Video: Thomas Sowell on Economic Facts and Fallacies
Peter Robinson speaks with Thomas Sowell about his new book Economic Facts and Fallacies in which Sowell exposes some of the most popular fallacies about economic issues. Sowell takes on the conventional thinking on a wide swath of America's economic life, from male-female economic differences to income stagnation, executive pay, and social mobility to economics of higher education. In all cases he demonstrates how economics relates to the social issues that deeply affect our country.Link
Woodstock’s Legacy: The Rise of Environmentalism and the Religious Right
In 1969 Ayn Rand's Ford Hall Forum talk, "Apollo and Dionysus," addressed the nearly simultaneous events of Woodstock and the first lunar landing. Employing Greek mythology's god of the sun and god of wine, she compared the awe-inspiring accomplishments of NASA's Apollo space program to the famous three-day concert that has come to exemplify the counterculture of the 1960s and the "hippie era." Almost four decades later, Dr. Brook, president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, reflects on her words and explores the implications of how American culture since Woodstock has valued individualism relative to collectivism and civilization relative to primitivism. Who: Yaron Brook, president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute What: A Ford Hall Forum talk that will consider how the opposing forces of reason and emotionalism have manifested themselves in American culture in the four decades since Woodstock, with special focus on the rise of religion and environmentalism. A Q&A will follow. Where: Old South Meeting House, 310 Washington Street, Boston, MA When: Thursday, May 8, 2008, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The public and media are invited. Admission is FREE. Yaron Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and is a contributing editor to The Objective Standard. A former finance professor, he has published in academic as well as popular publications. He is frequently interviewed in the media and appears weekly on the new Fox Business Network to debate and discuss current economic and business news. His columns and opinion-editorials are published on forbes.com and in many major newspapers. Dr. Brook lectures on Objectivism, business ethics and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.Social Engineering and Taxes
Yaron Brook has an excellent op-ed on Life and Taxes in Forbes:Your taxes are overdue, if you're just reading this now. But the fact is that every day is April 15 for Jane and John Smith, America's most tax-savvy couple. They awaken in their highly mortgaged house (interest deduction), make breakfast for their adopted child (tax credit and exemption), then drive their hybrid cars (more tax credits) to work. John, at his office, signs a contract for solar energy panels (tax credit), but he turns down a promotion that would launch the couple into a higher tax bracket. Meanwhile, across town, Jane signs an application to get historic preservation status (tax credits) for her office building. Back home that evening, the Smiths write a few tax-deductible checks to charities and then discuss where to put their savings--into a tax-free retirement account, or a start-up business whose income would be taxed at the highest marginal rate? Just before sleep, their thoughts drift to energy-efficient appliance credits and carbon-emission taxes. Since it's an election year, the presidential candidates are busy figuring ways to add still more carrots to the tax code--so that the Smiths will become still more entangled in a tax policy that fears and distrusts the goals that individuals would select if guided only by rational self-interest.Read the rest here.
Tax policy works by attaching financial incentives to a long list of values deemed morally worthy. If you want to maximize your wealth come tax time--and who doesn't?--you must look at the world through tax-colored glasses, "voluntarily" adjusting your behavior to suit social norms and thereby qualifying for tax breaks. In this way, the social engineers of tax policy preserve the impression that you're exercising free choice, while they're actually dispensing with your reason and your judgment. As an example, consider the choice between buying and renting a home. In a free market, a dollar paid in rent is equivalent to a dollar paid for mortgage interest. But when the federal government offers a mortgage interest deduction--based on some alleged need for an "ownership society"--then each purchase dollar saves a few pennies in tax that a rental dollar does not. So the path to wealth maximization suddenly veers away from renting and toward home ownership. Over the past century, such social engineering has inflated the nation's tax laws to an estimated 66,000 pages of statutes, regulations and rulings. [...]
Ben Stein’s “Expelled” Gets an F
Irvine, CA--Today Ben Stein's anti-evolution documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opens in theaters. The film claims that advocates of "intelligent design"--the view that life is so complex it must be the product of a "higher intelligence"--are the persecuted victims of a "scientific establishment" dogmatically committed to evolution."The premise of Expelled is that proponents of 'intelligent design' have been shunned, denied tenure, and even fired because of a conspiracy to quash the scientific evidence supporting their theory," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "But the truth is: there is no evidence supporting their theory. Intelligent design is completely devoid of any positive scientific content, and consists of nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on evolution. To the extent intelligent design advocates are facing obstacles in academia it is because they are not doing real science: they haven't been 'expelled' they have flunked out of the scientific community, just as a faith healer would flunk out of medical school.
