The Objective Standard Blog
Author: ARC Media
Friday, September 11, 2009
Our Self-Crippled War by Elan Journo
Watching video of the Twin Towers imploding, we all felt horror and outrage. We expected our government to fight back—to protect us from the enemy that attacked us on 9/11. We knew it must, and could, be done. Fighting all-out after Pearl Harbor, we had defeated the colossal naval and air forces of Japan. But eight years later—twice as long as it took to smash Japanese imperialism—what has Washington’s military response to 9/11 achieved?
The enemy that struck us—properly identified not as “terrorism” but rather the jihadist movement seeking to impose Islamic law worldwide—is not merely undefeated, but resurgent.
Islamist factions in Pakistan fight to conquer that country and seize its nuclear weapons. The movement’s inspiration and standard-bearer, the Islamic Republic of Iran, remains the leading sponsor of terrorism, and may soon acquire its own nuclear weapons.
Then there’s the Afghanistan debacle. Eight years ago, practically everyone agreed we must (and could) eliminate the Taliban and its jihadist allies—a primitively equipped force thousands of times less powerful than Imperial Japan. Now that goal seems unreachable.
Today swaggering holy warriors control large areas of the country. They summarily execute anyone deemed un-Islamic, and operate a shadow government with its own religious law courts and “virtue” enforcers. Last year the CIA warned that virtually every major terrorist threat the agency was aware of threaded back to the tribal areas near the Taliban-infested Afghan-Pakistan border.
Why have we been so unsuccessful?
No, the problem is not a shortage of troops, nor is the remedy another Iraq-like “surge.” That sham, appeasing solution entails not quelling the insurgency, but paying tens of thousands of dollars to insurgents not to fight us, for as long as the money flows. And it means leaving Iraq in the hands of leaders far more committed to jihadists than Hussein. No, the crucial problem is the inverted war policy governing U.S. forces on the battlefield.
Defeating the Islamist threat demanded that we fight to crush the jihadists. Victory demanded we recognize the unwelcome necessity of civilian casualties and place blame for them at the hands of the aggressor (as we were more willing to do in World War II). Victory demanded allowing our unmatched military to do its job–without qualification. Instead, our leaders waged a “compassionate” war.
Before the Afghan war began, Washington defined lengthy “no-strike” lists including cultural sites, electrical plants–a host of legitimate strategic targets ruled untouchable—for fear of affronting or harming civilians. Meanwhile, we sent C-17 cargo planes to drop 500,000-odd Islam-compliant food packets to feed starving Afghans and, inevitably, jihadists.
Many Islamists survived, regrouped and staged a fierce comeback.
The no-strike lists lengthened. So, necessary bombing raids are now often canceled, sacrificing the opportunity to kill Islamist fighters. Jihadists exploit this to their advantage. Lt. Gen. Gary L. North tried to justify the policy to a reporter: “Eventually, we will get to the point where we can achieve—within the constraints of which we operate, which by the way the enemy does not operate under—and we will get them.”
“Eventually”—for another eight years?
In Washington’s “compassionate” war, we give the enemy every advantage–and then compel our soldiers to fight with their hands tied . . . ever tighter.
Naturally, U.S. deaths have soared. More Americans died in the first eight months of this year (182) than in all of last year–the bloodiest year of the war, up till now.
If Afghanistan now seems unwinnable, blame Bush and Obama. Bush crusaded not to destroy the Taliban but to bring Afghans elections and reconstruction. Obama’s “new” tack is to insist we spend billions more on nation-building and bend over backwards to safeguard the local population. Both take for granted the allegedly moral imperative of putting the lives and welfare of Afghans first–ahead of defeating the enemy to protect Americans.
This imperative lies behind Washington’s self-crippled war—a war which could have worked to deter other jihadists and their state-sponsors, but instead encourages them to attempt further attacks.
How many more Americans must die before we challenge this conception of a proper war?
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Posted in: Foreign Policy and War
Friday, July 31, 2009
Why Are We Moving Toward Socialized Medicine? by Yaron Brook
Government intervention in medicine is wrecking American health care. Nearly half of all spending on health care in America is already government spending. Yet President Obama’s “reforms” will only expand that intervention.
Prior to the government’s entrance into medicine, health care was regarded as a product to be traded voluntarily on a free market—no different from food, clothing, or any other important good or service. Medical providers competed to provide the best quality services at the lowest possible prices. Virtually all Americans could afford basic health care, while those few who could not were able to rely on abundant private charity.
