frequently regarded by regulators and a mooching public as “common carriers”). Yes, there are pirates who exploit the Internet, but they need to be combated with objective law, and not by slapdash legislation drawn up by men with faulty and fatal grasps of how and why the Internet works.

Finally, a great lesson is being overlooked even by those who welcome Congress’s second thoughts about SOPA and PIPA. The Internet blackout proved, perhaps more than the Tea Party movement ever put Congress on notice that Americans were tired of its juggernaut to national insolvency and socialism, that power-lusters and their abettors can be stopped cold. On January 23rd, PC World reported:

By the time the week was over, dozens of lawmakers had abandoned the two bills or voiced opposition, and a cloture vote on PIPA scheduled for this Tuesday in the Senate was delayed as lawmakers try to find a compromise. In the House, Representative Lamar Smith, the lead SOPA sponsor and Texas Republican, killed his bill.

And that was “Strike One” against statism. Who will throw the next pitch at Congress and the White House? Who will emulate John Galt? Doctors, or oil companies?