Ending Piracy Should be a U.S. Government Priority

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

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

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

Event: The Menace of Pragmatism: How Aversion to Principle Is Destroying America

Shouldn't we be pragmatic?

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

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

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

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

What: The Menace of Pragmatism: How Aversion to Principle Is Destroying America. A talk explaining the influence and the destructive nature of pragmatism in our culture. A Q&A will follow.

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

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

Admission: FREE. The public and media are invited.

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

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

Bush Is No Champion of the Free Market

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

Pro Capitalist Campus Events

November 13, 2008
Religion versus Morality by Andrew Bernstein
College Park, Maryland
University of Maryland, College Park
Benjamin Banneker Room, Adele H. Stamp Student Union [map]
6:30 PM

November 24, 2008
Capitalism without Guilt: The Moral Case for Freedom By Yaron Brook
Berkeley, California
University of California, Berkeley
2040 Valley Life Sciences Building [map]
7:00 PM

November 25, 2008
Set the Market Free: The Cure for Today's Financial Crisis By Yaron Brook
Davis, California
University of California, Davis [map]
Room 194, Chemistry Building
7:00 PM

The 2008 Election in One Sentence

"Personally, I think McCain comes across as a tired moron, Obama as a lying phony, Bidden as an enjoyably hilarious windbag, and Sarah Palin as an opportunist struggling to learn how to become a moron, a phony and a windbag." -- Leonard Peikoff (Podcast, October 20, 2008)

Free Speech in a Globalized World: A Lecture by Mr. Flemming Rose

Notice of a Special Event: A Lecture by Mr. Flemming Rose, editor of Jyllands-Posten, publisher of the Danish Muhhamad cartoons, on "Free Speech in a Globalized World."

When: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 7:00 PM

Where:  Page Auditorium, Duke University (directions: http://maps.duke.edu/building.php?bid=7716)

In September 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten  published a  series of cartoons  depicting the Islamic figure Muhammad with  images of terrorism. The newspaperʼs publishers stated that they  wanted to bring issues of free speech  and censorship forward into public awareness. The result was a firestorm of protest, ordered by clerics some weeks after the publication, that highlighted the seriousness of this issue. Over one hundred people were killed in the ensuing riots.

This event will be a unique opportunity to hear the cultural editor of this publication explain the decision to publish these cartoons, the issues at stake in the decision, and the meaning of the  protests and the violence that followed. A Q&A will follow the talk.

Flemming Rose is a journalist with long experience in European, Russian, and American issues. He has been awarded the "Free Speech Award" from the Danish Free Press Society.

Web Site: www.committeeforfreespeech.com

Event: Universal Health Care — The Cure or the Disease?

Health care has been an important issue in politics, especially in the last several years. Amidst much specific policy analysis and political quibbling over superficial issues, the fundamentals have been ignored: What are the underlying philosophic and economic considerations? Is universal health care moral? Does it achieve its stated goal? Is there an ethical and practical alternative? Come hear Professor Mark Kleiman and Dr. Peter LePort answer your questions about the issue of universal health care.

The UCLA Objectivist Club, is hosting an informal debate on universal health care between Professor Mark Kleiman (UCLA Department of Public Policy) and Dr. Peter LePort, M.D. (Ayn Rand Institute Board of Directors) on Universal Health Care: The Cure or the Disease? Thursday, October 30, 7:00pm - 9:00pm. UCLA Campus: Moore 100. More information, including maps and directions: Link.

Alan Greenspan vs. Capitalism

Opponents of the free market are giddy at Alan Greenspan's declaration that the financial crisis has exposed a "flaw" in his "free market ideology." Greenspan says he is "in a state of shocked disbelief" because he "looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity"--and it didn't.

