The Objective Standard Blog

Archive for January 2010

Monday, January 25, 2010

The Philosophic Foundations of Freedom: A Conference on the Principle of Individual Rights

Posted by TOS Admin at 11:14 pm

Here’s an announcement from the UCLA Objectivist Club about an upcoming conference:

What is liberty? Why is it desirable? How is a free society achieved?

Today, it is relatively uncontroversial that freedom is good, but there is widespread disagreement about what it actually constitutes and how to implement it. Some believe that liberty amounts to the wishes of a democracy being carried out; others believe that it is being faithful to a literal interpretation of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. But is there an objective basis in philosophy for determining what freedom is in principle and in practice?

Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, laid out such philosophic principles: A free society requires limited government that enacts and enforces objective laws for the sole purpose of protecting individual rights. It is where the government does not interfere, by penalty or reward, in thought, production, or trade. It requires a separation of church and state, science and state, education and state, and economics and state.

The Philosophic Foundations of Freedom Conference will focus precisely on these philosophic fundamentals, with numerous talks and Q&A sessions, a leadership seminar on intellectual activism, as well as a panel with a special guest, Alex Kozinski, the Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Saturday, January 30, 2010–Sunday, January 31, 2010

Click here for full event details.

Posted in: Announcements, Events, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy

Monday, January 25, 2010

The Real Goal of the Green Climate Crusade

Posted by TOS Admin at 10:07 pm

An event announcement from the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights:

A talk at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor

Who: Dr. Keith Lockitch, fellow focusing on science and environmentalism at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

What: A talk examining the drastic claims put forth by environmentalists, and a critical look at their fundamental goal

Where: Angell Hall, Auditorium C, University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, MI 48105

When: Wednesday, February 3, 2010, at 7:30 p.m.

Description: Environmentalists claim that our use of carbon-based energy is altering the climate, making us more vulnerable to climate disasters. Human survival, they insist, requires the immediate abandonment of fossil fuels in favor of carbon-free sources. So why do environmentalist groups vehemently oppose projects involving every alternative form of energy ever proposed to replace fossil fuels–including wind farms and solar power plants? And why do they ignore the dramatic degree to which industrial development under capitalism has reduced the risk of harm from severe climate events? Before we rush headlong into drastic climate policies and energy rationing, a critical examination of these policies is urgently needed. Dr. Lockitch will address these important issues and answer audience questions.

Admission: FREE. Open to students and the public.

Bio: Dr. Keith Lockitch is a fellow focusing on science and environmentalism at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He teaches writing courses for the Objectivist Academic Center’s undergraduate program and a history of physics course for the graduate program. His writings have appeared in publications such as the Orange County Register, San Francisco Chronicle, Australia’s Herald Sun and the Canberra Times, and USA Today magazine. Dr. Lockitch has been a frequent guest on radio shows such as The Thom Hartmann Program. Prior to joining ARI in 2003, Dr. Lockitch was a postdoctoral researcher in physics at the University of Illinois and at Pennsylvania State University. He is an alumnus of the Objectivist Graduate Center.

More information: Please e-mail Adam Gaglio, president of the University of Michigan Students of Objectivism, at agaglio@umich.edu.

Please note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI. ARI does not necessarily endorse the content of the lectures and sessions offered.

Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Posted in: Announcements, Environmentalism, Events, Individual Rights and Law, Science and Technology

Monday, January 25, 2010

Force versus Egoism and Happiness: Response to Will Wilkinson on Ayn Rand

Posted by Wendell Hoenir at 12:35 am

Commenting on the recent revival of interest in Ayn Rand, libertarian blogger Will Wilkinson recently asserted that while “Rand’s emphasis on the role of individual rights in generating creativity and entrepreneurial effort remains enlightening,” her moral justification for individual rights fails. Wilkinson, himself a former Ayn Rand enthusiast who became disenchanted with Objectivism, dismisses Rand’s argument with stunning brevity:

On the face of it, Rand needs to solve the compliance problem—why should a rational egoist comply with constraints on self-interested action?—and the way to solve the compliance problem is to show that mutual restraint is generally to mutual advantage. But I don’t think Rand ever shows this. Instead she goes off the rails trying to argue that rational thought, and therefore a distinctively human life, is impossible in the absences [sic] of a strong version of the non-coercion principle, and that predation or parasitism are never in an individual’s self-interest. None of that is convincing. (A strong version of the non-coercion principle is not in effect, but we’re doing fine thinking rationally and living human lives. Lots of people live long and satisfying lives of institutionalized parasitism and predation, especially in and around Washington, DC.)

