The Objectivism Online Meta-Blog

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

In TIA Daily Rob Tracinski writes of Obama's planned $50 billion bailout of the "Big Three" Detroit auto manufacturers:

It is actually a plan for de facto nationalization which will turn the Big Three into permanent wards of the state whose purpose is not to make a profit but to serve the "social goals" set by government.

Obama is backing a plan to pump $50 billion into the big American automakers, while also establishing "a czar or board to oversee the companies"—call it Gosplan—which will supervise "a restructuring of the auto industry." That's exactly what Detroit needs to recover: the benefit of government central planning.

In essence, this is a plan for nationalization of the American auto industry under a new government-appointed board of directors who will supposedly tell the Big Three how to make a profit again.

Blinkered pragmatists will sputter, "But the government is not seizing the property, so it's not socialism!" No, that would be socialism on the communist plan. This is socialism on the fascist plan, in which the property remains nominally in private ownership, but the government dictates what the owner will do with his property. In America the dictation is called "regulation." In this case the dictator will be an "auto czar."

As Tracinski goes on to demonstrate, this is being done to protect a powerful pressure group, the unions. If the Big Three went bankrupt and were bought up by other auto makers, the power of the United Auto Workers would suffer.

American fascism makes corporations bureaucratic managers of the welfare state. Instead of just paying workers, corporations also provide health care and retirement pensions. These functions, along with a sea of regulations, give corporations two missions: make a profit and serve as a mini-welfare state. By passing welfare state functions to the corporations, the government expands the welfare state, but evades any censure for the expansion or any blame for the corporations' failures.

The Democrats are driving this intervention in auto manufacturing, but is there any doubt they were emboldened by the Republicans' bailout of Wall Street? (The Republican led bailout started at $700 million, then was revised to $1 trillion. Now the cost is estimated at $1.8 trillion. The plan has been around less than two months.)

Michael Barone writes,

The Detroit Three are taking advantage of the passage of the $700 billion financial bailout to argue that they, too, need government money to go on.

The conservative David Brooks thinks the bailout is a bad idea, but gets the cause wrong:

It is all a reminder that the biggest threat to a healthy economy is not the socialists of campaign lore. It’s C.E.O.’s. It’s politically powerful crony capitalists who use their influence to create a stagnant corporate welfare state.

But if America had a laissez-faire capitalist economy, then C.E.O.'s would have no influence and no recourse but to pursue a profit in the free market. By Brooks' thinking, if we just had virtuous people in the private sector, then statists such as Obama would never dream of increasing state intervention in the economy.

America's descent into fascism proceeds by the script written by Ludwig von Mises. Government intervention (regulations and government backed union power) have created a crisis in automobile manufacturing. This crisis does not inspire the government to withdraw its intervention, but to increase it with a $50 billion subsidy and the creation of an auto czar who will dictate even further to the industry. In the end we will have the same result as communism, but with private ownership serving to hide the extent of state control.

We are at a turning point in America. The state is about to make an enormous power grab. In addition to the de facto nationalizing of Wall Street and the auto industry, House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support are plotting to nationalize 401k pension funds. This plan would give the government trillions of dollars in pension funds to spend now; the money would be replaced by government IOU's like the nonexistent social security trust fund. With Obama in the White House and increased Democrat majorities in the Senate and House, can this looting be stopped?

By noreply@blogger.com (Doug) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Dr. Dewey H. Hodges, a Professor of Aerospace Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, likes to wear his faith on his sleeves. For example, in the Powerpoint slides of the introductory lecture of his graduate class on advanced dynamics, Dr. Hodges reveals that the "most important person in [his] life is Jesus Christ", that the "most important aspect of [his] life is that he is [Christ's] servant" and that any aspect of his course is praiseworthy "because of Christ" [1]. Dr. Hodges continues to indicate anyone who believes that "a Christian cannot possibly be a knowledgeable engineer or scientist" is "misinformed". He then goes on to cite Sir Isaac Newton and the famous Renaissance mathematician Leonhard Euler as prime examples of practicing Christians who were monumentally successful in the sciences. Dr. Hodges then informs the class that out of the "56 universally acknowledged fathers of modern science, all but two professed faith in Jesus Christ."

Leaving the discussion of the appropriateness of this content for a graduate course in aerospace engineering aside, one must recognize that the claim that one cannot be a good Christian and a good scientist/engineer is very misleading. To whatever small extent this may be true, this message misses the more important point that taking Christianity seriously is a major impediment to being a good scientist or a successful engineer. When consistently practiced, Christianity demands a complete rejection of all that makes advancements in the science and engineering disciplines possible. The philosophical essence of religious faith demands the blind embrace of ideas in absence of evidence or proof. This is in stark contrast to a proper foundation for sound science, which requires that truths be corroborated with sensory evidence or logical inference from such evidence. In other words, good science mandates an uncompromising adherence to reason.

Christianity in particular has furiously opposed any form of scientific progress that challenges perceived Biblical truths. These include the violent persecution of astronomers who advanced a heliocentric view of the universe, to the criticism of the use of geological techniques to determine the age of the Earth, to the opposition of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection and to the modern objections to the morality of therapeutic cloning. In fact, it is when Christianity was most prevalent in the Western World that the West saw the fewest advances in science, medicine and technology [2].

Thus, while there are certainly many practicing Christians who are successful scientists and engineers, we must recognize that their success derives from their commitment to reason and is in spite of their Christian faith. No achievement of the human intellect has ever stemmed from religious devotion and any claim that Christianity is not diametrically opposed to reason is outrageous.

[1] The full lecture, including the Powerpoint slides, can be viewed in its entirety here: http://dcrs.video.gatech.edu/tools/viewer.php?media=dcrs&id=28360
[2] For more on this important history, see: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/tragedy-of-theology.asp

By noreply@blogger.com (C. August) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Recently, an Op-Ed column in the Wall Street Journal stated that Barack Obama had run his campaign in a capitalist manner and proposed that he govern the country in the same fashion. Columnist Bret Swanson, in a seeming defense of entrepreneurialism (he strangely never uses the word "capitalism"... not once), exhorts President-elect Obama to learn from his campaign and foster "the unforeseen abundance that entrepreneurship can bring" to help the economy.

Swanson claims that Obama's campaign relied on individual initiative by grooming his supporters and then unleashing them on the web and on the streets - as opposed to the command-and-control, centralized McCain campaign that couldn't make heads or tails of the "Internets." He describes the "entrepreneurial" quality of Obama's campaign in primarily web-centric terms, listing the "8,000 web-based affinity groups" and millions of web volunteers and donors, and how his "even temper and relentlessly consistent message . . . encouraged supporters to take risks." This is held up as celebrating individual achievements.

The proposed "heavier hand of government" that comprises Obama's policies, including restricting free trade and "higher tax rates on capital and entrepreneurs," apparently runs counter to the actions of the successful campaign, and "do not reflect his campaign's deep trust in individuals."

Against this background, Swanson proposed an intriguing thought experiment.

Mr. President-elect: What if as your campaign raised more and more money it was taxed away and given to Mr. McCain to level the field? Or think of this: What if you were not allowed to opt out of the public financing scheme that left Mr. McCain with a paltry $84 million, about a quarter of your autumn total? [emphasis added]

Now, this is a great example that should show even the most myopic person the realities of taxing the great producers to pay for welfare state programs. Sadly, this is not at all what Swanson means by this example.