But according to Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, “any belief Greenspan ever had in truly free markets was abandoned long ago. While Greenspan long ago wrote in favor of a truly free market in banking, including the gold standard that such markets always adopt, he then proceeded to work for two decades as leader and chief advocate of the Federal Reserve, which continually inflates the money supply and manipulates interest rates. Advocates of free banking understand that when the government inflates the currency, it artificially increases prices and causes booms in certain sectors of the economy, followed by inevitable busts. But not only did Greenspan lead the inflation behind the .com bubble and the real estate boom, he blamed the market for their treacherous collapses. Greenspan should have recognized that what he wrote in 1966 of the boom preceding the 1929 crash applied here: ‘The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market--triggering a fantastic speculative boom.’ Instead, he superficially blamed ‘infectious greed.’

“Should it be any shock that Greenspan now blames the free market for today's meltdown--rather than the Fed's policies, which fueled an inflationary housing boom, which rewarded reckless lenders and borrowers from Wall Street to Main Street? Greenspan didn't mention the word ‘inflation’ once in his testimony.

“Whatever Greenspan's economic philosophy is, it is not anything resembling a free market.”

Heat: Frontline Heats Up Global Warming Alarmism

Washington, DC--On Tuesday evening, PBS premiered Heat, a Frontline documentary exploring the economics and politics of climate change. After travelling the world interviewing corporate CEOs and political leaders, Frontline correspondent Martin Smith argues that a “huge and concerted push from government” is necessary to prevent a major catastrophe. But according to Keith Lockitch, fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: “A huge push from government on climate change would be a major catastrophe. “One thing the documentary shows pretty clearly is the repeated failure of government economic intervention--especially in the form of policies aimed at centrally planning energy production, such as government subsidies for corn ethanol. These have distorted world food markets by diverting billions of taxpayer dollars away from investments that market participants would have freely chosen and into the production of corn for burning up in our gas tanks, with the resulting distortions to world food prices causing food riots and starvation. “Government policies aimed at severely restricting carbon emissions would inflict a major blow to the economy. Industrial-scale energy is an indispensable, life-saving value, and currently there is simply no practical way to produce abundant carbon-free energy. Nuclear power could generate substantial amounts of electricity, but environmentalists have consistently fought it tooth and nail. And even nuclear can’t fuel the internal combustion engines of the world’s 800 million oil-powered vehicles. “The more important point is that there is no need whatsoever to restrict carbon emissions,” said Lockitch. “The scientific jury is still out on the extent of man’s contribution to global warming. But even if we are causing large-scale changes to the climate--this is not a planetary emergency. If individuals on the free market can smoothly absorb the major transitions that occurred in moving from the horse and buggy to the automobile or the rapid population growth that accompanied the Industrial Revolution, they can adapt to large-scale climate change. The freer we are from the burdens of government intervention, the more we can continue to produce wealth, economic growth, and the means of adapting to whatever changes occur, if any. “The irony is that the very policies that people are pushing for in the name of fighting global warming--such as a massive expansion of government control over the production and consumption of energy--would severely reduce our ability to cope with nature. This would inflict upon us an economic catastrophe far worse than anything the climate could deliver. “The real threat we face is not the possibility of large-scale changes to the climate, but the much more dangerous possibility of drastic government policies enacted in the name of climate change.”

Afghanistan: Jail Time for Blasphemy Under Religious Constitution

Washington, D.C. --“The 20-year jail sentence for blasphemy handed down to Sayad Kambakhsh in Afghanistan this week is the kind of outrage to be expected under any constitution that enshrines Islam as the state religion and the Koran as the supreme law of the land,” said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

A council of mullahs acting under court authority had originally decreed capital punishment for Kambakhsh, a 24-year-old journalism student charged with possessing anti-Islamic books, starting un-Islamic debates in class, and downloading and distributing Internet articles saying that Muhammad ignored women’s rights. That death sentence, which was endorsed by Afghanistan’s upper house of parliament, has now been overturned on appeal.

