Capitalism Review

Save the Children…From The United Nations

May 11, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

Reports Reuters:

U.N. peacekeepers, aid workers and teachers are having sex with Liberian girls as young as 8 in return for money, food or favors, threatening efforts to rebuild a nation wrecked by war, a report said on Monday.
Save the Children UK said an alarming number of girls were being sexually exploited by men in authority in refugee camps and in the wider community, sometimes for as little as a bottle of beer, a ride in an aid vehicle or watching a film.
[...] The 20-page document said local people reported sexual exploitation by peacekeepers in every location where a contingent of the UNMIL peacekeeping force was stationed, highlighting the continuing problem of sex abuse by U.N. forces.
Allegations of sexual misconduct have dogged U.N. operations in Liberia, Ivory Coast, Haiti and especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where the world body has accused members of its biggest peacekeeping force of rape, pedophilia and giving children food or money in return for sex. ["Peacekeepers, teachers prey on Liberia girls: report"]

The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration

Apr 30, 2006 | Business, Politics

by Harry Binswanger, Ph.D. This is a defense of phasing-in open immigration into the United States. Entry into the U.S. should ultimately be free for any foreigner, with the exception of criminals, would-be terrorists, and those carrying infectious diseases. (And note: I am defending freedom of entry and residency, not the automatic granting of U.S. citizenship).An end to immigration quotas is demanded by the principle of individual rights. Every individual has rights as an individual, not as a member of this or that nation. One has rights not by virtue of being an American, but by virtue of being human.One doesn’t have to be a resident of any particular country to have a moral entitlement to be secure from governmental coercion against one’s life, liberty, and property. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, government is instituted “to secure these rights”–to protect them against their violation by force or fraud.A foreigner has rights just as much as an American. To be a foreigner is not to be a criminal. Yet our government treats as criminals those foreigners not lucky enough to win the green-card lottery.Seeking employment in this country is not a criminal act. It coerces no one and violates no one’s rights (there is no “right” to be exempt from competition in the labor market, or in any other market).It is not a criminal act to buy or rent a home here in which to reside. Paying for housing is not a coercive act–whether the buyer is an American or a foreigner. No one’s rights are violated when a Mexican, or Canadian, or Senegalese rents an apartment from an American owner and moves into the housing he is paying for. And what about the rights of those American citizens who want to sell or rent their property to the highest bidders? Or the American businesses that want to hire the lowest cost workers? It is morally indefensible for our government to violate their right to do so, just because the person is a foreigner.Immigration quotas forcibly exclude foreigners who want not to seize but to purchase housing here, who want not to rob Americans but to engage in productive work, raising our standard of living. To forcibly exclude those who seek peacefully to trade value for value with us is a violation of the rights of both parties to such a trade: the rights of the American seller or employer and the rights of the foreign buyer or employee.Thus, immigration quotas treat both Americans and foreigners as if they were criminals, as if the peaceful exchange of values to mutual benefit were an act of destruction.To take an actual example, if I want to invite my Norwegian friend Klaus to live in my home, either as a guest or as a paying tenant, what right does our government have to stop Klaus and me? To be a Norwegian is not to be a criminal. And if some American business wants to hire Klaus, what right does our government have to interfere?The implicit premise of barring foreigners is: “This is our country, we let in who we want.” But who is “we”? The government does not own the country. Jurisdiction is not ownership. Only the owner of land or any item of property can decide the terms of its use or sale. Nor does the majority own the country. This is a country of private property, and housing is private property. So is a job.American land is not the collective property of some entity called “the U.S. government.” Nor is there such thing as collective, social ownership of the land. The claim, “We have the right to decide who is allowed in” means some individuals–those with the most votes–claim the right to prevent other citizens from exercising their rights. But there can be no right to violate the rights of others.Our constitutional republic respects minority rights. 