Wilkinson’s objection unjustly attributes a bizarre kind of naiveté to Rand’s argument. Does Wilkinson really believe that in Rand’s view all rational thought and happiness must cease immediately in a society that adopts even the tiniest amount of coercion? This interpretation is difficult to square with Atlas Shrugged, in which John Galt, Hank Rearden, and Dagny Taggart make important discoveries, produce innovations, and at least at times draw substantial happiness from these achievements, in spite of the coercion to which they are subject.

Rand’s point, quite obviously, is that the greater the extent of force used against individuals, the less they are able to act on their own judgment, and thus the less happy they can be. As Leonard Peikoff summarizes in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

In all its forms and degrees, from private crimes to the incursions of the welfare state to full dictatorship, the principle is the same: physical force, to the extent it is wielded or threatened, denies to its victim the power to act in accordance with his judgment.

In the context of the present mixed economy, Wilkinson’s contention that we are “doing fine thinking rationally and living human lives” is ridiculous. Surely we are doing better than cave men and Medieval serfs, but as the present financial crisis illustrates, we could obviously be doing a lot better—and the crisis is demonstrably a result of government coercion.

Wilkinson’s only remotely plausible objection is his allegation that Rand’s egoist has no reason to refrain from coercion because it seems as though he can profit from predation and parasitism. The example of comfortable beltway bureaucrats feeding off the public trough could lend one pause. But how are we to evaluate Wilkinson’s smug contention that these people live satisfying lives—and his implication that they would not live better lives if they were producers rather than plunderers?

Wilkinson is a fan of empirical “happiness studies,” which measure people’s self-reported happiness under different social and economic conditions. He is happy to trot out empirical evidence alleging that people in richer countries are happier than those in poorer ones, that those in less-religious countries are happier than those in more-religious ones, and that those in more-individualist cultures are happier than those in more-collectivist cultures. On one occasion, Wilkinson even provided evidence in support of the idea that people who earned their wealth reported greater satisfaction than those who inherited it or otherwise obtained it through luck. Why would this not bear on our evaluation of the happiness of those comfortable beltway bureaucrats?

Of course all of this data comes to little, because happiness is not merely the short-term feeling of satisfaction one might enjoy while sitting in comfortable house, or the elation of winning political power over the producers—and self-reported happiness is far from objective data. Wilkinson himself admits that we can be wrong about how happy we are. If that’s true, then we’d better not measure the self-interest of an act by the extent to which it affords us temporary material comfort or superficial self-satisfaction. Instead we must appeal to philosophic principles that measure the value of an action or policy to the life of a being who survives by reason—principles such as the virtues of independence, production, honesty, and integrity—none of which support the initiation of force.

Happiness is not a fundamental standard of value, though it is a consequence of the achievement of values. Contrary to Wilkinson’s claim that Rand never sought to understand the relationship between the use of force and the achievement of one’s own happiness, her most crucial passage on the matter defines happiness as “a state of non-contradictory joy” and connects directly to the question of predation or parasitism on others:

Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions.

Just as I support my life, neither by robbery nor alms, but by my own effort, so I do not seek to derive my happiness from the injury or the favor of others, but earn it by my own achievement. Just as I do not consider the pleasure of others as the goal of my life, so I do not consider my pleasure as the goal of the lives of others. Just as there are no contradictions in my values and no conflicts among my desires—so there are no victims and no conflicts of interest among rational men, men who do not desire the unearned and do not view one another with a cannibal’s lust, men who neither make sacrifices nor accept them.

Posted in: Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy

Thursday, January 21, 2010

The Missile Gap and the Morality Gap

Posted by Wendell Hoenir at 3:46 pm


In my post about the contradiction between the technological sophistication of the Burj Dubai and the primitive superstition on display in the mosque at its pinnacle, I argued that this disparity is another example of the general disparity in progress between science and morality. But what accounts for this gap?

Two reviews in last week’s New York Times Book Review provide a clue.

The first, commenting on the first Soviet test of an atomic bomb in 1949, speaks of the nuclear arms race with the United States that followed:

Those years are some of the most complicated in American history. Great successes, like the Marshall Plan, combined with one monumental failure: the beginning of a catastrophically unwise arms race. Somehow, rational decision was piled upon rational decision to create something utterly irrational. Four decades later, two countries with few disputes over land had lavished trillions of dollars and rubles on world-destroying weapons.

