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.
Religious Constitution Invites Blasphemy Death Sentence
Irvine, CA--"Death sentences for blasphemy, such as the one handed down to Sayad Kambakhsh in Afghanistan recently, are 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 Institute. A council of mullahs acting under court authority has decreed capital punishment for Kambakhsh, a 23-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. The sentence, which has been endorsed by Afghanistan's upper house of parliament, is on appeal. Afghanistan's president has hinted at clemency, but only after appeals are finished. "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 death unless a growing international outcry embarrasses Afghanistan's government into lifting the sentence. "Criminal punishment of blasphemy is certainly unjust and outrageous, but 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, calling for Kambakhsh's swift execution. Said 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 kill 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--perhaps dying--proof that religion injected into government is hostile to freedom.Global-Warming Authoritarianism
Irvine, CA--Many people are calling for drastic political action to cope with climate change. But the authors of a new book, The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy, go much further, claiming that global warming can be effectively dealt with only by "an authoritarian form of government." In an article promoting the book, co-author David Shearman praises China's recent ban on plastic shopping bags, expressing special admiration for its authoritarian quality. "The importance of the decision," he writes, "lies in the fact that China can do it by edict and close the factories." "Views like this reveal an ugly and ominous aspect of the political frenzy surrounding global warming," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, a resident fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute. "Though easy to dismiss as overwrought and atypical, such views expose a very real authoritarianism underlying the calls for action on climate change. "While few global-warming activists are willing--as Shearman is--to come out in favor of openly dictatorial policies, the kinds of laws and regulations that activists do call for will hand a comparably frightening degree of control over our lives to politicians and environmentalist bureaucrats. "In one form or another, every minute of our every day involves the emission of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas claimed to be the cause of climate change. Every moment we spend running our computers, lighting our homes, powering countless labor-saving appliances, driving to work or school or anywhere else--we are using industrial-scale energy to make our lives better. "But global-warming activists want our use of the fossil fuels that provide the major source of that energy to be strictly controlled by the government and severely curtailed, no matter the harm that causes. "Despite the constant assertion that global-warming science is 'settled,'" Lockitch said, "it is far from certain that we face any sort of catastrophic global emergency. But in the name of 'saving the world' from unproven threats, such activists want to impose a draconian regimen of taxes, laws, regulations and controls that would affect the minutest details of our existence. Their solution to their projected 'environmental disaster' is to impose an actual economic disaster by restricting the energy that powers our civilization and subjecting its use to severe political control. "Let us not allow panic over the exaggerated claims of climate alarmists to deliver us into the hands of would-be carbon dictators."“Retaliation”: Another Job Security Weapon
Irvine, CA--The Supreme Court hears oral argument this week in two cases that will determine whether blacks and over-40 workers may sue for "retaliation" under federal employment discrimination laws. In the case of CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, a Cracker Barrel restaurant manager was fired for leaving the store safe open overnight. He sued for retaliation, alleging he was really being punished for having previously complained about racial discrimination against a fellow employee. The Supreme Court will decide whether the Civil Rights Act of 1866 allows such a retaliation claim. In another case, Gomez-Perez v. Potter, the issue is whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act grants older workers a similar right to sue. "Most Americans think discrimination laws simply stop irrational employers from making decisions based on race, age, or sex when those factors are irrelevant to performance," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute. "In fact, however, such laws burden all employers by jacking up the costs and risks of employing the so-called protected classes, such as minorities, women, and disabled or older workers. "Any employer who disciplines, demotes, or fires a 'protected' worker must be prepared to prove, to the government's satisfaction, in a court of law, that the decision stemmed entirely from legitimate business reasons. Given the huge number of employment decisions made every day, the cost associated with maintaining evidence of those decisions' validity is staggering. A 'protected' employee can file a charge of discrimination with little or no evidence. Then the burden of proof--along with attorneys' fees, lost employee work time, and the risk of large monetary awards, including punitive damagesfalls on the employer. Predictably, employers end up giving preferential treatment to members of the 'protected' classes. "Outlawing retaliation clothes the 'protected classes' in yet another layer of