Not once does Swanson make a principled defense of capitalism, or the moral right of every individual to keep the product of his efforts without fear of forced government redistribution. It's not that he holds that government intervention in the economy is wrong, per se, he just thinks that if Obama wants to "raise the revenue he needs for his lofty priorities", he had better leave the "diffuse networks of entrepreneurs" free enough that he doesn't choke them to death. You can't tax a dead man, at least not enough.

Under the guise of promoting capitalism, Swanson has mapped out a blueprint for Obama to treat entrepreneurs the same way he treated his campaign automatons; fill them full of vagaries and promises, a frothy mix of hopes and dreams and change, all members of a cause greater than themselves, and then let them loose to do whatever it is that those entrepreneurs do to create wealth that he can tax.

Swanson's ideas amount to "we don't quite understand what it is that makes these fellows so productive, but it seems that freedom has something to do with it. We need them to keep going, so let's lay off the yolk a bit so we can keep working them. Somehow, they'll get us out of this recession."

Neither Obama nor Swanson understand or respect the individual right of each person to follow his own course, or that a society in which this is possible is the prerequisite for the "individual initiative" and the "technology [that] allows us to leap, obliterate or ignore" the various obstacles in the way, whether they are man-made or not. Swanson takes technological advances as a given--as if they are magic that invades our brains from "the ether"--trusting that even though government throws regulatory roadblocks up that stifle innovation, the spark of ingenuity somehow always hops right over.

At the core, both Obama and Swanson see the enigmatic producers of the world only as a key resource in wielding power. This is not a new concept, as despots of all stripes have long relied on the virtues of their subjects to feed their tyrannical regimes. It is perhaps just a new variant on the theme, made novel by the appeal to social networking and the web, but the meaning is the same: it is the duty of the productive members of the collective to carry the rest on their backs.

Swanson ends his appeal to his brand of pseudo-capitalism with this cynical bit of advice for President-elect Obama:

Mr. Obama should throw away his tax-regulate-and-centralize white papers. Instead, he should follow his campaign playbook and trust the networked masses. The best way to harness their power is to undo the reins. [emphasis added]

Welcome to Despotism 2.0

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Although I think it would be a stretch to call what crows are doing here "reasoning", crows may be smarter than people generally give them credit for:

Crows make monkeys out of chimps in mental test
17 September 2008

Crows seem to be able to use causal reasoning to solve a problem, a feat previously undocumented in any other non-human animal, including chimps.

Alex Taylor at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and his team presented six New Caledonian crows with a series of "trap-tube" tests.

A choice morsel of food was placed in a horizontal Perspex tube, which also featured two round holes in the underside, with Perspex traps below.

For most of the tests, one of the holes was sealed, so the food could be dragged across it with a stick and out of the tube to be eaten. The other hole was left open, trapping the food if the crows moved it the wrong way.

Three of the crows solved the task consistently, even after the team modified the appearance of the equipment. This suggested that these crows weren't using arbitrary features – such as the colour of the rim of a hole – to guide their behaviour. Instead they seemed to understand that if they dragged food across a hole, they would lose it...

By Gina Liggett from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Two current events I have selected have nothing in common, except for being in the news. Well, they also pertain to underlying rational values that are at risk of being destroyed by their own best advocates. Why? Because their champions are trying to operate under contradiction.

On the heels of the joyously-resounding defeat of Colorado's "personhood" amendment comes another threat to abortion in Colorado. This time a private citizen, Mark Hotaling, is suing Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and Boulder Valley Women's Health center for violating the state's constitution. He claims that federal dollars received by these clinics are illegally being used to perform abortions. Hotaling says he's just standing up "for the will of the people and the constitution." For this, he's getting moral support from Ms. stand-up-for-the-people Kristi Burton, the evangelical who got Amendment 48 on the ballot "to empower the citizens to have a choice" about when life begins. And he's getting financial and legal support from the influential Religious Right group, the Alliance Defense Fund.

In the other story, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the $700 billion bailout plan won't include the purchase of troubled assets from banks after all, a turn-around from the original plan. And unlike the rescued financial sector, the American auto industry might not get the additional help it's been asking for. Stock exchanges revolt in their roller-coaster tumble with daily bad news about the economy and over worries of how governments will fix it.

What values are at stake here?

In the first story, the value is the right to abortion. As writers on this blog and on Politics without God have argued, abortion is an absolute, inviolable right. Ayn Rand explains the right to abortion in her famously clear and pithy way: "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being."

In the second story, the value is free trade. Free trade is the unencumbered right for free individuals and companies to voluntarily exchange goods or services with each other to their own mutual benefit on terms they both agree on. Because humans must create what they need to survive and thrive, and because they can't individually make everything they need, a market for such exchange is required. It reflects the sum of "all the economic choices and decisions made by all the participants," thereby creating wealth.

In a society based on rational principles, it is possible to protect the right to abortion under any and all circumstances; and it is possible for free trade to proceed to any degree of wealth that can be created by human ingenuity. But not so in a society where contradiction is introduced and enforced.

In the first story, the women's health and abortion clinics vociferously defend a woman's legal right to abortion as granted by the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade. Yet they are willing to accept the expropriated earnings of wealth from others in society in the form of government grants in order to survive. While the clinics in the lawsuit deny directly using federal funds for abortion, they still must play by the arbitrary and ever-changing rules of those who hold the monopoly on force (i.e., the government). In the end, the right to abortion becomes conditional.

In the second story, the biggest intervention in the marketplace in American history has just happened. But decades of regulation, restrictions and biased preferences haven't led businesses to rise up and crusade for their right to free trade. It's led to just the opposite: the despairing cry for help using the expropriated earnings of others in society in the form of bailouts. Business are boldly proud and assertive when things are going well; but when things are not, they crumble under pressure and want a quick fix by any means from those who hold the monopoly on force (i.e., the government). In the end, the right of free trade becomes conditional.

It is a contradiction that we can uphold and pursue rational values that require freedom while accepting the conditions set by those who hold the monopoly on force. We have nobody to blame but ourselves: American citizens, with their endless special-interest appeals to their legislators, have allowed this untenable situation to unfold.

You can't be free and sleep with the devil. Or, as Ayn Rand more eloquently puts it: "a contradiction cannot be achieved in reality and... the attempt to achieve it can lead only to disaster and destruction."

Abortion rights are being chipped away every year. And we are in a worsening financial crisis of unprecedented proportions. The only way out is to eliminate the contradiction. The only way out is to hold government to its proper, non-contradictory function of protecting individual rights. And it is the citizens who must take this corrective action.

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I should have seen this coming, but somehow didn't: My schedule's gettin' squeezed like a zit on prom night. Or something like that. Possible light blogging through the end of the week as I switch back in to Houston mode....


Reader Dismuke alerted me yesterday to an interesting story that I bet I wouldn't have otherwise heard of: A particularly glaring example of scientific incompetence or outright fraud has cropped up yet again in the laboratory of a major contributor of climatological data that allegedly supports claims that human activity is causing the earth's climate to warm.

Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record....