60% of the population cannot vote to enslave the other 40%. Nor can a majority dictate to the owners of private property. Nor can a majority dictate on whom private employers spend their money. Not morally, not in a free society. In a free society, the rights of the individual are held sacrosanct, above any claim of even an overwhelming majority.The rights of one man end where the rights of his neighbor begin. Only within the limits of his rights is a man free to act on his own judgment. The criminal is the man who deliberately steps outside his rights-protected domain and invades the domain of another, depriving his victim of his exclusive control over his property, or liberty, or life. The criminal, by his own choice, has rejected rights in favor of brute violence. Thus, an immigration policy that excludes criminals is proper.Likewise, a person with an infectious disease, such as smallpox, threatens with serious physical harm those with whom he comes into proximity. Unlike the criminal, he may not intend to do damage, but the threat of physical harm is clear, present, and objectively demonstrable. To protect the lives of Americans, he may be kept out or quarantined until he is no longer a threat.But what about the millions of Mexicans, South Americans, Chinese, Canadians, etc. seeking entry who are not criminal and not bearing infectious diseases? By what moral principle can they be excluded? Not on the grounds of majority vote, not on the grounds of protecting any American’s rights, not on the grounds of any legitimate authority of the state. THE MORAL AND THE PRACTICAL That’s the moral case for phasing out limits on immigration. But some ask: “Is it practical? Wouldn’t unlimited immigration–even if phased in over a decade–be disastrous to our economic well-being and create overcrowding? Are we being told to just grit our teeth and surrender our interests in the name of morality?”This question is invalid on its face. It shows a failure to understand the nature of rights, and of moral principles generally. Rational moral principles reflect a recognition of the basic nature of man, his nature as a specific kind of living organism, having a specific means of survival. Questions of what is practical, what is to one’s self-interest, can be answered only in that context. It is neither practical nor to one’s interest to attempt to live and act in defiance of one’s nature as a human being.Yet that is the meaning of the moral-practical dichotomy. When one claims, “It is immoral but practical,” one is maintaining, “It cripples my nature as a human being, but it is beneficial to me”–which is a contradiction.Rights, in particular, are not something pulled from the sky or decreed by societal whim. Rights are moral principles, established by reference to the needs inherent in man’s nature qua man. “Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival.” (Ayn Rand)Every organism has a basic means of survival; for man, that means is: reason. Man is the rational animal, homo sapiens. Rights are moral principles that spell out the terms of social interaction required for a rational being to survive and flourish. Since the reasoning mind cannot function under physical coercion, the basic social requirement of man’s survival is: freedom. Rights prescribe freedom by proscribing coercion.“If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work.” (Ayn Rand)Rights reflect the fundamental alternative of voluntary consent or brute force. The reign of force is in no one’s interest; the system of voluntary cooperation by mutual consent is the precondition of anyone achieving his actual interests.To ignore the principle of rights means jettisoning the principled, moral resolution of conflicts, and substituting mere numbers (majority vote). That is not to anyone’s interest. Tyranny is not to anyone’s self-interest.Rights establish the necessary framework within which one defines his legitimate self-interest. One cannot hold that one’s self-interest requires that he be “free” to deprive others of their freedom, treating their interests as morally irrelevant. One cannot hold that recognizing the rights of others is moral but “impractical.”Since rights are based on the requirements of man’s life as a rational being, there can be no conflict between the moral and the practical here: if respecting individual rights requires it, your interest requires it.Freedom or force, reason or compulsion–that is the basic social alternative. Immigrants recognize the value of freedom–that’s why they seek to come here.The American Founders defined and implemented a system of rights because they recognized that man, as a rational being, must be free to act on his own judgment and to keep the products of his own effort. They did not intend to establish a system in which those who happen to be born here could use force to “protect” themselves from the peaceful competition of others. ECONOMICS One major fear of open immigration is economic: the fear of losing one’s job to immigrants. It is asked: “Won’t the immigrants take our jobs?” The answer is: “Yes, so we can go on to better, higher-paying jobs.”The fallacy in this protectionist objection lies in the idea that there is only a finite amount of work to be done. The unstated assumption is: “If Americans don’t get to do that work, if foreigners do it instead, we Americans will have nothing to do.”But work is the creation of wealth. A job is a role in the production of goods and services–the production of food, of