The second, also a story of postwar technological intrigue, comments on how Werner von Braun, onetime architect of the Nazi V-2 program, could have acquired respectability for his work on the U.S. space program:

[In the author’s view,] von Braun escaped from the sphere of moral judgment with the help of the American authorities, who wanted to employ him in the missile and space programs. [The author’s] aim is to make him answerable, if only posthumously, for what he did. And he has a more general point to make, too: scientists and engineers, by claiming to be “apolitical,” often escape being held to account for what they help to produce. In other words, von Braun is an egregious example of a more general phenomenon.

What is the “more general phenomenon” here, and what does it have to do with the passage from the first review?

The first passage characterizes Soviet and American military decisions as equally rational. But why would anyone describe the actions of a brutal totalitarian regime as equal in rationality to those of the government of a free nation? One could portray Soviet decisions as “rational” only by judging their effectiveness as a means to an end, without judging the rationality of the end itself. That is, one could consider the Soviet construction of a bomb to be a “rational” means of defending the regime against foreign threats only by leaving aside the question of whether it is rational for an oppressive regime to maintain its grip on power in the first place.

The view that rationality judges only of means, not of ends, is the “general phenomenon” of which von Braun and too many other scientists are guilty. These scientists assume that they need not evaluate the ends for which their discoveries and creations are used, and that scientific rationality has nothing to contribute to the evaluation of these ends. Science, they think, is “value free,” and the ends of action can only be judged non-scientifically.

This “general phenomemon” is a contemporary version of a view made famous by the British philosopher, David Hume, who wrote in his Treatise of Human Nature, “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” But is it not obvious that to enslave a whole society and threaten with death the rest of the world is irrational? By contrast, is it not obvious that some of von Braun’s endeavors—his assistance in the development of the U.S. space program, and the life-giving technology it spawned—were rational while his support of the Nazis was not?

Not according to Hume. Our evaluation that the threat of mass death is evil and the protection of innocent life is good may seem to be a basic, uncontestable value judgment, but Hume claims that only sentiment supports it. This view, that moral value judgments bottom out in subjective preferences, wrought havoc across the landscape of 20th-century value theory, in which a variety of neo-Humeans propounded versions of “non-cognitivism” about ethics, to the point where it became a commonplace among college freshmen that all values are relative.

It is with some relief that non-cognitivism in value theory is sounding a modest retreat in academia. The philosophic vacuum resulting from complete value subjectivism had to be filled, eventually. New theories, some drawing on the wisdom of the ancients, purport that value can be a natural property like any other. Ayn Rand was ahead of her time when she advanced a version of this view in Atlas Shrugged, contending that what is good for a living organism is simply what furthers its distinctive form of life.

But our culture has yet to catch up with any of this philosophic insight. Journalists regard Soviet and American military decisions as equally “rational,” and scientists regard morality as irrelevant to judging the ends of their research. This is why our moral progress has not kept pace with our scientific progress. Few people have come to realize that morality is a science and that the ends of human action can be rationally assessed on the basis of their life-based objective value.

Images: Wikimedia Commons (1, 2)

Posted in: History, Philosophy, Science and Technology

Thursday, January 21, 2010

The Source and Nature of Rights, Part IV

Posted by TOS Admin at 3:25 pm


Part four of Craig Biddle’s six-hour seminar The Source and Nature of Rights has been posted to UFM’s website and is accessible for free. In this section, Mr. Biddle concludes his discussion of Ayn Rand’s ethics and theory of rights.

Posted in: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy

Monday, January 18, 2010

The Towering Contradiction

Posted by Wendell Hoenir at 3:53 pm

The beginning of the new year and decade bore witness to the opening of the world’s newest tallest building: the Burj Dubai in the UAE. Like many other commentators, Landon Thomas of the New York Times noted the dire economic situation Dubai faces as it celebrates this moment of triumph:

All the same, the tower’s success by no means signals a recovery in Dubai’s beaten-down real estate market, where prices have collapsed by as much as 50 percent and many developers are having trouble finding occupants for their buildings.

Unlike other commentary, Thomas goes further in noting paradoxes surrounding the spectacle of the opening:

With its mix of nightclubs, mosques, luxury suites and boardrooms, the Burj is an almost perfect representation of Dubai’s own complexities and contradictions. It will have the world’s first Armani hotel; the world’s highest swimming pool, on the 76th floor; the highest observation deck, on the 124th floor; and the highest mosque, on the 158th floor.