But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that ... GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. [Translation: We want even more grant money. --ed] This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.) [bold added]

Somehow, I don't expect to be hearing Heidi "Lysenk0" Cullen calling for any type of censure against James Hansen any time soon -- or for a formal retraction of her claims that privately-funded climate research is inherently biased. (And see the interesting quote by James Spann at that last link.)

Having brought this up, it really serves more to alert us of the possible unfolding of a cautionary tale about the hazard of politicization of science that comes with the territory of government funding. The global warming debate, as I have said here many times, continues being engaged in the wrong way:

This is what happens when everyone in a "debate" is actually in full agreement on the essential issue, yet refuses to discuss it, instead electing to prattle incessantly about something entirely tangential. In the misnamed "global warming" debate, both sides agree that the government ought to "do something" about climate change. This fundamental premise is almost never questioned or even named.

But laymen all over the place are arguing themselves blue in the face over whether climate change is occurring and, if so, how. Unfortunately, this second debate would remain (properly) confined to scientists if more people understood the proper role of government, namely the protection of individual rights. Not setting the Earth's thermostat.

Not to downplay the sloppy (at best) science here, but the real debate is the one that still isn't happening.

-- CAV

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog

It is early yet. The election was one week ago. Obama will be President-Elect until January 20, 2009.

After one week it looks like the defining theme of Obama's presidency will be his famous self-definition, "blank screen." I think it was Tallulah Bankhead who said, "Deep down I'm really quite shallow." I'm beginning to think this a good description of Obama. At his core he has no core. He is a man whose essence is the desire to show other people what they want to see.

What would you expect from a Democrat blank screen? The Democrat status quo. Ron Radosh writes,

The appointment of Rahm Emanuel is more evidence for what I suggested the other day, that Barack Obama will seek to govern from the political center. As Ben Smith and John Harris suggest on Politico.com today, one must not confuse Emanuel’s tough game playing with ideology. As they and others have argued, Emanuel’s reputation is that of a centrist, who has often sought to reign in the left-wing of his party, “who does not share the reflexively liberal views of many of his House colleagues.” That judgment was seconded by Rep. Jim McCrery (R-LA) who said that Emanuel “is closer to the center, from a policy standpoint, than many of the Democratic Party.” It was also shared by Lindsey Graham, who said that while a “tough partisan, he understands the need to work together.” Graham called him “honest, direct, and candid” and a man who will “work to find common ground.”

Max Boot sees Encouraging Signs From Obama:

I worked for the other guy in the presidential race, but I have been cheered so far by the early indications of how the Obama administration is shaping up. Scuttlebutt has it that the front-runners for Treasury secretary are economist Larry Summers and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner. Either one would be a good, centrist choice. So, too, would be Jim Steinberg, a deputy national security adviser for Bill Clinton, who is now a rumored choice for national security adviser in the Obama administration.

It goes almost without saying that nothing would signal Obama’s moderate credentials more than retaining Bob Gates at Defense. So it is encouraging to read in the Wall Street Journal that the president-elect is “leaning toward” such a move, and that Gates “would likely accept the offer if it is made.” As the Journal notes: “the defense secretary strongly opposes a firm timetable for withdrawing American forces from Iraq, and his appointment could mean that Mr. Obama was effectively shelving his campaign promise to remove most troops from Iraq by mid-2010.”

Going with the status quo is better than the wildest fears of the right, that Obama would try to create a socialist dictatorship from day one. However, in a time when Republicans socialize Wall Street with some trillion dollars and Democrats want to nationalize 401k plans, the status quo is bad enough. There is no widespread movement to cut spending and dismantle government intervention in the economy.

But what choice does Obama have, if he wants experienced hands in his administration, than to choose from, well, those who have experience? Radical leftists are a double risk in that they have no experience. In today's climate, when politicians are terrified of taking blame for anything that goes wrong, it's hard to see how the Democrat establishment would let Obama fill his administration with unknown faces.

Another sign of Obama's deep down shallowness -- an amateurishness that merits watching in the coming years -- is his uncertainty and flip-flopping, the same stuff we saw during the campaign.

First, he was for involuntary servitude for college students, then he decided that it should be voluntary and pay $40 per hour! Then he deleted his website and we have no idea what he wants.

Then, he was for the Polish missile-shield when he was talking to Poland's president, but backtracked when he was talking to the U.S. press. (Now, Poland is kowtowing to Obama, saying it was all a misunderstanding.) This is an echo of Obama's NAFTA gaffe with Canada, which was also blamed on a misunderstanding with one of Obama's advisers.

This morning he was for closing Guantanamo Bay, and having the detainees face criminal charges in U.S. criminal courts, courts using the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or new, specially created national security courts. This evening, he has backtracked yet again.

"There is absolutely no truth to reports that a decision has been made about how and where to try the detainees, and there is no process in place to make that decision until his national security and legal teams are assembled," said Denis McDonough, a senior foreign policy adviser for the transition team, in a statement.

So where did those original reports come from? According to the AP, Obama's legal advisers.

One hand doesn't know what the other is doing so we end up with many conflicting statements. Mr. President-elect has to keep "clarifying" the positions his subordinates keep releasing on his behalf. It's almost like he has no leadership experience whatsoever.

If this goes on, then Obama will quickly disappoint his more intelligent supporters.

Competence isn't just a technique you learn from reading management books. It rests on having firm convictions. A man who can be blown one way or another by any gust of wind will be incompetent. All the evidence we have so far, from the campaign and one week as President-Elect, points to a man without principles, a man who can change 180 degrees on an issue if the need of the moment requires it.

I find all this immensely encouraging. If my analysis is correct, then Obama will be the second Democrat president in a row who was a social metaphysician -- a man who primary orientation to reality was not the facts but what others think of the facts.

A man without a core is easy to push around. Look at what the Republicans did to Clinton, a Democrat who was so intimidated by the right that he declared the era of big government to be over. The best thing that could happen to America right now is a neutered Obama worrying about uniforms for school children.

But it is still early and Obama could have big surprises in store for us. Clinton had to suffer the national health care debacle before his presidency diminished. Plus, Obama will not be hampered by Clinton's sexual appetite and risky behavior.

Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, "There is no there there." Will Obama be an Oakland president?

UPDATE: From Gabriel Melor:

Obama appears to be abandoning his promised commitment to end government torture.

Melor concludes:

The Administration-elect is only a week old and already it's foundering because of a lack of leadership.

By Paula Hall from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

I followed this political season more closely than I've followed any other. There's the narrative that this just wasn't the Republicans' year, the brand is too tarnished. There's the narrative that Obama is a cool customer, and the narrative that McCain squandered his honorable "maverick" brand. There's the it's-the-economy-stupid-redux narrative. There's the Obama's-shady-associations narrative.

What to make of these narratives? Which one is true?

None, I think. It's all euphemism. I think that every four years, but perhaps in this presidential election cycle in particular given Obama's historic candidacy, the American electorate trots out its metaphysical angst for all to see. And there's a big rush to put the just-so stories out there to cover it up.

The angst to which I refer? It's your garden variety can-I-cope-with-reality angst. American voters get the opportunity to choose which story they prefer to tell themselves about why the problem isn't within, but in the world they never made.