cars, computers, the providing of internet content–all the items that go to make up our standard of living. A country cannot have too much wealth. The need for wealth is limitless, and the work that is to be done is limitless.From a grand, historical perspective, we are only at the beginning of the wealth-creating age. The wealth Americans produce today is as nothing compared to what we’ll have two hundred years from now–just as the standard of living 200 years in the past, in 1806, was as nothing compared to ours today.Unemployment is not caused by an absence of avenues for the creation of wealth. Unemployment is caused by government interference in the labor market. Even with that interference, the number of jobs goes relentlessly upward, decade after decade. This bears witness to the fact that there’s no end to the creation of wealth and thus no end to the useful employment of human intelligence and the physical effort directed by that intelligence. There is always more productive work to be done. If you can give your job to an immigrant, you can get a more valuable job.What is the effect of a bigger labor pool on wage rates? If the money supply is constant, nominal wage rates fall. But real wage rates rise, because total output has gone up. Economists have demonstrated that real wages have to rise as long as the immigrants are self-supporting. If immigrants earn their keep, if they don’t consume more than they produce, then they add to total output, which means that prices fall (if the money supply is constant).And, in fact, rising real wages was the history of our country in the nineteenth century. Before the 1920s, there were no limits on immigration, yet our standard of living rocketed upward. Self-supporting immigrants were an economic benefit not an injury.The protectionist objection that immigrants take away jobs and harm our standard of living is a solid economic fallacy. WELFARE A popular misconception is that immigrants come here to get welfare. To the extent that is true, immigrants do constitute a burden. But this issue is mooted by the passage, under the Clinton Administration, of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which makes legal permanent residents ineligible for most forms of welfare for 5 years. I support this kind of legislation.Further, if the fear is of non-working immigrants, why is the pending legislation aimed at employers of immigrants? OVERCROWDING America is a vastly underpopulated country. Our population density is less than one-third of France’s.Take an extreme example. Suppose a tidal wave of immigrants came here. Suppose that half of the people on the planet moved here. That would mean an unthinkable eleven-fold increase in our population–from 300 million to 3.3 billion people. That would make America almost as “densely” populated as today’s England (360 people/sq. km. vs. 384 people/sq. km.). In fact, it would make us less densely populated than the state of New Jersey (453 per sq. km.). And these calculations exclude Alaska and Hawaii, and count only land area.Contrary to widespread beliefs, high population density is a value not a disvalue. High population density intensifies the division of labor, which makes possible a wider variety of jobs and specialized consumer products. For instance, in Manhattan, there is a “doll hospital”–a store specializing in the repair of children’s dolls. Such a specialized, niche business requires a high population density in order to have a market. Try finding a doll hospital in Poughkeepsie. In Manhattan, one can find a job as a Pilates Method teacher or as a “Secret Shopper” (two jobs actually listed on Craig’s List). Not in Paducah.People want to live near other people, in cities. One-seventh of England’s population lives in London. If population density is a bad thing, why are Manhattan real-estate prices so high? THE VALUE OF IMMIGRANTS Immigrants are the kind of people who refresh the American spirit. They are ambitious, courageous, and value freedom. They come here, often with no money and not even speaking the language, to seek a better life for themselves and their children.The vision of American freedom, with its opportunity to prosper by hard work, serves as a magnet drawing the best of the world’s people. Immigrants are self-selected for their virtues: their ambitiousness, daring, independence, and pride. They are willing to cast aside the tradition-bound roles assigned to them in their native lands and to re-define themselves as Americans. These are the people America needs in order to keep alive the individualist, hard-working attitude that made America.Here is a short list of some great immigrants: Alexander Hamilton, Alexander Graham Bell, Andrew Carnegie, most of the top scientists of the Manhattan Project, Igor Sikorsky (the inventor of the helicopter), Ayn Rand.Open immigration: the benefits are great. The right is unquestionable. So let them come. Dr. Binswanger, a longtime associate of Ayn Rand, is a professor of philosophy at the Objectivist Academic Center of the Ayn Rand Institute. Special Offer: Dr. Binswanger moderates Harry Binswanger's List (HBL)--an email list for Objectivists for discussing philosophic and cultural issues -- a free one-month trial is available at: www.hblist.com.