Had this freedom been allowed to endure, Americans’ rising productivity would have afforded them better and better health care, just as, today, we buy better and more varied food and clothing than people did a century ago. There would be no crisis of affordability, as there isn’t for food or clothing.
But by the time Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in 1965, this view of health care as an economic product—for which each individual must assume responsibility—had given way to a view of health care as a “right,” an unearned “entitlement,” to be provided at others’ expense.
This entitlement mentality fueled the rise of our current third-party-payer system, a blend of government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, together with government-controlled employer-based health insurance (itself spawned by perverse tax incentives during the wage and price controls of World War II).
The resulting system aimed to relieve the individual of the “burden” of paying for his own health care by coercively imposing its costs on his neighbors. Today, for every dollar’s worth of hospital care a patient consumes, that patient pays only about 3 cents out of pocket; the rest is paid by third-party coverage. And for the health care system as a whole, patients pay only about 14 percent.
Shifting the responsibility for health care costs away from the individuals who accrue them led to an explosion in spending. In a system in which someone else is footing the bill, consumers, encouraged to regard health care as a “right,” demand medical services without having to consider their real price. When, through the 1970s and 1980s, this artificially inflated consumer demand sent expenditures soaring out of control, the government cracked down by enacting further coercive measures: price controls on medical services, cuts to medical benefits, and a crushing burden of regulations on every aspect of the health care system.
As each new intervention further distorted the health care market, driving up costs and lowering quality, belligerent voices demanded still further interventions to preserve the “right” to health care: from regulations mandating various forms of insurance coverage to Bush’s massive prescription drug bill.
The solution to this ongoing crisis is to recognize that the very idea of a “right” to health care is a perversion. There can be no such thing as a “right” to products or services created by the effort of others, and this most definitely includes medical products and services. Rights, as the Founders conceived them, are not claims to economic goods, but to freedoms of action.
You are free to see a doctor and pay him for his services—no one may forcibly prevent you from doing so. But you do not have a “right” to force the doctor to treat you without charge or to force others to pay for your treatment. The rights of some cannot require the coercion and sacrifice of others.
Real and lasting solutions to our health care problems require a rejection of the entitlement mentality in favor of a proper conception of rights. This would provide the moral basis for breaking the regulatory chains stifling the medical industry; for lifting the tax and regulatory incentives fueling our dysfunctional, employer-based insurance system; for inaugurating a gradual phase-out of all government health care programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid; and for restoring a true free market in medical care.
Such sweeping reforms would unleash the power of capitalism in the medical industry. They would provide the freedom for entrepreneurs motivated by profit to compete with each other to offer the best quality medical services at the lowest prices, driving innovation and bringing affordable medical care, once again, into the reach of all Americans.
Yaron Brook is the president of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Posted in: Business and Economics, Health Care, Individual Rights and Law
Saturday, April 11, 2009
What Is America’s Stake in the Arab-Israeli Conflict?
Who: Elan Journo, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
What: A talk followed by Q&A
Where: American University (Washington DC), School of International Service building, room 203
When: Wednesday April 15, 8:30 p.m.
Contact: Jasmine Whiting, auobjectivists@gmail.com
Description: Many people claim that U.S. policy regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict has been destructive of our security—and that a change in direction is urgently needed. Echoing many of his predecessors and legions of commentators, President Obama has announced plans to make dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict a “key diplomatic policy” of his administration. What kind of policy toward that ongoing conflict is actually in America’s interests? What policy can enhance U.S. security? What in fact have been the effects of Washington’s policy? Has it been unfair? If so, to whom—the Arab-Palestinian side, or Israel? In a presentation addressing these and other questions, Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Institute will offer a secular moral case for principled U.S. support of Israel.
For more information on this and other ARI events, please visit www.aynrand.org/events_other.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Posted in: Announcements, Events, Foreign Policy and War
Saturday, April 11, 2009
ARC on the Tea Parties
Dear Admirer of Ayn Rand,
Earlier this week, we wrote to you to promote a new video, titled "Atlas Shrugged and the Tea Party Revolts." Today we’re writing to let you know that we are expanding this effort with two new videos, along with a new Web page of Tea Party resources.
The new videos expand upon the moral meaning of the Tea Party efforts, and the ideas that will be needed in order to make the defense of individual rights a success.
Once again, we want to bring these videos to as wide an audience as possible, and we encourage you to view them and, if you like them, pass them along to others. Remember also that you can watch our videos as they are produced by subscribing to our YouTube channel for updates.
