California to Energy Producers: Not in Our State
After an intense four-year struggle, Australian energy company BHP Billiton's attempt to build a Liquefied Natural Gas facility off the coast of California has been effectively killed by the state's Lands Commission, which voted 2-1 that its "Environmental Impact Report" was unsatisfactory. "When we in California experience our next energy crisis--or the next time we complain about our exorbitant gas and electric bills--we should remember the fate of BHP Billiton," said Alex Epstein, a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "That company wanted to build a plant that could satisfy up to 15 percent of Californians' energy needs--a plant that did everything possible to maximize safety and minimize pollution. And what did it get in return? Nearly half a decade of obstruction from California's endless constellation of environmental bureaucracies--and seething opposition from environmental groups that oppose every single practical form of energy production, from coal to oil to gas to nuclear power. The message California sends to any would-be producers of plentiful energy is obvious: Not in Our State. "California and many other states are riddled with laws based on environmentalist hostility toward industrial energy. These laws must be replaced with a respect for property rights and an appreciation for the incomparable value that is industrial energy. Fossil fuels and nuclear power are the lifeblood of our civilization; without them, the average American's food, clothing, shelter, and medical care would be impossible. And, contrary to claims that we must abandon fossil fuels to protect against alleged weather disasters caused by global warming, fossil fuels are vitally necessary to build the buildings and power the technologies that protect us from dangerous weather. "The anti-industrial mentality of environmentalists must be rejected, in word and in law, by everyone who truly cares about human life."Abortion Ban Should Have Been Overturned
The Supreme Court has upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which outlaws a particular method of late-term abortion. Speaking for the majority, Justice Kennedy declared that "the law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice." "But it is not a proper function of government to dictate medical practices," said Dr. Keith Lockitch, a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "If a woman chooses to have an abortion, it is for her and her doctor--not Congress or the judiciary--to decide which medical procedure is most appropriate. "Is the 'Partial-Birth Abortion' ban constitutional? Not if the Constitution is meant to guarantee a woman's right to her life, liberty and the pursuit of her happiness."The U.N. Human Rights Council’s War on Human Rights
The U.N. Human Rights Council recently passed a resolution urging nations to pass laws prohibiting the dissemination of ideas that "defame religion." It appears that the resolution was partly a response to last year's Danish cartoon crisis, where hordes of angry Muslims rioted in violent protest of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. "The advocates of this resolution perversely equate those who drew the Danish cartoons with those who rioted and threatened to murder the cartoonists," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "Both, they say, are guilty of a crime and should be restrained and punished by the government--with the unstated caveat that the cartoonists are guiltier, since they allegedly incited the violent mobs by defaming Islam. "To morally equate the Danish cartoonists with the Muslim rioters is to wipe out the distinction between speech and force. It is to declare there is no essential difference between the filmmaker Theo van Gogh,and the Muslim who murdered him for producing a film that 'defamed Islam.' "Freedom of speech means that individuals have the right to advocate any idea, without the threat of government censorship, regardless of how many people that idea may offend. To silence individuals in order to protect the sensibilities of mullahs and mobs is to wipe out this crucial right--and it is to whitewash the blood-stained hands of killers by declaring that they are no worse than those who peacefully criticize them. "Yet this disgraceful moral equivalence is a symptom of the larger moral equivalence that pervades the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is based on the gross pretense that its members--including belligerent regimes such as Iran and Syria, and oppressive dictatorships such as China and Cuba--are champions of peace and individual rights. As a result, its main function is to provide a forum for thugs and dictators to criticize free nations such as the United States and Israel, while pushing their anti-freedom agendas."The United States should condemn this resolution--and the morally corrupt organization that produced it."Manufacturers Should Be Free to Set Their Pricing Policies