Some people tell themselves that someone is trying to take what they have, some "other." That other might be after their money, or after the spiritual values that they claim make them feel good about themselves. When they seek an answer to why their self-image is threatened, they look down at the threat from "below," from the people they consider beneath them in moral stature. These people run Right with the Republicans.

Some people tell themselves that others got unfair advantages, that those others have forced inequitable bargains on everyone else. When they seek an answer to why their life seems harder than they feel they deserve, they see the threat as coming from "above," from people who get to enjoy the high life because of the luck of the draw. These people run Left with the Democrats.

Both today's Left and Right are really two sides of the same coin. (Yes, I know, depressingly unoriginal observation, there.) They're both asking for the same thing -- they want the government to steal from someone and give to them what they feel themselves incapable of producing on their own. Those on the Right are looking for unearned moral status. Those on the Left are looking for unearned material wealth. Neither those on the Left nor on the Right realize that asking for the unearned is always a single problem, and that there's no real difference between them.

The Right needs to wash out its soul with soap and water. The Left needs to recognize the crook that looks back at them when they look in the mirror.

I sometimes despair of either side accepting that theirs alone is the responsibility for living and enjoying the good life.

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Paul Hsieh in the Denver Post

Paul Hsieh's excellent editorial on "How the GOP Lost My Vote" (via Noodle Food) was recently published in the Denver Post.

[T]he government's role is to protect each person's right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party's embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous.

If a woman chooses not to have an abortion for reasons of personal faith, then I completely respect her right to do so. But she cannot impose her particular religious views on others. Other women must have the same right to decide that deeply personal issue for themselves.

And he hasn't even touched the sprint towards socialism we have witnessed during the Bush administration, which would be bad enough alone!

Having said that, he indirectly does cover it: The Republican's "compassionate conservatism" is really just the misuse of the state to force everyone to practice the Christian "virtue" of charity.

Two Good Editorials on Greenspan

Harry Binswanger noted yesterday the publication of two good editorials on Alan Greenspan that appeared in smaller newspapers. One appears in Montana's Big Sky Business Journal and is by someone I've never read before, Evelyn Pyburn. She opens her article this way:

Anyone who has ever read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, both of which are novels by Ayn Rand, knows that the most dangerous traitor of all is the compromiser. Quite ironically as a former Ayn-Rander, Alan Greenspan proved Rand’s point most dramatically before Congress, last week.

The other one appears in the Grand Junction Free Press, and is by Linn and Ari Armstrong.

Objectivist Roundup

Blogging while I travel is a very hasty affair, and I frequently forget to contribute to roundups as a result. So this week, I am not in the roundup, which is posted over at Rule of Reason.

It's not about her.

Stephen Bourque isn't just alive and kicking. He's blogging, too, and has a good post on why mentioning Ayn Rand every fifth word isn't exactly the best way to raise the level of an intellectual discussion:

With this in mind, I would not wish to grant my intellectual foes a favor by contributing, however inadvertently, to the idea that Objectivists are followers of a "gospel according to Rand." When I argue points with friends and colleagues, I do not frame my statements in the form, "Well, Ayn Rand said..." or, "As an Objectivist, I believe that..." Why should this convince anybody? Listeners (or readers) who disagree with Ayn Rand to begin with will not be convinced by merely repeating her position on matters, and those who are unfamiliar with her work should not take her - or anyone else's - word for it. Anyone who is worth arguing with should care only about facts and their connections to principles. Mentioning Ayn Rand every few sentences would do more harm than good.

His focus is on intellectual activism, but he takes LB's essay, also worth a read, on the personal importance of the philosophy as his point of departure. And watch out for an interesting identification there regarding a common saying. I was lucky enough to have had my teach me that very distinction when I was very young. And no, Dad was not an Objectivist and, I am sure, had never heard of Ayn Rand at that age.

-- CAV

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

While I often disagree with Mark Sisson, I found his recent blog posts criticizing "The Zone Diet" (of Barry Sears) and "The Paleo Diet" (of Loren Cordain) to mirror my own thoughts. You can read his posts here:

• What's Wrong With The Zone Diet?
  
• What’s the Difference Between Primal and Paleo?

Note that "The Paleo Diet" in this case refers to the specific diet developed by Loren Cordain, not the broad category of what I (and others) refer to as "paleo" diets, of which Mark Sisson's primal eating plan is just one type.

Also, while I'm not so familiar with The Paleo Diet, I do know The Zone -- and Mark's criticisms are spot-on. You can find more in this post by Richard Nikoley. As I said in the comments on that post:

The Zone was my first introduction to "paleo"-type diets about ten years ago. It definitely helped me get my blood sugar under some control: mostly by eating more protein, I stopped crashing and burning as I had been doing on a regular basis. So in that respect, it was good.

However, the allowed calories from carbs was simply way too high -- such it was easy to eat "in the Zone" while still eating tons of processed carbs, including sugars and grains. So I maintained my quasi-addiction to carbs on the diet. As a result, I achieved nothing like the results I've gotten over the past few months.

It's frustrating to think that Sears understands so much, yet ultimately misses the boat so completely.

And that's just one problem among many.

By Yaron Brook from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Bush Is No Champion of the Free Market
November 14, 2008

Washington, D.C.--In a recent speech on the financial crisis, President Bush said, “If you seek economic growth, if you seek opportunity, if you seek social justice and human dignity, the free market system is the way to go.”
 
According to Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, “It’s true that free markets are the source of economic prosperity and individual liberty--but President Bush, while he may pay lip service to free markets, has been a consistent opponent of them.
 
“Did Bush abolish the countless regulations and controls strangling businessmen? No. But he did sign into law Sarbanes-Oxley--the largest expansion of business regulation in decades. Did Bush consistently push for free trade? No. But he did give us a new steel tariff. Did Bush attempt to roll back America’s massive welfare state? No. But he did pass the prescription drug benefit, the largest new entitlement program since Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Did Bush curtail government spending? Far from it. Bush presided over an unprecedented increase in the federal budget: from $1 trillion at the time he took office to more than $3 trillion today. This is to say nothing of Bush’s response to the financial crisis. He has completely evaded his administration’s responsibility for the Fed and housing policies that created the housing bubble. Instead, he has led the chorus blaming the market and calling for unprecedented handouts, bailouts, and nationalizations as the cure.
 
“If Bush is a friend of the free market, who needs enemies? By praising the free market while systematically undermining it, Bush has done more to discredit capitalism than any open critic could. Like a con artist who undercuts the reputation of Mercedes by selling lemon look-alikes, Bush has now led people to associate his failed policies with capitalism. That association needs to be erased. We must make it clear: Bush is no friend of free markets.”

### ### ###
 
Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He is a regular contributor to Forbes.com and a contributing editor of The Objective Standard. His articles have been featured in major newspapers such as USA Today, the Houston Chronicle, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Providence Journal and the Orange County Register. Dr. Brook is often interviewed on radio and is a frequent guest on a variety of national TV shows, having appeared in the new Fox Business Network, FOX News Channel, CNN, CNBC, and C-SPAN. Dr. Brook, a former finance professor, lectures on Objectivism, capitalism, business and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.

