The Objective Standard Blog

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Notes on the Coming Election

Posted by Craig Biddle at 10:49 pm

[Since this post is coming in right on top of Dr. Lewis's excellent comments on the subject, I'm writing this note to bring continued attention to his post, which is a must read.]

For whom should one vote in the coming election? What is the principal factor one should consider in judging a candidate or a political party? Should one focus on what a candidate says he is going to do in office? Should one make one’s decision by asking, as some have suggested, what a given political party adds to the debate? No, one should not. One should make one’s decision not by reference to words but by reference to actions—and the motives behind those actions. One should ask: What does a given candidate or party actually do when it is in power—and why?

All of the Republicans who are now in office campaigned on promises of reducing government spending, cutting taxes, increasing freedom, and defending America. But what have they actually done? In regard to domestic policy, they’ve increased government spending and taxes beyond any liberal’s wildest dreams (alleged tax cuts are just that in the face of such massive spending increases). They’ve crusaded against open immigration, a crusade which constitutes an assault on the rights of all Americans to do business with whomever they choose. They’ve assaulted businessmen with (among other things) Sarbanes-Oxley, the most onerous anti-business law ever imposed on producers. They’ve crusaded against abortion and embryonic stem cell research, causing mass suffering and death of actual (as opposed to potential) human beings. They’ve pushed to require public schools to teach so-called “Intelligent Design” in science classes. They’ve crusaded against homosexuality and gay marriage. They’ve passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which is a huge blow to freedom of speech. And so on.

In regard to foreign policy, the Republicans have ignored (or befriended) our major enemies, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, and thus given these murderous regimes time and leeway to train more jihadists, procure more weaponry, and plot more attacks against the West. Via the Forward Strategy of Altruism, they’ve brought democracy (i.e., unlimited majority rule) to the Middle East in exchange for the lives and limbs of American soldiers—who are now charged with the impossible task of resolving the consequent civil war—which is sure to end in another theocracy or two regardless of when (or whether) we withdraw what is left of our sacrificial troops. Having celebrated the “virtue” of democracy, the Republicans also set the stage for (among other things) the election of Hamas in Palestine because, as President Bush so aptly put it, “democracy is democracy” (would that he recognized the law of identity elsewhere). In response to the Iranians’ continuing efforts to produce nuclear weapons while chanting “Death to America,” the Republicans have boldly shaken a finger at them and called for more negotiations. In response to the North Koreans actually testing a nuclear weapon, they’ve boldly scolded Kim Jong-Il for defying “the will of the international community” and called for the U.N. Security Council to “condemn the test” and to “impose tough sanctions on Pyongyang for flagrantly disregarding the Security Council’s appeal not to detonate a device.” There’s more, but that should suffice.

In sum, the actual actions of the Republicans while they have controlled Congress have been utterly irrational, anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-life.

Why do Republicans take such actions? What motivates them? Religion. Their adherence to religion is the fundamental cause of their choices and policies. Consider:

If, as religion holds, you are your brother’s keeper, and you’re supposed to “be openhanded toward… the poor and needy in your land” (Deuteronomy 15:11) and “give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you… not demand it back” (Luke 6:30), then the legitimacy of increased welfare spending and taxes is simply unassailable.
If, as religion holds, people are inherently evil (via Original Sin), then we obviously can’t have open immigration; we can’t trust hopelessly evil people to be honest, productive, and self-sufficient. If we open our borders, the evil Mexicans will come here and break our laws, steal our stuff, and live on the dole.
If businessmen are by nature corrupt—and what, according to religion, is more corrupt than a businessman?—then we can’t very well let them engage in accounting practices that suit their greedy needs. Rather, we must dictate accounting practices and implement monitoring devices to thwart their greedy efforts and counter their evil nature: hence Sarbanes-Oxley.
If, as religion holds, God creates one’s soul at conception, then abortion and embryonic stem cell research are clearly murder and must be outlawed.
If creationism is true, as according to the Bible it is, then it certainly should be taught in schools.
If God says, as He does in the Bible, that homosexuals should be murdered (Leviticus 20:13), then, at the very least (until such time as biblical law can be implemented in full), they should not be permitted to marry—and, better yet, they should be forbidden to engage in their deviant sexual behavior.
If people are so base as to engage in homosexuality, pre-marital sex, and other ungodly acts, God only knows what they’ll broadcast if free to air whatever they choose: hence the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act.
If you’re supposed to “love your enemies” and “resist not evil” and “turn the other cheek” and “judge not that ye be not judged” and so on (see the Beatitudes), then we should have a foreign policy essentially like the one advocated and implemented by the Republicans. (I know, I know. God also said “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” and Jesus said “these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.” Religion involves all manner of contradictory edicts. I’m not vouching for its consistency, but pointing out its insanity.)