March 27, 2007 Irvine, CA--Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc., v. PSKS, Inc. At issue is the question whether antitrust law prohibits manufacturers from setting the retail price of their products. According to Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "Whether or not antitrust law permits this practice is unanswerable--because antitrust law is filled with undefined terms that can mean whatever the government wants them to mean. But we can say this much for certain: manufacturers have a moral right--and should have the legal right--to set the retail price of their products. As the legitimate owners of their property, manufacturers--as any other sellers--have a right to set the terms of sale of their own products. If a retailer does not agree with the terms of sale set by a manufacturer, if he judges the terms to be unreasonable or unprofitable, he is free to reject the manufacturer's terms and seek other suppliers with different pricing policies. "There are many legitimate reasons why a manufacturer might opt for a pricing policy that sets the retail prices for its products. "A manufacturer may believe that its products would be more attractive to retailers if it guaranteed to them that their profit margins on its products wouldn't be cut by competition among different stores. Or a manufacturer may think a high-end product line will become devalued if sold at a discount. Whatever the reason behind a manufacturer's pricing policy, it is the manufacturer's prerogative--and his prerogative alone--to set it according to his judgment and his interests. The government has no right to forbid a manufacturer to come up with his own pricing policy or to force him to adopt a policy he doesn't agree with. "To properly answer the question of what price to charge requires that a producer make difficult, consequential judgments. If a manufacturer sets his prices too high, he loses customers and risks a sharp decline in sales. If he sets his prices too low, he cuts his profits and may even take a loss. Setting prices at the right level is a difficult task for any manufacturer, a task he must be free to tackle without government interference. "The objection that consumers are harmed by certain pricing policies is groundless. Consumers are under no coercion to buy anyone's products. They aren't harmed by a manufacturer's decision to set his prices as he sees fit. If they judge a product to be too expensive, they can go their own way, unharmed, and free to shop elsewhere. Just as a manufacturer has no right to force consumers to pay the price he wants, consumers (or government officials) have no right to force a manufacturer to sell at the price they want. "The fact that a manufacturer may be punished by antitrust law for setting the retail price of its products indicates the irrational and unjust nature of antitrust law. "We can only hope for the day when the Supreme Court will no longer condemn innocent companies for violating antitrust law, but instead will condemn antitrust law for violating the rights of the innocent."Legalize “Price-Fixing”
Irvine, CA--On March 26 the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., where the justices will decide whether antitrust law forbids a manufacturer from setting a minimum retail price for its products. In the past, judges have ruled that this is "price-fixing," and therefore must be prohibited. Critics of this precedent, including the Bush administration, claim that it is "outdated" and "cannot withstand modern economic analysis." "An overturning of this particular anti-price-fixing precedent would be a welcome development," said Alex Epstein, a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "But the Court should go further and repudiate any prohibition against so-called price-fixing. "Prohibitions against 'price-fixing' are defended by alleging that if multiple companies agree to sell some product at the same price, they will be able to gouge consumers by making that price exorbitant. "But this is nonsense. So long as the government stays out of the market, no group of companies can force a customer to pay more for a product than it is worth--nor can a group of companies that arbitrarily jack up their prices prevent worthy competitors from winning over their customers. "There is no danger to anyone from the practice of 'price fixing.' There is however, continuing danger--as there has been great damage done throughout economic history--from antitrust's prohibition of the practice. The reason is that 'price fixing,' like many other key terms in the antitrust lexicon, is undefined and indefinable; it can mean anything government bureaucrats and prosecutors want it to mean. "For example, in the case under review by the Supreme Court, it is currently considered illegal 'price-fixing' for a handbag manufacturer to contract with retailers to set a minimum sale price on handbags. But, at the moment, it is perfectly legal for a manufacturer with its own retail outlets, such as The Gap, to set a minimum sale price on its retail products. Why is one illegal and one not? Ultimately, because government judges and bureaucrats have said so. And the fact that they may change their minds tomorrow forces all American businesses to function under a perpetual guillotine of uncertainty. "Every company sets or 'fixes' its price based on its desire for profit, customer demand, and the prices charged by its competitors. This is entirely proper. Every company should be free to set its own prices and policies, which includes the freedom to contract with any other company in whatever way it chooses, so long as there is no coercion involved."The government's proper function is to stop coercion--not to be a whim-driven dictator of business policy."Malibu Environmentalists vs. the Lifeblood of California