To interview Dr. Brook or book him for your show, please contact Larry Benson:
949-222-6550, ext. 213
media@aynrandcenter.org

For more information on Objectivism’s unique point of view, go to ARC’s Web site. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

                                                                                           RSS 

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Christian Beenfeldt, Oxford graduate student in philosophy and occasional writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, recently published a paper in the Journal of Consciousness Studies entitled "A Philosophical Critique of Heterophenomenology." Here's the abstract:

In this paper Dennett's method of heterophenomenology is discussed. After a brief explanation of the method, three arguments in support of it are considered in turn. First, the argument from the possibility of error and self-delusion of the subject is found to ignore the panoply of intermediate position that one can take with regard to the epistemic status of first-personal knowledge. The argument is also criticized for employing an epistemic double-standard. Second, the argument from the neutrality of heterophenomenology is found to be defeated by the fact that, contrary to Dennett's claims, third-person, functionalist and instrumentalist assumptions substantially underpin and inform the method. Similarities between heterophenomenology and the Turing Test are furthermore explored, and it is shown that a weaker version of the neutrality claim also fails. Third, the argument from the appeal to the standard practice of science is shown to substantially rest on an equivocation on the term 'heterophenomenology' and is therefore rejected. Finally, it is suggested that the use of introspective reports is not inherently at odds with sound scientific procedures.

I haven't read it yet, but it looks of interesting! (It should be available for free via university accounts.)

By noreply@blogger.com (Edward Cline) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The Republican Party has entered into a state of post-traumatic shock after its resounding defeat in the 2008 presidential election. Christian conservatives are licking their wounds. Conservatives are engaged in a half-hearted pep rally about how Republicans can reclaim Congress and the White House, or are wandering off in various stages of dazed soul-searching. "What did we do wrong?" "What hit us?" "Where did that come from?"

Some conservative columnists and bloggers have even begun to question whether the G.O.P. has anything of substance to offer the electorate in terms of political philosophy. (It certainly has not been freedom, or capitalism.) Others are accusing president-elect Barack Obama and the Democrats of advocating socialism in the guise of populism.

These last are right, but they cannot pursue the truth any real distance without jettisoning their own collectivist political philosophy and ethics of altruism.

And while these last are more honest than their colleagues, it is doubtful they will connect the dots and concede that the very political agenda Obama slyly put over most American voters is simply a more consistent, more vigorous version of what the Republicans have endorsed or tried to co-opt from the Democrats for decades. The Republican Party for too many years can be likened to Cervantes's Sancho Panza, a credulous squire obediently following the lead of a shrewd, dissembling Don Quixote out not to save America, but to conquer it.

President George W. Bush and many of his predecessors in office helped to prepare the ground on which Obama now triumphantly stands with their own programs of altruism, collectivism and appeals to selflessness and self-sacrifice. What is to wonder about? Obama and Company owe George Bush and the Republicans so much. The president-elect and his amoral cronies in and out of Congress wish to implement their own "No American Left Behind" program to ensure that as many Americans as possible are enlisted in the march to full-scale statism.

"The thing that truly depresses me," wrote Burt Prelutsky in his article, "All the News That's Fit to Censor" on November 10th, "is that millions of my fellow Americans know the truth, but simply don't seem to care." The root of his depression is the fact that the news media and Obamaniacs are emotionally and psychologically insulated against all revelations about Obama's questionable political past, his disreputable associations, the role of ACORN's voter fraud, the suspicious sources of a big chunk of Obama's campaign donations, and his socialistic agenda. It is not likely many members of the press will seriously pursue any of those avenues of investigation. They want to believe.

Without defining what he meant by "hope" and "change," Obama persuaded countless rudderless and predisposed Americans that he was the man of the moment. After all, he makes Americans and the news media feel good, so what have facts got to do with that? They must not be allowed to get in the way to spoil the euphoria or shatter expectations.

Making whole populations feel good about their futures has been a device of ambitious power-seekers for millennia.

In the meantime, the news media is still beating the team of dead horses that pulled the Republican gun carriage through the two-year war of the presidential campaign, one of them vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's $150,000 wardrobe. But Obama's $650 million war chest is beyond the scope of the news media's concerns, and also that of the Federal Election Commission. His image as a Messiah armed with a bag of miracles at all costs must not be sullied, and woe to those who attempt to examine more closely his cash cows or his ideology. Most news anchors, journalists, and editors speak and write about Obama from a realm of self-induced myopia. They want to believe, and not doubt, suspect, question, or think.

"Obama can deny it all he likes," wrote Prelutsky, "but anyone who subscribes to the belief that we should adopt a fiscal policy based on 'From everyone according to his abilities to everyone according to his needs' is a disciple not of Warren Buffett, but of Karl Marx." But Warren Buffett, together with George Soros and countless other very well-heeled rich, are apparently disciples of Marx, as well, for they supported Obama, knowing full well what he represented. They did not care, either.

"When I suggest that socialism often leads to tyranny," wrote Prelutsky, "I am not indulging in right-wing hyperbole. After all, aside from control of capital and the means of production, one of the essentials of all dictatorships is central control of the media. In 2008, the left already controls most of the MSM, not to mention the liberal arts departments on most college campuses."

The news media surrendered their moral and philosophical press passes to Obama a year ago.

Prelutsky might have added most high schools, middle schools and pre-schools. Also, socialism is tyranny. What leads to it is the unwillingness or inability of freedom's defenders to oppose on rational moral grounds the incremental encroachments of statism that are the benchmarks of a mixed economy. And from socialism a country is led to dictatorship, once a population has been softened up for a final assault.

And a population can be softened up if the minds of countless individuals have been softened up beforehand. It would be interesting to learn, for example, how many college-age Americans voted for Obama as a consequence of their liberal arts education, a pedagogical venue largely in the control of leftists and nihilists. It is no secret that they dominate the subjects of political science, economics, and literature in most universities and colleges, and react with voluble outrage when accused of indoctrinating their charges. They invoke their "academic freedom of speech" while upholding campus speech codes that restrict or deny students their freedom of speech if that speech conflicts with their politically correct criteria of what is permissible.

But, A is non-A, writes Patricia Cohen in her New York Times article of November 3rd, "Professors' Liberalism Contagious? Maybe Not." She reports that most academics think that the left-liberal dominance of the humanities is a myth invented and perpetuated by envious "right-wingers." She quotes two political scientists who claim that "There is no evidence that an instructor's views instigate change among students."

"If there has been a conspiracy among liberal faculty members to influence students, 'they've done a pretty bad job,' said A. Lee Fritschler, professor of public policy at George Mason University and an author of the new book 'Closed Minds? Politics and Ideology in American Universities' (Brookings Institution Press).

"The notion that students are induced to move leftward 'is a fantasy,' said Jeremy D. Mayer, another of the book's authors....When it comes to shaping a young person's political views, 'it is really hard to change the mind of anyone over 15,' said Mr. Meyer, who did extensive research on faculty and students."

But college students can be and are softened up beginning in primary schools with an insidious combination of politically-correct textbooks, mandatory group think and "team work," and the subtle or not-so-subtle power of teachers to punish non-conformity and reward conformity to comply with local school board and federal and state guidelines. Combine those factors with speech codes and mandatory or "voluntary" community servitude and a host of other collectivist imperatives extorted from 15-year-olds, and helpless students, by the time they reach a college campus, will be unable to think or speak for themselves.

