In reacting to the Islamists' ongoing cartoon Jihad, most commentators have focused on the issue of free speech. This is natural, and necessary, since eradication of free speech is the most immediate risk; and certainly without free speech there can be no defending other values. Nevertheless it is also vital to take a step back and to view the events as part of a larger pattern, a pattern which poses a grave threat to our core Western values and system of government –- and to their primary consequence and beneficiary: the free individual.

To see why, and to appreciate what we stand to lose, we must begin by understanding what is meant by "Western". Let us be clear that "Western" refers to a set of ideas -- it is not a racial or ethnic epithet. Anyone can embrace the ideas, just as anyone can reject them, regardless of his race, country of birth, or upbringing. Thus we can speak of Japan and Hong Kong having adopted "Western" principles as accurately as we can speak of Canada having done so.

In the broadest and most essentialized sense, the term "Western" denotes a set of fundamental ideas first discovered and adopted by the ancient Greeks. It was they who, for the first time in history, challenged the age-old notion that only the life of a society's rulers and/or priests was important -- to instead assert that every man's life is of crucial value. It was they who turned their focus from an obsession with death and the after-life -- to instead seek success and joy in this life. It was they who dispensed with all-encompassing superstition and from cowering before the supernatural –- to instead assert that the world was knowable, that no question was off-limits, and that the questioning mind was among the most revered of attributes. Finally, and as a consequence of all the others, it was they who cast away the resignation of living as unhappy subjects in an unknowable world -- to instead realize that with freedom to live, happiness on earth was possible for every man. Read the rest

Although I was unable to get into the February 28th University of California, Irvine (UCI) event to watch the unveiling of the Danish cartoons and the panel discussion on terrorism (I was told by security that the hall was filled to capacity), I did have an opportunity to closely observe the mob of protestors demonstrating against the event.  Amongst those chanting "Allah Aqubar" and holding signs such as "Mohammed Protector of Women" and "Young Republicans = the new KKK", were a noticeable number of people wearing green arm bands nearly identical to those worn by Hamas suicide bombers in the Middle East. Apparently this is not the first time these armbands have been worn by students on the UCI campus.  To learn that there are people right here in my own backyard who openly display support for a terrorist organization like Hamas was a real wake up call. 

I'd gone to the event in defense of my right to free speech, and my right to see the Danish cartoonists' message without fear of violence or intimidation.  What I came away with was the realization that my right to free speech and my right to life were under a much more immediate threat.

In the realm of politics, we recognize that in order to take life-promoting action, a person must be free to do so; he must be free to act on the judgment of his mind, his basic means of living. The only thing that can stop him from doing so is other people, and the only way they can stop him is by means of physical force. Thus, in order to live peacefully together in a society—in order to live together as civilized beings, rather than as barbarians—people must refrain from using physical force against one another. This fact gives rise to the principle of individual rights, which is the principle of egoism applied to politics.

The principle of individual rights is the recognition of the fact that each person is morally an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; therefore, he morally must be left free to act on his own judgment for his own sake, so long as he does not violate that same right of others. This principle is not a matter of personal opinion or social convention or "divine revelation"; it is a matter of the factual requirements of human life in a social context.

A moral society—a civilized society—is one in which the initiation of physical force against human beings is prohibited by law. And the only social system in which such force is so prohibited—consistently and on principle—is pure, laissez-faire capitalism.

Capitalism—which, contrary to widespread mis-education, is not merely an economic system—is the social system of individual rights, including property rights, protected by a strictly limited government. In a laissez-faire society, if people want to deal with one another, they may do so only on voluntary terms, by uncoerced agreement. If they want to receive goods or services from others, they may offer to exchange value for value to mutual benefit; however, they may not seek to gain any value from others by means of physical force. People are fully free to act on their own judgment and thus to produce, keep, use, and dispose of their own property as they see fit; the only thing they are not "free" to do is to violate the rights of others. In a capitalist society, individual rights cannot legally be violated by anyone—including the government.

The sole purpose of the government in such a system is to protect the individual rights of its citizens by means of the police (to deal with domestic criminals), the military (to deal with foreign aggressors), and the courts of law (to adjudicate disputes). While the government holds a monopoly on the legal use of force, it is constitutionally forbidden to use initiatory force in any way whatsoever—and constitutionally required to use retaliatory force as necessary to protect the rights of its citizens.

For instance...

A quick update as our 130 page premier issue goes to press. We were able to extend the subscription deadline. If you have not yet subscribed and wish to do so (or if you want to give someone the gift of objectivity), please subscribe by February 24th to ensure that your first issue of TOS is included in our initial mailing, scheduled for early-March. My essay "Introducing The Objective Standard" will be posted to the website this week and will be accessible to subscribers and non-subscribers alike.

