The Objective Standard Blog
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Not Only Catholics Should be Angered by Birth Control Mandates
Conservatives and Catholics have lambasted President Obama over his plan to force insurance providers, including Catholic ones, to cover birth control.
Wayne Laugesen explains for the Colorado Springs Gazette:
President Barack Obama’s administration finalized orders last week that will force all Americans, with few exceptions, to buy health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and abortion pills without the burden of fees or co-pays. Obama is not merely ordering all Americans to accept abortion and contraception, he is demanding their support with mandatory purchases.
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers told the Gazette, “This extends telling Americans they must buy health insurance to telling them they must buy products that are contrary to their religious beliefs.” Laugesen added, “Freedom of religion is under siege.” Republican Presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum harshly criticized the president on similar grounds. House Speaker John Boehner vowed to overturn the policy by Congressional action.
True, the government should not force Catholics to fund birth control against their religious beliefs. But the government should not force anyone to fund any type of insurance coverage against their wishes. The government should not force people to buy insurance that covers birth control, acupuncture, maternity leave, or any other good or service. Such mandates violate the rights of insurance companies and their clients to freely negotiate terms, and they drive up the costs of premiums.
Insurance mandates not only violate Catholics’ freedom of religion; they violate everyone’s freedom of conscience and everyone’s freedom to use their own resources as they judge best. To be genuinely “pro-choice,” one must respect people’s choices across the board—including their choice of religion or philosophy, their choice of whether to buy insurance and if so what kind, and their choice of how to dispose of the fruits of their labor.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Related:
- Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America
- Newt Sides with Anti-Abortion Zealots
Image: Wikimedia Commons via Kancelaria Prezydenta RP
Posted in: Health Care, Individual Rights and Law, Religion
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Liability Reform Shouldn’t Be Limited to Space Industry
Colorado legislators are considering a bill to limit the liability of spaceflight companies. The bill’s sponsor says the measure would recognize “the inherent risks of spaceflight activity,” reports the Denver Post. New Mexico’s legislature also took up legislation to limit the liability of space companies.
No doubt abusive litigation in America has spun out of control. But why should select industries receive special protection that others don’t enjoy? Lawmakers should focus on crafting sensible liability rules that apply equally to everyone.
In his book The Right to Earn a Living, Timothy Sandefur (an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation) summarizes, “The abuse of tort law by mercenary lawyers poses a major threat to American businesses and therefore to the economic liberties of everyone.”
One major problem Sandefur cites is that courts often fail to recognize explicit contracts limiting liability. He offers the example of a 2005 case in which a New Jersey court refused to recognize the liability waiver a woman signed before her son used a skate park. (The son broke his leg, and the mother sued the park despite her signed waiver.)
Whether people want to skate in a park or fly into space, they should be able to decide what level of risk they are willing to accept. When courts fail to recognize freely negotiated agreements limiting liability, that drives abusive lawsuits, puts producers out of business, and limits the creation of new businesses.
Spaceflight companies deserve legal protection from abusive lawsuits. And so do the rest of us here on planet Earth.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Related:
- The Right to Earn a Living: Economic Freedom and the Law by Timothy Sandefur
- Instrumentalism and the Disintegration of American Tort Law
Image: Wikipedia Commons
Posted in: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law, Science and Technology
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
End Tax Favoritism for Wind Energy
Yesterday seven members of Colorado’s Congressional delegation urged continuation of the wind energy production tax credit, calling on a conference committee to tack the credit onto a bill to temporarily reduce the payroll tax. (An eighth member later added his name.) Twenty-three governors also recently advocated extension of the wind energy credit.
But the wind tax credit should be scrapped and replaced with lower taxes for all.
Producers of wind turbines claim that dropping the tax credit would mostly stop the expansion of the wind industry and cause thousands of layoffs. But if so, that proves only that wind cannot compete economically with other forms of energy. (That is not surprising, given that wind is geographically dispersed as well as highly variable and thus difficult to convert into usable electricity.)