Although Republican politicians do not necessarily cite or even see religion as the motivating factor in all that they do, religion is their philosophy, and one’s philosophy is what guides one’s choices and actions. Implicitly or explicitly, the Republicans govern by reference to religion. This is why, when Republicans are in office, they expand the welfare state; increase spending; thwart free trade; attack businessmen, women, and gays; strive to corrupt science and retard the minds of children; appease our enemies; sacrifice our soldiers; and endanger our lives. When Democrats are in office they do most of this, too—but less so—and none of the damage they inflict is ever blamed on their being capitalists or “hawks.” All damage caused by Democrats is blamed on their being socialists and “doves.”

While the Republicans are in office, whatever they do in the name of defending America is regarded as the most we can do. “We’re doing everything we can,” the Republicans tell us daily. And since Americans have accepted the false alternative of conservatism or liberalism, and since the Democrats call only for retreat, Americans by and large believe that our alternatives are the status quo or surrender; thus, Republicans are scarcely encouraged to do more. Conversely, if the Democrats gain control, whatever they do (or don’t do) to defend America will properly be seen as too little; thus, they will constantly be encouraged to do more. We need to turn the tables.

That actions speak louder than words is not a particularly profound principle; it is a mere truism known even to a child. Yet this truism is apparently regarded as untrue in the minds of those who insist that the Republicans are doing better than the Democrats would do at waging the so-called “war on terrorism.” The general argument from the pro-Republican camp is that, “well, at least the Republicans talk tough and are trying to kill terrorists.” Even granting the notion that their talk is tough (it is not), the only way their so-called “tough talk” will ever translate into remotely tough action is when they are sitting on the sidelines lying to the Democrats about what they’d do if they were in office.

As to the notion that the Republicans are at least trying to kill terrorists: Suppose you hired someone to rid your yard of leaves, and he proceeded to pick up one leaf at a time between his fingers and walk it to the curb while ignoring the bright-red rake before his eyes. What would you say to the claim that “he is trying to get rid of the leaves”? We have excellent tools that are specifically designed to eliminate regimes that attack or threaten America. Politicians who ignore those tools in favor of sending American soldiers off to die as sacrificial lambs cannot objectively be said to be trying to win anything—except perhaps the favor of an alleged God.

To the charge that the Democrats would be worse than the Republicans, I ask: Where is the evidence? Pointing to the Democrats’ words is entirely insufficient. Their words are meaningless. Today’s politicians don’t act on their words; they act on their motivations. Consider the case of Bill Clinton and healthcare, which he promised to socialize. Once in the White House, he did no such thing; rather, he instituted relatively few new government controls and even signed into law major welfare reforms. Why? Because the American people demanded it. While Republicans are motivated by religion, Democrats are motivated by power, and they will say anything to gain it (they’ll even quote scripture). Once in power, however, they will also do anything to stay there—and that means doing what the American people tell them to do. Granted, such an arrangement is hardly ideal, but it is certainly better than the current situation. However bad for America a Democrat-controlled Congress would be—and it would be bad—it would not be as bad as the Republican-controlled Congress has been and would continue to be.

Democrats today don’t have any ideas to speak of; they’re dried-up, unserious, discredited socialists who just want to be in power because it makes them feel like big shots. Republicans do have ideas, religious ideas; they want to be in power because they want to impose their faith-based, man-hating, rights-violating, sacrificial ideas on America. Yes, some Democrats are me-too-ing the Republicans and pretending to be more religious than they actually are, but this is because the culture is warming to religion; thus, the Democrats think it will help them get elected. If elected, however, that pragmatically pious veneer will quickly peel away and expose the puppet that is a Democratic politician—a puppet that the American people can then proceed to manipulate in accordance with their more-secular, life-promoting values.

