Apr 18, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
The Supreme Court has upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which outlaws a particular method of late-term abortion. Speaking for the majority, Justice Kennedy declared that "the law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice."
"But it is not a proper function of government to dictate medical practices," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "If a woman chooses to have an abortion, it is for her and her doctor--not Congress or the judiciary--to decide which medical procedure is most appropriate.
"Is the 'Partial-Birth Abortion' ban constitutional? Not if the Constitution is meant to guarantee a woman's right to her life, liberty and the pursuit of her happiness."Apr 11, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
The U.N. Human Rights Council recently passed a resolution urging nations to pass laws prohibiting the dissemination of ideas that "defame religion." It appears that the resolution was partly a response to last year's Danish cartoon crisis, where hordes of angry Muslims rioted in violent protest of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.
"The advocates of this resolution perversely equate those who drew the Danish cartoons with those who rioted and threatened to murder the cartoonists," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "Both, they say, are guilty of a crime and should be restrained and punished by the government--with the unstated caveat that the cartoonists are guiltier, since they allegedly incited the violent mobs by defaming Islam.
"To morally equate the Danish cartoonists with the Muslim rioters is to wipe out the distinction between speech and force. It is to declare there is no essential difference between the filmmaker Theo van Gogh,and the Muslim who murdered him for producing a film that 'defamed Islam.'
"Freedom of speech means that individuals have the right to advocate any idea, without the threat of government censorship, regardless of how many people that idea may offend. To silence individuals in order to protect the sensibilities of mullahs and mobs is to wipe out this crucial right--and it is to whitewash the blood-stained hands of killers by declaring that they are no worse than those who peacefully criticize them.
"Yet this disgraceful moral equivalence is a symptom of the larger moral equivalence that pervades the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is based on the gross pretense that its members--including belligerent regimes such as Iran and Syria, and oppressive dictatorships such as China and Cuba--are champions of peace and individual rights. As a result, its main function is to provide a forum for thugs and dictators to criticize free nations such as the United States and Israel, while pushing their anti-freedom agendas."The United States should condemn this resolution--and the morally corrupt organization that produced it."Mar 27, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
March 27, 2007
Irvine, CA--Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc., v. PSKS, Inc. At issue is the question whether antitrust law prohibits manufacturers from setting the retail price of their products.
According to Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "Whether or not antitrust law permits this practice is unanswerable--because antitrust law is filled with undefined terms that can mean whatever the government wants them to mean. But we can say this much for certain: manufacturers have a moral right--and should have the legal right--to set the retail price of their products. As the legitimate owners of their property, manufacturers--as any other sellers--have a right to set the terms of sale of their own products. If a retailer does not agree with the terms of sale set by a manufacturer, if he judges the terms to be unreasonable or unprofitable, he is free to reject the manufacturer's terms and seek other suppliers with different pricing policies.
"There are many legitimate reasons why a manufacturer might opt for a pricing policy that sets the retail prices for its products.
"A manufacturer may believe that its products would be more attractive to retailers if it guaranteed to them that their profit margins on its products wouldn't be cut by competition among different stores. Or a manufacturer may think a high-end product line will become devalued if sold at a discount. Whatever the reason behind a manufacturer's pricing policy, it is the manufacturer's prerogative--and his prerogative alone--to set it according to his judgment and his interests. The government has no right to forbid a manufacturer to come up with his own pricing policy or to force him to adopt a policy he doesn't agree with.
"To properly answer the question of what price to charge requires that a producer make difficult, consequential judgments. If a manufacturer sets his prices too high, he loses customers and risks a sharp decline in sales. If he sets his prices too low, he cuts his profits and may even take a loss. Setting prices at the right level is a difficult task for any manufacturer, a task he must be free to tackle without government interference.
"The objection that consumers are harmed by certain pricing policies is groundless. Consumers are under no coercion to buy anyone's products. They aren't harmed by a manufacturer's decision to set his prices as he sees fit. If they judge a product to be too expensive, they can go their own way, unharmed, and free to shop elsewhere. Just as a manufacturer has no right to force consumers to pay the price he wants, consumers (or government officials) have no right to force a manufacturer to sell at the price they want.
"The fact that a manufacturer may be punished by antitrust law for setting the retail price of its products indicates the irrational and unjust nature of antitrust law.
"We can only hope for the day when the Supreme Court will no longer condemn innocent companies for violating antitrust law, but instead will condemn antitrust law for violating the rights of the innocent."Mar 23, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
Irvine, CA--On March 26 the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., where the justices will decide whether antitrust law forbids a manufacturer from setting a minimum retail price for its products. In the past, judges have ruled that this is "price-fixing," and therefore must be prohibited. Critics of this precedent, including the Bush administration, claim that it is "outdated" and "cannot withstand modern economic analysis."