"Observe that intelligent design advocates have pumped millions into publicity-seeking, rather than appealing to scientists with facts and logical arguments. They have spent more time at Christian 'apologetics seminars' than scientific conferences, and have attempted to use the courts to force schools to teach their ideas. Now they are hoping to dupe the movie-going public with a film that misrepresents Darwin's theory and the array of facts that support it--just as the makers of Expelled misrepresented the nature of the film in order to bamboozle respected evolutionary scientists into participating in it.
"Intelligent design advocates will do anything to advance their views--except science.
"The reason for that is simple: doing science has never been their goal. Their goal is to make biblical creationism appear scientific in order to skirt the constitutional ban on religion in public schools. Contrary to the film's claims, the real dogmatists are not the defenders of Darwin, but the religiously motivated advocates of intelligent design."
Defender of Civilization: Andrew Bostom
Those interested in cutting to the truth about the Islamic Totalitarian threat that is descending upon—and arising among—all of us should pay special attention to the works of Andrew Bostom. His blog is a must-read, and his articles in The American Thinker are not to be missed. Bostom's major works are The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History (Prometheus, 2008). The latter (to be released next week) promises the same profound expertise and virtuous commitment to the truth as found in the former. His works are required reading for anyone who wants to understand the nature of jihad and the hostile attitudes of Muslims toward Jews throughout history. Dr. Bostom is not a scribbler. He is a scientist, and he approaches his subject with the meticulous loyalty to facts and evidence that define a man of reason. His works do not merely present his conclusions; they detail how his conclusions accurately reflect the relevant facts and available sources. In an article three years ago, for instance, he took on the widespread Muslim claim that "jihad" refers to some kind of "inner struggle" as against external war. In historical terms, "it is a complete crock" he wrote to me in an email—and his article "Sufi Jihad?" shows us why. Bostom cites a series of Sufi thinkers—the ones who are supposed to favor the spiritual meaning of Islam rather than the violence of the creed—to show that these mystics were in fact dedicated to violence. To take the most important: Al-Ghazali (1058–1111), a towering figure in Islamic thought, a Sufi Muslim who followed the Shafi'I school of Islamic jurisprudence, and an allegedly non-violent man, wrote this of jihad:[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year . . . one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them . . . [if one of them] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked. . . . One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide . . . on offering up the jizya [the tax levied on the dhimmis, the subjugated peoples], the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear . . . their houses may not be higher than the Muslim's. . . . They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths . . . [dhimmis] must hold their tongue. . . . [cited in Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi'i, Beirut, 1979, pp. 186, 190–91; 199–200; 202–203. English translation by Dr. Michael Schub.]Some today claim that "jihad" means some kind of contemplative inner struggle, that non-Muslims under Muslim rule enjoy equal protection under the law, that there are no slaves in Islam, that non-Muslims need not wear an identifying patch to single them out, or that there is respect for civilians in Islamic thought. But to make this claim, one must disagree not merely with a modern commentator. One must repudiate the most authoritative Islamic mystic since the founding of Islam. Such is the value of Dr. Bostom's contribution. He has done the heavy lifting required to bring these kinds of sources to us and to show—not merely by the force of his own conclusions, but in the words of such Islamic authorities themselves—the intellectual origins of the war against the West today.
Lecture: Religion vs. Morality
Conventionally, most people believe that morality can only be based in religious faith that in a world without God no principles of right and wrong could exist. Related to this, philosophers have long held that no objective, fact-based, rational code of values is possible. Regarding both points, this talk shows that the exact opposite is true. The purpose of morality is to guide human life on earth and religion is utterly incapable of it. Flourishing life requires a code of secularism, rationality, egoism and freedom. Religious faith clashes with every principle of a proper moral code, and, as such, has led, and can only lead to, hell on earth.Who: Dr. Andrew Bernstein, professor of philosophy and speaker for the Ayn Rand Institute
What: A talk arguing for a secular, rational basis for morality. A Q&A will follow.
Where: University of Colorado, Boulder, Wolf Law Building, Room 207
When: Thursday, April 10, 2008, at 7 pm Dr. Bernstein is a Visiting Professor of Philosophy at Marist College; he also teaches at SUNY Purchase. Dr. Bernstein lectures regularly at American universities and appears frequently on radio talk shows. His op-eds have been published in The San Francisco Chronicle, The Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Washington Times, The Los Angeles Daily News, and The Houston Chronicle. Dr. Bernstein is the author of three Ayn Rand titles for CliffsNotes: Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem. He also authored The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire.
