Mar 1, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
Event: A Convenient Lie: The Pseudo-Science Behind Global Warming Hysteria
Who: Dr. Willie Soon, Center for Science and Public Policy; Mr. Peter Schwartz, The Ayn Rand Institute; Mr. Steven Milloy, JunkScience.com. What: A panel event presenting various, often unheard voices of dissent regarding the environmentalism movement in general and global warming theories in particular. Where: Kimmel Center, Room E&L Auditorium (4th Floor), New York University, 60 Washington Square South, New York, NY 10012. When: Tuesday, March 6th 2007, at 7:00 PM. Registration: Non-NYU guests must register by e-mailing nyu@objectivistclubs.org. Admission is FREE (although we do ask for a $10 siggsted donation from non-students)
Willie Soon is both an astrophysicist and a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Dr. Soon is the receiving editor in the area of solar and stellar physics for New Astronomy. He is the science director at the Center for Science and Public Policy (based in Washington DC). He writes and lectures both professionally and publicly on important issues related to the Sun, other stars, the Earth as well as general science topics in astronomy and physics. He is the author of "The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection" published in March 2004. *Dr. Soon has asked us to note that all views expressed are strictly his own and do not reflect upon any institutions or persons.*
Peter Schwartz is former chairman of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute and former editorial director of its op-ed program. Mr. Schwartz was the founding editor and publisher of "The Intellectual Activist," a periodical covering political, cultural and philosophic issues. He is the author of "The Battle for Laissez-Faire Capitalism." He is the editor and contributing author of "Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution" by Ayn Rand (Meridian/Penguin 1999), and the author of "The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America" (Ayn Rand Institute Press).
Steven J. Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com; an investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund; and a columnist for FoxNews.com. Since April 1, 1996, JunkScience.com has had a discernible impact in the fight against junk science and garnered numerous awards. Mr. Milloy holds a B.A. in natural sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.
Feb 28, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
Irvine, CA--Opponents of a planned merger between XM Satellite Radio Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. are asking the government to block the merger in order to "preserve competition" in satellite radio.
But, said Alex Epstein, junior fellow of the Ayn Rand Institute, "The opposition to this merger is irrational. There is no way a voluntary merger can be a threat to genuine competition.
"Proper, free-market competition is a process in which businesses, free to produce and sell whatever products they choose, attempt to outdo one another in making consumers the best offers for their money. No combination of companies can force customers to buy its products, nor prevent other businesses from offering theirs--thus, no merger can thwart free competition. To the contrary, mergers are an extremely valuable form of competition. A good merger enables businesses to combine strengths and strip away unneeded costs in an attempt to improve the appeal and profitability of their products. This is exactly the outcome that the struggling satellite providers Sirius and XM are hoping for--as they attempt to sell a profitable product to customers who have the option of listening to terrestrial radio, high definition radio, Internet radio, audiobooks, podcasts, and CDs.
"When two businesses have so many outstanding competitors that they are bleeding red ink, how can anyone oppose a merger between them as a 'threat to competition'? These opponents do so only because they accept the perverse concept of 'competition' that underlies our antitrust laws. On this view, 'competition' is not a free process--it is an egalitarian outcome, in which every market and sub-market has as many viable competitors as possible, with no one ever growing or succeeding 'too much.' Antitrust advocates believe that the government must forcibly prevent any one company from gaining too great a market share--that is, prevent it from persuading 'too many' customers to buy its products.
"A conception of 'competition' that grants government bureaucrats the power to keep companies from becoming 'too successful' should not be preserved--it should be rejected as perverse and un-American. As a first step, we can tell our government to keep its hands off of satellite radio companies."Feb 27, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
Irvine, CA--According to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the United States will join the Iraqi government in inviting Iran and Syria to a "neighbors meeting" on "stabilizing" Iraq.
"But Iran and Syria are our enemies," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "These countries are responsible for the maiming and deaths of hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq. For months Iran and Syria have been fomenting terrorist activity against American troops and Iraqi civilians, providing terrorists with training, weapons and explosive devices.