"An overturning of this particular anti-price-fixing precedent would be a welcome development," said Alex Epstein, a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "But the Court should go further and repudiate any prohibition against so-called price-fixing.
"Prohibitions against 'price-fixing' are defended by alleging that if multiple companies agree to sell some product at the same price, they will be able to gouge consumers by making that price exorbitant.
"But this is nonsense. So long as the government stays out of the market, no group of companies can force a customer to pay more for a product than it is worth--nor can a group of companies that arbitrarily jack up their prices prevent worthy competitors from winning over their customers.
"There is no danger to anyone from the practice of 'price fixing.' There is however, continuing danger--as there has been great damage done throughout economic history--from antitrust's prohibition of the practice. The reason is that 'price fixing,' like many other key terms in the antitrust lexicon, is undefined and indefinable; it can mean anything government bureaucrats and prosecutors want it to mean.
"For example, in the case under review by the Supreme Court, it is currently considered illegal 'price-fixing' for a handbag manufacturer to contract with retailers to set a minimum sale price on handbags. But, at the moment, it is perfectly legal for a manufacturer with its own retail outlets, such as The Gap, to set a minimum sale price on its retail products. Why is one illegal and one not? Ultimately, because government judges and bureaucrats have said so. And the fact that they may change their minds tomorrow forces all American businesses to function under a perpetual guillotine of uncertainty.
"Every company sets or 'fixes' its price based on its desire for profit, customer demand, and the prices charged by its competitors. This is entirely proper. Every company should be free to set its own prices and policies, which includes the freedom to contract with any other company in whatever way it chooses, so long as there is no coercion involved."The government's proper function is to stop coercion--not to be a whim-driven dictator of business policy."Mar 22, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
Irvine, CA--For the past several years, leading Australian energy company BHP Billiton has been working to get permission to build a Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) plant 14 miles off the coast of California. This plant, according to some estimates, could supply up to 15% of Californians' energy needs. However, the plant is feverishly opposed by Malibu environmentalists, led by celebrity activist Pierce Brosnan, who claim that the plant is a threat to Californians' safety and well-being.
But according to Alex Epstein, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "The real threat to Californians is not this LNG plant, but the environmentalists who oppose it.
"All Californians should be thrilled that energy companies are trying to build new power facilities that can meet the state's growing population and energy needs.
"Yet environmentalists, instead of embracing this project, are objecting to it for any reason they can think of, no matter how transparently illogical. For example, they claim that the plant will be an 'eyesore' to Malibu residents--even though, at 14 miles off the coast, it will at its most visible be a pinprick of light, just like every passing ship in nearby shipping lanes. Environmentalists criticize the plant for excessive pollution--even though natural gas is the cleanest burning of all of today's practical energy sources. They claim that the plant is a safety hazard--even though LNG terminals have an incredible safety record, and this particular terminal has taken every safety precaution imaginable.
"No genuine concern for human well-being can explain the seething opposition to this power facility. The real reason it inspires such hostility among environmentalists is the simple fact that it is a large-scale industrial project--a prominent product of man's transformation of nature. This goes against the environmentalist doctrine that untouched nature is an intrinsic value that must be preserved at human expense. Environmentalists view the whole of industrial civilization as, in the words of Brosnan's wife and fellow activist Keely Brosnan, a 'globalized assault taking place on our Earth.'
"Environmentalists' anti-industrial philosophy is the reason why they oppose every large-scale, practical source of energy (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) while offering as an alternative only fantasies of super-abundant 'alternative energy'--or, in more honest moments, the asceticism of 'conservation.'
"Industrial energy is the lifeblood of civilization. Without fossil fuels and nuclear power, the average American's food, clothing, shelter, and medical care--let alone the posh, power-gulping mansions of celebrity environmentalist hypocrites--would be impossible."Environmentalists have been attacking energy production in California--and around the world--for decades now, raising prices and creating shortages. Californians must not let them collect yet another industrial scalp."Mar 19, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
Irvine, CA--As President Bush ends his tour of Latin America, he has vowed to deliver "social justice" to poor Latin Americans.
"In announcing his commitment to achieving 'social justice' in Latin America," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "President Bush is following in the footsteps, not of Thomas Jefferson, but of Hugo Chavez.
"'Social justice' is the notion that everyone deserves an equal share of the wealth that exists in a nation--regardless of how productive he is. Justice, on this view, consists of seizing the wealth of the productive and giving it to the unproductive. This is the ideal preached and conscientiously put into practice by leftist dictators like Chavez.
"But it is precisely this type of envy-driven philosophy that is responsible for the wretched conditions in Latin America. It is no mystery why a nation that shackles and loots its most productive citizens should be weighed down by poverty and stagnation."President Bush should tell the people of Latin America to reject the immoral goal of 'social justice' and embrace the American principles of freedom and capitalism."