The G-8 vs. the Immoral Bandwagon for African Aid
Irvine, CA--Two years ago the G-8 pledged $50 billion more in aid for Africa, but that promise, aid advocates charge, has been broken. They claim that several countries failed to ramp up aid, that last year donations from some countries actually declined--and that the world's richest countries must give far more. Nations accused of giving too little say that they wrote-off millions in African debts, which they say should be counted as aid. And, perhaps to preempt criticism, President Bush last week announced plans to spend $30 billion to fight AIDS in Africa--doubling America's current commitment. "But instead of disputing how aid is measured or guiltily promising billions more, the G-8 should repudiate the alleged moral duty to selflessly serve the world's poor," said Elan Journo, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. "We have no moral duty to sacrifice for the poor. Those who earn their prosperity by production and trade have a moral right to every penny of their riches. The notion that the richest nations must serve the 'needy' is based on the vicious moral code of altruism. "Altruism holds that one's highest moral duty is to selflessly serve others--and thus that the world's 'haves' must sacrifice for the sake of its 'have-nots.' The productive, on this abhorrent view, have no moral right to pursue their own interests and keep their wealth; their only justification for existing is to serve the needy. Thus the world's richest nations must atone for their prosperity by sacrificing for the sake of those who lack, or don't care to earn, values. "Africa is poor because it is rife with bloody tribalism and superstition--ideas that in the Dark Ages kept the Western world as poor, if not poorer, than today's Africa. If aid advocates were genuinely concerned with helping Africans, they would campaign for political and economic freedom, for individualism, reason and capitalism, for the ideas necessary to achieve prosperity. "Instead, advocates barrage wealthy nations with reproaches and accusations of stinginess. Such abuse is necessary to induce the unearned guilt which impels Western leaders to do penance by sacrificing billions more in aid. While posturing as humanitarians, aid advocates are unmoved by the financial burdens imposed on productive individuals in donor countries who are bled dry to pay for foreign aid. "It is past time that we repudiated the perverse bandwagon for aid to Africa. We should reject the corrupt moral principle that demands self-sacrifice--and proudly assert our unconditional right to our lives and to our wealth."Compulsory National Service Is Anti-American
There has been a resurgence in calls for compulsory universal national service, most recently by former defense secretary Melvin R. Laird, who declared, "Young Americans . . . need to serve their country." But according to Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, "Compulsory national service is anti-American. "According to the advocates of compulsory service, young people take America's freedom for granted, being more concerned with selfishly pursuing an education and a fulfilling career than serving their country. To remedy that, they propose forcing young people to spend a few years working in the Peace Corps, nursing homes, or soup kitchens. This, supposedly, will make them appreciate freedom. But if the government can order a young person to stop pursuing the career he passionately loves in order to plant trees or clean bed pans, there is no freedom left for him to appreciate. "America's distinctive virtue is that it was the first nation to declare that each individual is an end in himself, that he possesses an inalienable right to pursue his own happiness, and that the government's only function is to safeguard his freedom. Compulsory national service turns young people into temporary slaves in order to inculcate in their minds the opposite premise: that they have a duty to selflessly serve society. To justify such a policy on the grounds of promoting appreciation for freedom is perverse. To call it patriotic is obscene. "Compulsory national service is a threat to freedom. It should be condemned for the anti-American policy that it is."U.S. Should Shut Down Al Hurra TV
Irvine, CA--The U.S.