When humanity achieves the technical feat of erecting a 2,717-foot skyscraper in the desert and places a mosque on one of its highest floors, one is tempted to reflect on the builders’ hierarchy of values, in this case as expressed by the literal, physical hierarchy of the superstructure. Of greater importance than worldly pursuits to these builders are certain values of the spirit.

But what pursuits of the spirit do a mosque, or a church, or a synagogue represent and encourage? Religious buildings—whether cathedrals or minarets—often feature architecture that reaches for the sky. But everyone knows that the heavens are cold and lifeless. And “reaching for new heights” would be a fitting metaphor to describe religious devotion were it not for the fact that so many religions encourage us to grovel, to submit, to lay down our spirits for the service of a higher power.

What is the human spirit, in the end? Our spirit, if it is anything, is our “glassy essence,” what distinguishes us from all other living beings: our rational mind. But the reasoning mind is precisely what religious faith bids us to ignore or abandon. There are still those religious thinkers (mostly obscure figures in the West) who think that God’s existence might be proved rationally. But this is not the attitude that motivates the masses or their religious leaders to build monuments to an all-powerful, unseen deity, to which all of their worldly pursuits must be subordinate.

Many have noted the disparity between mankind’s technological and moral progress. Often the example is the invention of advanced weaponry which is subsequently used to slaughter masses of people. But if morality pertains to human flourishing on Earth, and if human reasoning is what enables that flourishing, then war is not the only example of this disparity. The contradictions of the Burj Dubai illustrate it, as well.

Posted in: Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology

Friday, January 15, 2010

The Source and Nature of Rights, Part III

Posted by TOS Admin at 11:51 am

Part three of Craig Biddle’s six-hour seminar The Source and Nature of Rights has been posted to UFM’s website and is accessible for free. In this section, Mr. Biddle continues his discussion of Ayn Rand’s ethics and theory of rights.

Posted in: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged on Stossel, Jan 7

Posted by TOS Admin at 10:50 pm

From the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights:

The Ayn Rand Center is excited to announce that Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s magnum opus, will be the subject of the Thursday, January 7, edition of Stossel on the Fox Business Network.

The program airs at 8 p.m., eastern time, and features interviews with leading Objectivist intellectuals including Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Center, John Allison, chairman of BB&T Corp., and C. Bradley Thompson, executive director of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism.

If you’re not able to view the upcoming airing, please check your local listing for a possible rebroadcast.

Posted in: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Philosophy

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

2009 Front Range Objectivism Media Output

Posted by Craig Biddle at 12:59 am

Kudos to all the writers and activists involved with Front Range Objectivism. As reported by Paul Hsieh, in 2009 FRO members published 3 articles, 57 op-eds, and 48 letters to the editor.

Some of the topics covered include the financial crisis, health care, gun control, environmentalism, free speech, and government regulation.

The majority of this writing was done by people working in their spare time, in addition to their day jobs.

This list does not include numerous citations and interviews in local and national media, participation in Tea Party events, letters to elected officials, and blogging.

I’d like to thank my fellow FRO activists for their hard work this past year.

The detailed list of our published output includes the following:

Articles: 3

Ari Armstrong, "Lest We Be Doomed to Repeat It: A Survey of Amity Shlaes’s History of the Great Depression", The Objective Standard, Spring 2009.

Monica Hughes, "A Brief History of U.S. Farm Policy and the Need for Free-Market Agriculture", The Objective Standard, Summer 2009.

Paul Hsieh, "How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability", The Objective Standard, Fall 2009.

OpEds: 57

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Shut down corporate welfare for tourism", Grand Junction Free Press, 1/5/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Universal healthcare and the waistline police", Christian Science Monitor, 1/7/2009. (Also redistributed to ABC News, Yahoo News and multiple local newspapers.)

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Obamanomics threaten economic recovery", Grand Junction Free Press, 1/19/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Free Our Beer", Colorado Daily, 1/25/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Salazar promotes special-interest warfare", Grand Junction Free Press, 2/2/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Obama’s Regulatory Chief Believes in Paternalistic Government", Pajamas Media, 2/10/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "We’re From the Government and We’re Here to Help You Drive", Grand Junction Free Press, 2/16/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Food Thoughts", Boulder Weekly, 2/19/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "America Doesn’t Need a Health Care Czar", Washington Examiner, 2/23/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Ayn Rand and the Tea Party Protests", Pajamas Media, 3/2/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Political Controls Provoke Producers to Go On Strike", Grand Junction Free Press, 3/2/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Beware single-payer health care", Colorado Daily, 3/8/2009 (also Denver Daily News, 3/9/2009).