America is not now a theocracy, and it may not be one anytime soon, but the religionists are chipping away at the ever-weakening wall between church and state, and we are already suffering various faith-based initiatives, faith-based advantages, faith-based laws, and, worst of all, the faith-based policy of so-called “Just War”—with its roots in that foul, crooked, sordid Augustine—which has hamstrung our military, sacrificed our soldiers, emboldened our enemies, zapped America’s will to fight, and made impossible a proper assault on Iran.

The issue comes down to this: The Republicans are essentially religionists. They believe that faith delivers knowledge; that the Bible is true; that while the U.S. Constitution currently prohibits them from following God’s word to the T, they should persistently strive to remedy that problem; and that we must fight a so-called “Just War”—a war in which the lives and limbs of American soldiers are systematically sacrificed for the sake of enemy civilians and mystical savages. The Democrats, on the other hand, are effectively idealess power-seeking puppets: They want to be in office so that they will feel some (pseudo-)self-worth. Vote for the pathetic puppets, and then work to spread the right ideas to their constituents.

It is time to oust the Republicans. I’ll be voting for Democrats and letting the candidates of both parties know why I did; I urge you to do so, too. Even if there happens to be a relatively “good” Republican candidate on your ballot, vote Democrat and inform the Republican that you voted against him despite his virtues because of his affiliation with and support for a party that is profoundly anti-reason, anti-America, anti life. Let him know that if he wants your vote in the future, he must openly repudiate the Republican agenda—openly denounce religion, statism, and the Forward Strategy of Altruism—and openly advocate reason, capitalism, and a foreign policy of self-interest.

Finally, no single election is as important as the underlying cause of the political nightmare in which we find ourselves today. That cause is bad philosophy, and the only way to counter it is by understanding, embracing, and spreading good philosophy. However you choose to vote in this election, study and spread Objectivism, donate to the Ayn Rand Institute, read The Objective Standard, and encourage your friends and family to do the same. The future is still ours if we are willing to fight for it.

Posted in: Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Religion

Sunday, October 29, 2006

Why I Will Not Vote for Any Republican

Posted by John David Lewis at 3:56 pm

In the upcoming election, I will not vote for any Republican. My reasons are based on those offered by philosopher Leonard Peikoff, and I agree with him completely. A straight Democratic vote in this election is the only rational choice I can make. I would not, however, vote Republican today even if the issue of government religion was not relevant.

In every area of domestic and foreign policy, the conservatives controlling the Republican Party have expropriated the central tenets of the left, while claiming to be an alternative. This has created a false alternative to the political left, posing as its opposite but supporting the same basic goals. This has sowed massive confusion in people’s minds, and limited the American people to a choice of poisons. This confusion is undermining people’s capacity to even conceive of a true alternative to the welfare state and military defeat.

The matter becomes all the more urgent , and the consequences more dangerous, when motivated by a civic religion and its claims to supernatural sanction.

The left is of no cultural importance here. They are clearly socialistic at heart, and want America to retreat before the whims of foreigners. It is easy to establish an opposition to them—whenever an alternative has been clear, their failure has been inescapable. But the Republicans, by forming a phony choice, have made it much more difficult to discern a true alternative.

Consider fiscal policy. The conservatives have become outright supporters of the welfare state. Compassionate conservatives have set out to surpass the leftists in spending. Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill, and he ranks with FDR and LBJ as a great financier of the welfare state. To call this triumvirate “free-market,” or “pro-business,” is an intellectual and political crime. Yet this is what the Bush conservatives claim.

Under Bush, the Department of Education has nearly doubled in size. Attempts to eliminate Social Security have mutated into plans to save it. Private savings accounts will be owned by individuals but controlled by the government. Private medicine will be by cartels, under government controls and grants. Welfare will be distributed by private groups, including churches and other religious organizations, who will seek the approval of government bureaucrats. All of this is in fundamental agreement with the welfare state, even if the form differs from what a leftist might prefer—and its claims to religious sanction give it a power that the left does not have.

Bush, of course, did well to lower the Capital Gains Tax—but does this temporary measure, easily repealed, offset the permanent harm done by an institutionalized Sarbanes-Oxley? Must we save capitalism by jailing CEOs?

Conservative support for the welfare state was once a compromise with the left. This is no longer so. Conservatives are energetically growing the welfare state, and will continue to do so even if the left withers away. On one level, principles of altruism motivate them to demonstrate their goodness through tax and spend. But there is another reason for this commitment: the very fact that the welfare state exists. This, to a true conservative, is sufficient evidence for its legitimacy.