We are also proud to present our new Web page, titled "ARC on the Tea Parties." There you’ll find relevant material on the morality of capitalism, Atlas Shrugged, and ARC’s tea party resources. Materials on the page include:
- Flyers that can be used as Tea Party handouts
- Speaker resources
- Video presentations by ARC spokesmen
- Radio interviews
- Recordings of Ayn Rand
- … and much more.
I’m grateful for the outpouring of activism that we have seen from our audience in recent times. I encourage you to continue, so that we may influence the culture towards Ayn Rand’s vision of individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism.
Sincerely,
Yaron Brook
Executive Director
The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Posted in: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Events, Individual Rights and Law
Monday, April 6, 2009
Mob Rule Comes to Washington by Peter Schwartz
In dealing with AIG, why are people pussyfooting around? They believe that the bonus money was stolen from the public and must be retrieved by any means possible. So why not bypass the niceties and just send in some well-armed “enforcers” to confiscate the bonus recipients’ cars and houses and bank accounts?
If this raises fear about ushering in mob rule, it’s too late. AIG employees have been crudely vilified, they have been targets of death threats, a U.S. senator has urged them to kill themselves, protestors “tour” their homes, they have had to hire security guards and AIG has removed its name from the front of its Manhattan offices.
This mass hysteria is being fueled by the government, which is proceeding on the premise of: “Get the money back first, rationalize later.” The House passed an extraordinary piece of punitive—and unconstitutional—legislation to tax away almost all the bonus money. New York’s attorney general, abetted by the threat of making their names public, has gotten many of the recipients to “voluntarily” return their bonuses. Perversely, the rights of captured Islamic jihadists generate greater concern in Washington.
All these actions are tantamount to rule by mob action.
A mob is driven by rampant emotionalism, with no concern for facts—facts such as: Are these particular recipients guilty of anything? Are they competent individuals, necessary to keep the company operational? Would they have resigned without the inducement of the bonuses? Didn’t Washington consent to the bonuses at the time of the bailout? Aren’t the recipients entitled to the bonuses by contract?
The essence of mob rule is arbitrary and unchecked force, in disregard of all rights. If so, then when the government spends our money with virtually no limits—then trillions of dollars are gleefully disbursed through unrestrained horse-trading and arm-twisting among members of Congress—when trillions more are poured down the rat holes of failing companies at the uncontrolled discretion of bureaucrats—when government “czars” can select a company’s CEO and dictate its product line—then what we have is government by mob rule. That is, we have government with arbitrary, unchecked power to do as it wishes—which means: government unconstrained by the principle of individual freedom.
Like any mob, Washington desires a scapegoat. It blames capitalism for the mortgage and credit crisis, in order to divert attention from the real culprit: government intervention. Every housing-related measure taken by Washington has made the standards for homeownership looser than they would be in a free market. Government has stepped in to override private companies’ aversion to undue risk. Regulators criticized banks for turning down too many mortgage applications. FNMA and FHLMC were created to encourage the issuance of mortgages that would not be prudent in a free market. The FDIC anesthetizes depositors against risks taken with their funds. And the entire Federal Reserve exists to pump paper money into the economy, and to keep interest rates artificially low—often below the rate of inflation—so that more lending occurs. Yet when this house of cards collapsed, it is capitalism that was denounced, and more government power that was demanded.
The administration’s latest proposal, for a “systemic risk regulator,” should leave little doubt that it seeks carte blanche in ruling the economy. This is a plan for an economic dictator, an “enforcer” who will have the frightening authority to oversee every decision that, in his opinion, significantly influences the economy.
Of course, once the mob-rule mentality takes hold, everyone becomes a potential target. If you obtain a mortgage or a college loan, the government may subject you too to “risk regulation.” You may be told that you can’t buy a plasma TV or take a vacation or quit your job, because the risk to your finances is “unacceptable.” But isn’t that a purely private decision?—you will indignantly demand. If government power keeps expanding, however, there may no longer be any private decisions.
Peter Schwartz is the author of The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest: A Moral Ideal for America. He is a distinguished fellow, and former chairman of the board, of the Ayn Rand Institute.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Posted in: Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
Friday, April 3, 2009
What Is America’s Stake in the Arab-Israeli Conflict?
Who: Elan Journo, resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
What: A talk followed by Q&A
Where: Travelodge Hotel, 925 Dixon Road, Toronto, Ontario, M9W 1J8
When: April 6 at 7:00p.m.
Admission: $25 for the general public, and $10 for students with identification. No need to RSVP.