Paul Hsieh, "Health Insurance Industry Sells Its Soul to the Devil", Pajamas Media, 3/22/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Everyone is welcome at Hamburger Mary’s", Grand Junction Free Press, 3/30/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "See you at the Grand Junction Tea Party", Grand Junction Free Press, 4/13/2009.

Lin and Ari Armstrong, "After tea, try long, cool drink of liberty", Grand Junction Free Press, 4/27/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Health Care Reform vs. Universal Health Care", Pajamas Media, 5/5/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Legislature Passes Job-Killing Bills”, Grand Junction Free Press, 5/11/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Udall’s credit controls punish the responsible", Colorado Daily, 5/24/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Invasion forces headed for Japan", Grand Junction Free Press, 5/25/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Are you a conservative or a liberal?", Grand Junction Free Press, 6/8/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Reject political control of health care", Grand Junction Free Press, 6/24/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "More poison, not an antidote: Mandating employer health insurance”, Boulder Daily Camera, 6/28/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Politicians Cause Mortgage Meltdown", Grand Junction Free Press, 7/6/2009

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "DeMint’s health handouts violate liberty", Grand Junction Free Press, 7/20/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Hope and change in Harry Potter", Denver Daily News, 7/22/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Don’t ban or force abortions", Boulder Weekly, 7/23/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "The Federal Health Care Muggers", PajamasMedia, 7/24/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "In health debate, left and right need to check premises", Grand Junction Free Press, 8/3/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Rationing inherent in Obamacare", Colorado Springs Gazette, 8/14/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "That government is best which protects individual rights", Grand Junction Free Press, 8/17/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Not a health care remedy", Denver Daily News, 8/21/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Debunking health care reform myths", Grand Junction Free Press, 8/31/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "The Free Market Is Not Another Form of Rationing", PajamasMedia, 9/2/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Health Care Is Not a Privilege… Nor Is It a Right", PajamasMedia, 9/8/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Atlas Shrugged relevant for modern times", Longmont Times-Call, 9/14/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Restore free market to address preexisting conditions", Grand Junction Free Press, 9/14/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Is Your Doctor Getting Ready To Quit"?, PajamasMedia, 9/18/2009. Edited version also appeared as "Health Overhaul Could Force Doctors to Quit", Health Care News (Heartland Institute), 10/13/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Republican plans for health care reform similar to Obamacare", Colorado Springs Gazette, 9/18/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Fifty Ways to Leave Obama", Grand Junction Free Press, 9/28/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Healthcare in Massachusetts: A Warning For America", Christian Science Monitor, 9/30/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "The Real Stakes", Denver Post, 10/1/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Pay Your Own Doctors", Colorado Daily, 10/2/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "James Warner Shares Light of Liberty", Grand Junction Free Press, 10/12/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Radical environmentalists undermine human progress", Grand Junction Free Press, 10/26/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "ObamaCare: A National Version of RomneyCare", PajamasMedia, 11/2/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Bizarro Health Care ‘Reform’: Expect Less, Pay More", PajamasMedia, 11/5/2009.

Hannah Krening, "Dissent and Nationalization of Health Care", Denver Post, 11/8/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "If planet did warm, low-cost tech could cool it", Grand Junction Free Press, 11/9/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Why we should keep selling low-priced books", Denver Post, 11/12/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Mafia-Style Health Insurance: An Offer You Can’t Refuse", Washington Examiner, 11/16/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Environmentalist clowns threatening human life", Colorado Springs Gazette, 11/20/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "People vote for freedom with their feet and effort", Grand Junction Free Press, 11/23/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Have a Harry Potter Christmas", Grand Junction Free Press, 12/7/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "ObamaCare: Tightening the Noose Around Private Health Care", PajamasMedia, 12/15/2009.

Monica Hughes, "Animal fat, sugar and diabetes", Denver Post, 12/17/2009.

Linn and Ari Armstrong, "Ralph Carr shows politicians can stand for liberty", Grand Junction Free Press, 12/21/2009.

LTEs: 48

Paul Hsieh, "’Concierge’ model offers a free-market solution", Baltimore Sun, 1/2/2009.