When Congress “creates jobs” by tipping the scales of the market, it does so only by destroying jobs elsewhere and undermining people’s ability to create valued goods and services.
Morally, such tax credits favor some and thereby violate the rights of others. The tax credits essentially punish other producers more with higher net taxes. Not only does that violate the principle of equality under the law, it violates the rights both of producers and consumers to use their own resources in accordance with their own judgment.
Congress should stop handing out special tax “credits” to those companies best able to play the political game. Instead, Congress should focus on cutting federal spending and uniformly reducing tax rates for all producers.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Related:
- Obama Should Help End All Energy Subsidies, Not Play Favorites
- Energy at the Speed of Thought: The Original Alternative Energy Market
Image: Wikimedia Commons
Posted in: Business and Economics, Environmentalism
Monday, February 6, 2012
Israel Should Obliterate the Iranian Regime
President Obama is feverishly trying to dissuade Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, warning of the “disruptive” consequence such an attack would have on oil prices and regional security. Instead, Obama is encouraging more diplomacy.
The Iranian regime continues to fund and support Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah—both of which have committed numerous massacres on the Israeli people—and has repeatedly staged rallies calling for “Death to Israel.” Making matters worse, as the Associated Press reports, “Israel fears that Iran is fast approaching a point at which a limited military strike would no longer be enough to head off an Iranian bomb.” That Obama and his ilk are discouraging the Israelis from defending themselves against this ongoing and increasing assault is an abomination.
The Israelis should act in their self-interest, ignore the siren songs leading them to their slaughter, and obliterate the Iranian regime.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Related:
- Interview with Reza Kahlili, an Ex-CIA Spy Embedded in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards
- 9/11 Ten Years Later: The Fruits of the Philosophy of Self-Abnegation
- The Mastermind behind SEAL Team Six and the End of Osama bin Laden
- “Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense
- “No Substitute for Victory” The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
- Israel and America’s Flotilla Follies (and How To Avoid Them in the Future)
- An Interview with John R. Bolton on the Proper Role of Government
Image: Creative Commons by Israeli Defense Forces
Posted in: Foreign Policy and War, Presidential Candidates
Monday, February 6, 2012
Message to Gov. Christie and His Critics: Gay Marriage is a Moral Right
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie ignited a political furor when he vowed to veto a bill recently introduced in the state legislature legalizing gay marriage because he believed the issue should be decided by popular vote through a public referendum. In so doing, he said “I think people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than fighting and dying in the streets in the South.” (Christie has since apologized for that remark.)
The backlash was swift. Said NJ Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver (D-Essex): “Governor — people … were fighting and dying in the streets of the South because the majority refused to grant minorities equal rights by any method. It took legislative action to bring justice to all Americans, just as legislative action is the right way to bring marriage equality to all New Jerseyans.”
“People of color in the American South,” lectured civil rights leader Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), “…could not register to vote… take a seat in the front of the bus [or] visit state capitals. If it had been put to a referendum, we would have never ever won”; only “congressional actions, court decisions and presidential executive orders” made victory possible.
And as the NJ Star-Ledger pointed out: “Imagine how different American history would be if this rule by referendums had carried the day from the start. … [M]inority rights should not be subjected to majority vote. That misses the gist of constitutional rights.”
The governor’s critics are correct, up to a point: Rights are not a matter of voter approval. But nor are they a matter of legislative approval, court order, or executive order. The right of individuals to freely contract with one other, so long as their contracts and actions don’t involve the violation of others’ rights, is a moral matter, which precedes politics and legislation.
Should the bill pass, the NJ legislature in fact will not have created a right to gay marriage; rather, it will have removed NJ’s ban on the practice, thus recognizing that same sex couples have an inalienable right to join together under a marriage contract.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Related:
Image: Creative Commons by Bob Jagendorf
Posted in: Individual Rights and Law
Saturday, February 4, 2012
The Key to Eating and Acting Without Regret
Peter Bregman loves buffets. He loves the variety they offer. He loves the opportunity he gets to taste many different dishes. And he loves the low cost of being able to eat so much.