Lecture: Global Capitalism – The Solution to World Oppression and Poverty
The opponents of global capitalism overlook the key points in the debate. The capitalistic nations of Europe, North America and Asia are by far the wealthiest societies of history—with per capita incomes in the range of at least $20,000 $30,000 annually. But capitalism is not merely the system of prosperity; fundamentally, it is the system of individual rights and freedom. Capitalistic nations protect their citizens' freedom of speech, of the press and of intellectual expression. Similarly, their citizens possess economic freedom, including the right to own property, to start their own businesses and to seek profit. By stark contrast, the pre-capitalist systems of history, and the non-capitalist systems of the present, are politically oppressive and economically destitute; their citizens have no rights and, consequently, little or no wealth. What deeper principles make possible the freedom and wealth enjoyed under capitalism—and lacking in its political antipodes? How has capitalism already greatly enhanced the lives of millions of human beings in formerly impoverished Third World countries? What can the men of the free world do to further promote the spread of capitalism into the repressed nations of the globe? Who: Dr. Andrew Bernstein, professor of philosophy and speaker for the Ayn Rand Institute What: A talk arguing for the morality and practicality of global capitalism. A Q&A will follow. Where: Rogers State University, Will Rogers Auditorium, Claremore, OK When: Wednesday, April 9, 2008, at 7 pm Dr. Bernstein is a Visiting Professor of Philosophy at Marist College; he also teaches at SUNY Purchase. Dr. Bernstein lectures regularly at American universities and appears frequently on radio talk shows. His op-eds have been published in The San Francisco Chronicle, The Chicago Tribune, The Baltimore Sun, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Washington Times, The Los Angeles Daily News, and The Houston Chronicle. Dr. Bernstein is the author of three Ayn Rand titles for CliffsNotes: Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem. He also authored The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire.Mugabe’s Zimbabwe
Recommended Reading:A Cry from Zimbabwe by Steven Tennett
On behalf of the Zimbabweans who desire to live as human beings, free from the shackles of Mugabe's tyranny, I have a favor to ask of you, America. "Race Cleansing" in Zimbabwe: UN Sees No Evil by Tom DeWeese
The world condemned White Apartheid in South Africa. International boycotts were organized against South African gold, products and stocks. But Robert Mugabe is black and the world is silent. Where is the United Nations? Where is the indictment of Mugabe before the new International Criminal Court? Where are the peace keeping missions? Where is the outcry for economic sanctions. Where are the boycotts?
Black Leaders Silent Over Mugabe's Destruction of Zimbabwe by Walter Williams
Where are the Black Congressional Caucus, NAACP and other civil rights organizations? There's a deafening silence, the same silence when Africa's black tyrants elsewhere on the continent commit brutalities making those committed by former colonial masters pale in comparison.
How Mugabe is Destroying The Zimbabwean Economy by Ralph R. Reiland
With three-fourths of Zimbabwe's labor force already jobless prior to Mugabe's decree, the government's prescription for bringing down inflation only worsened the nation's poverty crisis.
Zimbabwe's Mugabe: Another Left-Wing Icon Turns Murderous by Paul Craig Roberts
You can bet your bottom dollar that the British will not seize Mugabe and attempt to put him on trial the way they did Augusto Pinochet of Chile. Like Castro, Mugabe is protected by his icon status among left-leaning American and European intelligentsia.