What is more, no "conspiracy" of left-liberals was necessary for professors to corner the market in the humanities. They are simply the beneficiaries of the ongoing pandemic destruction of philosophy in Western culture over the last century or so, which entailed the abandonment of reason, which in turn led to the disparagement of freedom and the advocacy of statism as the panacea for all "social" problems, all of which most of them have aided and abetted throughout their careers.

Is America headed for fascism? All political and cultural indications point in that direction. But I have been saying for years and years that if fascism ever comes to this country, it will not emulate the concrete manifestations of German Nazism or any other European style statism. No gangs of brown-shirted thugs roaming the streets, no jackboots tramping in unison on parade, no swastika emblazoned banners flying over government buildings will appear to alert one to the phenomenon. (Not so curiously, one can see these manifestations adapted by Islamist groups in the Middle East, together with the Nazi salute.) Substitute T-shirts, sneakers, and smile buttons, and one will have the American style of fascism.

What was disturbing were the Obama rallies during the campaign. Not a few commentators have remarked how similar they were in spirit and size to Hitler's Nuremberg shows of "solidarity." Obama spoke emotively, seductively, saying nothing but promising everything, and his audiences responded wildly in answer, thinking nothing but believing he had said it all. Audience and speaker blended into a single beast in a scary gestalt, transcending the sum of their emotions to become a force ready and willing to brush aside or crush any evidence of individual, rational resistance, in a kind of reverse demonstration of Orwell's Two Minutes Hate in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

People who participated in those rallies, or who see Obama as their earthly savior, have carried that spirit beyond into their everyday lives. Because they are governed by their emotions, they are not capable of calm argumentation or debate. To question Obama's motives, means and ends, is to invite a cold stare or a livid flaring of the eyes in reply. These people have put themselves outside the bounds of rational discourse. There is literally no reasoning with them.

Edward Rothstein, writing for The New York Times on November 4th in his article, "What Would George Bailey Do?" hauled out that hoary old cinematic chestnut, It's a Wonderful Life, and painted the bailout in terms of a run on Bailey Brothers Building & Loan Association. While his article is a skeptical critique of both the government's and Wall Street's actions, whether he realized it or not, it was a good choice for an analogy. After all, George Bailey sacrifices his values and goals repeatedly to serve the "general good." Rothstein concludes:

"What is strange is that now we depend on the state to re-establish trust by rescuing and even nationalizing financial institutions, relying on the same authority that gives paper money its value. But after the events of the last century, can anyone fully believe that the state should be the ultimate standard for trust and fiscal faith? And would even a real-life George Bailey be able to coax us into confidence, let alone belief that good intentions have power over principles of finance? We are in for perilous times."

Perilous and dangerous times, to be sure. The times ahead of us will be perilous, because of the government's powers to enforce obedience and conformity with little chance of dissention; and dangerous, because so many Americans are comfortable with those powers, and see in them the ingredients for "hope" and "change."

It is interesting to note that early in the 1770's, the British government forbade importation into the American colonies muskets and gunpowder, to reduce the ability of the colonists to resist by force the force that would be initiated by the Crown. Soon after news of Obama's election as president, gun sales in this country skyrocketed on the bet that the new president and Congress would so severely limit gun purchases and ownership that the market - and the right to bear arms - would simply cease to exist.

Take that bit of news as you will.

By Brandon from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The topic for Show 080 arose from a conversation between Mosley and regular listener iheartcells. Mosley made a comment about the status of homeless people, saying that they are lazy people who made bad decisions. iheartcells asked, “Are you sure that you have enough information to make that judgment?” In the show Mosley and Arthur discuss this.

Topics in the show include: Mosley and iheartcell’s discussion; making unwarranted judgments; judgments as not just for the bad, but for the good; today’s negative connotation with judging others; different types of judgment; justice as a virtue of making rational judgments and acting accordingly; judgments as requiring rational standards; the need for and evaluation of evidence; judging friends; moral agnosticism; the morality of being overweight; making assumptions; the source of the need of rational judgment as self-preservation; praising the good as of primary importance; rash judgments; judgment applied to the financial crisis.

In the end, Mosley concluded that he did not have enough information to make his judgment, with the understanding that judging others and making sure that one does so rationally is of crucial importance.

On this topic, Ayn Rand said:

One must never fail to pronounce moral judgment.

Nothing can corrupt and disintegrate a culture or a man’s character as thoroughly as does the precept of moral agnosticism, the idea that one must never pass moral judgment on others, that one must be morally tolerant of anything, that the good consists of never distinguishing good from evil.

To see more of what she had to say on this and other issues, feel free to check out The Ayn Rand Lexicon.

By Brandon from talkObjectivism.com,cross-posted by MetaBlog

These notes were written by a listener, Steve, who is a member of the talkObjectivism Facebook group.

Is there something wrong with labor unions? Mosley questions the source of his dislike for unions: Maybe people have a right to collaborate in order to fight for their needs, higher wages, etc.

When unions are in private companies, there is a ceiling to claims that unions can make. When the company can no longer make a profit, the union can’t keep demanding raises and benefits. (The current GM troubles are a good example of this). When unions are in government industries, there is no ceiling to the costs of demands, because the government (therefore the taxpayer) has an essentially bottomless pocket.

One example of unions and related government/labor issues is the minimum wage. We discussed the alleged benefits of government mandated wages. While some claim these mandates benefit “the poor,” in fact they only benefit those who are already employed at some level above the minimum wage. When minimum wage levels are increased, the pool of capital available for labor has to be distributed among fewer people. This means people get laid-off, or at least not hired. Historically, every time the minimum wage has been increased, unemployment has gone up. Since the minimum wage keeps the unemployed from entering at the bottom of the economic ladder, it keeps unskilled laborers (who are willing to work for less) from competing with the more experienced, higher paid workers.

A coalition of “bootleggers and Baptists” is formed. Those who honestly believe (however misguided) that wage increases benefit people are joined by the labor union elders who have a stake in protecting themselves from competition.

Mosley goes on to explain the background of the Pittsburgh public port authority system, and rumors of a private system coming along. Steve calls in with the story of the Trans-Santiago bus system as told by Professor Mike Munger of Duke University, on the EconTalk podcast put out weekly by the Library of Economics and Liberty. The Chilean government municipalized what was once an open market of over 300 private bus companies. The bus market used to run in the black, about a $60 million dollar per year industry. After outlawing private buses and municipalizing the service, the government bus system is now about $600 million in the red.

Arthur calls in to remind that in weighing any two “imperfect systems” there is a difference between a government system and a private system. Government systems tend to be stagnant, and can only be as good as the committee that engineers it. In a public system, the goods and services offered improve through a constant process of trying to satisfy the consumer. Arthur also points out that all goods have to be produced by someone, even when they are paid for by the government (the taxpayer). The government doesn’t produce - it can only redistribute the funds of those who do.

By Don Watkins Yaron Brook from The Ayn Rand Institute Media Releases,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Stop Blaming Capitalism for Government Failures

By Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

Speaking of the financial crisis, French president Nicolas Sarkozy recently said, “Laissez-faire is finished. The all-powerful market that always knows best is finished.”

