The Objective Standard Blog
Archive for January 2007
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Eminent Domain: To Preserve or To Abolish
The audio of a remarkable debate, Eminent Domain: To Preserve or To Abolish, between Jeffrey A. Finkle and Yaron Brook, is now available on our Events page. The audio is free and accessible to all. Click here to listen now.
Eminent Domain: To Preserve or To Abolish
Jeffrey A. Finkle vs. Yaron Brook
The Issues: In the wake of the controversial Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, some legislators are moving to place limits on the government’s power to seize citizens’ property for use by private enterprises. Is it appropriate under certain circumstances for the government to use eminent domain for the purpose of transferring a citizen’s property to a private business—or is this practice wrong in principle? Moreover, while the government is constitutionally authorized to take citizens’ property for “public use,” the question remains: Is this policy moral—and is it practical?
Does the government have a moral right to take citizens’ property under certain conditions—or do citizens have an absolute right to their personal property? Does robust economic development require the occasional use of eminent domain—or would economic progress be greater if property rights were upheld as truly inalienable? What are the moral issues involved in eminent domain? What are the practical issues? Are the moral and the practical necessarily at odds—or can they be reconciled? Mr. Finkle and Dr. Brook will present the facts in support of their respective positions.
The Debaters: Mr. Finkle became the president and CEO of the International Economic Development Council in August 2001, following IEDC’s birth through the merger of the Council for Urban Economic Development (CUED) with the American Economic Development Council (AEDC). Prior to the merger, Finkle served for 15 years as president and CEO of CUED. During that time, he oversaw the vast expansion of that organization’s membership and influence, as well as strengthening its financial footing. Dr. Brook is the president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. As a recognized expert on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, Dr. Brook has been interviewed extensively by the print, radio and television media for the Objectivist position on current events. Among his recent interviews have been appearances on Talk Back Live (CNN), Your World with Neil Cavuto (Fox News Channel), The O’Reilly Factor (Fox News Channel) and Closing Bell and On the Money (CNBC).
Enjoy!
Posted in: Announcements, Individual Rights and Law
Sunday, January 28, 2007
CORRECTION
In an earlier post, we mistakenly reported that TOS contributing editor John Lewis would be interviewed on the Kit Jarrell Show on February 10, at 10:00. The correct date is Friday, February 2, at 10:00 PM EST. The subject is his most recent TOS article, “‘No Substitute for Victory’: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism.” Tune in for what is bound to be a lively and informative conversation.
Posted in: Events, Foreign Policy and War
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Life In Junior High – Part 2
Last week, I contrasted the cliché junior high classroom—of raucous teenagers throwing spitballs, passing love notes, and giggling at lewd jokes—with a VanDamme Academy junior high classroom—of young adults in raptures over Cyrano de Bergerac. How we produce students with such maturity and enthusiasm for learning is something I hope will be made clear over the life of this newsletter. But for now, I can at least indicate the answer.
The high achievement, the sophistication, and the reverence for learning of VanDamme Academy students ultimately derive from the school’s basic philosophy. Our view is that the goal of education is to provide children with the knowledge and skills indispensable to life as an intelligent, informed, flourishing adult. We do not treat school as a holding room for adulthood, where we keep students busy until they reach the age when they can strike out on their own. We do not treat it as a grooming salon, where we prepare them for tests and build them a resume for admission into the best high school, colleges, and careers. We do not treat it as a Boy Scout camp, where we train good citizens with lessons in values and enlist them in the latest political trends. The busywork, the “to the test” teaching, the propaganda that results from these approaches defaults on the real responsibility of education and sours students on learning.
At VanDamme Academy, we believe that the purpose of a real education is to prepare the child for life as a capable and fulfilled adult. The curriculum, therefore, consists of only that which promotes this basic purpose, and is presented with this purpose always firmly in mind.
In literature classes, for example, students read the great classics for children and adults. These works are chosen for their timeless (i.e., insightful and eternally relevant) themes, for their captivating plots, and for their defined, memorable, and often inspirational characters. The goal of class discussions is to mine these values from every work, coming to a real understanding of the story’s events, the meaning of these events, and the applicability of this meaning to the student’s own life. I will always recall with satisfaction experiences such as the following: a junior high girl seeing to the essence of a Turgenev villain’s soul (“He is so shallow, phony, and pretentious!”) and then drawing out a lifelong lesson (“I would never date someone like that!”).
This can be contrasted with my own education in literature. We read the stock list of mediocre American novels (The Catcher in the Rye, The Great Gatsby, etc.), and focused our discussions on stylistic devices (e.g., simile, metaphor, irony), an array of arbitrary “themes” that present themselves throughout the story (e.g., the symbolism of colors), and standardized test preparation (e.g., learning vocabulary words and identifying topic sentences). This experience encouraged in me, as it does in most, the view that literature—and education in general—is an obligation to be reluctantly fulfilled: not that it is deeply selfish, profoundly satisfying, crucially relevant.