But invariably Bregman leaves feeling uncomfortable and exhausted—full not just of food but also of regret. Many people experience this after eating at a buffet, and probably as many of us have felt the same when looking back on how we’ve used our time.
In his latest book, 18 Minutes: Find Your Focus, Master Distraction, and Get the Right Things Done, Bregman coins this “the buffet challenge” and shows how it’s related to that of managing our time.
Because there’s so much to do—so many interesting people, enjoyable activities, worthwhile causes, compelling opportunities—it’s hard to choose. So we don’t. We try to do it all.
The problem with most time management systems is that they don’t help solve the problem: They’re focused on how to get it all done in less time. But that’s a mistake. Just like tasting from a buffet is a mistake. Because we can’t possibly get it all done and not end up frantic, depleted, and overwhelmed.
The secret to surviving a buffet is to eat fewer things. And the secret to thriving in your life is the same: Do fewer things.
Bregman himself thinks it’s best to focus on roughly five broad areas. For example, you might want to devote time to growing your business, spending more time each day with loved ones, or achieving peak physical shape.
Whatever five areas you choose, however, Bregman thinks they all should have a certain characteristic. “They should be substantial things,” he says, “so when you spend your time on them, you’ll get to the end of the year and know it was time well spent.”
Without a doubt, being selective at a buffet can be difficult—and in life, even more so. However, Bregman is spot on when he observes that this is key to leaving a buffet feeling good—or looking back on your time and being full, not of regret, but of cherished memories of a life well lived.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Related:
- Objective Moral Virtues: Principled Actions
- Making Life Meaningful: Living Purposely
- Book Review: Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity
Posted in: Productivity
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Human Rights Watch is Wrong on Islam and Politics
Human Rights Watch (HRW) is urging the West to respect the rise of political Islam in the Middle East, saying, “The international community must … come to terms with political Islam when it represents a majority preference.” Instead of being unsympathetic to political Islam, says HRW, the West should encourage Islamist governments to “respect basic rights — just as the Christian-labeled parties and governments of Europe are expected to do.”
But contrary to what HRW implies, the “majority preference” of foreigners is not a standard by reference to which civilized nations should set foreign policy. Further, political Islam means violating rights and, ultimately, killing those who reject Islam. Whether Islamists gain power by force or by vote, they seek to force their barbaric creed on the citizenry and ultimately the world. Encouraging Islamists to “respect basic rights” is like encouraging communists to respect basic rights. It can’t happen.
Further, for Islamists to say that they intend to “respect basic rights” would be a patent lie. Iranian Reza Kahlili, in an interview with TOS, recounts what happened when Islamists took over Iran:
[T]he new government went back on its promise that the clerics would not interfere in government matters, that they would only address the spirituality of the people. The clerics started enforcing Islamic law, which was not supposed to be part of the new government. Soon Khomeini and other clerics declared that they were representatives of God on Earth and that anybody who opposed them would be regarded as a “moraheb,” an enemy of God, and executed.
Following that, tens of thousands of men and women were arrested, opposition political parties were banned, and certain universities were shut down to get rid of the Western influence in our education. Among the thousands taken to Evin prison, where they kept political prisoners, were my best friend and his siblings.
I witnessed the torture and the horror that this new regime was inflicting on Iranian citizens. Teenage girls were raped prior to execution—because of the Muslim belief that virgins go to heaven. Boys and girls were tortured in unimaginable ways, some of which I’ve described in my book [A Time to Betray], and then executed.
Political Islam should not be tolerated; it should be eliminated.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Related:
- Interview with Reza Kahlili, an Ex-CIA Spy Embedded in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards
- “No Substitute for Victory” The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
- The Iranian and Saudi Regimes Must Go
- An Interview with John R. Bolton on the Proper Role of Government
Image: Creative Commons by atphalix
Posted in: Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law
Thursday, February 2, 2012
What’s So Super About the Super Bowl?