Irvine, CA--For the past several years, leading Australian energy company BHP Billiton has been working to get permission to build a Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) plant 14 miles off the coast of California. This plant, according to some estimates, could supply up to 15% of Californians' energy needs. However, the plant is feverishly opposed by Malibu environmentalists, led by celebrity activist Pierce Brosnan, who claim that the plant is a threat to Californians' safety and well-being. But according to Alex Epstein, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "The real threat to Californians is not this LNG plant, but the environmentalists who oppose it. "All Californians should be thrilled that energy companies are trying to build new power facilities that can meet the state's growing population and energy needs. "Yet environmentalists, instead of embracing this project, are objecting to it for any reason they can think of, no matter how transparently illogical. For example, they claim that the plant will be an 'eyesore' to Malibu residents--even though, at 14 miles off the coast, it will at its most visible be a pinprick of light, just like every passing ship in nearby shipping lanes. Environmentalists criticize the plant for excessive pollution--even though natural gas is the cleanest burning of all of today's practical energy sources. They claim that the plant is a safety hazard--even though LNG terminals have an incredible safety record, and this particular terminal has taken every safety precaution imaginable. "No genuine concern for human well-being can explain the seething opposition to this power facility. The real reason it inspires such hostility among environmentalists is the simple fact that it is a large-scale industrial project--a prominent product of man's transformation of nature. This goes against the environmentalist doctrine that untouched nature is an intrinsic value that must be preserved at human expense. Environmentalists view the whole of industrial civilization as, in the words of Brosnan's wife and fellow activist Keely Brosnan, a 'globalized assault taking place on our Earth.' "Environmentalists' anti-industrial philosophy is the reason why they oppose every large-scale, practical source of energy (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) while offering as an alternative only fantasies of super-abundant 'alternative energy'--or, in more honest moments, the asceticism of 'conservation.' "Industrial energy is the lifeblood of civilization. Without fossil fuels and nuclear power, the average American's food, clothing, shelter, and medical care--let alone the posh, power-gulping mansions of celebrity environmentalist hypocrites--would be impossible."Environmentalists have been attacking energy production in California--and around the world--for decades now, raising prices and creating shortages. Californians must not let them collect yet another industrial scalp."Lecture: Totalitarian Islam’s Threat to the West
Who: Dr. Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East ForumDr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute
Dr. Wafa Sultan, outspoken critic of Islam and author of the forthcoming
book "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster" What: A panel discussion on the threat of Islamic totalitarianism and how to deal with it Where: UCLA Campus: Moore 100, Los Angeles, CA When: Thursday, April 12, 2007, at 7:00 PM Admission is FREE. Description: From the Iranian hostage crisis to September 11 to the London subway attacks to the Iraqi insurgency--it is clear the West faces a grave threat from a committed enemy. Conventional wisdom holds that the enemy is a rogue group of fanatics, who have hijacked a great religion in order to justify their crimes. It tells us there is no way to permanently eliminate these violent groups, that we have entered an "age of terror" and that we must give up the desire for a decisive victory. But is the conventional wisdom right?
A distinguished panel of Middle East experts will provide new and illuminating answers to the most important questions of our time: Is the West ready to concede victory so easily? Are the terrorists a fringe group of fanatics, or are they part of a much wider ideological movement? What threat do they pose to the West? What can the West do to ensure victory? Is peace possible? While the experts will answer these complex questions from diverse points of view, they all agree on one thing: Islamic totalitarianism is a real threat, and the right response necessitates engaging in a principled, ideological battle to defend the West from the jihad declared against it.