-financed TV channel Al Hurra, broadcasting in Arabic to the Middle East, has come under fire for failing to win popular support for America in the Arab world--a goal Washington calls "public diplomacy." Critics attack the channel for providing "friendly coverage" to Islamist groups, such as Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaeda. According to Republican and Democratic critics, better oversight is needed to ensure that in the future the channel will not, as it did recently, broadcast a 30-minute speech by Hezbollah's leader or devote coverage to Iran's Holocaust-denial conference. But the very premise of this TV channel is preposterous and immoral, said Elan Journo, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand institute. "America's self-interest demands not that we fix Al Hurra; but that we scrap it--along with all 'public diplomacy' initiatives. "The goal of this channel, and of the State Department's other 'public diplomacy,' is to appease the hostility of the Arab world and thereby supposedly discourage Muslims from 'radicalizing.' To that end, Washington funds Islamic radio and TV shows, cultural workshops, the restoration of mosques, the building of Islamic schools. But this is perverse. Our goal should be to defend American lives and uphold our own values, not to apologize and pander to hostile peoples. "Contrary to the administration's evasions, the enemy is an ideological-political movement--Islamic totalitarianism--that is widely endorsed and supported in the Arab-Islamic world. The only rational means of eliminating the threat from Islamic totalitarianism is to defeat its state representatives--Iran and Saudi Arabia--by military force--and thus demoralize its many supporters. "Doing that will demonstrate to hostile peoples in the Arab-Islamic world that the cause of jihad is lost--and that fighting for this cause can bring them only destruction. Only demoralized people will reject the ideals and leaders that inspired their belligerence and promised victory; only humiliating defeat will drive them to renounce the fight as hopeless."America's fawning 'public diplomacy' in the Middle East is self-destructive, because it can only strengthen the appeal of Islamic totalitarianism by lending plausibility to the charge that the United States is cowardly and morally bankrupt. It is high time Washington declared that America stands for--and will defend to the death--the ideals of individualism, reason and freedom. Our lives depend on bringing our enemies defeat, not an Arabic version of 'Sesame Street.'"The Unjust Imprisonment of Dr. Jack Kevorkian
Irvine, CA--Assisted-suicide practitioner and advocate Jack Kevorkian will be paroled on June 1 after eight years of imprisonment for assisting in the suicide of a terminal patient suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease. "Dr. Kevorkian's imprisonment was a great injustice," said Thomas Bowden, a practicing attorney and a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute. "He would never have been convicted of murder if Michigan law had allowed a defense based on irrefutable, objective evidence of consent. Dr. Kevorkian should be honored for his courageous stand in defense of the right of individuals suffering from devastating terminal diseases to end their lives with the assistance of a trusted doctor." Before his conviction, Kevorkian claimed to have assisted in the suicide of 130 patients. Now he has vowed to work for the legalization of assisted suicide across the country while not practicing it himself. "Hopefully," said Thomas Bowden, "Dr. Kevorkian will be successful nationwide in promoting the right to commit suicide with voluntary physician assistance. Currently, only Oregon has set forth clear procedures by which doctors can insulate themselves from criminal prosecution while easing their dying patients' pain and suffering." "What lawmakers and judges must grasp," added Bowden, "is that there is no rational basis upon which the government can properly prevent an individual from choosing to end his own life. Our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness means that we need no one's permission to live, and that no one may forcibly obstruct our efforts to achieve personal happiness. But if happiness becomes impossible to attain, due to a dread disease or some other calamity, a person must be able to exercise the right to end his own life." "To hold otherwise--to declare that society must give us permission to commit suicide--is to contradict the right to life at its root," said Bowden. "If we have a duty to go on living, despite our better judgment, then our lives do not belong to us, and we exist by permission, not by right."For these reasons, each individual has the right to decide the hour of his death and to implement that solemn decision as best he can. The choice is his because the life is his. And if a doctor is willing--not forced--to assist in the suicide, based on an objective assessment of his patient's mental and physical state, the law should not stand in his way."Study of Troops’ Mental Health, Ethics Indicts Bush’s Selfless War
Peikoff Radio Interview
Dr. Peikoff will be interviewed on Austin, Texas, radio station KVRX, 91.7 FM, on Monday, April 30, at 8:00 PM central time. KVRX is a student radio station at the University of Texas. Dr. Peikoff will be on "The Kumar Abhinov Show." Live audiostreaming can be accessed at http://kvrx.org/.Government Should Not Force Companies to Hold Shareholder Votes on CEO Pay
The U.S. House approved a bill today that would force companies to hold yearly shareholder non-binding votes on the pay of their CEOs and top executives. "While this bill 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."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."