Tara Smith, PhD, will open the conference with a lecture on Why Originalism Won't Die: Common Mistakes in Competing Theories of Judicial Interpretation. In the debate over judicial interpretation of the Constitution, the theory of Originalism (advocated by Antonin Scalia, among others) has been subjected to seemingly fatal criticisms. Despite the exposure of flaws that would normally bury a theory, however, Originalism continues to attract tremendous support. What explains its resilient appeal? Why do many continue to regard it as the most reasonable basis for judicial interpretation? This lecture will answer these questions by identifying the fundamental weakness of the leading alternatives to Originalism and by demonstrating that the heart of Originalism's appeal–its promise of judicial objectivity–is illusory. All camps in this debate, we will see, suffer from serious misunderstandings of the nature of objectivity.

Dana Berliner, JD, of the Institute for Justice, will present two lectures on Reading "Public Use" out of the Fifth Amendment: A Look at the Use of Eminent Domain for Private Parties in the United States. Eminent Domain, the power of government to take private property, is limited by the U.S. Constitution to "public use" and requires "just compensation" when property is taken. Without a proper understanding of the importance of property to individual rights, fuzzy language and exceptions have eroded the limitations on this governmental power. Part I will trace the history of the law of eminent domain, its inclusion in the Constitution, its subsequent interpretation by courts and other branches of government, and the relationship of the public use issue to the debate about "judicial activism" in the courts.

Part II will focus on more recent developments in the issue of eminent domain, covering the development and litigation of the Kelo case at the U.S. Supreme Court, focusing on both the litigation strategy and the constitutional analysis in the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions. Ms. Berliner will also discuss the subsequent popular and political backlash, and show the difficulty of implementing philosophically consistent policy in legislation.

Eric Daniels, PhD, will discuss Unenumerated Rights: From Calder v. Bull to Lawrence v. Texas. The Founding Fathers intended to create a government to secure individual rights. They listed and laid out numerous rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but they also added the Ninth Amendment to guarantee "unenumerated rights." What are these rights? How can they be protected? Has this been a successful means of protecting individual rights?

These two lectures will explore the history of the framing of the Ninth Amendment and the implementation of unenumerated rights in major court decisions from the Founding to the present. They will explore how individual rights–both enumerated and unenumerated–have fared under the changing philosophies of interpretation and theories of jurisprudence that American courts have embraced.

Amy Peikoff, JD, PhD, will give two lectures entitled Is There a Right to Privacy?, in which she will explain why she opposes the current legal recognition of a right to privacy. In the first lecture, she will discuss the history of the right to privacy in the United States, including descriptions of the cases in which a right to privacy has been recognized, and summaries of the main arguments given in favor of such a right. In her second lecture, Dr. Peikoff will present what she thinks is the proper approach to the legal protection of privacy, an approach based on Ayn Rand's philosophy.

The conference will conclude on Sunday afternoon with a panel discussion by Jim McCrory, Steve Plafker and Michael Conger, officers of TAFOL, The Association For Objective Law, seeking to provide an integrated perspective on the issues discussed throughout the weekend sessions. These lectures, presented over one weekend, March 4 - 5, 2006, promise to be a unique experience, applying Objectivism to the philosophy of law.

A long-running controversy over the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad by a Danish newspaper boiled over in the past few days as a boycott brought sales of some Danish products to a halt in Arab countries across the Middle East, while Danish interests came under attack. A diverse group of Muslim activists has stirred a consumer uproar in one of Denmark's fastest-growing packaged-foods markets in a case pitting freedom of the press against religious sensitivity, and which is playing out in the arenas of diplomacy and global trade. ... The controversy has been simmering since September, when the Danish daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad, including one that shows him wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb with a lit fuse. Islam strictly forbids depictions of the prophet.

Flemming Rose, the newspaper's culture editor, said the works were not intended to offend and were in keeping with a tradition of satirical cartoons. "These were not directed against Muslims, but against people in cultural life in Europe who are submitting themselves to self-censorship when dealing with Islam," he said by telephone Monday. Muslim groups in Denmark, and then across the Middle East, demanded apologies from the newspaper and the Danish government. Late Monday, the newspaper issued an apology. "The drawings are not against the Danish law but have indisputably insulted many Muslims, for which we shall apologize," the newspaper's statement said, according to Reuters. The Danish authorities have expressed regret but have refused to take action. "We have freedom of the press, and the government can't get involved in these kinds of matters," said Bay, the Danish consul. [Emphasis added]

Something very important is happening in Denmark -- a showdown over freedom, tolerance, and their wolfish menaces in religious clothing. So, please, turn off "American Idol," put down the Game Boy for a moment, and pay attention. This does affect you.