Conservatives conserve. They see a nation’s institutions, traditions and moral ideals as the anchor for its society—the glue that holds it all together—and they want to preserve them. For most of history, from the Greeks through Rome, the Middle Ages and into the 18 th century, the glue was seen as the laws and customs of our ancestors, whether the simple virtues of pious farm life, the norms of the Senatorial aristocracy, the dogmas of the church, the prerogatives of the ancien regime, the traditional religious standards, or other established credos. Conservatives do not stand for any content; they stand for preserving that which anchors and stabilizes society—a claim to mystical insights into moral ideals that rise above the petty concerns of life on earth.

In classical Athens, conservators of the traditional standards protected the city against “new gods” by executing Socrates. In Sparta, the divine ideals of the ancient founder Lycurgus were preserved by force. In Rome, Cato advocated the virtues of agrarian life as blessed by the gods; in the Middle Ages popes and monks defended the ideals of the early church; in early modern Europe the kingship and nobility stood against liberal reformers; in our own day, advocates of an old-time civic religion stand against a secular alternative.

In every case, it was the reformer—anyone who wanted to use his mind to find a better way of doing things—who was the enemy of the conservative. The point is not that the reformer was right; in many cases he was not. The point is that the conservatives opposed him because he was a reformer, because he used his mind to question the moral basis of life on earth. He became a danger to the established order.

For a brief moment, however—for a few decades in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries—people understood that what defined American life was individualism, the free market and limited government. Conservatives to some degree supported these ideals against progressives and Marxists. People began to think that defending these ideals was the essence of conservatism, and they forgot the more basic nature of conservatism: to conserve traditions qua traditions, to be taken on faith.

Consequently, when the welfare state supplanted limited government and freedom, and showed its resilience in the face of opposition, conservatives became the defenders of the new status quo. That is where we are today. Conservatives of the Bush tribe are now energetic advocates for the welfare state, connecting it to what they call traditional American virtues, meaning altruistic sacrifice, and defending it as the basis for American life.

This is true in domestic policy, but also in military defense. A few decades ago, conservatives wanted to use our military only for our own defense, and with quick and overwhelming force. They set a policy tone that Ronald Reagan claimed as his own. But Reagan retreated from Lebanon, and George Bush, Sr. never did anything without an international consensus. So it is with Bush Jr., who attacked Iraq only after months of building a coalition, and who sees democracy for them—even if based on Islamic Law—as constituting our success. If this sounds more like Woodrow Wilson than Douglas MacArthur, it should.

The conservative platform today is fundamentally indistinguishable from the New Left. Yet conservatives are not as forthright about their socialism. They claim to be pro-business, pro-freedom, and pro-military offense, all the while they act the opposite. They claim the mantle of Barry Goldwater while pushing the policies of FDR and LBJ. They hide the nature of their plans, seeing the route to success as appearing to be A while being non-A.

This has fostered enormous confusion. Say “military offense” and many people will think of Iraq—meaning quagmire and non-victory. Say “free market” and they think of cartels, Enron, and Sarbanes-Oxley as a necessary restraint on “greed.” Say “freedom in medicine” and they think of the government-controlled hospitals that offer “choice” with a government handout. Say “private education” and they think of charter schools with public scholarships. Say “fiscal conservatism” and they think of rising deficits, from tax cuts combined with increased spending. Say “morality” and they think of anti-abortion, marriage laws and prayer in schools.

Conservatives have created a fantasy world of appearance, designed to expropriate the programs of the left while wearing the clothing of American freedom. In the end, the idea of a true alternative to the welfare state and military defeat is hacked up and re-stitched into a chimera. The fact that the left has become a cesspool of nihilism does not change the nature of the conservative reaction, or make this package-deal any real alternative.

In my view, if our choice is between two forms of welfare redistribution and military timidity, we would be best off with a president who openly espouses these ideas, and makes no claims to support the opposite. This would not lead to better policies, but it would result in clarity, a point of focus for an opposition, and a better chance for a true alternative to take hold.

Suppose that Al Gore had been elected in the fall of 2000. The 9/11 attacks would have occurred, but there would have been no confusion about what caused them: democratic weakness, not Republican “offense.” Gore would have been forced to look strong, in the face of Republican opposition. Welfare-state spending could be blamed on Democratic welfare-statism, not the Republican “free market.” Persecution of businessmen could be blamed on Elliot Spitzer, not the “pro-business” philosophy of Alberto Gonzales.

