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.