“In 2006, mobs of clerics were clamoring for the death of Abdul Rahman, an Afghan whose ‘crime’ was converting to Christianity,” Bowden said. “And now, Sayad Kambakhsh faces two decades in jail unless an international outcry embarrasses Afghanistan’s government into lifting the sentence.

“Criminal punishment of blasphemy is fundamentally unjust and outrageous, and ad hoc protests offer no long-term solution. If Islam’s stranglehold on Afghanistan’s government is to end, that nation must adopt an American-style constitution protecting individual rights, including freedom of speech and religion. The strict separation of church and state erects an institutional barrier to religious persecution, as American history shows.

“But a nation that exalts mystical dogma and tribal allegiances cannot be expected to think in such terms. ‘The guy should be hanged,’ said an 18-year-old student at the American University in Kabul, at the time of Kambakhsh’s death sentence. Added a Muslim cleric: ‘He should be punished so that others can learn from him.’ For such people, freedom is an intolerable obstacle to the overriding goal of enforcing Islam.

“When the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan, its stated policy was to promote ‘democracy.’ That policy has now achieved its exact aim. The Afghan government reflects the democratic will of the people. The people want to punish blasphemers, and their constitution allows them to do so lawfully.

“Bush’s policy was based on his delusional belief that Afghans are as freedom-loving as Americans. But what they truly value is religion. Sayad Kambakhsh is living--at least for now--proof that religion injected into government is hostile to freedom.”

Mises on Free-Market Banking

Ludwig Von Mises on the relationship between free-market banking ("free banking") and capitalism ("liberalism"):
Free banking is the only method available for the prevention of the dangers inherent in credit expansion. It would, it is true, not hinder a slow credit expansion, kept within very narrow limits, on the part of cautious banks which provide the public with all information required about their financial status. But under free banking it would have been impossible for credit expansion with all its inevitable consequences to have developed into a regular--one is tempted to say normal--feature of the economic system. Only free banking would have rendered the market economy secure against crises and depressions.

Looking backward upon the history of the last two centuries, one cannot help realizing that the blunders committed by liberalism in handling the problems of banking were a deadly blow to the market economy. There was no reason whatever to abandon the principle of free enterprise in the field of banking. The majority of liberal politicians simply surrendered to the popular hostility against money-lending and interest taking. They failed to realize that the rate of interest is a market phenomenon which cannot be manipulated ad libitum by the authorities or by any other agency. They adopted the superstition that lowering the rate of interest is beneficial and that credit expansion is the right means of attaining such cheap money. Nothing harmed the cause of liberalism more than the almost regular return of feverish booms and of the dramatic breakdown of bull markets followed by lingering slumps. Public opinion has become convinced that such happenings are inevitable in the unhampered market economy. People did not conceive that what they lamented was the necessary outcome of policies directed toward a lowering of the rate of interest by means of credit expansion. They stubbornly kept to these policies and tried in vain to fight their undesired consequences by more and more government interference. [Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action (1966) 444]

EPA Fascism

Don't forget to read a seven part series detailing John Lewis and Paul Saunders  objections to plans by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to claim unlimited power over the life of every American.


Cartoon by Cox and Forkum
The total of their objections may be accessed at: http://www.classicalideals.com/EPA_Ruination.htm

EPA Fascism versus America (1 of 7) (September 23, 2008)
On July 11, 2008 the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). This document details how the EPA intends to claim unlimited power over the life of every American.

EPA Fascism versus America: The EPA Plans are Immoral (2 of 7) (September 24, 2008)
The major impetus behind the man-made global warming scare--and the resultant political proposals--is rooted in something other than the rational identification of a genuine problem. It is erroneous moral ideas that are leading us to political disaster.

EPA Fascism versus America: There is No Natural Evidence for Man-made Global Warming (3 of 7) (September 25, 2008)
The provisions in the ANPR are based on a specious, unproven, scientifically unsupported, a-historical claim that impending disaster is caused by our very prosperity. This claim is leading us into the clear and present danger of federal economic controls imposed on a scale previously intolerable in the United States.