It is by offering a core curriculum program, one that consists only of that which is most essential to the child’s intellectual development, and by presenting it in a way that conveys to the students the power of the knowledge and allows them to harness it for themselves, that VanDamme Academy cultivates an environment of reverence for learning. Put in colloquial terms, the experience of a VanDamme Academy student is, continually: “That is so interesting!—I really understand it!—I see why I need to know it!”
Just yesterday, we were visited by five VanDamme Academy graduates. They had just finished final exams at a local private high school, and chose to spend their time off at their beloved alma mater. During their visit, they argued (somewhat facetiously) that VanDamme Academy should require more homework, to prepare students for the pain of the piles of un-graded busywork they will suffer in high school.
These same graduates had presented Mr. Lewis with a crystal trophy at their graduation, engraved with the following words, which they had composed: “Andrew Lewis. The man who has taught us to look at kings and see more than crowns, to look at wars and see more than bloodshed, to look at laws and see more than words. The man who has shown us the world of ideas.”
Such is their feeling about a VanDamme Academy education.
Click here to sign up for the VanDamme Academy’s free, weekly e-newsletter: “Pedagogically Correct.” Every week, you will be sent a new article about the principles of teaching employed at VanDamme Academy, along with stories about the results they are achieving.
Posted in: Education
Thursday, January 25, 2007
CORRECTED
John Lewis on the Kit Jarrell Show
On Friday, February 2, at 10:00 PM EST, TOS contributing editor John Lewis will be interviewed on the Kit Jarrell Show. The subject is his most recent TOS article, "‘No Substitute for Victory’: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism." Tune in for what is bound to be a lively and informative conversation.
Also, if you live in Colorado, don’t miss Dr. Lewis’s whirlwind CO speaking tour which begins tonight! For details, visit NoodleFood.
Posted in: Events, Foreign Policy and War
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Life In Junior High
When I tell people that I teach literature to junior high students, the response is nearly universal: an expression of profound sympathy. Teaching junior high is regarded as a martyr’s job, to be taken on only by those with such a selfless commitment to children and education that they are willing to endure the daily torture of a classroom full of obnoxious, disrespectful, hormone-driven, teenagers who have nothing but contempt for learning.
One can see the basis for this view by looking at the state of most junior high schools today. A recent New York Times article about the problem of “chaotic middle schools”describes a scene from a typical New York City classroom:
…paper balls fly and pens are flicked from desk to desk. A girl is caught with a note and quickly tears it up, blushing, as her classmates chant, “Read it!”The teacher, Laura Lowrie, tries to demonstrate simple machines by pulling from a box a hammer, a pencil sharpener and then, to her instant remorse, a nutcracker—the sight of which sends a cluster of boys into a fit of giggles and anatomical jokes.
Is this sort of behavior an inevitable stage of development, the curse of the teenage years? Does puberty cause children to abandon the pursuit of knowledge in favor of spitballs, love notes, and dirty jokes? Must all junior high teachers be candidates for sainthood?
Not in my experience. Here is a scene from the last week in a junior high classroom at VanDamme Academy.
I entered the classroom five minutes before my literature class, the first class of the day, was to begin. The students were milling around and talking, until the first one saw me enter and alerted the others of my arrival. They all bolted for their seats and then sat erect with hands folded, for a deliberately exaggerated message: “We want to finish the last act of Cyrano de Bergeracright now.”
I had been absent the day before, and the class had read act four with another of the VanDamme Academy teachers. Mattingly, age 11, said, in a tone playful but earnest, “I don’t think it’s right that our literature teacher was not with us when Christian died.”
I took a few minutes at the start of class to talk about plans to view the movie, in a discussion that included their protests against the modern, Gerard Depardieu version in favor of the 1947 black-and- white version of which they had watched one act. “If it is not Jose Ferrer, it is not Cyrano,”said Geoffrey, a 12-year-old student.
I assigned parts, and the students read the act aloud, with sincerity, expressiveness, and understanding. As Cyrano lamented the tragic end to his tragic life, the tears streamed down my face. Seeing movement in the desk across from mine, I looked up at Allison, the 12-year-old girl seated there, who was wiping the tears from hers.
This maturity, this reverence for learning, this capacity for enjoyment of art is to be expected in a VanDamme Academy junior high classroom—and it can be replicated anywhere with the right curriculum and teaching methods.
Click here to sign up for the VanDamme Academy’s free, weekly e-newsletter: “Pedagogically Correct.” Every week, you will be sent a new article about the principles of teaching employed at VanDamme Academy, along with stories about the results they are achieving.
Posted in: Education
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Immigration: Let Them In or Keep Them Out?