New Website: AtlasShrugged.com
The Ayn Rand Institute has created atlasshrugged.com, a major new Web site dedicated to Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand's great novel about the mysterious disappearance of the world's greatest innovators and industrialists. Atlasshrugged.com has been created to be the Web's most comprehensive and insightful companion site to the novel. For new readers, it offers an introduction to the book and its themes; and for those already familiar with Atlas Shrugged, the site offers an unprecedented wealth of analysis and commentary to help them understand the book better, along with background information about Ayn Rand and her life. Now in print for more than fifty years, Atlas Shrugged today sells well over 125,000 copies each year, even more than it sold at the peak of its initial publication run when it was a best-seller. More and more people are reporting the book's profound influence on their lives. Visit atlasshrugged.com to see why!“Earth Hour” Sends a Deceptive Message
Irvine, CA--Last Saturday evening, cities around the world turned off their lights for one hour to "raise awareness about global warming." In observation of "Earth Hour," iconic landmarks such as the Sears Tower and the Sydney Opera House went dark, while participating individuals turned off residential lights. According to its organizers, the purpose of the annual event is to encourage people to think about how they can reduce their energy consumption. While they acknowledge that one hour with the lights off would have little effect on carbon emissions, the organizers say that what matters is the symbolic meaning of the event. "In fact," says Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute, "the symbolic message that Earth Hour sends is deceptive and destructive. "Despite the constant claim that 'the debate is over' on climate change, it is nowhere near a proven fact that human carbon emissions are causing a 'planetary emergency.' But it is a fact that carbon-based energy is a life-and-death necessity in today's world. "Earth Hour sends the false message that we must cut off our carbon emissions and that doing so would be easy and even fun! People went star-gazing and held torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offered special candle-lit dinners during the hour. This bears no relation whatsoever to the kinds of sacrifices that would be forced upon us if global warming activists succeed in imposing real carbon-reduction policies. "We, in the West, take our abundant energy for granted. It is hard for us to imagine what life would actually be like under the sort of draconian restrictions on energy use that global warming activists are demanding. Earth Hour clouds the issue even more by making the renunciation of energy seem like a big party. People spend a fun hour in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the comforts and life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away. "What we really need to raise awareness about is just how indispensable carbon-based energy is to human life. Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about "Earth Month," without any form of fossil fuel energy? Let those who claim that we need to stop emitting carbon dioxide try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or factories, grocery stores or hospitals; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible. "If there is any symbolic significance to Earth Hour, it is the opposite of its intended meaning. The lights of our modern cities are a symbol of human progress, of what mankind has achieved in rising from the cave to the skyscraper. But during Earth Hour we see the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating those lights going out--of people rejoicing at the sight of skyscrapers going dark. If anything, what Earth Hour represents is the renunciation of civilization."Abolish Campaign Finance Laws
Irvine, CA--In "War on Free Political Speech," an opinion piece published today on forbes.com, Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, argued that campaign finance restrictions "subject political speech to the corrupting influence of government control" and called for the abolishment of all campaign finance laws. According to Dr. Brook, "Campaign finance reform has done nothing to get corruption out of politics, but it has been effective at keeping corrupt politicians in politics." "It's not money that corrupts," elaborated Dr. Brook, "it's the lure of arbitrary political power. A true crusader against political corruption would not strip American citizens of their right to free speech; he would seek to put an end to the government's power to grant special favors to any group." Do large contributions buy political favors? They can, said Dr. Brook, but only because politicians "have power to grant special favors to special interests in the first place. Take away that power and politicians will have nothing to sell." In reply to those who claim that in the absence of campaign controls, wealthy private citizens or corporations would have the power to censor the speech of others, Dr. Brook reminded us that "Only the government has the power to stifle free speech and replace persuasion with coercion." And he added that "Private citizens or corporations can refuse to support, finance or promote ideas or candidates they disagree with--which is their inalienable right--but they cannot forcibly suppress them." Dr. Brook said also, "A wealthy individual, for example, can spend lavishly on ads, even buy an entire newspaper or broadcast station, to convince Americans of his viewpoint; he cannot force us to listen or agree." "At the same time," Dr. Brook pointed out, "a candidate lacking money is free to seek financial support from citizens who agree with him, whether it be a few wealthy individuals or millions of like-minded Americans who are willing to put their money where his mouth is." Although the advocates of campaign finance "reform" have not managed a complete government takeover of election financing yet, they have already managed to deprive many Americans of their freedom. According to Dr. Brook, "It's time to reject this pernicious view and restore the First Amendment."Capitalism and the Environment: The Virtues of “Exploitation”
What: A talk analyzing the destructive nature of environmentalism--and explaining the constructive role of science, technology, and capitalism in promoting human life and progress. A Q&A will follow. Who: Richard M. Salsman, public speaker for the Ayn Rand Institute Where: Rice University, Herzstein Hall, Room 212, Houston, TX When: Tuesday, March 25, 2008, at 7:30 pm Admission is FREE. Description: Man achieves his survival by using his mind to alter his environment to suit his needs and improve the conditions of his existence. It is this process--expressed in science, technology, and capitalism--that has allowed man to rise from the hunger, drudgery, and misery of primitive existence to the comfort of modern civilization. But it is precisely this process that is under attack by the reactionary "greens"--who want to return man to the pre-industrial era even to the Stone Age. In this talk, Mr. Salsman does not merely discredit the scientific claims of environmentalism; he demolishes its moral and philosophical base. He demonstrates that: (1) the doctrine that nature has "intrinsic value," i.e., some sort of mystical value entirely apart from its relation to man, is nothing but the desire to destroy human values, (2) the improvement of the environment--for man--can only be provided by laissez-faire capitalism, and (3) that it is the environmentalist movement itself that is today's greatest danger to human health and happiness. Bio: Richard M. Salsman, CFA, is founder, president and chief market strategist of InterMarket Forecasting, Inc., an investment research and forecasting firm based in Chapel Hill, NC. Mr. Salsman is a noted authority on banking and capitalism. He is the author of two books, Gold and Liberty (1995) and Breaking the Banks: Central Banking Problems and Free Banking Solutions (1990). Mr. Salsman's articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, Barron's, Forbes, and The National Post (Canada). Mr. Salsman lectures widely at investment gatherings and at universities such as Harvard University, the University of Chicago and the University of California, Berkeley.Spring 2008 issue of The Objective Standard
The Spring 2008 issue of The Objective Standard has been posted to the journal's website. This issue includes the following articles.