Sarkozy was echoing the views of many, including president-elect Obama, who assume that the financial crisis was caused by free markets--by “unbridled greed” unleashed by decades of deregulation and a “hands off” approach to the economy. And given this premise, the solution, they say, is obvious. To solve this crisis and prevent another one, we need a heavy dose of Uncle Sam’s elixir: government intervention. Whether it’s more bailouts, stricter regulation, a new round of nationalizations, or some other scheme, the only question since day one has been how, not whether, government is going to intervene.

And the issue is wider than the financial crisis. Millions of Americans don’t have health insurance? Well, says Obama, that’s because we’ve left the health-care system to the free market. The solution: a complete government takeover of medicine. A few companies engaged in accounting fraud? It must be because we didn’t impose enough regulations on businessmen. The solution: rein in corporations with Sarbanes-Oxley.

But while capitalism may be a convenient scapegoat, it did not cause any of these problems. Indeed, whatever one wishes to call the unruly mixture of freedom and government controls that made up our economic and political system during the last three decades, one cannot call it capitalism.

Take a step back. In the lead up to the “Reagan Revolution,” the explosive growth of government during the ’60s and ’70s had left the American economy in disarray. A crushing tax burden, runaway inflation, brutal unemployment, and economic stagnation had Americans looking for an alternative. That’s what Reagan offered, denouncing big government and promising a new “morning in America.”

Under Reagan, some taxes were reduced, inflation was subdued, a few regulations were relaxed--and the economy roared back to life. But while markets were able to function to a greater degree than in the immediate past, the regulatory and welfare state remained largely untouched, with government spending continuing to increase, as well as some taxes. Later administrations were even worse. Bush Jr., often laughably called a champion of free markets, presided over massive new governmental controls like Sarbanes-Oxley and massive new welfare programs like the prescription drug benefit.

None of this is consistent with capitalism. As the economic system that fully recognizes and protects individual rights, including the right to private property, capitalism means, in Ayn Rand’s words, “the abolition of any and all forms of government intervention in production and trade, the separation of State and Economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of Church and State.” Laissez-faire means laissez-faire: no welfare state entitlements, no Federal Reserve monetary manipulation, no regulatory bullying, no controls, no government interference in the economy. The government’s job under capitalism is single but crucial: to protect individual rights from violation by force or fraud.

America came closest to this system in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The result was an unprecedented explosion of wealth creation and consequent rise in the standard of living. Even now, when the fading remnants of capitalism are badly crippled by endless controls, we see that the freest countries--those which retain the most capitalist elements--have the highest standard of living.

Why then should capitalism take the blame today--when capitalism doesn’t even exist? Consider the current crisis. The causes are complex, but the driving force is clearly government intervention: the Fed keeping interest rates below the rate of inflation, thus encouraging people to borrow and providing the impetus for a housing bubble; the Community Reinvestment Act, which forces banks to lend money to low-income and poor-credit households; the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with government-guaranteed debt leading to artificially low mortgage rates and the illusion that the financial instruments created by bundling them are low risk; government-licensed rating agencies, which gave AAA ratings to mortgage-backed securities, creating a false sense of confidence; deposit insurance and the “too big to fail” doctrine, whose bailout promises have created huge distortions in incentives and risk-taking throughout the financial system; and so on. In the face of this long list, who can say with a straight face that the housing and financial markets were frontiers of “cowboy capitalism”?

This is just the latest example of a pattern that has been going on since the rise of capitalism: capitalism is blamed for the ills of government intervention--and then even more government intervention is proposed as the cure. The Great Depression? Despite massive evidence that the Federal Reserve’s and other government policies were responsible for the crash and the inability of the economy to recover, it was laissez-faire that was blamed. Consequently, in the aftermath, the government’s power over the economy was not curtailed but dramatically expanded. Or what about the energy crisis of the 1970s? Despite compelling evidence that it was brought on by monetary inflation exacerbated by the abandonment of the remnants of the gold standard, and made worse by prices controls, “greedy” oil companies were blamed. The prescribed “solution” was for the government to exert even more control.

It’s time to stop blaming capitalism for the sins of government intervention, and give true laissez-faire a chance. Now that would be a change we could we believe in.

Yaron Brook is the president of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Don Watkins is a writer at the Ayn Rand Center. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

                                                                                         RSS

By noreply@blogger.com (Nicholas Provenzo) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Welcome to the November 13th 2008 edition of the Objectivist Round-Up. This week presents insight and analyses written by authors who are animated by Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. According to Ayn Rand:

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

"About the Author," Atlas Shrugged, Appendix.

Without any further adieu, it is my pleasure to present this week's round-up:

Edward Cline presents Of Subversion, Subservience, and the Suffocation of Freedom posted at The Rule of Reason, saying, "Those of you who value their freedom, you know what is now expected of you, to argue, while you still can, for the reinstatement of a republic of reason."

Darren Cauthon presents My Argument Against Voting posted at Darren Cauthon.
Greg Zeigerson presents Two Topics: The U.S. Elections and The Merging of Man and Machine posted at Zigory.

Khartoum presents The American Dream -- As Possible As It's True. posted at Philosophy, Law and Life., saying, "Capitalism has been vindicated -- yet again. A fascinating new memoir, Scratch Beginnings, tells the story of Adam Shepard who finished grad school and went to check if the American Dream could ever really come true."

Khartoum presents Free Speech Forum Pisses Off Audience Members. posted at Philosophy, Law and Life., saying, "The members of the audience stormed out of a panel discussion hosted by the American University's Objectivists' free speech forum. The forum sought to discuss the nature of free speech and how totalitarian Islam was a threat to free speech."

Andy Clarkson presents Reason As The Basis Of Human Interaction posted at The Charlotte Capitalist.

Rational Ryan presents The Preposterous Premise of Proposition 8 posted at The Dirty Kuffar, saying, "Examines the recent decision in California to ban gay marriage, the motivations and the false premise any ban on gay marriage carries."

Paul McKeever presents Banking and Morality: 100% Reserve versus “Fractional” Reserves posted at Paul McKeever, saying, "this blog post, made in response to a vlogger who advocates fractional reserves, preceded my video response to his video (my video response is now available here: http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2008/11/05/new-video-fractional-reserve-banking-versus-ayn-rands-ethics )."

Burgess Laughlin presents Asymmetrical Debate? posted at Making Progress, saying, "This post wrestles with the problem of the conflict of reason and mysticism in society. Exercising reason, which is rare, requires a great deal of time and effort, but mysticism, which is common, requires neither. How can reason possibly win?"

KLB presents Measure Q and the Lending Crisis in Education posted at The Undercurrent, saying, "Los Angeles recently passed Measure Q, a $7 billion dollar bond measure to fund public schools. This is on top of the $19 billion worth of bond measures already passed to prop up the L.A. public school system over the last eleven years. Must we keep pouring money into a dysfunctional educational system that has shown itself clearly incapable of translating that money into a quality product?"