Description: Many people claim that U.S. policy regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict has been destructive of our security—and that a change in direction is urgently needed. Echoing many of his predecessors and legions of commentators, President Obama has announced plans to make dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict a “key diplomatic policy” of his administration. What kind of policy toward that ongoing conflict is actually in America’s interests? What policy can enhance U.S. security? What in fact have been the effects of Washington’s policy? Has it been unfair? If so, to whom—the Arab-Palestinian side, or Israel? In a presentation addressing these and other questions, Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Institute will offer a secular moral case for principled U.S. support of Israel.
For more information on this and other ARI events, please visit www.aynrand.org/events_other.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Posted in: Announcements, Events, Foreign Policy and War
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Yaron Brook on Pajamas TV
The Ayn Rand Center is pleased to report that, for the second time, ARC executive director Yaron Brook has appeared in an extended discussion on Pajamas TV. The discussion is titled "Is the Government in the Car Business?"
This new interview follows from another given on March 18, titled "Is Atlas Shrugging?" The Ayn Rand Center has created a new Web page to hold links to these videos; we encourage visitors to check this page often, as future appearances on Pajamas TV will appear there as well.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Posted in: Announcements, Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
Thursday, March 26, 2009
The Financial Crisis: Free Markets as the Only Moral and Practical Solution
Who: Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center
What: A talk followed by a Q&A
Where & When:
- Rice University, Houston, TX—March 31, 2009, 7:30pm
Keck Hall, Room 100 [map]
Contact: Manjari Narayan, rice.objectivism@hotmail.com - University of Texas, Austin, TX—April 2, 2009, 8:00pm
Jester Auditorium, Room 121A [map]
Contact: Alan McKendree, utobjectivism@gmail.com
These events are open to the public. Admission is FREE.
Description: Virtually everyone today regards the financial crisis as a failure of the free market. In this talk, Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, will argue that in fact it is the un-free market that has failed. It was not capitalism that held interest rates below the rate of inflation, spurring massive amounts of borrowing and a housing boom. It was not capitalism that gave us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which promoted subprime lending and helped fuel the boom. It was not capitalism that gave us deposit insurance and the "too big to fail" doctrine, which encouraged risky financial practices.
These, and many anti-capitalist measures like them, Dr. Brook will argue, laid the groundwork for the financial crisis. The only cure, according to Dr. Brook, is to set the market free. But to do that, Americans must embrace capitalism as a moral system—one that should be defended without guilt.
For more information surrounding all ARI campus club talks, including detailed campus maps and campus club contact information, please visit www.aynrand.org/education_campus_calendar.
Please note: The above events is organized, hosted and sponsored by individual campus clubs. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Posted in: Announcements, Business and Economics, Events, Individual Rights and Law
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
The Monopoly Myth: The Case of Standard Oil
Who: Alex Epstein, analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
What: A talk followed by a Q&A
Where & When:
- Duke University, Durham, NC—March 30, 2009, 12:15pm
Duke Law School Building, Room 3043 [map]
Contact: Beth Laughton, Elizabeth.Laughton@law.duke.edu - University of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC—March 31, 2009, 7:00pm
Fretwell Building, Room 100 [map]
Contact: James Wadsworth, jwadswor@uncc.edu - University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA—April 1, 2009, 7:30pm
New Cabell Hall, Room 138 [map]
Contact: Sara Sherris, ss5dd@virginia.edu - University of Maryland, College Park, MD—April 2, 2009, 8:00pm
Adele H. Stamp Student Union, Benjamin Banneker Room [map]
Contact: David Crawford, david.crawford@gmail.com
These events are open to the public. Admission is FREE.
Description: America’s experiment with laissez-faire capitalism in the 1800s was a disaster, historians tell us, because businessmen used anticompetitive tactics to form giant, invincible monopolies. The textbook example of these evils of Big Business is John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Trust. In an era before government regulations and antitrust laws, the story goes, Rockefeller wielded market power to squelch innovative competitors and jack up consumer prices at will.
The textbooks need to be rewritten, argues Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Center. In his talk, Epstein tells the true story of Rockefeller’s rise to market dominance. Rockefeller’s success was not based on shady practices but on his company’s remarkable ability to bring the best oil to millions of Americans at the cheapest prices. Did Standard Oil abolish competition? Far from it. The company’s success actually made the oil market far more competitive, innovative, and productive. The story of Standard Oil, it turns out, does not reveal evils of Big Business but illustrates its great virtues.