EPA Fascism versus America: There Is No "Consensus" Among Scientists (4 of 7) (September 26, 2008)
We oppose these measures on scientific grounds, because the assertions of a man-made global warming crisis are opposed by some of the best scientific minds in the world. There is no "consensus" among scientists that man-made global warming is a crisis requiring government intervention.

EPA Fascism versus America: The Failed Predictions of the Environmentalists (5 of 7) (September 27, 2008)
Claims to man-made global warming are merely the latest in a century-long series of failed predictions of climate catastrophe, built on emotion and not on reason. These dire predictions have alternated between cooling and warming--cycles that have run parallel to the Earth's natural climate variations.

EPA Fascism versus America: There Are No Practical Alternative Fuels in the Short-Term (6 of 7) (September 28, 2008)
There is no basis to conclude that practical development of so-called 'alternative' technologies can be achieved while destroying our industrial base in fossil fuels. Further, there is no basis for thinking that such technologies will be welcomed by environmental advocates, should they be made practical and available.

EPA Fascism versus America: The Descent into Dictatorship (7 of 7) (September 29, 2008)
The provisions of this ANPR grant virtually unlimited power to the Administrator of the EPA. This is a monstrous subversion of the very foundations of the independent American Republic, and the universal values it upholds: life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

Those plans were laid out in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR), dated July 11, 2008.

Why is the Government Forcing Some Banks to Accept The “Bailout”?

From Cox and Forkum:

From FOX News (using their front page headline): U.S. to Pour Up to $250 Billion Directly Into Banks

U.S. officials announced Tuesday morning a broad range of measures designed to shore up the struggling financial system, including the purchase of stakes in some of the country’s largest banks and guarantees for most new debt issued by insured banks. [Emphasis added]
You think Hugo Chavez is jealous?

Good to see that not all banks are wanting government intervention. From the Washington Post: Smaller Banks Resist Federal Cash Infusions.

Community banking executives around the country responded with anger yesterday to the Bush administration's strategy of investing $250 billion in financial firms, saying they don't need the money, resent the intrusion and feel it's unfair to rescue companies from their own mistakes. But regulators said some banks will be pressed to take the taxpayer dollars anyway. Others banks judged too sick to save will be allowed to fail. ...

The opposition suggested that the government may have to continue to press banks to participate in the plan. The first $125 billion will be divided among nine of the largest U.S. banks, which were forced to accept the investment to help destigmatize the program in the eyes of other institutions. [Emphasis added]

Banks are being "pressed" and "forced" to accept money that was "pressed" and "forced" from taxpayers.

In defense of yet another socialist expansion, Bush gives us a classic A-is-non-A denial of reality: "These measures are not intended to take over the free market but to preserve it."

Clearly the man doesn't even know what the "free" in "free market" means. And unfortunately it neither do McCain and Obama.

The Nature and Source of Individual Rights

 The ARC site has three essays by Ayn Rand that every defender of capitalism in the 21st century should read and study:

“Man’s Rights” by Ayn Rand
This essay explains the fundamental nature of rights, the facts of reality that give rise to them, and what in essence they mean (and don’t mean) in practice.

“Collectivized ‘Rights’” by Ayn Rand
This essay shows why rights apply only to individuals, not to groups or collectives of people, and why acceptance of the notion of group “rights” necessarily leads to the violation of individual rights.

“The Nature of Government” by Ayn Rand
What a government is, why government is necessary to a civilized society, and why a proper government must be constitutionally limited to the function of protecting, not violating, the rights of the individual.

If you have never read them before --- enjoy!