Michael Labeit presents On the Purpose and Productiveness of Entrepreneurship posted at Philosophical Mortician, saying, "The role of entrepreneurship as well as of the profit/loss system has been thoroughly corrupted by Marxist "thought." Dr. Ludwig von Mises eviscerates the Marxist and anti-profit arguments in his monograph "Profit and Loss" as well as laboriously explains and the defends to virtue of entrepreneurship and of the profit/loss system. Entrepreneurs, Mises holds, are our allies not our enemies. This essay is a brief synopsis for those who wish to understand the nature of entrepreneurial profit but who may not possess the time necessary to read and fully understand Mises's monograph."

Beth Haynes presents Thoughts after the election posted at Wealth is not the Problem, saying, "I am not sure exactly how this works, so if you could refer me to a source or explain a little more, I'd greatly appreciate it. But, it looks interesting enough to give it a try and see what happens! Thanks, Beth"

Adam Reed presents Objectivist Activism Report: The Defeat of Proposition 4 posted at Born to Identify, saying, "When I began my activism for the recent elections, the Christo-Fascists had placed two propositions for constitutional amendments on the ballot. All the pollsters were predicting that Proposition 4 would win, and Proposition 8 would lose. I estimate that my OpEds reached about a million voters. Proposition 4 lost with 223,088 votes from the half-way mark. I consider it likely that my OpEds contributed to this result. All while opponents of Proposition 8, the second Christo-Fascist warhorse, managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory."

Paul Hsieh presents The Future of Social Security? posted at NoodleFood, saying, "Why do some liberals want the government to confiscate private 401(k) retirement accounts? To "protect" American workers, of course!"

Shaun Connell presents Will You Survive the Financial Storm? posted at Financial Planning, saying, "One thing is certain: the next few years will unveil more and more global economic restrictions, crises and "hard times." Don't be among the losers -- learn how to turn economic hardship into profit by rationally analyzing your situation."

K. M. presents Book Review: NEXT posted at Applying philosophy to life, saying, "A review of Michael Crichton's novel NEXT that raises issues of patent laws, intellectual property and role of government in research"

C. August presents America Urges Government to 'Do Something!' posted at Titanic Deck Chairs.

Myrhaf presents Is There a There There? at Myrhaf.

Cogito presents Determinism Versus Causality: Frozen Abstractions at Cogito's Thoughts saying "A somewhat disorganized post discussing what I think is an example of the frozen abstraction fallacy that occurs in the thinking of many."

That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of objectivist round up using our carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

Technorati tags: objectivist round up.

By Greg Perkins from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Tammy and I thought it would be great to produce a series of T-shirt designs for those occasions when it is appropriate to wear our ideas on our sleeves. Bonus points if they aren't just provocative but actually spark some good engagement!

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog


This map shows clearly how much of the Western US is owned by the federal government:

The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) - nearly 30% of its total territory. These federal lands are used as military bases or testing grounds, nature parks and reserves and indian reservations, or are leased to the private sector for commercial exploitation (e.g. forestry, mining, agriculture). They are managed by different administrations, such as the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of Defense, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Tennessee Valley Authority.

This map details the percentage of state territory owned by the federal government. The top 10 list of states with the highest percentage of federally owned land looks like this:

1. Nevada 84.5%
2. Alaska 69.1%
3. Utah 57.4%
4. Oregon 53.1%
5. Idaho 50.2%
6. Arizona 48.1%
7. California 45.3%
8. Wyoming 42.3%
9. New Mexico 41.8%
10. Colorado 36.6%

The following thought then occurred to me. One day, the US is going to face a financial crisis due to the insolvency of Social Security that will make the current mortgage crisis look like chump change in comparison. And everyone who advocates privatizing Social Security also points out that there would be huge transition costs.

So the question is whether those costs (or overall transition costs of moving from the current mixed economy to a fully consistent system of laissez-faire capitalism) could be covered by selling off those Federal lands? It might conceivably have to be done in stages to avoid depressing the market by dumping all that land on the market at once.

But there is something appealing about the idea of paying for the transition costs of privatizing our economy by a method which also privatizes a big chunk of US government assets.

By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Matt Drudge links to a story detailing what I regard as my worst nightmare: A government that has decided to actively violate freedom of speech. No excerpt can do this justice, but here's a taste.

An internet blogger and a writer who disguised an attack on Burma's dictator in the form of a love poem were among dozens of activists sentenced to draconian jail terms as the junta ordered a fresh crackdown on dissidents.

Nay Myo Kyaw, 28, who wrote blogs under the name Nay Phone Latt, was sentenced to 20 years and 6 months in jail by a court in Rangoon. The poet, Saw Wai, received a two-year sentence for an eight-line Valentine's Day verse published in a popular magazine.

Aung Thein, the lawyer for the men, was given four months in prison on Monday for contempt of court during his defence.

...


Mr Saw Wai’s poem, entitled 14th February, was ostensibly a Valentine's Day verse published in January last year in a weekly magazine. "You have to be in love truly, madly, deeply and then you can call it real love," it read. "Millions of those who know how to love, Laugh and clap those gold-gilded hands."

The first word of each line, however, spelt out a message about the leader of the country's military government: "Power Crazy Senior General Than Shwe". Mr Saw Wai was charged with harming "public tranquillity". [bold added]

That is just the sort of thing I could imagine doing (and have done, but not in a political vein). I suspect that the "alternative" being immorally forced on Saw Wai by his government is: "Your life or your life!" That's what being silent or -- worse, being told to write only what one knows to be ugly and wrong -- is for someone who loves to write. And, now that I think of it, that is the ultimate, though not always so stark, choice any tyranny puts to us, and which gives meaning to the motto, "Live free or die."

But that's not what got me going. What really got my attention was the following foolishness from the reader comments by one James Beckton of Airstrip One:

Socialism has nothing to do with Burma's situation. The country is run as selfish regime. China supplies regime expertise and equipment while all the big powers including China extract raw materials and profit. The population are treated as a disposable nuisance. Just the same as Congo and Zimbabwe.

First of all, given that freedom of speech can and does greatly accelerate the discovery of the truth, which man must have to survive and flourish, to call a regime that suppresses freedom of speech "selfish" borders on the patently absurd. This is not to say that it is unimportant to defend the virtue of selfishness whenever possible, for its opposite, altruism, is what is used to justify socialism and dictatorship, including the poet's very sentence! The rulers of China, Burma, Congo, and Zimbabwe are anything but "selfish".

No, what got my attention was that asinine statement that socialism has "nothing to do with this". Socialism is a political system in which the government owns the means of production (i.e., it fails to recognize the property rights of its citizens to the point of perpetually violating them). As such, it is a species of tyranny and it is one step down the road to Rangoon. (Yes. I know, it's "Yangon" now. And it's no longer the capital. And I bet quite a few Burmese would take colonial status over this any day. So let's do talk about keeping up to date.)

The very idea that a government that violates individual rights in one area (property) will not eventually also do so in another (speech) is folly. In such a case, either the principle that man has rights is unknown or it is already being flouted, and sooner or later, some lowly prole -- I mean, individual human being -- will inconvenience the government by exercising what rights haven't yet been trampled.

I have often spoken of a "dictator fantasy" in which people like this apologist for socialism (or Obama's more fanatical supporters) seem to think that the despot they want in power will rule as he, personally, sees fit. This is clear evidence of a lack of principled thought, and the proliferation of people with this fantasy is a direct result of the prevalence of the philosophical approach of pragmatism.

-- CAV