This site uses cookies for analytics and to improve your experience. By clicking Accept, you consent to our use of cookies. Learn more in our privacy policy.

In Praise of the Businessman

Oct 7, 2011 | Business, Politics

Writes Yaron Brook on What We Owe Steve Jobs:
If dedicating your life to creating the values that advance it is a moral achievement, then there is nothing greater or nobler than the creative geniuses whose productive ability has created our modern world: a world where we live more than three times as long as our ancestors; where our homes are heated in the winter, cooled in the summer, and lit at night; where we can travel across a continent in a matter of hours; where we can say goodnight to our children from the other side of the globe.

But far from holding up the great producers as moral exemplars, we lump them in with the Al Capones and the Bernie Madoffs as people who must be stopped or at least shackled until they learn to selflessly serve others. Even Jobs was criticized because he devoted his life to Apple rather than philanthropy.

Insight Into America’s Largest Ponzi Scheme

Oct 1, 2011 | Politics

In recent debates GOP presidential rivals have been sparring on Social Security, with some (Rick Perry) insisting it’s a “Ponzi scheme” that should be decentralized (run by fifty states), and others (Mitt Romney) conceding that it’s shaky and needs “reform” but isn’t fraudulent because “millions of people depend on it.” (Mitt Romney). Another (Herman Cain) says privatize it, as Chile did. They’re all wrong, because they don’t name the real problem with the system – and they forego an easy fix that might boost their election chances.That we’ve only seen GOP rivals “spar” on this key issue is an apt description, for there’s no real fight going on. It’s mere shadow-boxing. Worse, the GOP contenders are mostly on the same side of the issue (the wrong one) and aren’t sufficiently distinct from the rival party. Yet Democrats don’t even try to be candid about Social Security, or try to present a real fix; they’re content to run ads with GOP suits tossing granny off a cliff, which means they’re content to be infantile – which means they’re unfit to lead this great nation.The facts about Social Security are these. Yes, it’s a Ponzi scheme, thus criminally fraudulent (as I’ll explain), but even worse, because it coerces us to be a part of it. Since the scheme began in 1935 the full force of the U.S. government has compelled a growing portion of citizens to suffer by it, such that we all do so by now. A scheme of such widespread, compulsory fraud is unprecedented in U.S. history, and one of the most shameful (and popular) of FDR’s schemes.Rationality and justice require that this atrocity be terminated – now. Yet neither virtue can be found in Perry’s proposal to pawn it off to fifty states and thus to decentralize the fraud – or in Romney’s plan to “reform” and “save” the scheme and thus to perpetuate the fraud – or in Cain’s notion that it be operated by quasi-profit-seeking (loss-imposing) “firms” like Bernard Madoff Investment Securities LLC, and thus to privatize the fraud. A fraud remains a fraud regardless of its size, scope, or duration, and it is simply evil to evade this plain fact and deliberately enact policies to decentralize the fraud, perpetuate it, or profit by it.Read the rest.

How to Be Profitable and Moral: A Rational Egoist Approach to Business

Sep 30, 2011 | Business, Philosophy, Politics

“How to Be Profitable and Moral: A Rational Egoist Approach to Business” by Jaana Woiceshyn

The book is intended for “thinking managers:” with a lot of concrete examples, it shows how rational egoist principles apply to business. John Allison, Doug Arends, Carl Barney, and Andrew Bernstein wrote nice endorsements.From the book’s conclusion:  “Being both profitable and moral is possible for business. Egoism holds—and shows—that being moral is in fact a fundamental requirement of long-term profitability. To sustain maximum long-term profitability requires that businesspeople reject both altruism and cynical exploitation of others and adopt egoism as their moral code. This means seeking objectivity—consistency with the factual requirements of human survival and flourishing through the use of reason—in all our choices and actions, as demonstrated by the philosophy and conduct of the BB&T Corporation. To achieve long-term profitability requires that we adopt and apply rational principles consistently. The virtues of rationality, productiveness, honesty, justice integrity, independence and pride, as identified by Ayn Rand, specify the actions that achieving long-term profitability entails. The main substance of this book consists of examining these virtues and showing how they apply to business, with the hope you can put them in your tool kit and use them the next time you encounter a moral dilemma in business.”For those who wish to pre-order the book Jaana Woiceshyn writes:
How to pre-order:  Contact the customer service department of Rowman & Littlefield (the parent company of Hamilton Books, my publisher) *before November* by calling 1-800-462-6420 or by e-mailing custserv@rowman.com and give my name and the book title. I don’t think the ISBN number is necessary, but here it is for reference: 978-0-7618-5699-3. They will ask for your credit card number.The hardcover price is US$ 40 per copy. Your credit card will not be charged until the book is shipped to you in February.Full disclosure: as a part of the contract with Hamilton Books, I am obligated to pre-order 70 hardcover copies by November. If you think the book would be valuable to you, or as a gift to someone, please consider pre-ordering from Rowman & Littlefield to help me fill the quota. But please do this only if you think the book is worth it (it will be available through Amazon, probably for less). If you do pre-order from Rowman & Littlefield, please let me know (jwoiceshyn@gmail.com) so I can keep track of the numbers.
 