legal insulation. An employee whose bad performance puts him in danger of discipline or discharge need only make a complaint of discrimination as a 'pre-emptive strike.' Now if his employer fires him, he can cry 'retaliation' and drag his boss into court, without further evidence of wrongdoing. "The ever-present threat of discrimination and retaliation suits prevents rational employers from acting on their own best thinking about who is most fit for a job. Whatever the Supreme Court's decisions in the two pending cases, Congress should address the continuing injustice of laws that encourage irrational discrimination in the name of preventing irrational discrimination. The best weapon against irrational discrimination is a free market, in which those who act on their stupid prejudices are shunned and lose out on talented minority, female, or older employees. The solution is not to make hiring such employees a nightmare."Exxon’s Lonely Battle
Irvine, CA--Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez is angrily threatening to halt oil exports to the United States, in retaliation against Exxon Mobil. Exxon has used court proceedings to freeze Venezuelan assets in America, in an attempt to recoup some of the billions of dollars it lost when Venezuela nationalized Exxon's oil operations there last summer. "Venezuela's nationalization of oil assets was pure theft, not a private contract dispute," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute. "The Bush administration last year should have denounced Chavez's oil grab as a form of robbery and cut off diplomatic relationships with Venezuela. But Bush did nothing and said nothing. "Now Exxon is fighting a lonely battle in the courts, facing down an armed dictatorship that sneers at private property rights and dares anyone to defy its might. Yet a Bush spokesperson recently dismissed the matter as 'private civil litigation, which we won't comment on.' "If there is anything the President of the United States should 'comment on,' it is the brazen theft of American property by a thuggish, petulant dictator. This is not 'private civil litigation' but a public outrage. Venezuela is joining the already-numerous ranks of hostile states funded by stolen Western oil assets."Memo to U.S. Editors: Reprint Muhammad Cartoons
Irvine, CA--Taking a defiant stand in defense of freedom of speech, on Wednesday newspapers in Denmark reprinted one of the notorious satirical cartoons of Muhammad. "Now it is the turn of American newspapers and media outlets to show their solidarity with that ideal, and reprint all 12 of the original cartoons," said Elan Journo, a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. On Feb. 13, fifteen newspapers in Denmark and one in Sweden reprinted the cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, drawn by Kurt Westergaard. The papers' admirable editorial decision was a response to news that Danish police had just arrested three men suspected of plotting to murder Westergaard for drawing that cartoon. Berlingske Tidende, a Danish paper, explained: "We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech we as a newspaper will always defend." "Freedom of speech is the right to express one's ideas--in books, newspapers, drawings, speeches, films--without fear of retribution, even if others disagree with you, even if they are repulsed. This right leaves people free to dissent and free to advocate for their own ideas. This includes the freedom to challenge, criticize, satirize, denounce all religions and all political viewpoints," said Mr. Journo. "Newspapers in Denmark grasp that nothing should be allowed to override freedom of speech. Their refusal to bow down in the face of murder plots should be a wake-up call to editors in 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' Few U.S. newspapers--and none of the leading ones--dared to stick their necks out, let alone raise their heads, during the cartoons crisis two years ago. U.S. media outlets, who claim to cherish freedom of speech, should realize the need to uphold it as a principle without exceptions."“Universal Health Care”, The Corruption of the Law and The Meaning of the American Victory over Japan in 1945
In this quarter's Objective Standard:Moral Health Care vs. "Universal Health Care" by Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh
Surveys the history of government interference in health insurance and medicine in America, specifying the rights violations and economic problems caused thereby; enumerates the failed attempts to solve those economic problems by means of further government interference; and shows that the only viable solution to the debacle at hand is to gradually and systematically transition to a rights-respecting, fully free market in these industries. Instrumentalism and the Disintegration of American Tort Law by David Littel
Illustrates the utter insanity of today's liability law, recounts the roots and original purpose of the law of torts, surveys the missing links and corrupt ideas that led to its destruction, and sheds light on the path to identifying a sound body of principles that will ground this field in the ultimate purpose of objective law: the protection of individual rights. "Gifts from Heaven": The Meaning of the American Victory over Japan, 1945 by John David Lewis
Identifies the ideology of sacrifice behind the Japanese aggression that culminated in World War II; documents America's recognition of this ideology as the fundamental cause of the Japanese assault on the West; explains how America targeted, dismantled, and discredited this ideology, replacing it with the ideas, values, and institutions necessary for the establishment of a free society; and defends America's use of the atomic bomb as a profoundly moral way to end the war.