"The United States should be bombing, not 'meeting,' these terrorist regimes.
"Any U.S. appeal to Iran or Syria for help in Iraq would be suicidal and immoral. By evading the evil of these regimes and pretending that they're peace-seekers who share our goals, the United States would be encouraging and rewarding their aggression. Dispensing with moral judgment is not a short-cut to achieving peace; it is a sure way of unleashing and goading the killers to redouble their efforts against us."Feb 26, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
Irvine, CA--America has long been known as the country in which individuals, no matter where they begin in life, have the freedom necessary to achieve great success--to live the American Dream. Yet the critics of "income inequality," complaining about high CEO pay, endless "dead-end jobs," and allegedly low "social mobility," say that the American Dream has become a fiction--and that the government must come to the rescue with new welfare spending.
In fact, said Alex Epstein, "Today's America, thanks to its legacy of economic freedom, offers unprecedented economic opportunity to all of us.
"Thanks to the ingenuity of individuals under generations of American capitalism, today we have available to us literally thousands of types of well-paying jobs, and myriad resources from which to acquire new skills and knowledge--this, even in spite of our horrible system of public education. Immigrants who come here speaking no English, but who work hard and have a commitment to self-improvement, routinely achieve great success--while their children fill America's top universities.
"Anyone who claims that in America today it is nearly impossible to improve your economic situation is lying to you. Indeed, the biggest obstacle many Americans face is that very lie--the determinist philosophy that your success or failure is pre-ordained by economic circumstances. Those who accept this philosophy of failure will not be willing to exert the effort, self-discipline, and commitment to self-improvement that success requires. They will be ripe targets for anti-capitalist politicians who sell them on the latest welfare scheme by telling them that their problems are not of their own making, but rather of an overly capitalist system that permits such income inequality.
"Americans must reject the present public outcry against income inequality, and recognize that the American Dream can become a reality for each of us--as long as we embrace a philosophy of responsibility and success, not determinism and failure."Feb 20, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
John Lewis is one of the most hard hitting intellectuals around -- especially when he gets going in his Q&As. If you are a 100 miles within the area make sure to attend! -- CapMag
Who: Dr. John Lewis, historian at Ashland University
What: A talk on how we can and why we must defeat Totalitarian Islam—first and foremost by destroying the current regime in Iran
When: Wednesday, February 28, 7:30 PM–9:30 PM
Where: George Mason University, Fairfax Campus, Johnson Center, 3rd Floor, Meeting Room C
The public and media are invited. Admission is FREE.
Summary: In the wake of 9/11, and in the face of rising threats to their freedoms and rights, Americans are uncertain about what a proper foreign policy should be. The uncertainty arises from the philosophical influences of pragmatism and altruism, which have misguided Americans and their leaders for decades. Mentally crippled by this uncertainty, America has failed to address the cause of the threats against her and, in so doing, has bolstered it.
This talk consults the historical precedent of American policy towards Shintoism in post-1945 Japan to show that a proper policy today would first identify Islamic Totalitarianism as the cause of the threat facing the West, and then direct American resources toward eliminating the political imposition of Islamic Law. If Americans want to end the threats against their lives and liberty, they must first identify the advocates of political Islam (those who seek to impose Islamic Law by force) as the true enemy, and then destroy that enemy—beginning with the Islamic State of Iran. This is the only way to reestablish American security.
For more information on this talk, please email info@theobjectivestandard.com. To read the article on which the talk is based, click here.Feb 20, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
From The Archives: United Nations Declaration of Human Rights Destroys Individual Rightsby Glenn Woiceshyn (December 11, 1998)
On December 10th the United Nations celebrated the 50th anniversary of its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a five-page, 30-article document specifying everyone's alleged rights. Rather than celebrate it, we should condemn it as a destroyer of rights and a charter of tyranny.