Event: Capitalism Without Guilt: The Moral Case for Freedom

Capitalism has an undisputed record of wealth generation, yet it has always functioned under a cloud of moral suspicion. In a culture that venerates Mother Teresa as a paragon of virtue, businessmen sit in stoic silence while their pursuit of profits is denounced as selfish greed. Society tells businessmen to sacrifice, to serve others, to “give back”--counting on their acceptance of self-interest as a moral crime, with chronic guilt its penance. Is it any wonder that productive giants from John D. Rockefeller to Bill Gates have behaved as if profit-making leaves a moral stain that only tireless philanthropy can launder but never fully remove?

It is time America heard the moral case for laissez-faire capitalism.

Two centuries ago the Founding Fathers established a nation based on the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property--and the selfish pursuit of his own happiness. But neither the Founders nor their successors could properly defend self-interest and the profit motive in the face of moral denunciation. The result has been a slow destruction of freedom in America, leading us to today’s economic mess.

In this inaugural lecture celebrating the launch of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (ARC), in Washington, D.C., executive director Yaron Brook will demonstrate how Ayn Rand’s revolutionary ethics of rational self-interest supplies the moral foundation that previous proponents of capitalism lacked. Dr. Brook will explain why individual rights are crucial for capitalism’s survival--why productivity and profit, the “selfish greed” that conservatives abhor, are not vices but cardinal virtues, and he will explain why Americans must reject McCain/Obama-style “national service” and instead proudly embrace the radical individualism their lives and happiness require.  

Who: Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

What: A talk defending the profit motive and presenting the moral case for laissez-faire capitalism. A Q&A will follow.

Where: National Press Club, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, D.C.

When: Wednesday, October 22, 2008, at 6:30 PM

The public and media are invited. Admission is FREE.

Are We All Socialists Now?

Washington, D.C. --The Treasury Department, as part of its ongoing assumption of control over the financial industry, is preparing to inject cash into U.S. banks in exchange for preferred shares of bank stock.

“Are we all socialists now?” said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “Have we learned nothing from the devastation that socialist policies wrought worldwide in the twentieth century? Government intervention distorts markets and causes economic dislocations, no matter whether Uncle Sam controls private companies by regulation or assumes public ownership outright.

“A crisis doesn’t transform poison into medicine. Over decades, government manipulation of money, credit, and mortgages poisoned this economy and left it dangerously weak. Now Hank Paulson and his comrades are hooking up IV tubes filled with more of the same poison--bailouts, loan guarantees, cheap money, and more burdensome regulations--and hoping we will lie still and trust in their cure.

“But the real cure is capitalism, not more doses of socialism. We should act quickly to put government in its place, by rolling back the interventionist measures that caused the present emergency. Government’s proper role is to punish fraud and enforce contracts, not to own and manage the economy. We cannot achieve financial health unless we are willing to free the markets.”

America’s Soldiers Deserve Better

Washington, D.C. --Asked when American combat forces should be used to quell humanitarian crises that pose no threat to U.S. security, Barack Obama pointed to Darfur and Rwanda, saying, “When genocide is happening…and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.” McCain agreed: “We must do whatever we can to prevent genocide.”

But according to Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, “Vowing to send U.S. troops on selfless missions is a travesty.

“What Obama dismisses as standing ‘idly by’ really means: to protect the irreplaceable lives of American soldiers by refusing to ship them off on sundry ‘peacekeeping’ missions that do nothing to make us safe. That is not some cold-hearted gesture, but the government’s moral obligation. Nothing but a threat to American lives or freedom can justify putting our soldiers in harm’s way. Demanding they spill their blood in order to stop warring tribes from slaughtering each other is an obscene violation of their rights--regardless of how noble McCain or Obama thinks the cause is.

“Our soldiers deserve better. Instead of sacrificing U.S. treasure and lives for the alleged welfare of foreigners, we should demand a foreign policy that treats American security as its exclusive concern.”

Voice of Capitalism

Capitalism news delivered every Monday to your email inbox.

Subscribed. Check your email box for confirmation.

Pin It on Pinterest