Speakers' Biographies: Dr. Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and a recognized Middle-East expert who has written and lectured on a variety of Middle-East issues. Dr. Brook has served in the Israeli Army and has discussed the Israeli-Arab conflict and the war on Islamic totalitarianism on hundreds of radio and TV programs, including FOX News (The O'Reilly Factor, Your World with Neil Cavuto, At Large with Geraldo Rivera), CNN's Talkback Live, CNBC's Closing Bell and On the Money, and a C-SPAN panel of experts on terrorism.Dr. Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum. He taught history at the University of Chicago and at Harvard University, and lectured on policy and strategy at the Naval War College. He currently teaches at Pepperdine University. Dr. Pipes is the author of twelve books and numerous articles. He is a columnist for the New York Sun and he appears weekly in Israel's Jerusalem Post, Italy's L'Opinione, Spain's La Razón, and monthly in the Australian and Canada's Globe and Mail. His Web site, DanielPipes.org, is among the most accessed Internet sources of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam. Mr. Pipes has appeared on ABC World News, CBS Reports, Crossfire, Good Morning America, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, O'Reilly Factor, The Today Show, the BBC and Al Jazeera.
Dr. Wafa Sultan is a secular Syrian-American writer and thinker, Dr. Sultan is known for her participation in Middle East political debates, widely circulated Arabic essays and television appearances on Al Jazeera, CNN and Fox News. Dr. Sultan was shocked into secularism by the atrocities committed against innocent Syrian people by the Muslim Brotherhood in 1979, including the machine-gun assassination of her professor in front of her eyes at the University of Aleppo, where she was a medical student. On February 21, 2006, she appeared on Al Jazeera, where she scolded Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently and for not acknowledging the accomplishments of non-Muslim societies, including their greater freedom and capacity for producing wealth and technology. She named the Islamic threat to the West as "a battle between modernity and barbarism which Islam will lose." A video of her appearance, widely circulated on Web logs and through e-mail, has been viewed an estimated 12 million times. Her outspokenness has brought her both threats and praise. Dr. Sultan is currently working on a book to be called "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster."
Bush and Chavez: The Two Amigos
Irvine, CA--As President Bush ends his tour of Latin America, he has vowed to deliver "social justice" to poor Latin Americans. "In announcing his commitment to achieving 'social justice' in Latin America," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "President Bush is following in the footsteps, not of Thomas Jefferson, but of Hugo Chavez. "'Social justice' is the notion that everyone deserves an equal share of the wealth that exists in a nation--regardless of how productive he is. Justice, on this view, consists of seizing the wealth of the productive and giving it to the unproductive. This is the ideal preached and conscientiously put into practice by leftist dictators like Chavez. "But it is precisely this type of envy-driven philosophy that is responsible for the wretched conditions in Latin America. It is no mystery why a nation that shackles and loots its most productive citizens should be weighed down by poverty and stagnation."President Bush should tell the people of Latin America to reject the immoral goal of 'social justice' and embrace the American principles of freedom and capitalism."Spring issue of The Objective Standard
The print version of the Spring issue of The Objective Standard is now online online. The contents include: The "Forward Strategy" for Failure by Yaron Brook and Elan Journo, The Rise and Fall of Ancient Greek Justice: Homer to the Sermon on the Mount by Robert Mayhew, Induction and Experimental Method by David Harriman, Egoism Explained: A Review of Tara Smith's Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist by Diana Hsieh. For promotional purposes, the online version of "The ‘Forward Strategy' for Failure" is accessible to all.Explaining the Failure of Bush’s “Forward Strategy for Freedom” in the Middle East
President Bush's strategy of bringing democracy to Iraq and the greater Middle East promised to bring security for America, but the so-called forward strategy for freedom has failed dismally. Was its failure due to a botched application of the policy? Was it a case of "idealism" run amok? Neither, argue Dr. Yaron Brook and Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Institute. In a forthcoming essay, "The 'Forward Strategy' for Failure," they explain why no amount of tinkering with the policy's implementation could have averted disaster. They argue--contrary to the implication of the Iraq Study Group's report--that the democracy crusade is proof, not of the futility of idealistic foreign policy, but of an ideal that repudiates the basic goal of U.S. national security. Bush's policy, the essay demonstrates, was doomed to failure because of the particular moral ideal driving it--the ideal of self-sacrifice. That ideal, Brook and Journo argue, was manifest in the Bush administration's commitment to putting the whims of tribalist Iraqi mobs above the rights of Americans to live in freedom and security. The same pernicious ideal shaped the battle plans Washington issued to our military--battle plans that prevented our troops from using all necessary force to win or, tragically, to defend themselves. Bush's forward strategy is a pretense