Who: Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, and Mr. Carl Braun, executive director of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps of California
What: A panel discussion and Q&A on the issue of immigration
Where: UCLA Campus: Moore 100, Los Angeles, CA
When: Tuesday, February 6, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Admission is FREE.
Summary: Immigration is a hotly debated issue today, entailing a number of considerations. What does a rational moral code have to say about allowing immigrants into the country versus having restrictive policies or a closed border? What is to be done about potential terrorists and criminals? What are the economic ramifications of immigration? Do immigrants displace jobs? Will open immigration cause an unjust drain on the welfare system—more so than is the case currently? Will overcrowding be a problem? What value do immigrants pose to a country? Will an influx of immigrants irrevocably alter the cultural atmosphere? Do immigrants have the right to come to America? Do Americans have the commensurate right to employ and sell housing to immigrants?
Dr. Harry Binswanger, member of the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute, will moderate the panel discussion, and the audience questions to the panelists.
Yaron Brook’s bio: Dr. Yaron Brook holds a Ph.D. in Finance (1994, University of Texas at Austin) and is the president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. He lectures on Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism, business ethics, and foreign policy at colleges, community groups, and corporations throughout the world. His articles have appeared in academic business journals, magazines, and popular newspapers, including USA Today. His numerous media appearances include recent interviews on On the Money (CNBC) and The O’Reilly Factor (Fox News Channel).
Carl Braun’s bio: Mr. Carl Braun is a founding member and the Executive Director for the 2,000+ Minuteman Civil Defense Corps of California; one of the oldest and largest Borderwatch organizations in the United States. He is responsible for directing the efforts of a 12-person leadership team and coordinating border security efforts across a 35-mile stretch of California’s southern border with Mexico.
For more information e-mail events@aynrand.org
Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Posted in: Events, Individual Rights and Law
Friday, January 19, 2007
Don’t Revive the Fairness Doctrine
Irvine, CA—At the National Conference for Media Reform last weekend, several lawmakers called for the return of the “Fairness Doctrine,” which demands that television and radio broadcasters give a balanced presentation of all sides of controversial issues.
“The Fairness Doctrine is a violation of broadcasters’ right to free speech,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. “Broadcasters should not be forced to promote ideas they may disagree with.
“Defenders of the Fairness Doctrine claim that, left unrestrained, broadcast corporations will stop some views from being heard. But no private individual or organization can keep people from voicing dissenting views—it is only the government that has the power to suppress speech. By granting a cabal of government bureaucrats the power to arbitrarily dictate what ideas should and should not be heard on the air, the Fairness Doctrine is the real threat to free speech.
“Those who think their views are not being heard have every opportunity to promote them—on television, on radio, in print, online—but they must earn their audience, not demand that it be provided to them ready-made. As Ayn Rand put it, ‘The right of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.’
“Those who value the First Amendment must oppose the Fairness Doctrine as a grave threat to freedom of speech.”
Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Posted in: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Bush’s Iran Policy Encourages More Attacks on Americans in Iraq
Irvine, CA—In his January 10 speech, President Bush acknowledged that Iran is providing key material support for attacks on American troops in Iraq.
“Iran’s support for these attacks constitutes an act of war against the United States—the latest act of war in a long series stretching back to the Iranian hostage crisis,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. “Our government has a moral obligation to respond to these vicious acts by taking decisive military action against Iran: hostile nations must not be given a blank check to murder American citizens.
“Shamefully, instead of vowing to retaliate against Iran, President Bush has meekly announced plans to ‘disrupt’ future attacks and destroy isolated ‘networks’ of Iranian agents plotting to murder more American citizens.
“President Bush’s inaction against Iran will encourage the regime to sponsor further attacks on Americans in Iraq, and to expand the scope of its aggression further. Those who value the lives of our soldiers and the security of America must demand that the Bush administration change course and eliminate the Iranian threat.”
Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Posted in: Foreign Policy and War
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
The Most Successful Business Book Ever
Dear Editor:
Charles Pretzlik claims that Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged is “the most successful business book ever”, yet asserts that it is not worth reading ( The Financial Times, Outside Edge, “Why John Galt is not worth knowing”, January 6/7).
If the book were really as “joyless” as Mr Pretzlik asserts, its success would be inexplicable. How does an unreadable tome find an audience of millions and enjoy enduring popularity 50 years after its publication?
In fact, what a new reader will discover in its pages is an exciting suspense story with well-drawn characters, an ingenious plot structure and a profound philosophic theme.
Atlas Shrugged is more than just a “manifesto for money and the free market”. It is a deep exploration of the philosophical foundations of freedom. It is no exaggeration to say that the very future of capitalism, itself, depends on the ideas in this book. FT readers should follow another “Randian tip”: ignore Mr Pretzlik’s advice and judge Atlas Shrugged for yourself.