"Immigration and Individual Rights" by Craig Biddle zeros in on the basic principle of America and demonstrates that this principle mandates a policy of open immigration, debunks several common arguments for prohibiting or limiting immigration, shows why all such arguments are necessarily invalid, and indicates what Americans must do if we are to reestablish and maintain the kind of moral, rights-respecting immigration policy that was advocated by the Founders.
"Darwin and the Discovery of Evolution" by Keith Lockitch surveys Darwin's education, work experience, expeditions, and inquiries; examines his observation-based, hands-on approach to gathering data from which to draw conclusions; and highlights the objectivity and truth of his consequent theory of evolution.
"Isaac Newton: Discoverer of Universal Laws" by David Harriman examines key aspects of Newton's discoveries, shows how he embraced and employed the scientific context established by giants who came before him (such as Galileo and Kepler), and indicates how he rose to even greater heights of explanation through a breathtaking unity of observation, experimentation, conceptual expansion, concept formation, generalization, induction.
"Caspar David Friedrich and Visual Romanticism" by Tore Boeckmann examines four paintings by Friedrich (plus one by Theodor Kittelsen), analyzes them by means of a new concept Mr. Boeckmann calls design-theme, and integrates them under the concept of "visual romanticism," thus going a distance toward objectively defining that school. (The article is accompanied by five color images of the paintings discussed.)
"The Exalted Heroism of Alistair MacLean's Novels" by Andrew Bernstein surveys MacLean's major works (including The Guns of Navarone and Where Eagles Dare); indicates their value to readers who love men of intelligence, ability, and courage; and incites a keyboard stampede to Amazon.com for the used copies of MacLean's books, which are tragically out of print.
The Objective Standard is a quarterly journal of culture and politics based on the idea that for every human concern—from personal matters to foreign policy, from the sciences to the arts, from education to legislation—there are demonstrably objective standards by reference to which we can assess what is true or false, good or bad, right or wrong. The purpose of the journal is to analyze and evaluate ideas, trends, events, and policies accordingly.
Now Online: Darwin and the Discovery of Evolution
The theory of evolution is often disparaged by its opponents as being "just a theory"—i.e., a speculative hypothesis with little basis in hard, scientific facts. But this claim carries with it the implied accusation that Charles Darwin was "just a theorist"—i.e., that he was merely an armchair scientist and that his life's work was nothing more than an exercise in arbitrary speculation. A look at Darwin's pioneering discoveries, however, reveals the grave injustice of this accusation. Darwin was not "just a theorist" and evolution is not "just a theory." In this talk, Dr. Lockitch explores Darwin's life and work, focusing on the steps by which he came to discover and prove the theory of evolution by natural selection.Listen to Darwin and the Discovery of Evolution.