DEBATE: Eminent Domain: To Preserve or To Abolish

Apr 15, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

Who: Jeffrey Finkle, president of the International Economic Development Council (arguing to preserve eminent domain), and Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute (arguing to abolish it). Frederick Thomas of MHz Networks will moderate. What: A formal debate on a subject of great importance to every American. When: Monday, May 1, 2006, 7:00 PM–9:00 PM. Where: National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor, Washington, D.C. The public and media are invited. Admission is free.

The Issues: In the wake of the controversial Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, some legislators are moving to place limits on the government's power to seize citizens' property for use by private enterprises. Is it appropriate under certain circumstances for the government to use eminent domain for the purpose of transferring a citizen's property to a private business—or is this practice wrong in principle? Moreover, while the government is constitutionally authorized to take citizens' property for "public use," the question remains: Is this policy moral—and is it practical?

Does the government have a moral right to take citizens' property under certain conditions—or do citizens have an absolute right to their personal property? Does robust economic development require the occasional use of eminent domain—or would economic progress be greater if property rights were upheld as truly inalienable? What are the moral issues involved in eminent domain? What are the practical issues? Are the moral and the practical necessarily at odds—or can they be reconciled? Mr. Finkle and Dr. Brook will present the facts in support of their respective positions.

The Debaters: Mr. Finkle became the president and CEO of the International Economic Development Council in August 2001, following IEDC's birth through the merger of the Council for Urban Economic Development (CUED) with the American Economic Development Council (AEDC). Prior to the merger, Finkle served for 15 years as president and CEO of CUED. During that time, he oversaw the vast expansion of that organization's membership and influence, as well as strengthening its financial footing. Dr. Brook is the president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. As a recognized expert on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Dr. Brook has been interviewed extensively by the print, radio and television media for the Objectivist position on current events. Among his recent interviews have been appearances on Talk Back Live (CNN), Your World with Neil Cavuto (Fox News Channel), The O'Reilly Factor (Fox News Channel) and Closing Bell and On the Money (CNBC).

Mr. Finkle and Dr. Brook will be available for interviews after the debate. Contact: Craig Biddle, (804) 747-1776, cbiddle@theobjectivestandard.com. This event is sponsored by The Objective Standard, a new journal of culture and politics. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/

No Catastrophic Global Warming

Apr 12, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

Writes Professor Bob Carter a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research in the UK Telegraph:

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

[...] In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected", "projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
[...] Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. [...] scientists are under intense pressure to conform with the prevailing paradigm of climate alarmism if they wish to receive funding for their research.
[...] The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming. ["There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998", Bob Carter, UK Telegraph, 9 April 2006]

Free Speech and the Danish Cartoons – A Panel Discussion

Apr 3, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

Tuesday, April 11, 2006 (7:30pm - 10:30pm); University of Southern California, Davidson Conference Center, Embassy Room

Confirmed Panelists: Dr. Yaron Brook, Ayn Rand Institute, Dr. Daniel Pipes, Middle East Forum.

The Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed have sparked a worldwide controversy. Death threats and violent protests have sent the cartoonists into hiding and have had the intended effect of stifling freedom of expression. The reaction to these cartoons raises urgent questions whose significance goes far beyond a set of drawings. What is freedom of speech? Does it include the right to offend? What is the significance of the worldwide Islamic reaction to the cartoons? How should Western governments have responded to this incident? How should the Western media have responded? These and related issues will be discussed by panelists from different backgrounds and perspectives. A questions-and-answers period with the audience will be included. Please note that the cartoons in question will be displayed at the event. Respect for the discussion forum will be strictly enforced. For more information, contact: USC Objectivist Club

UN Security Council Abets Iran’s Nuclear Program

Mar 31, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

IRVINE, CA--"The UN Security Council's call on Iran to halt its nuclear program will not stop Iran, but actually abet its pursuit of nuclear bombs," said Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"It is absurd to think that any UN admonishment could derail the belligerent theocrats in Teheran. The Security Council's feeble statement gives them yet more time to continue building their bombs.

"This perverse gambit perpetuates the myth--inherent in the failed diplomatic efforts that preceded it--that Iran's leaders will listen to reason. But the ruling mullahs are religious mystics orchestrating a terrorist war on the West. To combat this avowedly irrational enemy we must retaliate by force. The time for military action against Iran is long since past."

NYU Caves in To Muslims’ Pressure

Mar 30, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

IRVINE, CA--Yesterday, in a shameful act, NYU broke its own official policy and denied free speech to its students.

After having approved the display of the Danish cartoons for a panel discussion on free speech, NYU's administration reversed its decision in the face of Muslim protests.