“Are You Saying That Society Should Just Let Him Die?”

Sep 16, 2011 | Politics

In the Republican Presidential debate on Monday, September 12, this dialogue occurred:
WOLF BLITZER, DEBATE MODERATOR AND CNN LEAD POLITICAL ANCHOR: ... Ron Paul, so you're a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?REP. RON PAUL, (R-TX.), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.BLITZER: Well, what do you want?PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced --BLITZER: But he doesn't have that. He doesn't have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?PAUL: That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody --(APPLAUSE)BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?
You can read Ron Paul’s unprincipled answer in the transcript. Here is my answer.
No, society should let you let him die.That is, such a decision by right is for each individual in society to make. Your question reveals your socialist premise that decisions regarding whom to help live and to let die should be made collectively by society, overruling the rights of individuals. Your question also reveals how socialist schemes such as Obamacare require death panels, denials notwithstanding. Everyone dies eventually from current limits to health care. Resources are limited. If all the medical resources are controlled and dispatched by government instead of by private owners of those resources, then government decides who gets medicine and who does not. Maybe the 30-year-old who needs a half million dollars of care will get care initially, until socialized medicine collapses entirely, but there will be some cut-off of age and expense for which the government will just say no. Consequently, no matter how much wealth an individual produces and wants to spend to save his 75-year-old mother, or very sick brother or best friend or wife or even himself, the government will just say "No, society cannot afford it, the lives of younger or less sick strangers, or strangers with more political pull, are more important."As for my own individual decision on this 30-year-old in a free society, would I pay for his emergency and let him off the hook? No. But I would consider investing in a private fund that made loans to such individuals, if the return on investment were attractive. The 30-year-old would in effect have to take out a mortgage without getting a house; and he would have to pay high interest for his uncollateralized loan, or he might even have to pay a high percentage of his income—say, 30%—for the rest of his life. Such a burden would be great; indeed, it would be more than half the current tax burden under the welfare state. But the man would have his life, his investors would have their profit, and everyone would retain that precious asset possessed by Americans: freedom.
For a far deeper and more original answer than mine above, see Ayn Rand’s essay, “Collectivized Ethics.”(The Objectivist Newsletter, January 1963, pp. 1, 3–4. Reprinted in The Virtue of Selfishness, New York: Signet, 1964, pp. 80–85.)This is a slight revision of a post that originally appeared on Ron Pisaturo's Blog.

The Morality of the Welfare State

Sep 15, 2011 | Politics

Write the duo of Yaron Brook and Don Watkins in The Entitlement State Is Morally Bankrupt:
Despite the fact that the big three entitlement programs–Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare–have the U.S. government facing upwards of $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, they largely remain a third rail: touch not lest ye be voted out of office.Why are they sacrosanct? Because, whatever else you can say about the entitlement state, no one disputes that it’s a moral imperative. Inefficient? Maybe. Expensive? You bet. But morally questionable? Absolutely not.The problem with the entitlement state is not simply that it is bankrupting this country–the problem is that it is morally bankrupt.The basic principle behind the entitlement state is that a person’s need entitles him to other people’s wealth. It’s that you have a duty to spend some irreplaceable part of your life laboring, not for the sake of your own life and happiness, but for the sake of others. If you are productive and self-supporting, then according to the entitlement state, you are in hock to those who aren’t. In Marx’s memorable phrase: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Read the rest of The Entitlement State Is Morally Bankrupt.

Voice of Capitalism

Capitalism news delivered every Monday to your email inbox.

Subscribed. Check your email box for confirmation.

Pin It on Pinterest