All of this becomes all the more potent when integrated with the core issues of the conservative civic religion: anti-abortion, regulation of biotechnology, control of marriage, and controls on immigration, issues in which some Republicans and Democrats actually differ. Bush saw fit to veto one bill in six years—stem cell research—and to interrupt his vacation to prevent a merciful death for the brain-dead Terry Schiavo. Beyond that, he has never met a government program he did not like.

In the end, a repudiation of these policies cannot occur by rewarding the Bush conservatives with an election victory. This has not worked for the past six years, and it will not work now. To “crush the left” in this election will not hurt the leftists any further—for their collapse is philosophical, not political, and thus far deeper than any election. But a conservative victory now will confirm the present leadership of the Republican Party, and strengthen their hold on it.

Republican Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona is one of the few rational voices here. In his opposition to earmarking—a distinctly conservative form of spending your money—he said “Maybe it’ll take two years in the wilderness of being in the political minority. I hope that’s not what it takes.” But it will—for this will be a necessary step to discrediting the new conservatives and making clear the need for a true alternative to the welfare state and foreign appeasement, and its anchor in civic religion.

Posted in: Foreign Policy and War, History, Individual Rights and Law

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Objectivist Summer Conference 2007 Preview

Posted by ARI Media at 6:29 pm

Leonard Peikoff’s The DIM Hypothesis available FREE at aynrand.org!

Next summer, Objectivist Summer Conference 2007 will present a new lecture series by Leonard Peikoff, presenting a detailed examination of his forthcoming book, The DIM Hypothesis.

Objectivist Summer Conference 2007

For a limited time, as a prelude to this event, we are able to present to you, free of charge, a streaming audio recording of the original lecture series, delivered in 2004, in which Dr. Peikoff gave the first detailed presentation of his exciting new theory. Listeners are invited to experience this course as a document of the early development of Dr. Peikoff’s latest work.

Streaming audio links for the course can be found online at the Ayn Rand Institute’s Registered User Page. (If you aren’t yet registered, registration is fast, free and easy—just click to register now!) Audio streams are available in both RealMedia® and Windows Media® formats.

Course description:

This 15-session course—part lecture, part discussion—was presented live to a worldwide audience by phone and on the Internet. It is based on Dr. Peikoff’s “The DIM Hypothesis” (book-in-progress), in which he looks at the role of integration in the culture and in practical life.

This course explains and explores Dr. Peikoff’s new DIM hypothesis, applying it to ten different cultural areas, as listed in the course outline. The hypothesis identifies and distinguishes three types of mind: the mind characterized by I (Integration); by D (Disintegration); or by M (Misintegration). In the sessions Dr. Peikoff points out how all of the influential movements in the areas included reflect—and could only have been created by—one or another of these three mind sets. If enhancing your understanding of today’s world and of where we are heading is an important concern of yours, Dr. Peikoff believes that you will find a DIM perspective on events to be of significant value.

As Dr. Peikoff recently explained: “[M]y thesis is that the dominant trends in every key area can be defined by their leaders’ policy toward integration: they are against it (Disintegration, D); they are for it, if it conforms to reality (Integration, I); they are for it, if it conforms to a superior reality (Misintegration, M).”

LISTEN NOW

FREE REGISTRATION

Posted in: Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Events, Philosophy

Thursday, October 26, 2006

New Streaming Videos from the Ayn Rand Institute

Posted by Craig Biddle at 7:18 pm

The following new videos are free (with a quick registration). The first is Dr. Yaron Brook’s enlightening explanation of why the Forward Strategy of Freedom has failed and will continue to fail to bring security to America. The second is Dr. Onkar Ghate’s excellent discussion of why religion cannot provide a foundation for an objective morality and of what philosophy can. Both talks are highly recommended.

Democracy versus Victory: Why the “Forward Strategy of Freedom” Had to Fail
By Yaron Brook

After Sept. 11 the Bush administration declared that we must go on a mission to bring freedom to the Middle East nations that threaten us; thus, the Forward Strategy of Freedom. According to this strategy, establishing democracies in key Muslim countries, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq, would spur a revolution in the rest of the Muslim world—a revolution that would bring free, pro-Western, anti-terrorist governments to power.