Feb 19, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
From Cox and Forkum:
Three weeks ago, President Bush made it clear that engaging Iran militarily was not being pursued:"Some are trying to say that because we're helping ourselves in Iraq by stopping outside [Iranian] influence from killing our soldiers or hurting Iraqi people that we want to expand this beyond the borders," Bush said. "That's a presumption that's simply not accurate. We believe that we can solve our problems with Iran diplomatically."
Since then even more evidence of Iran's maleficence in Iraq has been revealed, yet Bush continues to evade the necessity of truly confronting Iran. From CNN: Bush blames Iraq weapons on 'part of' Iranian government.President Bush said Wednesday that "a part of the Iranian government" is involved in sending deadly explosives into Iraq ...
But the president Wednesday rejected as "preposterous" suggestions that the United States was creating a basis for conflict with Iran.
"My job is to protect our troops, and when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we're going to do something about it, pure and simple.," he said "... Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops. That's what that means."
"Protect our troops"? What's preposterous is leaving the Iranians completely unmolested while they kill our troops in Iraq. Here again are articles indicating Iran's war-making in Iraq:
Rumsfeld: Iraq bombs 'clearly from Iran' (CNN, August 10, 2005)
EXCLUSIVE: Iraq Weapons -- Made in Iran? (ABC News, March 6, 2006)
Rumsfeld accuses Iran of troublemaking in Iraq (AP via Army Times, March 7, 2006)
Casey cites Iran hand in attacks by Iraqi Shiites (The Washington Times, June 23, 2006)
Barbero: Iran training Shiite insurgents (AP via Army Times, August 24, 2006)
Donkeys harboring weapons stopped at Iran-Iraq border (Army Times, November 2, 2006)
Iran involvement suspected in Karbala compound attack (CNN, January 31, 2007)
Iraqi insurgents using Austrian rifles from Iran (The Telegraph, February 13, 2007)
From the Ayn Rand Institute: Support Our Troops: How the Democrats and Republicans Can Truly Support our Military and Defend America by Alex Epstein.[A]lmost everyone wants to give our troops the resources they need to do their jobs: the best weapons, armor, provisions, and training available -- as well as praise, gratitude, and encouragement. But for our government to truly support our troops, it must do far more than help them do their jobs; it must give them the right jobs to do -- the jobs that will effectively defend America while minimizing the risk to their lives. Our government must place soldiers' lives at risk only when American freedom is threatened, and during war it must give them the objectives and tactics that will defeat the enemy as quickly as possible.
The conservatives' Iraq war does not meet this standard. It could have--if the war had been undertaken as a step in defeating the anti-American, terrorist-sponsoring regimes of the Middle East and thus rendering the region non-threatening. Instead, President Bush made the war's primary focus the welfare of Iraqis--above all, their "freedom" to elect whatever regime they wished, no matter how anti-American. Further sacrificing Americans to Iraqis, Bush and his subordinates imposed crippling "rules of engagement" (also supported by liberals) that place the lives of civilians in enemy territory above our soldiers. Our hamstrung troops in Iraq have not been allowed to smash a militarily puny insurgency; instead, they have been forced to suffer an endless series of deaths by an undefeated enemy, while Islamic totalitarians worldwide rejoice in our defeat.
One does not support our troops by sending them to fight wars of self-sacrifice and then thanking their corpses. The conservatives' call to "stay the course" in Iraq--or to add 20,000 troops to that course--is harmful to America and its troops because the mission has been conceived and conducted in defiance of American interests.
If the conservatives do not support our troops, then do the liberals? Absolutely not.
Observe that while liberals criticize the Iraq war for killing our troops, they propose no alternative policy that would protect America against Islamic totalitarianism and its state supporters, including the militant, terrorist theocracy of Iran. Liberals' only policy proposal is that we not take military action in Iraq or in any other country beyond Afghanistan.
Also see Washington's Make-Believe Policy on Iran by Elan Journo.
Related: Dead Ball.