Microsoft’s Bill Gates Is Wrong to Blame Capitalism
Irvine, CA--Bill Gates made waves at the World Economic Forum by calling on Western nations to adopt a new, "creative capitalism." He complained that under "pure capitalism . . . . the great advances in the world have often aggravated the inequities in the world. The least needy see the most improvement, and the most needy see the least . . ." Gates called for corporations and governments to devote far more time and money "doing work that eases the world's inequities." "Gates's entire speech essentially blames Western capitalism for the Third World's poverty," said Alex Epstein, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, "and offers a slightly more sophisticated form of foreign welfare handouts as the antidote. But the West did not become wealthy at the Third World's expense--we did not seize computers, houses, pharmaceuticals, and railroads from the Sahara. We created our wealth under capitalism, the system that liberates individuals to produce and trade without interference. And Third World countries could do the same if they adopted that system. "The last 200 years have shown that wherever capitalism is adopted--from Singapore to the United States to Hong Kong to Australia--it enables its citizens to create wealth and prosper. Yet not one word of Gates's speech calls for poor countries to change their anti-capitalist governments."No matter how many billions Bill Gates gives to poor nations, until he starts advocating universal capitalism instead of attacking it, he is acting as an enemy of prosperity in the undeveloped world."Martin Luther King Jr. Day offers Americans an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to eradicating racism in all its forms
Irvine, CA--"Martin Luther King Jr. Day offers Americans an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to eradicating racism in all its forms," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute.Ayn Rand once wrote: "Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men." The essence of racism, she explained, is "the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced by his internal body chemistry, which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."
"Achievement of a truly color-blind society will require not only that private individuals reject racism but that government policies and programs cease to favor some citizens over others on the basis of skin color," Bowden said. "The solution to racism in government does not lie in further race-conscious, affirmative action programs that generate de facto quotas, nor in multicultural education that locates personal identity in one's ethnic group. Because such policies are themselves racist, they are part of the problem.
"A model of good government policy is President Truman's executive order ending segregation in America's military services. Issued 60 years ago, Executive Order 9981 declared ‘that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.'
"This official policy exemplifies a government's proper attitude toward its citizens," Bowden said. "Every law-abiding adult has an equal right to serve in government, provided he or she can satisfy the position's objective requirements. In setting standards, government agencies must be forbidden by law from making irrational distinctions among citizens, as by favoring some soldiers over others on the irrelevant basis of skin color.
"In a famous speech, Martin Luther King Jr. eloquently envisioned a world without racism: ‘I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.' Americans should be proud of their nation's historical achievements in ending slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregated schools, and many other forms of institutionalized racism. On this holiday, we should embrace the challenge contained in King's eloquent remarks and recommit ourselves to the task of fully eradicating racism from this nation's public policies."
Liberate, Don’t Stimulate, the Economy
Irvine, CA--Fearing a recession in the wake of the collapse of the subprime mortgage market and other economic problems, factions in Washington are competing to offer "stimulus packages" to come to the rescue. Some favor Fed interest rate decreases, while others want some sort of immediate tax cut, while others want an outright giveaway to lower-income Americans.But, said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "We don't need the government to 'stimulate' the economy with some new intervention; we need it to liberate us from all its destructive economic intervention that put us in this situation. "We need liberation from environmentalist restrictions on oil drilling and energy production. We need liberation from Sarbanes-Oxley, which treats businessmen as guilty until proven innocent and increases the cost of doing business for every publicly traded corporation. We need liberation from the government's pervasive regulation and semi-socialization of the health-care market, which have artificially driven up the costs of health care. We need liberation from the intervention of the Federal Reserve, which is destroying our savings by inflating the currency. And we need liberation from countless other forms of government spending; if spending does not decrease, then any 'stimulus' tax cuts are simply tax increases for the future. "We should not regard Uncle Sam as an economic Doctor Sam, whom we need to stimulate the heart of the economy with his defibrillator. When the government violates our right to produce and trade freely, it is an economic cancer that needs to be removed from the economy."