A day before the panel discussion was to take place, NYU gave the student event organizers a non-negotiable ultimatum: if you display the cartoons we will close the event to non-NYU guests. This was in spite of the fact that NYU's own rules leave this decision to the student sponsoring organization.

And even though the students opted for not showing the cartoons, NYU barred entry to at least two journalists and more than 30 registered guests. Even after learning that Muslim students had sabotaged the event by acquiring and destroying two hundred tickets to leave as many seats empty, NYU officials still refused to allow non-NYU guests to enter.

In caving in to fear, in restricting and obstructing attendance, in forbidding the display of the Danish cartoons, NYU handed a victory to the Islamic totalitarians and their facilitators. In standing up to the destroyers of free speech, the NYU student sponsors of the free speech panel showed the courage that the NYU officials lack.

NYU’s Surrender Underscores Need to Display Danish Cartoons

Mar 28, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

Irvine, CA--"In a seemingly mundane decision, New York University has sacrificed the principle underlying its flourishing and the survival of civilization--free speech," said Dr. Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute. NYU is refusing to protect a student group's right to display the Danish cartoons of Mohammad at a panel discussion on free speech on March 29. The group's event was to be open to the public, but at the last minute NYU retreated. Under the pretense of maintaining campus security, the administration contradicted its own stated policy on free speech by requiring that, if the cartoons are displayed, the event be limited only to "members of the NYU community." The student group now must turn away more than 150 members of the public who had planned to attend the panel.

"The university's shameful appeasement of Muslim and anti- free-speech groups--which have vowed to protest the event-- underscores the urgent need to display the cartoons in defense of freedom of speech," said Dr. Brook. "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 and offensive views, including outright criticism of religion. NYU--which like other universities grants tenure to protect intellectual freedom--ought to recognize the crucial importance of this principle and defend it. "If intimidation and threats are allowed to compel writers, cartoonists, thinkers and institutions of learning into self- censorship, the right to free speech is lost. If Muslims are allowed to pressure critics of Islam into silence, critics of religion will be next. And then everyone else."

A Panel Discussion on Free Speech

Panelists: Peter Schwartz, former chairman of the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute and author of The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America; Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education; Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims; and Jonathan Leaf, New York Press editor who resigned over his paper's decision not to publish the Danish cartoons. Moderator: Dr. Harry Binswanger, professor of philosophy and member of the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute. What is planned: (1) A display of the controversial Danish cartoons depicting Mohammad. (2) A panel discussion and Q & A on the meaning of the worldwide reaction to the cartoons. Where: New York University, 60 Washington Square South at NYU Kimmel Center, Eisner and Lubin Auditorium (4th Floor), NY, NY 10012. When: March 29, 2006, 7 to 10 PM

Summary: ARI's Peter Schwartz will participate in a panel discussion on the Mohammad cartoon controversy. He will explain: Why the eruption of violence and the issuance of death threats make completely irrelevant the question of whether the cartoons are in bad taste. Why the idea that freedom of the press must be "coupled with press responsibility" means that free speech is not a right, but a fleeting permission. Why every Western newspaper and media outlet should have immediately re-published or shown the cartoons in solidarity with the cartoonists. Why the cowardly and appeasing response of many Western governments--including our own--will only invite further aggression. Other panelists will present their own views.

Respect Rights Not Beliefs

Mar 23, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

A great clarification by Nicholas Provenzo:

I don't respect Muslims for their beliefs. I respect the Muslims right to hold their beliefs (and harm no one but themselves in the process) but I have nothing but contempt for any code that damns existence on this earth in the name of the supernatural.

Conceptual Math I: Basic Arithmetic

Mar 11, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

From Glen Woiceshyn at Powerful Minds.com:

We just added a new math text and exercise book—Conceptual Math I: Basic Arithmetic—to the Math section of our store (plus a corresponding teacher's version.) Intended for grades 4-6, this 170-page book is designed to give the student clear understanding and proficiency in basic arithmetic, including addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. The book teaches math inductively by integrating math to its historical development and showing how each new idea flows logically from the existing knowledge. Many exercises in the form of numerical calculations, word problems, and short essay-type questions are found in the book.