From Hot Air: Video: Troops tell Geraldo they support the surge. Notable comments from two different soldiers: "untie our hands" and "let us take the gloves off."
From The Moscow Times: Iraq Closes Border Crossings With Iran, Syria for 72 Hours.The U.S. military said Wednesday that the aim was to choke off the flow of weapons and foreign fighters into the country.
The flow will find another way if we don't stop it at the source.Feb 15, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
Irvine, CA--In response to Bush administration claims that Iran is supplying Iraqi insurgents with deadly weapons, liberals say they are worried that the administration is making the case for military action. The "New York Times" accuses the administration of "saber-rattling," while the paper's leading columnist, Paul Krugman, says that "a powerful faction in the administration is spoiling for a fight."
"The truth," said Alex Epstein, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "is exactly the opposite. The real problem with the Bush administration regarding Iran is that it, like its critics, is evading the massive case against this committed enemy of America.
"Iran is the leading state-supporter and champion of Islamic Totalitarianism--the ideological movement that is the root cause of the present terrorist threat. Ever since Iran's Islamic Revolution in 1979, it has been constitutionally committed to expanding ‘the sovereignty of God's law throughout the world.' It has made good on this commitment by waging terrorist warfare against Israel and America through Hezbollah and other subsidiaries. Its success in terrorizing the West has encouraged other Islamic Totalitarian terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. The regime is furiously pursuing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, with which its president promises to ‘wipe Israel off the map'--while its spiritual leaders declare their ultimate goal with weekly chants of ‘Death to America.'
"Yet since 9/11, the Bush administration has done absolutely nothing about the Iranian threat--and its liberal critics promote ‘cooperation' with the regime, even praising Iran for being ‘quite helpful to the United States in the months after [9/11]'! What explains this insanity?
"Our intellectual and political leaders have evaded the true nature and scope of the enemy we face. Immersed in the modern dogmas that all cultures are equal and all religions are peaceful, they will not acknowledge that the 9/11 terrorists are part of a religious-ideological movement fueled by Muslim peoples and states. They prefer the fiction that we are at war only with a relative handful of stateless, un-Islamic terrorists. Thus, they can delude themselves, Iran is not our mortal enemy, but only a misguided potential coalition partner in a ‘war on terrorism.'
"Iran needs to be attacked and defeated, the sooner the better. This does not mean another Iraqi boondoggle in which our soldiers try to bring the good life to warring tribes; it means the destruction of an enemy regime without apology. We must make it clear that we will no longer tolerate--or evade--aggression from the Islamic Totalitarians."Feb 14, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
Irvine, CA--Politicians and commentators from both parties are claiming that "income inequality" is a danger to America. They propose to alleviate it by raising taxes on the wealthy and expanding various welfare programs.
But, said Alex Epstein, a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "Income inequality--even vast income inequality--is a good thing. It is not income inequality but its critics that truly threaten this country.
"America is supposed to be a free nation, in which each individual can earn as much money as his ability and effort permit. If this results in vast ‘income inequality'--because different individuals in different professions with different abilities and work ethics create vastly different amounts of wealth--that is a good thing, not a problem for the government to ‘fix.'
"Opponents of income inequality complain that the wealthy ‘command' an unfair share of national income--as if the wealth in America were a preexisting national pie, of which everyone is entitled an equal slice. But this is false. The vast wealth in America hasn't fallen from the sky; it has been created through the productive activities of individuals in a free market. No one has a right to more money than he has freely earned--and no one has a right to claim that others have earned ‘too much.'
"For those who want to make more money, the solution is simple; enter a new field, develop new skills, start a business, or do anything else to make yourself more productive. But do not ask the government to loot the successful on your behalf. Nothing could be more unjust or more un-American than that."Feb 12, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
Irvine, CAVenezuelan president Hugo Chavez has recently announced plans to nationalize utilities and telecommunications companies.