But the strategy has failed. With the rise of the religious Shiites in Iraq, of Hamas and of Hezbollah, and with the electoral victories of Islamic radicals elsewhere in the Middle East, the Muslim world has grown more militant.

Why has the Forward Strategy of Freedom failed, and why was failure inevitable? What are the flaws inherent in the strategy? How does it necessarily undermine victory? What motivates it and what strategy should replace it? These are the questions Dr. Brook addresses in this talk.

Religion and Morality
By Onkar Ghate

From the teaching of “Intelligent Design” in the classroom to federal prohibition on the funding of stem cell research to the Terri Schiavo case, religion is playing an increasing role in America’s public life. The advocates of religion claim that only religion can restore values to America—by combating moral skepticism and relativism with an absolute view of right and wrong, applicable to everyone. If God is dead, it is often thought today, then everything would be permitted. But does morality rest on religion? Can it rest on religion? Are moral absolutes possible with religion? Without religion? What approach to morality can actually bring values to American culture? These are the questions this talk addresses.

Posted in: Announcements, Foreign Policy and War, Religion

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

America’s Self-Defense Should Not Be Left at the Mercy of the United Nations

Posted by ARI Media at 7:27 pm

Irvine, CA—Iran is apparently expanding its nuclear program, and North Korea has hinted that it might test another nuclear bomb. Washington has committed itself to a “diplomatic” solution and is pushing for U.N. sanctions against Iran or North Korea. These sanctions, though, might be sunk if opposed by Russia or China or another country. So U.S. diplomats are busy trying to build international support for supposedly “tough” U.N. sanctions.

“But this entire approach is dead wrong. It sacrifices our self-defense to the whims of the so-called international community,” said Elan Journo, a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute.

“Our self-defense should not be left to the mercy of the dictatorship-infested United Nations, an organization corrupt to its core and manifestly hostile to America.

“We have a moral right to exist and defend our freedom. But our leaders do not believe that. That is why they want the approval of others, the endorsement of a ‘consensus’ supporting U.S. actions. Our leaders lack the confidence to act self-assertively to defend U.S. interests. But such independence—grounded in rational judgment and moral self-confidence—is indispensable to protecting our lives.

“Today’s crisis is a product of U.S. inaction and appeasement of Iran. Taking military action against Iran is not only within America’s rights, but overdue.”

Posted in: Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

The Media’s Mistreatment of Jeff Skilling

Posted by ARI Media at 10:18 pm

Irvine, CA—Upon hearing the news that former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling was sentenced to 24 years, most Americans, trusting the newspaper articles and books they have read on Enron, think that justice has been served. But, said Alex Epstein, a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, “Jeff Skilling has not gotten justice, and the media bear a major portion of the blame.

“Few Americans know that during Skilling’s trial, the prosecution came nowhere near proving its central allegation that Jeff Skilling engineered a conspiracy to defraud investors. Few know that Skilling, upon leaving Enron five months before its collapse, destroyed no documents, nor did anything else resembling a criminal cover-up. Few know that the prosecution, unable to prove a conspiracy, spent huge swaths of the trial taking pot-shots at Skilling with issues not even mentioned in the indictment, such as the failure of Skilling, a multi-millionaire many times over, to disclose a failed $50,000 investment to Enron’s board.

“The media’s misportrayal of the case against Skilling long predates the trial. Ever since the fall of Enron, most of the media have treated as fact every conceivable smear against Skilling made by ax-grinding prosecutors or ex-Enron employees, while treating as absurd Skilling’s claim that he neither engineered a conspiracy nor lied to investors.

“There can be no doubt that the media’s treatment of Skilling contributed to his conviction for a phantom conspiracy—and to the outrageous 24-year sentence that he has now received. And the mistreatment of Skilling is part of a broader trend: the trend of treating businessmen as guilty until proven innocent. Our journalists and intellectuals, accepting the idea that the pursuit of profit is morally tainted, assume that whenever anything goes wrong in business, it is the result of crooked behavior by greedy, rich CEOs—and slant their coverage accordingly. This practice is putting numerous innocent men in jail, and instilling terror throughout corporate America.

“During Skilling’s appeal, let us call for the media to start treating Skilling—and all businessmen—fairly.”