When more than 100 million Americans tune in to watch the game, advertisers pay up to $4 million for 30-second commercial spots, and a nation consumes food on a scale rivaling Thanksgiving, Super Bowl Sunday can safely be declared a de facto national holiday. As Evan Weiner, a sports writer for the New York Sun, put it: “The Fourth of July is America’s birthday party, but Super Bowl Sunday has become America’s biggest party.”
What explains the popularity of a game that annually ranks among the most-watched single-day events? Certainly, the gambling, the glitzy commercials, and social events play a part in attracting a wider audience. But something more fundamental is at play: the nature of football itself.
Football is a uniquely intense and dangerous game that demands equal parts physical and mental effort. Its athletes study, memorize, and practice extensively choreographed plays that they must execute with pinpoint precision—and maximum exertion—all while risking serious injury.
Moreover, since NFL teams play just 16 regular-season games, compared with 162 in baseball and 82 in basketball and hockey, each play from scrimmage holds considerably more weight. Add to this football’s single-game, win-or-go-home elimination playoff system, which, unlike those of comparable sports (e.g., the World Series, the NBA Finals, the Stanley Cup) leaves no room for error, and you begin to see telling differences.
True, some Super Bowls have been so lopsided that by halftime they were no longer worth watching. Yet despite its relatively short history, the Super Bowl has produced some stellar contests and many dramatic, critical plays that have attained folklore status.
Fans will never forget Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway’s dive into a gang of Green Bay Packers, who spun him like a helicopter prop, to sustain what became a tie-breaking drive in Super Bowl XXXII. Also etched forever in the minds of fans is the image of St. Louis Rams linebacker Mike Jones tackling Tennessee Titans wide receiver Kevin Dyson to stop him one yard short of tying the game on the final play of Super Bowl XXXIV. And then there was New England Patriots kicker Adam Vinatieri’s last second, game-winning field goal against the Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI.
Super Bowl XLVI, between the New York Giants and New England Patriots on Sunday, has no shortage of pre-game elements of intrigue. Chief among them is that the contest is a rematch of the Super Bowl four years ago, in which the upstart Giants, a 14-point underdog, derailed and defeated the Patriots, who otherwise were headed to immortality as the second undefeated team in NFL history.
On Sunday, restaurants, bars, and pizza-delivery chains across the nation will rake in big bucks thanks to the mass appeal of the big game. That appeal is rooted in the immense value fans derive from watching superlatively honed athletes who demonstrate exceptional determination and ability in a seriously dangerous contest with near equals.
Is it any wonder the Super Bowl has reached the status of a national holiday?
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Related:
Image: Creative Commons by Jack Newton
Posted in: Sports
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Three Ways iDoneThis Helps Me Get Things Done
If you’re looking for a useful app to boost your productivity, I recommend iDoneThis, which I’ve used every day for the past six months. Here are three ways the app helps me get more things done:
1. It enables me to effortlessly keep track of what I’ve done and thus how productive I have (or haven’t) been.
At the end of each day, iDoneThis sends me an email. “Hi there,” it says, “Take 30 seconds to write out what you got done today.” So I do—and that’s that. Keeping track of what I’ve done isn’t something I have to think much about; with iDoneThis it’s just a question in my inbox that I respond to in less than a minute.
2. It motivates me to get the right things done.
I have a handful of things I want to do each day and knowing that I’m going to report what I did sometimes gives me just enough added motivation to take action on the most important things when I otherwise would not.
For example, I normally treasure reading to my son. Sometimes, however, particularly when I’m tired, I waver between going upstairs to read to him and skipping it. Then I remember that I’ll be able to report the activity to iDoneThis by email—and just that much tips me to read. Shortly thereafter, I’ve read two or three short books to my son and strengthened not only an important habit but also a vital relationship—and I’m feeling more energetic to boot.
3. It keeps me honest about what I have actually done.
It can be easy to blame outside factors for not getting things done or not being happy. After all, other people and chance events can influence both of these things. But iDoneThis keeps a clear and definitive record of what I do each day, and when I look back on what I have done I can see the results of my decisions and actions.