"Chavez claims that this theft of private property from its owners is necessary to improve the lot of the poor in Venezuela," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "But as history has shown, nationalization is both immoral and impractical. Industries under state control are highly inefficient and much less productive than private industries free to function in a capitalist market. As production is throttled, rich and poor alike suffer.
"Marxist policies always lead to poverty and disaster. There can be no significant progress, prosperity or wealth creation in a social system that does not recognize individual rights, particularly property rights. Property rights are both moral and practical.
"If Venezuelans want to avoid an economic disaster that will eventually wipe out their savings, their investments, their businesses and their livelihoods, they must get rid of Chavez and reject the Marxist ideology he embodies."
Cartoon by Cox and Forkum.
Feb 6, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
Irvine, CA--UCLA has cravenly scuttled a student-sponsored forum on U.S. immigration policy--and revealed the administration's contempt for freedom of speech. The administration not only refuses to protect free speech, but also penalizes those who wish to exercise it on campus.
Scheduled for Feb. 6, the canceled event was to feature a debate between Carl Braun of the Minutemen and Dr. Yaron Brook, an open-immigration advocate and president of the Ayn Rand Institute. The forum, sponsored by the UCLA student group L.O.G.I.C., was approved by the administration weeks ago. When the student group learned that protesters from outside the university threatened to disrupt the event, it asked UCLA to protect the group's exercise of free speech by providing security for the event.
UCLA refused either to let the student group pay for its own security--claiming not enough security would be available--or to hold the event without security.
"The administration's decision is a double injustice," said Dr. Yaron Brook, "In the face of threats, UCLA refused to protect the student group's free speech--that's bad enough. But when the student group offered to pay for its own protection, UCLA put up further obstacles. UCLA is punishing the victims of intimidation. Instead of forbidding the protesters who threatened violent disruptions, the university is penalizing the student group for being a victim of threats.
"By preventing the event from taking place, UCLA apparently hopes to appease the protesters by doing their work for them. That an American university is suppressing, rather than enshrining, freedom of speech is a moral travesty."
Moreover, adding to the injustice, the university wants to burden the student group with the costs involved in canceling the event and turning away audience members and protesters. UCLA's line is that because the student group wanted to host a controversial forum--which the group had the right to do--it thereby created a problem and now must pay for resolving it.
"Free speech protects the rational mind: it is the freedom to think, to reach conclusions and express one's views without fear of coercion of any kind. And it must include the right to express unpopular views. UCLA--which like other universities grants tenure to protect intellectual freedom--ought to recognize the crucial importance of this principle and defend it," said Brook.Feb 4, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
What motivated the slaughter of Americans on 9/11? What drives terrorism against America and the West? Experts and politicians insist that Islam is more-or-less irrelevant in explaining the terrorists' actions. But that is wrong, Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Institute will argue; the terrorists are motivated by their principled embrace of Islam. By considering the religion's central tenets--understood as the vast majority of Muslims understand and practice them--we can see how faith in Islam leads many Muslims to initiate aggression against the "infidel" West. This truth--however unpleasant it may be to some--has crucial implications for which regimes to target in the war and how properly to defeat the enemy.
Islam's Role in the Terror War on America by Elan Journo Mon, Feb. 12 7:30 PM SGM -123: A Lecture Event at University of Southern California presented by The USC Objectivist Club. Directions: http://www.usc.edu/about/visit/upc/driving_directions/ .Flyer: http://psuobjectivism.com/IslamPoster2.pdfFeb 4, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses, Dollars & Crosses 2
From the Van Damme Academy's new blog Pedagogically Correct:
Many people understand that education is in desperate need of reform, but few recognize how radical the reform must be. What is needed is not a bigger education budget, a stronger teacher's union, smaller class sizes, or more rigorous testing procedures. But neither is the solution simply a return to Classical Education. What is needed is a basic, pedagogical revolution—a revolution in the science of education—a revolution in the selection of content taught to students, and the method by which that content is presented. VanDamme Academy is the leader of that revolution. Pedagogically Correct is our newsletter.
