Free Objectivist Books for Students
Free Ayn Rand and Objectivist Books for StudentsGet any Ayn Rand novel or book about Objectivism for free. You just have to pledge to read it.
Examiner: Occupy protesters should be demanding economic freedom
Occupy protesters should be demanding economic freedom | The Examiner | Op Eds | Washington ExaminerLeading the most-free states in this year's report are Delaware and Texas, while West Virginia and New Mexico are the least free. Protesters might argue that these benefits have been accumulated by relatively few -- the 1 percent -- while leaving the majority of Americans behind.
Let's look into this conjecture using data from the Economic Policy Institute, which compares the share of income of the highest earners to that of middle and lower income earners in the mid-2000s. These data do not demonstrate that more economic freedom has been the source of inequities in the distribution of income. In fact, if we compare the 10 most economically free states between 1981 and 2005 with the 10 least free states, the opposite is the case. The ratio of average family income of the richest fifth compared with the poorest fifth is 6.9 in the most free states compared with 7.1 in the least free states.
The gap between the richest and poorest is actually larger for the least free states. Based on these numbers, it is difficult to argue that the free market has led to worse outcomes for the majority of Americans. More government spending and higher taxation will not alleviate the plight of struggling workers.
Protesters seeking to improve opportunities for all Americans should be protesting on Capitol Hill, demanding Congress to give Americans back the freedom to pursue their own economic well-being through cooperative economic activities that lead to prosperity for all.
Salsman on the Flip Flopping GOP
GOP Conservatives - Not Romney - Are The Real Flip-Floppers - Forbes:The only GOP presidential candidate demonstrating steady poll numbers and consistently superior debate performance is Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. National polls show he’s the only GOP rival with a real chance of defeating President Obama next fall. He’s also a worthy rival, with the character, convictions, policies and experience needed to lead America.
Yet most GOP conservatives, especially the more religious ones, despise Mr. Romney and actively oppose him – and thus bolster Obama’s re-election chances. These are the same conservatives who gave us John McCain in 2008 and before that George W. Bush, the “compassionate conservative” who ballooned the size and scope of government more than any predecessor since WWII.
Despite President Obama’s horrendous policies and governing record, he nevertheless has a pretty good chance of winning re-election in November 2012, not only because the U.S. economy may be showing some improvement by then, compared to this year, and not only because he will have killed more Al Qaeda leaders than did Mr. Bush, but because the GOP isn’t sufficiently rallying behind the only worthy candidate: Governor Romney. Never underestimate the GOP’s willingness to shoot itself in the foot electorally.
Three Myths About President Kennedy
Ross Douthat dispels the myths about the Lord of American Camelot in his op-ed, The Enduring Cult of Kennedy - NYTimes.com:The first premise is that Kennedy was a very good president, and might have been a great one if he’d lived. Few serious historians take this view: It belongs to Camelot’s surviving court stenographers, and to popularizers like Chris Matthews, whose new best seller “Jack Kennedy: Elusive Hero” works hard to gloss over the thinness of the 35th president’s actual accomplishments. [...]
In reality, the kindest interpretation of Kennedy’s presidency is that he was a mediocrity whose death left his final grade as “incomplete.” The harsher view would deem him a near disaster — ineffective in domestic policy, evasive on civil rights and a serial blunderer in foreign policy, who barely avoided a nuclear war that his own brinksmanship had pushed us toward. (And the latter judgment doesn’t even take account of the medical problems that arguably made him unfit for the presidency, or the adulteries that eclipsed Bill Clinton’s for sheer recklessness.)
The second false premise is that Kennedy would have kept us out of Vietnam. [...] Actually, it would be more accurate to describe the Vietnam War as Kennedy’s darkest legacy. [...]
The third myth is that Kennedy was a martyr to right-wing unreason. Writing on J.F.K. in the latest issue of New York magazine, Frank Rich half-acknowledges the mediocrity of Kennedy’s presidency. [...] This connection is the purest fantasy, made particularly ridiculous by the fact that both Rich and King acknowledge that Oswald was a leftist — a pro-Castro agitator whose other assassination target was the far-right segregationist Edwin Walker. [...]
This last example suggests why the J.F.K. cult matters — because its myths still shape how we interpret politics today. We confuse charisma with competence, rhetoric with results, celebrity with genuine achievement. [...]
Your Life Driven By The State
The Washington Times has an editorial on the U.S. government's banning of the non-toxic light bulb.Within four weeks, it will be a crime to manufacture a 100-watt version of Thomas A. Edison’s brilliant invention. Thanks to a Democratic Congress and the signature of President George W. Bush in 2007, anti-industrial zealots at the Energy Department received authority to blot out one of the greatest achievements of the industrial age. They’re coming for our light bulbs.
Know-it-all bureaucrats insist that foisting millions of mercury-laden fluorescent tubes on the public is going to be good for the planet. The public obviously does not agree. Voting with their wallets, people have overwhelming favored warm, nontoxic lighting options over their pale curlicue imitators. Beginning Jan. 1, Obama administration extremists will impose massive financial penalties on any company daring to produce a lighting product that fully satisfies ordinary Americans.
[...]
The reality is that this ban is yet another example of the sort of job-destroying regulations that enrich the administration’s friends at the expense of consumers. Specifically, the rules turn a 50-cent light bulb into a purchase of $3 or more.
Rampaging bureaucrats aren’t just satisfied with foisting inferior light bulbs on the public. The Energy Department uses the force of the federal government to redesign an entire suite of consumer products to meet their personal preferences. In nearly every case, their meddling makes things worse. Current regulations micromanage the function of ceiling fans, clothes washers, dehumidifiers, dishwashers, faucets, freezers, furnaces, heat pumps, lamps, pool heaters, power supplies, refrigerators, room air conditioners, shower heads, stoves, toilets and water heaters. Enough is enough.
All of this is entirely unnecessary. The public is more than capable of encouraging the development of efficient products. [Time to stock up on light bulbs]
Hallelujah! Conservatives Should Take Article VI of the Constitution Seriously
Richard Salsman on GOP Conservatives - Not Romney - Are the Real Flip-Floppers - Forbes:In that answer Gingrich was directing his remarks about faith and politics at Romney. Yet consider the hubris of Gingrich believing some deity hears his prayers and responds with sound public policy advice. The man can’t imagine an alternative to judgment apart from faith, even though it is, obviously, judgment based on the facts of reality, using reason and logic. The man says he cannot trust political leaders who don’t pray, whereas in fact we should distrust those who don’t think. In viewing candidates like Gingrich, one might be excused for uttering one worthy prayer, as was spray-painted on a wall in D.C., in the wake of 9/11, a day Americans could not live free from religion: “God please save us from all those people who believe in you.”
Mr. Romney spelled out his view of religion and politics in a speech, “Faith in America,” in December 2007:
“We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.” I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.” “As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution — and of course, I would not do so as President.” I believe in what Abraham Lincoln called America’s ‘political religion’ — the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution.”
At this stage in America’s history, as it seems to be hurtling toward bigger and bigger government, voters can probably ask nothing more from a candidate than his plain pledge to at least try and abide by the U.S. Constitution. In this regard it’s worth reminding both the religious right and religious left among us that the Constitution never once mentions a deity or Christianity and that in Article VI it specifically requires officers of government in America “to support this Constitution” and says “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Conservatives should grow up, cease their promiscuity in the GOP primaries, and take Article VI seriously.