French and German newspapers republished caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad on Wednesday in what they called a defense of freedom of expression, sparking fresh anger from Muslims. The drawings have divided opinion within Europe and the Middle East since a Danish newspaper first printed them in September. Islamic tradition bars any depiction of the prophet to prevent idolatry. ... France Soir, which is owned by an Egyptian magnate and has struggled to attract readers, justified its decision. "The appearance of the 12 drawings in the Danish press provoked emotions in the Muslim world because the representation of Allah and his prophet is forbidden. But because no religious dogma can impose itself on a democratic and secular society, France Soir is publishing the incriminating caricatures," the paper said.

But late on Wednesday its owner, Raymond Lakah, said he had removed managing editor Jacques Lefranc "as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual". Mr Lakah said: "We express our regrets to the Muslim community and all people who were shocked by the publication." The president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), Dalil Boubakeur, had described France Soir's publication as an act of "real provocation towards the millions of Muslims living in France". Other papers stood by their publication. In Berlin, Die Welt argued there was a right to blaspheme in the West, and asked whether Islam was capable of coping with satire. "The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical," it wrote in an editorial.

The cartoons are not a manifestation of anti-Islamic prejudice: criticism of Muhammad or even of Islam is not equivalent to anti-Semitism. Islam is not a race; the problems with it are not the product of fear mongering and fiction, but of ideology and facts -- facts that have been stressed repeatedly by Muslims around the world, when they commit violence in the name of Islam and justify that violence by its teachings.

Internet search engine Google has rolled out a China-based version of its popular Web site -- one that bows to Beijing's censorship laws and will edit the content of its results. Google.cn -- the Chinese language version of the search portal -- debuted Wednesday with the company acknowledging the balancing act it was attempting to perform.

"In order to operate from China, we have removed some content from the search results available on Google.cn, in response to local law, regulation or policy," a Google statement said.

"While removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission."

Google said it intends to report to users when information is removed from search results. The company says it does the same thing in response to local laws in Germany, France and the United States.

Prior to Wednesday's debut in China, Google operated the Chinese-language version of the search engine through a link on its U.S. Web site, Google.com.

Previously, the Beijing government blocked the results of search requests that violated its regulations. The new Google site will self-censor based on Chinese law.

Standard Google Image Search for "tiananmen"
China Google Image Search for "tiananmen"

That said, Canada's election is a watershed. The Liberals have so dominated the country's politics that they were in office longer during the 20th Century than even the Communists in the Soviet Union. The country was in danger of becoming a permanent one-and-a-half party state. Having been chastened by the voters for their rampant corruption and insider dealing, the Liberals will now have a chance to clean up their act. For his part, Mr. Harper will end the gratuitous America-bashing of recent years and at least make a stab at more sensible economic policies. Grading on a Canadian curve, yesterday's result amounts to a welcome political revolution.

"The elections results amount to a de facto declaration of war by the Palestinian people against the state of Israel. It's imperative our nation redouble its commitment to the state of Israel and cautiously evaluate any future assistance to a Palestinian regime governed by terrorists," said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C. "Hamas is a terrorist organization, which means they believe it is their right to murder women, children and innocent civilians to achieve their goals. It is unrealistic, unwise and even immoral to ask Israel to sit down with a government that contains people who have such beliefs," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and leaders said they had no plans to change it. But the group risks economic devastation resulting

Former President Carter said Thursday the Palestinian elections were "completely honest, completely fair, completely safe and without violence." Carter, who led an international observer team from the National Democratic Institute, also said he hoped that the Hamas Islamic group would act responsibly now that it appears to have been elected to power in Palestinian elections.

"My hope is that as Hamas assumes a major role in the next government, whatever that might be, it will take a position on international standards of responsibility," he told a news conference in Jerusalem.

Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu told the Likud faction in the Knesset Thursday, "Before our very eyes, Hamastan has been established, the step-child of Iran and the Taliban. It's in firing range of our airport, our highways and cities. This has to be a day of soul searching because the writing was on the wall. The policy of giving land for free gave a prize to terror and a winning card for Hamas.

A leader of the militant group Hamas promised reforms and indicated the possibility of a Palestinian army in the wake of the historic elections that swept his party into power this week. The comments by Khaled Mashaal, based in Damascus, Syria, come after Israeli and U.S. leaders indicated that little progress was possible unless Hamas denounces violence and disarms.