at pursuing U.S. national security, while in reality diligently renouncing that goal and strengthening Islamic totalitarians by ushering them into political office. Outlining a path toward achieving U.S. national security, the essay indicates the nature of a rational foreign policy--and what a real "war on terrorism" should look like. America is capable of triumphing over Islamic totalitarianism--as the West triumphed over Nazism and Japanese imperialism sixty years ago--but to pursue such a strategy for victory requires the conviction that Americans have an unqualified right to exist and defend their freedom. That conviction is a result of holding the right moral values. The chief value Americans should embrace is the moral ideal of self-interest, a largely unknown ideal. It leads to a foreign policy that is both moral and practical. "The 'Forward Strategy' for Failure," which will be published in the spring 2007 issue of The Objective Standard, is immediately available online at the journal's Web site: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-spring/forward-strategy-for-failure.aspThe essay draws on a lecture presented by Dr. Brook at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston on October 22, 2006; an audio recording of that event is available as an MP3 download or streaming audio from WGBH Boston: http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=3228“Shareholder Democracy” vs. Shareholder Rights
Irvine, CA--House leaders are promoting a new measure that would require all public corporations to hold annual shareholder votes to voice approval or disapproval of executive compensation. "While this measure is being portrayed as protecting the rights of shareholders," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "it is in fact a violation of those rights." "If a majority of shareholders wishes to hold an annual vote to voice approval or disapproval of their board's executive compensation decisions, they have long been free to implement such a policy. But most companies and shareholders have judged that such votes are not in their interest, and it is not hard to imagine why--they do not want to give anti-CEO pundits and politicians yet more fuel to grandstand about 'excessive' CEO pay. "To force shareholders and companies to adopt such policies against their judgment is not to protect shareholder rights, but to violate them wholesale."Climate Dissenter Receives Death Threats
"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor."I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal.""Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges." [Link]
Sun Causes Global Warming…on Mars
This is amazing.Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.htmlDon't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.htmlAbove are links to two articles in National Geographic. One is about a "controversial" scientist (Ellen Goodman would call him a "Global Warming Denier") who cites evidence from Mars that would seem to show that Mars is heating up at the same time Earth is heating and that therefore the cause of heating is most likely solar irradiance and not man-made causes.The other article quotes scientists who found that common sun spot activity is not enough to account for climate changes. However, in that same article (which is linked in the "controversial" article as reason for skepticism) it is noted that:"There are numerous studies that find a correlation [between solar variation and Earth climate]," said Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Lindau, Germany."These authors have looked at the simplest mechanism, and they find that this mechanism does not produce the same level of change that has been observed," he continued."This could be suggesting that there are other mechanisms acting for the way that the sun influences climate." Solar ultraviolet (UV) rays are one possibility, though that theory creates its own challenges."UV is only a small fraction of total solar output, so you'd need a strong amplification mechanism in the Earth's atmosphere," study co-author Spruit said.Magnetized plasma flares known as solar wind could also impact Earth's climate. Solar wind influences galactic rays and may in turn affect atmospheric phenomena on Earth, such as cloud cover.Such complex interactions are poorly understood but could be crucial to unlocking Earth's climatic puzzle. "I think the main question," the Max Planck Institute's Solanki said, "is, How does the sun [in general] act on climate? What are the processes that are going on in the Earth's atmosphere?"Ok, so let me get this straight. One would think that the SUN might have something to do with climate on Earth, right? And, scientists have found a high correlation between "solar variation and Earth climate", right? And, there is great debate between scientists who don't understand the cause of this correlation and admit that "such complex interactions are poorly understood but could be crucial to unlocking Earth's climatic puzzle", right? Yet, didn't they just release a study telling us that it almost beyond reasonable doubt that humans are causing global warming?I submit that if climate scientists are still at the point of saying things like "I think the main question is, how does the sun [in general] act on climate? What are the processes that are going on in the Earth's atmosphere?" then perhaps we should have some skepticism as to the validity of their computer models which extrapolate their current understanding and attempt to predict the weather over the next 100 years!!!!!I will put my prediction of what will happen to humans if we wreck the global economy against predictions based on these climate models anyday.