Yaron Brook
Executive Director
Ayn Rand Institute
Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Posted in: Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics
Monday, January 15, 2007
How to Truly Support our Troops by Alex Epstein
Whatever their views of President Bush’s new “surge” of 20,000 soldiers, both liberals and conservatives continue to claim that they support our troops. Liberals say they support our troops by criticizing or opposing “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” which they claim has unnecessarily killed 3,000 soldiers. Conservatives say they support our troops by supporting the mission that most of our troops believe in.
In fact, neither liberals nor conservatives truly support the brave men and women who risk their lives to defend America. For both, “support our troops” is a cheap, undeserved claim to patriotism—one that obscures their unwillingness to do what is truly necessary to protect America and its soldiers.
Granted, almost everyone wants to give our troops the resources they need to do their jobs: the best weapons, armor, provisions, and training available—as well as praise, gratitude, and encouragement. But for our government to truly support our troops, it must do far more than help them do their jobs; it must give them the right jobs to do—the jobs that will effectively defend America while minimizing the risk to their lives. Our government must place soldiers’ lives at risk only when American freedom is threatened, and during war it must give them the objectives and tactics that will defeat the enemy as quickly as possible.
The conservatives’ Iraq war does not meet this standard. It could have—if the war had been undertaken as a step in defeating the anti-American, terrorist-sponsoring regimes of the Middle East and thus rendering the region non-threatening. Instead, President Bush made the war’s primary focus the welfare of Iraqis—above all, their “freedom” to elect whatever regime they wished, no matter how anti-American. Further sacrificing Americans to Iraqis, Bush and his subordinates imposed crippling “rules of engagement” (also supported by liberals) that place the lives of civilians in enemy territory above our soldiers. Our hamstrung troops in Iraq have not been allowed to smash a militarily puny insurgency; instead, they have been forced to suffer an endless series of deaths by an undefeated enemy, while Islamic totalitarians worldwide rejoice in our defeat.
One does not support our troops by sending them to fight wars of self-sacrifice and then thanking their corpses. The conservatives’ call to “stay the course” in Iraq—or to add 20,000 troops to that course—is harmful to America and its troops because the mission has been conceived and conducted in defiance of American interests.
If the conservatives do not support our troops, then do the liberals? Absolutely not.
Observe that while liberals criticize the Iraq war for killing our troops, they propose no alternative policy that would protect America against Islamic totalitarianism and its state supporters, including the militant, terrorist theocracy of Iran. Liberals’ only policy proposal is that we not take military action in Iraq or in any other country beyond Afghanistan. Why? Because they believe that America has no right to defy the “international community” or “impose its will on the rest of the world”—i.e., to aggressively pursue its self-defense. They, like the conservatives, advocate self-sacrifice in foreign policy. Denying our right to an all-out military defense, liberals say we must engage committed enemies like Iran with endless “diplomacy,” i.e., bribery, appeasement, and inaction.
One does not support our troops by keeping them home when their and our freedom requires military action. Our soldiers did not join the military to sit on their hands while Iran prepares for nuclear jihad.
If liberals were truly concerned with our troops in Iraq and the freedom our soldiers should be fighting for, they would call for our soldiers to smash the insurgency and move on to defeat our other enemies. Instead, they call for a self-effacing retreat from Iraq, followed by further kowtowing to the anti-Americans at the United Nations—actions that would greatly embolden the Islamic totalitarians.
Liberals oppose the Iraq war and other wars, not because they truly value our soldiers, but because they—like the conservatives—oppose our soldiers mounting an uncompromising, self-assertive defense of America. But such a defense is required to defeat the threat of Islamic totalitarianism. We must adopt a foreign policy of self-interest and commit to defend ourselves using our full, unmatched military might. Neither the conservatives nor the liberals support this, and thus they end up sacrificing our troops and our freedom.
Do not let the conservatives or liberals pose as defenders of America or its military. Demand that they start truly protecting America and its soldiers—or be scorned as traitors to both.
Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”
Copyright © 2007 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Posted in: Foreign Policy and War
Email Updates
To receive TOS updates, click here.
Featured Posts
- Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand's Morality of Egoism
- The Little Dictators
- How to Solve America's Terrorism Problem in 5 Easy Steps
- Government Intervention: It's Not Just Bad for Business
- Altruism: the Morality of Logical Fallacies
Topics
- Announcements (135)
- Ayn Rand and Objectivism (85)
- Business and Economics (171)
- Education (42)
- Environmentalism (44)
- Events (91)
- Foreign Policy and War (179)
- Healthcare (69)
- History (35)
- Individual Rights and Law (280)
- Philosophy (113)
- Psychology (5)
- Religion (111)
- Science and Technology (47)
- The Arts (31)
Blog Archive
- Recent Posts
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
The Objective Standard Blog is powered by WordPress.