Brian Schwartz, " Come together… right now: It’s the law", Boulder Daily Camera, 1/3/2009.

Gina Liggett, "Science adviser pick is pure politics", Rocky Mountain News, 1/6/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Economic grief started with Hoover, not FDR", Denver Post, 1/7/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "New insurance law wastes taxpayer dollars", Denver Post, 1/7/2009.

Richard Watts, "Let’s try capitalism for a change", Rocky Mountain News, 1/9/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Year-round Schooling", Boulder Daily Camera, 1/10/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Kefalas readies comprehensive health-care bill", Northern Colorado Business Report, 1/16/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Government paternalism saps desire to make own decisions", Colorado Springs Gazette, 1/22/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Medicare For All", Boulder Daily Camera, 2/7/2009.

Hannah Krening, "The Stimulus Plan", Denver Post, 2/11/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Single-payer health care has failed in every other country", Rocky Mountain News, 2/18/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Heads they win, tails we lose", Rocky Mountain News, 2/19/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "No food stamp soup for you!", Westworld, 2/19/2009.

Richard Watts, "Lincoln did not value unity above liberty", Rocky Mountain News, 2/25/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Free market alternatives to zoning", Boulder Daily Camera, 2/28/2009.

Ari Armstrong, "Legislator’s comments on promiscuous women", Denver Post, 3/4/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "HB 1256 would aid health coverage", Denver Business Journal, 3/6/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Ward Churchill", Boulder Daily Camera, 3/28/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Our Health, and the Health of Insurers", New York Times, 3/30/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Eliminating the charitable tax deduction", Denver Post, 3/30/2009.

David Weatherell, "Employee Free Choice Act", Denver Post, 4/1/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Prepare For More Expensive Medical Insurance", Boulder Daily Camera, 4/12/2009.

Doug Kreninng, "Denver’s Tea Party", Denver Post, 4/18/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Drug legalization", Boulder Daily Camera, 4/19/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Taking guns won’t hike safety", Colorado Springs Gazette, 4/24/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Don’t Raise Taxes, Legalize Marijuana”, Boulder Daily Camera, 5/16/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Sotomayor for Supreme Court", Boulder Daily Camera, 5/30/2009.

Anders Ingemarson, "Is Canadian Health Care Better?", Denver Post, 6/14/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Health Care Reform: Coverage Is Not Care”, Boulder Daily Camera, 6/16/2009.

Hannah Krening, "Time to fight for your rights", Colorado Springs Gazette, 7/3/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "The Public plan will be the only plan", Boulder Daily Camera, 7/4/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Health Care Systems", Boulder Dail Camera, 7/18/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Democrats’ health care ‘reform’ would reform nothing", Boulder Daily Camera, 7/25/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Cash For Clunkers", Boulder Daily Camera, 8/8/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Health Care Debate", Denver Business Journal, 8/10/2009.

Anders Ingemarson, "The Heart of the Health Care Debate", Denver Post, 8/19/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Health Care Statistics", Denver Post, 8/29/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Single payer: rationing both ideas and medicine", Boulder Daily Camera, 9/5/2009.

Doug Krening, "Health Care Debate Renewed", Denver Post, 9/13/2009.

Briain Schwartz, "Boulder land use restrictions undermine rights & personal responsibility", Boulder Daily Camera, 9/18/2009.

Diana Hsieh, "Government’s attempts to stifle speech", Denver Post, 10/20/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Health care reform and the public option", Denver Post, 10/30/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "The Incentives Aren’t To Help You", Wall Street Journal, 11/2/2009.

Gina Liggett, "Governor’s proposal to tax candy and soda", Denver Post, 11/18/2009.

Brian Schwartz, "Why To Condemn Insurance Companies", Boulder Daily Camera, 12/5/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "The Climate Science Isn’t Settled", Wall Street Journal, 12/7/2009.

Paul Hsieh, "Raising Federal Debt Ceiling", Denver Post, 12/20/2009.

Remarkable!

Posted in: Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Environmentalism, Health Care, Individual Rights and Law

Saturday, January 2, 2010

How to Deal with the Somali Pirates

Posted by TOS Admin at 8:57 pm

According to the New York Times, Somali pirates hijacked a British-flagged vehicle carrier off the Somali coast late on Friday. For a principled and historically grounded analysis of what the civilized world should do about such atrocities, read Doug Altner’s excellent essay “The Barbary Wars and Their Lesson for Combating Piracy Today.”

Posted in: Foreign Policy and War, History