Fight, Don’t Negotiate with, Palestinians
Irvine, CA--Israeli and Palestinian leaders recently sat down to discuss a peace deal--but the U.S.-brokered talks were fruitless. Many voices, such as the "New York Times," acknowledge that "the biggest single obstacle to peace" is the refusal of Hamas, a member of the Palestinian "unity government," to recognize Israel and renounce violence. But, we are told, if Israel would only make more generous concessions to the Palestinians and bolster their "moderate" leaders, then negotiations can yield peace. "But we must reject the underlying premise of such talks," said Elan Journo, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "It is absurd to debate which combination of concessions Israel should offer and to which faction of Palestinians--because the very notion of diplomatically engaging the Palestinians is illegitimate. If there's to be peace, the Israelis must end the threat of Palestinian terrorism by military force. "Israel's goal of peace is impossible to achieve diplomatically, because a legitimate negotiation presupposes that both sides share the goal of peace. But the Palestinians--both the self-righteously militant Hamas and the supposedly moderate Fatah--seek to destroy Israel. There is no way to negotiate with enemies who want to kill you. To engage them in talks is to concede their right to kill you; after that, all that's left to debate is the size of the rewards the murderers will collect and in what installments. "The Palestinian war must end eventually--and either they will triumph and wipe Israel from the map, or else Israel will protect the lives of its citizens and defeat the Palestinians. Instead of pressuring Israel to appease the Palestinians--and thus encouraging their aggression--the United States should endorse and champion Israel's moral right to defeat them. If Palestinians learn that their war against Israel is futile, if their aggression is punished--they will give up their cause. That is a necessary first step on the road to peace."EU Has No Right to Fine Microsoft
Irvine, CA--Last Thursday European Union authorities threatened Microsoft Corp. with fines that may reach a billion dollars for "overcharging" rival companies for proprietary information. "European regulators should have no power to determine what the price of Microsoft's intellectual property should be," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "That is Microsoft's right." "The European Union justifies its assault on Microsoft's property rights by claiming that the company 'has abused its virtual monopoly power' and engaged in 'unfair' competition by setting 'unreasonable' prices. "But the only thing that is abusive and unfair in this case is the European Union's use of force to violate Microsoft's rights in order to help its competitors. Microsoft has no power to force anyone to buy its products; if its prices were truly unreasonable given the interests of its customers, then its customers would not pay them. What prices are reasonable should be up to the choice and judgment of buyers and sellers--not European bureaucrats who, by their own admission, think Microsoft should charge nothing for its proprietary information."Are Businesses Slaves to Consumers?
Irvine, CA--Few eyebrows were raised when FCC chairman Kevin Martin said recently that Sirius and XM will only be permitted to merge if they can "demonstrate that consumers would clearly be better off--with both more choice and affordable prices." But "Sirius and XM have every moral right to combine companies and, if the new company judges it profitable, to raise prices," said Dr. Yaron Brook."A basic principle of a free market is free, voluntary exchange. This means that buyers and sellers are free to offer and accept whatever terms they mutually choose. If a company decides that its profits are too low or, in the case of Sirius and XM, if it is losing money, it has every right to raise prices if it thinks customers will pay them. If the new satellite radio company charges prices that consumers judge as too high, they have every right to take their dollars elsewhere. But they have no right to have the government dictate what prices businesses can charge or how many separate businesses must sell a given product.
"There is no legitimate reason for government to interfere in the market on behalf of consumers at the expense of producers--or vice-versa, as in protectionist policies that subsidize businesses at the expense of consumers. The government should be neutral towards all its citizens, protecting everyone's rights equally.
"Protecting rights is precisely what the FTC is not doing in the case of the Sirius/XM merger. In the name of a fictional 'right' of consumers to $13-a-month satellite radio and to two satellite radio choices, it is threatening to deprive two innocent businesses of their right to run their businesses as they see fit. We must stop treating businesses as slaves of consumers, and return to a truly free market."