For example, I can see that over the past month I read many more books for my own enjoyment than I had planned and, partly because of this, wrote much less. Without iDoneThis, it would be easy to tell myself that I was productive, having read so much, and leave it at that. But with the record that iDoneThis provides, I can see that my indulgence in reading, however productive on one level, precluded me from doing the writing that I wanted to do. This enables me to adjust my plan for the following days, weeks, and months.
There are other ways iDoneThis helps me boost my productivity, and other ways it can help you boost yours too. If you want to give it a try, you can sign up to use the app here. (It’s free.)
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Posted in: Productivity, Psychology, Science and Technology
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Have a Selfish Randsday!
American philosopher Ayn Rand was born on February 2, 1905, and her long-time associate Harry Binswanger has designated her birthday a new holiday: “Randsday.” I love this idea.
Rand, author of The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and several other revolutionary books, was, from the standard of the value of man’s life, the most important philosopher of the 20th century.
Rand advocated what she called rational egoism: the idea that one should always act in a rationally self-interested manner, always pursue one’s life-serving values by means of one’s best judgment, always consider the long-range consequences of one’s actions, and never commit a sacrifice (“the surrender a greater value for the sake of a lesser one”). To enact this principle, she held, is to be moral; hence the virtue of selfishness.
Rand saw this idea both as the key to personal happiness and as the moral foundation of a free society. And she was right. If you want to live your life fully and achieve the greatest happiness possible, you must act in a rationally self-interested manner as a matter of unwavering principle. You must choose life-serving goals, activities, and relationships, and you must pursue them rationally and ambitiously throughout your days and years. To do otherwise is to live less fully, less happily than you are able to live.
Likewise, if you want to live in a society where you are free to act consistently as you see fit, you must advocate a social system in which individual rights are fully recognized and protected. You must uphold the inalienable right of each individual to act on his own judgment for his own sake—whether in regard to his career, business, recreation, romance, or any other value—so long as he does not violate the same rights of others. The proper purpose of a government, Rand emphasized, is to protect rights and thus enable individuals to live their lives in accordance with their judgment.
This is the essence of Rand’s philosophy: Go by reason, pursue your life-serving values, respect the rights of others to do the same, and advocate a social system that makes all of this possible. And this is why Randsday is a worthy holiday. It celebrates the birthday of the philosopher who codified the virtue of selfishness and made the moral argument for a rights-respecting society.
How to celebrate Randsday? As Binswanger puts it: “You do something not done on any other holiday: you give yourself a present.” The idea is to treat yourself to something that you really want and will greatly enjoy but that you ordinarily would not buy for yourself now: that MacBook Pro or that beautiful dress you’ve been eying, that snowboard you know will improve your turns, reservations at that picturesque hotel in the Caymans, tickets to that Broadway show, a Lexus, a puppy—whatever you’ll love and can non-sacrificially afford. Buy it for Randsday and enjoy it.
What will it be?
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to The Objective Standard and making objective journalism a regular part of your life.
Related
Image: Gary L. Friedman www.FriedmanArchives.com; Copyright © Sandra J. Shaw Studio 2011.
Posted in: Ayn Rand and Objectivism
TOS Updates & Commentary
Sign up to receive TOS updates & commentary.
Featured Posts
- Who Deserves Credit for Tebow’s 316 Yards?
- Santorum Stands for Big Government because He Stands for Collectivism
- When Ayn Rand Meets Patrick Henry
- The Justice of Income Inequality Under Capitalism
- The Beauty of Ayn Rand's Ethics
Blog Archive
Blog Topics
- Announcements (165)
- Ayn Rand and Objectivism (107)
- Business and Economics (234)
- Education (57)
- Environmentalism (56)
- Events (100)
- Foreign Policy and War (217)
- Health Care (84)
- History (55)
- Individual Rights and Law (352)
- Philosophy (139)
- Presidential Candidates (17)
- Productivity (2)
- Psychology (10)
- Religion (131)
- Science and Technology (70)
- Sports (2)
- The Arts (40)
- Week in Review (12)
Ideas presented in posts on TOS Blog are those of the authors of the posts and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Objective Standard. TOS Blog is powered by WordPress.