Posted in: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law

Monday, October 23, 2006

How Britain Should Promote Assimilation

Posted by ARI Media at 3:27 pm

Irvine, CA—Britain is embroiled in a fierce debate over British Muslim women who wear a niqab—an opaque veil that covers a woman’s entire face. Many British Muslims have expressed outrage that a public schoolteacher was ordered to remove her veil—while many other Britons have defended the school, criticized the wearing of niqabs, and called for the greater assimilation of Muslims into British society.

“Britons are absolutely right to criticize the niqab,” said Alex Epstein, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. “It is a demeaning, barbaric article of clothing that inculcates shame in women, depriving them of individuality and femininity.”

“But to criticize niqabs will not go very far in making Britain a more integrated, less balkanized nation. Britons’ most powerful tool of assimilation is to understand and proudly and convincingly proclaim Western ideals. They must understand that what made the West great is individualism, reason, the pursuit of happiness—and that this is objectively superior to the tribalism, superstition, and earthly deprivation that many Muslims seek to live out and bring to Europe. Britons must reject the insidious idea of multiculturalism, which holds that all cultures are of equal value. Cultures are not of equal value: prosperity is superior to poverty, happiness is superior to misery, freedom is superior to slavery, and a visible face is superior to a slit revealing two anonymous eyes.”

Posted in: Philosophy, Religion

Monday, October 23, 2006

Restrictions on Internet Gambling Are an Infringement on Our Rights

Posted by ARI Media at 3:05 pm

Irvine, CA—On Oct. 13 President Bush signed into law the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, a measure restricting Internet gambling.

“This measure, which requires financial institutions to block credit card and other payments to Internet wagering businesses, is an infringement on our rights,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

“Gambling, when practiced responsibly, can be a totally legitimate form of entertainment. The government has no right to prohibit adults from doing it—on the Internet or anywhere else—and no right to prohibit businesses from offering gambling opportunities to potential customers.

“Why do supporters of the law deny individuals the freedom to spend their hard-earned money on gambling? Because, they say, people will bet and lose more than they can afford. In other words, individuals are inherently incapable of making rational decisions, and thus it is the government’s job to protect us from ourselves. This vicious, paternalistic idea has no place in a free society.”

Posted in: Individual Rights and Law

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Condemn the Power of Eminent Domain

Posted by Larry Salzman at 11:16 am

Last years’ United States Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, which refused to prohibit local governments from using eminent domain to promote private economic development, has spawned a massive popular and legislative response at the state level. A comprehensive list of legislation pending, passed, or dead is available from the Institute for Justice’s Castle Coalition website, as well as a report with a discussion of common “weasel words” in bills that may appear to reform the law but will in fact have little legal effect in constraining the power of eminent domain. Because the merit of much of this legislation is suspect, it is worth carefully reviewing legislation proposed in those states where multiple bills or popular referendums are pending, prior to next month’s elections. The passage of nearly any such laws is of some value in registering popular support for property rights, but enactment of better variants of the proposed legislation is likely to lead to a steady stream of lawsuits which will keep the subject of property rights in the headlines for many years to come, which is to my mind a worthwhile result in itself. The more coverage the subject gets, the more time and opportunity are presented to intellectuals to speak to the issue of property rights in popular venues.

In my own state, California, at least nine separate bills were introduced in the state legislature and two popular initiatives were proposed. Unfortunately, only one initiative has made it to the ballot for next month’s election: Proposition 90. Although it is among the weakest of the bills introduced, it nonetheless has the virtue of causing city planners to run scared that they may see some restraints put on their power to take private property for economic development. For those in the area of Orange County, California, the Federalist Society and Pacific Legal Foundation are sponsoring a legal conference this Friday at Chapman University featuring a debate over the Proposition and a symposium on the history of eminent domain.

Posted in: Individual Rights and Law

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Attention Webmasters and Bloggers

Posted by Craig Biddle at 5:30 pm

Help promote The Objective Standard by placing one of our sexy banners on your website or blog. Select a banner, and paste the accompanying HTML code onto your web pages. If you have any questions about how to do this, please email Alan Germani at webmaster@theobjectivestandard.com. Banners featuring dated material (journal covers, current issue contents, etc.) will automatically be updated if you use the provided HTML.

Posted in: Announcements

« Older Posts

Follow TOS

Facebook Twitter Feed

Email Updates

To receive TOS updates, click here.