Darwin and the Discovery of Evolution
Who: Dr. Keith Lockitch, resident fellow focusing on science and environmentalism at the Ayn Rand Institute What: A talk and Q & A exploring Darwin's life and work, and describing the steps by which he came to discover and prove the theory of evolution by natural selection Where: NYU's Kimmel Center (Room 802), 60 Washington Square South, NY, NY 10012 When: Thursday, March 6, 2008, at 7:00 PM (doors open at 6:30) Description: The theory of evolution is often disparaged by its opponents as being "just a theory"--i.e., a speculative hypothesis with little basis in hard, scientific facts. But this claim carries with it the implied accusation that Charles Darwin was "just a theorist"--i.e., that he was merely an armchair scientist and that his life's work was nothing more than an exercise in arbitrary speculation. A look at Darwin's pioneering discoveries, however, reveals the grave injustice of this accusation. Darwin was not "just a theorist" and evolution is not "just a theory." In this talk, Dr. Lockitch explores Darwin's life and work, focusing on the steps by which he came to discover and prove the theory of evolution by natural selection. Biography: Dr. Keith Lockitch is a resident fellow focusing on science and environmentalism at ARI. He teaches writing courses for the Objectivist Academic Center's undergraduate program and a history of physics course for the graduate program. His writings have appeared in publications such as the Orange County Register, San Francisco Chronicle, Australia's Herald Sun, Canberra Times, and USA Today magazine. Dr. Lockitch has been a frequent guest on radio shows such as The Thom Hartmann Program on Air America Radio. Prior to joining ARI in 2003, Dr. Lockitch was a postdoctoral researcher in physics at the University of Illinois and at Pennsylvania State University.The EU’s $2.5 Billion Theft from Microsoft
Irvine, CA--The European Union has just fined Microsoft another $1.35 billion under antitrust law, bringing the company's total EU fines to $2.5 billion. "This fine should be regarded by all for what it is: an act of government theft," said Alex Epstein, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute. "It is not proper for a government to impose a financial penalty unless a company is violating someone else's property rights. But Microsoft has violated no one's rights. It has sold a valuable product to willing customers and made voluntary agreements with willing developers. "The European Union, on the other hand, has flagrantly violated the rights of Microsoft. It has forced the company to spend untold man-years tied up in court, submitting to invasive EU probes, and providing as much new documentation as EU antitrust chief Neelie Kroes feels like demanding. And it is seizing $2.5 billion of the company's earnings. "That a productive company doing its best to succeed in the fiercely competitive software and online markets can be fined for adding a media player feature to its Windows software, or setting the price for access to its secret software codes, is a travesty. But it must be recognized as a travesty that flows from the nature of antitrust laws. "Antitrust laws regard successful competitors on a free market as dangerous 'monopolists,' and authorize governments to punish these companies however they see fit. For over 100 years, some of the world's most productive companies, from Standard Oil to General Electric to IBM, have been persecuted under antitrust for expanding markets and lowering prices. "It is time to put an end to this injustice. The EU can start by paying back to Microsoft's shareholders every penny it has taken from them."Sharia Law in the UK
BY DOUG REICHIt is reassuring to see the overwhelming backlash that occured in the wake of the Archbishop of Cantebury's statements related to allowing Sharia law in the UK for Muslims in civil matters. However, keep in mind that historically new ideas are always at first rejected. If they are not defeated properly, that is, defeated in principle by a proper understanding and logical refutation of the underlying premises then the ideas will come back. Unfortunately, as evidenced in the linked article, the so-called critics continue to get it wrong:
The most damaging attack came from the Pakistan-born Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali. "English law is rooted in the judaeo-chrisitian tradition. It would be impossible to introduce a tradition like Sharia without fundamentally affecting its integrity." Sharia "would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence. "This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief and of expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy."Bishop of Southwark Tom Butler, a liberal who would normally be expected to defend Dr Williams, said the archbishop had been entering a minefield and added: "It will take a great deal of thought and work before I think it is a good idea. I remained to be convinced of the feasibility of the incorporation of the Sharia into the English legal system as it would raise many difficulties." [source]
So it appears that two arguments are being made here. One argument is that the West was founded upon Christian traditions but Sharia was founded on Muslim traditions so they are in some way incompatible. The second argument made by Bishop Butler is that implementing Sharia is just not practical, i.e., he doesn't reject the idea in principle but only needs to be "convinced of the feasibility". These two arguments will not stop the implementation of Sharia law in the West. Rather, they will hasten it.The "practical" problem argument is ridiculous on its face. This is like telling Socialists that the only reason you are against them is that it would be "impractical" to implement an income tax and nationalize industries. Or, it would be like telling the Nazi's that their plan to take over the world and systematically murder millions of people is not feasible. I'm confident that Muslims so inclined would eagerly craft a "feasible" plan for implementing Sharia within the British legal system. Rejecting an evil idea on grounds of its "feasibility" and not rejecting an idea on principle is a deadly error.The more complex argument is the claim, often repeated by conservatives on the religious right, that America and here the British common law was founded on "Judaeo-Christian values". Nothing could be further from the truth. The concept and realization of individual rights occurred despite Christianity not because of it as I imagine Giordano Bruno, Galileo, and millions of other "heretics" persectued by the Church will attest.If individual rights can not be supported logically then we have no chance. The argument that liberty and capitalism are based on Judaeo-Christian values is worse than no argument at all. It is not only historically inaccurate it places the basis for rights on grounds of faith based claims which are arbitrary. In fact, it can be logically demonstrated that rights are necessitated by man's nature and necessary for our survival and happiness. The secular argument for rights has historically been associated with unreligious periods for a reason.