Feb 3, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
Howard Roark's independence has inspired millions. Inspiration without understanding is of limited value, however. The more fully we appreciate the precise meaning and value of independence, the more fully we can practice it—and reap its rewards. This lecture seeks to clarify several dimensions of the virtue of independence.
Dr. Leonard Peikoff has described independence as a primary orientation to reality rather than to other men. Among the questions we will probe: What does this fundamental orientation consist of? What sorts of actions or policies does the exercise of this virtue demand in everyday practice? And why is it important? What elevates independence to the ranks of the moral virtues? In the course of answering, we will also clarify what independence is not by distinguishing it from subjectivist pseudo-independence, by explaining the independent person's proper relationships with others and by dissecting modern man's widely alleged "interdependence," identifying the ways in which man is and is not a "social animal."Tara Smith is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Texas , where she currently holds the Anthem Foundation Fellowship. She is the author of Moral Rights & Political Freedom, Viable Values and, most recently, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics—The Virtuous Egoist, as well as numerous articles.
Who: Dr. Tara Smith; Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin; What: A lecture that will explore the fundamental meaning and practical applications of the virtue of independence; Where: Kimmel Center, Room 400-series, New York University 60 Washington Square South, NY, NY 10012; When: THIS Tuesday, February 6th 2007 , at 7:00 PM; Registration: Non-NYU guests must register by e-mailing nyu@objectivistclubs.org. Admission is FREE.Feb 2, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
Irvine, CA--The pharmaceutical company Novartis is appealing a decision by an Indian court not to grant it a patent on a modified form of its leukemia drug, Gleevac. If Novartis prevails, Indian companies could be banned from manufacturing a cheaper, generic version of the drug used widely in the developing world. In response, some groups have accused Novartis of attempting to "deny access" by poor people to life-saving drugs.
"If Novartis has created something deserving of a patent, the Indian government should uphold and protect Novartis's patent rights," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "No one has the right to expropriate Novartis's intellectual property. Morally, it is Novartis' creation and it alone should decide the terms of the drug's manufacture and sale and how the company will obtain maximum benefit from its invention.
"The fact that people are sick and need a drug does not entitle them to it. They must pay for it or rely on charity not plunder the very companies their lives depend on--note that Novartis itself has been donating drugs. While no one wants to see patients go without life-saving treatments, it is a gross injustice to turn their saviors into serfs. Further, a rational, long-range assessment of their own interests would tell patients that it is destructive to demand that patent rights be trampled on.
"Discovering new medicines is a risky and cost-intensive process. The companies that succeed in creating new drugs should be thanked and paid for their inventions--not stripped of their rights and accused of 'denying access' to the products their efforts make possible."Jan 24, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
Thursday, January 25, 2007, 7:00 pmColorado University Boulder Campus Lecture"The Individualist Alternative to the Political Left and Right"
Where: Wolf Law Building (WLFL 207)American politics is divided today, between the political left and the right--so goes the prevailing wisdom. But the wisdom is wrong: the Bush conservatives' support for the welfare state at home and for "nation-building" overseas shows how close the political left and right have become. In this talk, Dr. Lewis will demonstrate how common principles of altruism and statism have led both camps into a deadly alliance, against the sovereign individual. This has offered Americans a false alternative between deadly socialist policies. A true alternative would place the sovereign individual--ethically, politically, and economically--as the starting point of a proper politics. It is only the individual which exists, and the protection of his rights is the only proper purpose of government. This is because, ethically, life as a rational man is the only proper standard for a moral code, and individual happiness its only purpose. I live by right! and not by permission. Friday, January 26th, 2007, 5:30 pmYoung Aristotle Competition and Dinner Lecture "Early Greek Lawgivers: Solon of Athens and the Discovery of Freedom under Law"
Ridgeview Classical Schools, 1800 South Lemay Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Cost: $10 per ticket, with dinner, reserve with Joe Collins, jcollins@ridgeviewclassical.com