Mashaal said Hamas will not consider disarming, but would instead form an army to defend the Palestinian people

"If you do not like our militancy, we are ready to unify the Palestinian arms ... and create an army, just like any other country," Mashaal said.

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. –  BB&T Corporation today said it will not lend to commercial developers that plan to build condominiums, shopping malls and other private projects on land taken from private citizens by government entities using eminent domain.

The commercial lending policy change comes in the wake of Kelo v. City of New London, a controversial Supreme Court decision in June that said governments can seize personal property to make room for private development projects.

The court's ruling cleared the way for an expansion of eminent domain authority historically used primarily for utilities, rights of way and other public facilities.

"The idea that a citizen's property can be taken by the government solely for private use is extremely misguided, in fact it's just plain wrong," said BB&T Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John Allison.

"One of the most basic rights of every citizen is to keep what they own. As an institution dedicated to helping our clients achieve economic success and financial security, we won't help any entity or company that would undermine that mission and threaten the hard-earned American dream of property ownership."

The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, held that 15 homes in a waterfront neighborhood in New London, Conn., could be acquired by the city, turned over to private developers and ultimately replaced by a luxury hotel, upscale condos and office buildings. The city justified the project as a way to generate tax revenue and jobs.

Critics charged that by letting local governments decide what constitutes a "public purpose," the court abdicated its duty to protect citizens from unconstitutional seizures of their property under the Fifth Amendment.

In a stinging dissent by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, she wrote that, since the decision, "the specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

But that may change. Thirty-eight states have recently passed or are considering laws that would ban the use of eminent domain for private development. A similar bill that would apply a federal ban has passed the House, and President Bush has voiced his support for such reform.

The bipartisan Private Property Rights Protection Act would revoke for two fiscal years all federal economic development financing – a significantly large amount of money for most localities and states – from local governments that condemn privately owned houses and other non-blighted property so that they can transfer it to private developers.

"While we're certainly optimistic about the pending legislation, this is something we could not wait any longer to address," said BB&T Chief Credit Officer Ken Chalk. "We're a company where our values dictate our decision-making and operating standards. From that standpoint, this was a straightforward decision; it's simply the right thing to do."

Winston-Salem-based BB&T Corporation and its subsidiaries offer full-service commercial and retail banking and additional financial services such as insurance, investments, retail brokerage, corporate finance, consumer finance, treasury services, international banking, leasing and trust.

BB&T operates more than 1,400 financial centers in the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Indiana and Washington, D.C.

With $109.2 billion in assets, BB&T Corp. is the nation's ninth largest financial holding company. More information about BB&T Corp. is available at www.BBandT.com.

Dear Friend of Capitalism,

I am pleased to announce the official launch of The Objective Standard: www.TheObjectiveStandard.com. You can now see the contents of our premier issue, read our statement of purpose (also reprinted below), check out our upcoming events, and subscribe to the print or online version of the journal.

If you plan to subscribe to the print version--which I highly recommend, since issues will average 100 pages in length--please do so by February 17th to ensure that your first issue is included in our initial mailing, scheduled for early March. Access to the online version of the journal will be available to all subscribers in mid-March.

Whatever your choice of subscription, we look forward to providing you with philosophical journalism as it might and ought to be. Please feel free to forward this information to anyone who you think might be interested in The Objective Standard.

Best wishes,
Craig Biddle
Editor, The Objective Standard
www.theobjectivestandard.com

Statement of Purpose

The Objective Standard is a quarterly journal of culture and politics based on the idea that for every human concern—from personal matters to foreign policy, from the sciences to the arts, from education to legislation—there are demonstrably objective standards by reference to which we can assess what is true or false, good or bad, right or wrong. The purpose of the journal is to analyze and evaluate ideas, trends, events, and policies accordingly.

We maintain that the standards of both knowledge and value derive from the facts of reality; that truth is discovered only by means of reason, i.e., through observation and logic; that the factual requirements of man's life on earth determine his moral values; that the selfish pursuit of one's own life-serving goals is virtuous; and that individual rights are moral principles defining the fundamental requirements of a civilized society.

We stand opposed to the notion that the standards of knowledge and value are not factual but subjective (feeling-based) or other-worldly (faith-based); that truth is ultimately dictated by majority opinion or a "supernatural" being's will; that democratic consensus or "God's word" determines what is moral; that sacrifice for the common good or in obedience to "God's commands" is virtuous; and that rights are social conventions or "divine decrees."

In stark contrast to these philosophic approaches, ours is a philosophy of reality, reason, egoism, and laissez-faire capitalism. In a word, we uphold Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and it serves as our frame of reference in analyzing the cultural and political issues of the day. [link]