The best piece I have seen on this topic is "Religion vs. America" by Leonard Peikoff at: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2page=NewsArticle&id=5360&news_iv_ctrl=1225
Dr. Peikoff traces the philosophical history of the West to show that the concepts of individual rights and the the pursuit of happiness are ideas associated with unreligious periods and statism, misery, and oppression are associated with religious periods. Dr. Peikoff writes:
What effect does this approach have on human life? We do not have to answer by theoretical deduction, because Western history has been a succession of religious and unreligious periods. The modern world, including America, is a product of two of these periods: of Greco-Roman civilization and of medieval Christianity. So, to enable us to understand America, let us first look at the historical evidence from these two periods; let us look at their stand on religion and at the practical consequences of this stand. Then we will have no trouble grasping the base and essence of the United States.
He goes on to trace the fundamental ideas of each major historical period:
Greece created philosophy, logic, science, mathematics, and a magnificent, man-glorifying art; it gave us the base of modern civilization in every field; it taught the West how to think. In addition, through its admirers in ancient Rome, which built on the Greek intellectual base, Greece indirectly gave us the rule of law and the first idea of man's rights (this idea was originated by the pagan Stoics). Politically, the ancients never conceived a society of full-fledged individual liberty; no nation achieved that before the United States. But the ancients did lay certain theoretical bases for the concept of liberty; and in practice, both in some of the Greek city-states and in republican Rome, large numbers of men at various times were at least relatively free. They were incomparably more free than their counterparts ever had been in the religious cultures of ancient Egypt and its equivalents.
What were the practical results of the medieval approach? The Dark Ages were dark on principle. Augustine fought against secular philosophy, science, art; he regarded all of it as an abomination to be swept aside; he cursed science in particular as "the lust of the eyes." Unlike many Americans today, who drive to church in their Cadillac or tape their favorite reverend on the VCR so as not to interrupt their tennis practice, the medievals took religion seriously. They proceeded to create a society that was anti-materialistic and anti-intellectual. I do not have to remind you of the lives of the saints, who were the heroes of the period, including the men who ate only sheep's gall and ashes, quenched their thirst with laundry water, and slept with a rock for their pillow. These were men resolutely defying nature, the body, sex, pleasure, all the snares of this life--and they were canonized for it, as, by the essence of religion, they should have been. The economic and social results of this kind of value code were inevitable; mass stagnation and abject poverty, ignorance and mass illiteracy, waves of insanity that swept whole towns, a life expectancy in the teens. "Woe unto ye who laugh now," the Sermon on the Mount had said. Well, they were pretty safe on this count. They had precious little to laugh about.
What about freedom in this era? Study the existence of the feudal serf tied for life to his plot of ground, his noble overlord, and the all-encompassing decrees of the Church. Or, if you want an example closer to home, jump several centuries forward to the American Puritans, who were a medieval remnant transplanted to a virgin continent, and who proceeded to establish a theocratic dictatorship in colonial Massachusetts. Such a dictatorship, they declared, was necessitated by the very nature of their religion. You are owned by God, they explained to any potential dissenter; therefore, you are a servant who must act as your Creator, through his spokesmen, decrees. Besides, they said, you are innately depraved, so a dictatorship of the elect is necessary to ride herd on your vicious impulses. And, they said, you don't really own your property either; wealth, like all values, is a gift from heaven temporarily held in trust, to be controlled like all else, by the elect. And if all this makes you unhappy, they ended up, so what? You're not supposed to pursue happiness in this life anyway.
There can be no philosophic breach between thought and action. The consequence of the epistemology of religion is the politics of tyranny. If you cannot reach the truth by your own mental powers, but must offer an obedient faith to a cognitive authority, then you are not your own intellectual master; in such a case, you cannot guide your behavior by your own judgment either, but must be submissive in action as well. This is the reason why--as Ayn Rand has pointed out--faith and force are always corollaries; each requires the other.