For more information surrounding all ARI campus club talks, including detailed campus maps and campus club contact information, please visit www.aynrand.org/education_campus_calendar.
Bio: Alex Epstein has a BA in philosophy from Duke University and is an analyst focusing on business issues at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.
Please note: The above events is organized, hosted and sponsored by individual campus clubs. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.
Posted in: Announcements, Business and Economics, Events
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Real Meaning of Earth Hour by Keith Lockitch
On Saturday, March 28, cities around the world will turn off their lights to observe “Earth Hour.” Iconic landmarks from the Sydney Opera House to Manhattan’s skyscrapers will be darkened to encourage reduced energy use and signal a commitment to fighting climate change.
While a one-hour blackout will admittedly have little effect on carbon emissions, what matters, organizers say, is the event’s symbolic meaning. That’s true, but not in the way organizers intend.
We hear constantly that the debate is over on climate change—that man-made greenhouse gases are indisputably causing a planetary emergency. But there is ample scientific evidence to reject the claims of climate catastrophe. And what’s never mentioned? The fact that reducing greenhouse gases to the degree sought by climate activists would, itself, cause significant harm.
Politicians and environmentalists, including those behind Earth Hour, are not calling on people just to change a few light bulbs, they are calling for a truly massive reduction in carbon emissions—as much as 80 percent below 1990 levels. Because our energy is overwhelmingly carbon-based (fossil fuels provide more than 80 percent of world energy), and because the claims of abundant “green energy” from breezes and sunbeams are a myth—this necessarily means a massive reduction in our energy use.
People don’t have a clear view of what this would mean in practice. We, in the industrialized world, take our abundant energy for granted and don’t consider just how much we benefit from its use in every minute of every day. Driving our cars to work and school, sitting in our lighted, heated homes and offices, powering our computers and countless other labor-saving appliances, we count on the indispensable values that industrial energy makes possible: hospitals and grocery stores, factories and farms, international travel and global telecommunications. It is hard for us to project the degree of sacrifice and harm that proposed climate policies would force upon us.
This blindness to the vital importance of energy is precisely what Earth Hour exploits. It sends the comforting-but-false message: Cutting off fossil fuels would be easy and even fun! People spend the hour stargazing and holding torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offer special candle-lit dinners. Earth Hour makes the renunciation of energy seem like a big party.
Participants spend an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away. This bears no relation whatsoever to what life would actually be like under the sort of draconian carbon-reduction policies that climate activists are demanding: punishing carbon taxes, severe emissions caps, outright bans on the construction of power plants.
Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month, without any form of fossil fuel energy? Try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible.
Those who claim that we must cut off our carbon emissions to prevent an alleged global catastrophe need to learn the indisputable fact that cutting off our carbon emissions would be a global catastrophe. What we really need is greater awareness of just how indispensable carbon-based energy is to human life (including, of course, to our ability to cope with any changes in the climate).
It is true that the importance of Earth Hour is its symbolic meaning. But that meaning is the opposite of the one intended. The lights of our cities and monuments are a symbol of human achievement, of what mankind has accomplished in rising from the cave to the skyscraper. Earth Hour presents the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating those lights being extinguished. Its call for people to renounce energy and to rejoice at darkened skyscrapers makes its real meaning unmistakably clear: Earth Hour symbolizes the renunciation of industrial civilization.
Keith Lockitch, PhD in physics, is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on science and environmentalism. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Posted in: Business and Economics, Environmentalism, Science and Technology
TOS Updates & Commentary
Sign up to receive TOS updates & commentary.
Featured Posts
- Who Deserves Credit for Tebow’s 316 Yards?
- Santorum Stands for Big Government because He Stands for Collectivism
- When Ayn Rand Meets Patrick Henry
- The Justice of Income Inequality Under Capitalism
- The Beauty of Ayn Rand's Ethics
Blog Archive
Blog Topics
- Announcements (165)
- Ayn Rand and Objectivism (107)
- Business and Economics (234)
- Education (57)
- Environmentalism (56)
- Events (100)
- Foreign Policy and War (217)
- Health Care (84)
- History (55)
- Individual Rights and Law (352)
- Philosophy (139)
- Presidential Candidates (17)
- Productivity (2)
- Psychology (10)
- Religion (131)
- Science and Technology (70)
- Sports (2)
- The Arts (40)
- Week in Review (12)
Ideas presented in posts on TOS Blog are those of the authors of the posts and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Objective Standard. TOS Blog is powered by WordPress.