The lecture should start around 6:30.(What a buy! Thank you, Ridgeview School!)One of the great Greek discoveries is freedom: the right of each person to live his own life as he wishes, and to conduct his individual affairs free from the coercions of others. This discovery was incomplete, and limited to adult male citizens--yet it set the background for all later advancements in freedom. Part of this discovery was the need for laws: objective rules, justly created in open discussion, used to bring order to human life, and carved into stone for all to see. The men who brought these ideas, and these laws, to the Greeks were the lawgivers: men of wisdom and justice, who created just laws. Greek lawgivers understood that freedom requires law, and proper laws can be created only by free men. This talk will focus on the figures of the lawgivers, and their deeds: who were they? What did they do? What is the connection between freedom and law? Is there freedom without law? Saturday, January 27, 2007, 11:00 am to 2:00 pm
Seminar on Fighting Socialized Medicine
Dixon's Restaurant, 16th and Wazee, Downtown Denver
To RSVP, please contact Lin Zinser, lin@zinser.com This discussion will focus on recent proposals to impose socialzed medicine in Colorado--and develop a principled strategy to oppose this.Jan 22, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
Irvine, CA--At the National Conference for Media Reform last weekend, several lawmakers called for the return of the "Fairness Doctrine," which demands that television and radio broadcasters give a balanced presentation of all sides of controversial issues.
"The Fairness Doctrine is a violation of broadcasters' right to free speech," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "Broadcasters should not be forced to promote ideas they may disagree with.
"Defenders of the Fairness Doctrine claim that, left unrestrained, broadcast corporations will stop some views from being heard. But no private individual or organization can keep people from voicing dissenting views--it is only the government that has the power to suppress speech. By granting a cabal of government bureaucrats the power to arbitrarily dictate what ideas should and should not be heard on the air, the Fairness Doctrine is the real threat to free speech.
"Those who think their views are not being heard have every opportunity to promote them--on television, on radio, in print, online--but they must earn their audience, not demand that it be provided to them ready-made. As Ayn Rand put it, 'The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.'
"Those who value the First Amendment must oppose the Fairness Doctrine as a grave threat to freedom of speech."Jan 21, 2007 | Dollars & Crosses
Immigration is a hotly debated issue today, entailing a number of considerations. What does a rational moral code have to say about allowing immigrants into the country versus having restrictive policies or a closed border? What is to be done about potential terrorists and criminals? What are the economic ramifications of immigration? Do immigrants displace jobs? Will open immigration cause an unjust drain on the welfare system--more so than is the case currently? Will overcrowding be a problem? What value do immigrants pose to a country? Will an influx of immigrants irrevocably alter the cultural atmosphere? Do immigrants have the right to come to America? Do Americans have the commensurate right to employ and sell housing to immigrants?
Who: Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, and Mr. Carl Braun, executive director of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps of California. What: A panel discussion and Q&A on the issue of immigration. Where: UCLA Campus: Moore 100, Los Angeles, CA. When: Tuesday, February 6, 2007 at 7:00 PM. Admission is FREE. For more information e-mail events@aynrand.org
Dr. Harry Binswanger, member of the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute, will moderate the panel discussion, and the audience questions to the panelists.
Yaron Brook's bio: Dr. Yaron Brook holds a Ph.D. in Finance (1994, University of Texas at Austin) and is the president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. He lectures on Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, business ethics, and foreign policy at colleges, community groups, and corporations throughout the world. His articles have appeared in academic business journals, magazines, and popular newspapers, including USA Today. His numerous media appearances include recent interviews on On the Money (CNBC) and The O'Reilly Factor (Fox News Channel).
Carl Braun's bio: Mr. Carl Braun is a founding member and the Executive Director for the 2,000+ Minuteman Civil Defense Corps of California; one of the oldest and largest Borderwatch organizations in the United States. He is responsible for directing the efforts of a 12-person leadership team and coordinating border security efforts across a 35-mile stretch of California's southern border with Mexico.
Three weeks ago, President Bush 