Dr. Peikoff attributes the beginning of the Renaissance to St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) who reintroduced Aristotelian logic into philosophy. The rebirth of interest in the ideas of the Ancient Greeks and Romans effectively ended the Middle Ages. The Magna Carta issued in 1215 and the British common law which originated in the 12th and 13th centuries were important milestones in establishing the rule of law and first steps toward undoing the absolute power of the monarch and Church. However, politically, as the Roman and Spanish Inquisition's made clear, much of Europe and Puritan America remained in the grip of Christian theocracy. Over the next 500 years, the power of scientific discovery as evidenced in the works of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton would lead to the period known as the Age of Reason or Enlightenment. It was the gradual rejection of religious dogma in favor of reason during this period that ultimately led to the founding of America. Dr. Peikoff continues:
The consequence of this approach was the age's rejection of all the other religious priorities. In metaphysics: this world once again was regarded as real, as important, and as a realm not of miracles, but of impersonal natural law. In ethics: success in this life became the dominant motive; the veneration of asceticism was swept aside in favor of each man's pursuit of happiness--his own happiness on earth, to be achieved by his own effort, by self-reliance and self-respect leading to self-made prosperity. But can man really achieve fulfillment on earth? Yes, the Enlightenment answered; man has the means, the potent faculty of intellect, necessary to achieve his goals and values. Man may not yet be perfect, people said, but he is perfectible; he must be so, because he is the rational animal.
Such were the watchwords of the period: not faith, God, service, but reason, nature, happiness, man.
Many of the Founding Fathers, of course, continued to believe in God and to do so sincerely, but it was a vestigial belief, a leftover from the past which no longer shaped the essence of their thinking. God, so to speak, had been kicked upstairs. He was regarded now as an aloof spectator who neither responds to prayer nor offers revelations nor demands immolation. This sort of viewpoint, known as deism, cannot, properly speaking, be classified as a religion. It is a stage in the atrophy of religion; it is the step between Christianity and outright atheism.
This is why the religious men of the Enlightenment were scandalized and even panicked by the deist atmosphere. Here is the Rev. Peter Clark of Salem, Mass., in 1739: "The former Strictness in Religion, that . . . Zeal for the Order and Ordinances of the Gospel, which was so much the Glory of our Fathers, is very much abated, yea disrelished by too many: and a Spirit of Licentiousness, and Neutrality in Religion . . . so opposite to the Ways of God's People, do exceedingly prevail in the midst of us." (10) And here, fifty years later, is the Rev. Charles Backus of Springfield, Mass. The threat to divine religion, he says, is the "indifference which prevails" and the "ridicule." Mankind, he warns, is in "great danger of being laughed out of religion." (11) This was true; these preachers were not alarmists; their description of the Enlightenment atmosphere is correct.
This was the intellectual context of the American Revolution. Point for point, the Founding Fathers' argument for liberty was the exact counterpart of the Puritans' argument for dictatorship--but in reverse, moving from the opposite starting point to the opposite conclusion. Man, the Founding Fathers said in essence (with a large assist from Locke and others), is the rational being; no authority, human or otherwise, can demand blind obedience from such a being -- not in the realm of thought or, therefore, in the realm of action either. By his very nature, they said, man must be left free to exercise his reason and then to act accordingly, i.e., by the guidance of his best rational judgment. Because this world is of vital importance, they added, the motive of man's action should be the pursuit of happiness. Because the individual, not a supernatural power, is the creator of wealth, a man should have the right to private property, the right to keep and use or trade his own product. And because man is basically good, they held, there is no need to leash him; there is nothing to fear in setting free a rational animal.
This, in substance, was the American argument for man's inalienable rights. It was the argument that reason demands freedom. And this is why the nation of individual liberty, which is what the United States was, could not have been founded in any philosophically different century. It required what the Enlightenment offered: a rational, secular context.
When you look for the source of an historic idea, you must consider philosophic essentials, not the superficial statements or errors that people may offer you. Even the most well-meaning men can misidentify the intellectual roots of their own attitudes. Regrettably, this is what the Founding Fathers did in one crucial respect. All men, said Jefferson, are endowed "by their Creator" with certain unalienable rights, a statement that formally ties individual rights to the belief in God. Despite Jefferson's eminence, however, his statement (along with its counterpart in Locke and others) is intellectually unwarranted. The principle of individual rights does not derive from or depend on the idea of God as man's creator. It derives from the very nature of man, whatever his source or origin; it derives from the requirements of man's mind and his survival. In fact, as I have argued, the concept of rights is ultimately incompatible with the idea of the supernatural. This is true not only logically, but also historically. Through all the centuries of the Dark and Middle Ages, there was plenty of belief in a Creator; but it was only when religion began to fade that the idea of God as the author of individual rights emerged as an historical, nation-shaping force. What then deserves the credit for the new development--the age-old belief or the new philosophy? What is the real intellectual root and protector of human liberty--God or reason?
-- Doug Reich blogs at the The Rational Capitalist with commentary, analysis, and links upholding reason, individualism, and capitalism.