Unveiling the Danish Cartoons at UCLA: A Discussion on Free Speech and World Reaction

Mar 9, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

Who: Ayn Rand Institute president Yaron Brook and additional panelists.

What: (1). A display of the controversial Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed.
(2). A panel discussion and Q&A on the meaning of the worldwide reaction to the cartoons.

Where: Los Angeles, CA, UCLA Campus: Dodd 147

When: Friday, March 10, 2006, at 7 PM

Priority seating for members of the media, UCLA students, faculty, and staff begins at 6:30 PM. Please check in at the front door. General seating is available only by RSVP and begins at 6:45 PM. Please email Events@ClubLogic.org to be placed on the list. A state-or-federally-issued ID is required for admittance. Seating will be limited. Attendees may be required to go through a security checkpoint.

Summary: ARI's Yaron Brook will participate in a panel discussion on the Mohammed cartoon controversy. He will explain: Why the eruption of violence and the issuance of death threats make completely irrelevant the question of whether the cartoons are in bad taste. Why the idea that freedom of the press must be "coupled with press responsibility" means that free speech is not a right, but a fleeting permission. Why every Western newspaper and media outlet should have immediately re-published or shown the cartoons in solidarity with the cartoonists. Why the cowardly and appeasing response of many Western governments--including our own--will only invite further aggression. Other panelists will present their own views.

All For One

Mar 5, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

Good stuff from Amit Ghate:

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

Danish Cartoons at UCI

Mar 3, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

From Debi Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute:

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.

Theo Van Gogh’s Submission Online For Free

Feb 28, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's film Submission, directed by the murdered Theo Van Gogh, is available as a google film. I suggest watching it ASAP, before Islamists have it withdrawn. [Hat Tip: Amit Ghate]

The Right to Immigrate: The Case for Absolute Open Entry into the U.S.

Feb 27, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

The USC Objectivist Club is pleased to announce: The Right to Immigrate: The Case for Absolute Open Entry into the U.S. By Harry Binswanger, Ph.D.

Since at least the 1920s, the U.S. has imposed restrictions on immigration. Today, many people on both sides of the political spectrum are calling for expanded controls over our borders. In this informal talk, Dr. Binswanger will make the case for open immigration: the removal of all limitations on entry into, and legal residence within, the United States. He will explain why immigration is a right, why it is a practical benefit to Americans, and how properly to deal with the threat of terrorists entering the country.

Dr. Binswanger, a longtime associate of Ayn Rand, taught philosophy at Hunter College (City University of New York) from 1972 to 1979, and at the University of Texas, Austin, Spring 2002. During the 1980s, he was editor of The Objectivist Forum, a bimonthly journal devoted to Ayn Rand's philosophy. Since 1994, he has been professor of philosophy at the Objectivist Academic Center of the Ayn Rand Institute. He is the author of The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts (ARI Press, 1990) and editor of The Ayn Rand Lexicon (New American Library) and of the second edition of Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (New American Library). A regular speaker at universities, he has given more than 70 talks at some 40 universities on a wide variety of topics in philosophy and politics, from "The Primacy of Existence" to "'Buy American' Is Un-American." Dr. Binswanger is currently writing a book on the causal nature of consciousness. Dr. Binswanger received his B.A from MIT and his Ph.D. from Columbia University.

Thursday, March 2nd 7PM SLH-200 (Stauffer Science Lecture Hall) University of Southern California. One hour lecture followed by Q and A. For more information please visit www.uscobjectivistclub.com.

Introducing The Objective Standard

Feb 23, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

Writes Craig Biddle in his essay "Introducing The Objective Standard":

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...

Read the rest.

Coming online soon: The Objective Standard

Feb 21, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

From Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard:

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.

Weekend Conference on Law, Individual Rights and the Judicial System

Feb 7, 2006 | Dollars & Crosses

The last day to register at the discounted early registration price for Front Range Objectivism's Weekend Conference on Law, Individual Rights and the Judicial System is quickly approaching: It's this Saturday, February 11th. Don't miss your opportunity to save $75 on the conference fee! The conference itself will be held on March 4-5, 2006 in Denver, Colorado. You can register by mail by following the instructions on the brochure. Or you can register online. Here's the information from about the speakers and lectures from the web site:

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.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »