TOS Blog: Daily Commentary from an Objectivist Perspective
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
The Difference between Voluntary Exchange and Rationing in Healthcare
In a recent post, a reader commented:
Even without a national healthcare plan the old person is taking a finite amount of time away from the possibility of the doctor working on a younger patient. Therefore rationing is inevitable in any system. Rationing has to take place. It is only fair to allow the rationing to take place through a democracy [government rationing] and not at the whim of a doctor or the pocket book of those who can pay [a free market].
If the term “rationing” (in the political/economic context) has any rational meaning, it refers to the activity of a government forcibly dictating who will receive which goods or services and when. If we were to refer to the activity of a doctor voluntarily treating a patient who is willing and able to pay for the service as “rationing,” then we would have to refer to every trade in every economic field as “rationing,” and the term would lose its purpose in the English language.
The distinguishing characteristic of rationing—the thing that separates it from voluntary market activities—is the fact that it is instituted by force and by a government. When a farmer voluntarily contracts to ship his corn to a distributor in New York, that’s a trade; when a government forbids a farmer to ship his corn to New York and forces him to ship it to a distributor in Idaho, that’s rationing. Likewise, when a doctor voluntarily contracts with a patient or an insurance company to provide a certain service for a certain fee, that’s a trade; when a government forbids a doctor to contract with some patients or insurers and orders him to serve others, that’s rationing.
A trade is a voluntary exchange. Rationing is a violation of individual rights.
That a doctor’s time is finite, or that someone is unable to afford his services, or that the doctor might refuse to treat someone for some voluntary reason, does not constitute rationing, because it does not involve force. The person is still free to pursue medical treatment by other means—whether by scheduling a later appointment, or offering the doctor more money, or seeking a doctor who has room in his schedule or works for less money, or seeking private charitable assistance.
Trade and rationing are antipodes, and anyone who cares about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness had better grasp and respect their actual meanings.
Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.
Related:
Image: Wikipedia Commons
Posted in: Business and Economics, Health Care, Individual Rights and Law
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Congress Should Reject Obama’s “To Do List” and Remind the President of his Proper Role
“President Obama plans to give Congress a ‘To Do List’ today,” USA Today reports. But that’s not how American government is supposed to work.
On the contrary, Congress, the legislative branch of government, is supposed to give the “to do lists” to the president, head of the executive branch. (The president may “recommend to [Congress’s] consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient,” the Constitution says.) The presumption that Congress exists to do the president’s bidding puts the future of our Republic in extreme peril.
Moreover, Obama’s “to do list” is all about expanding the federal government’s interference in the economy. Obama’s five-part list breaks down into three types of federal interventions:
1. Expanded tax manipulation. Obama wants to eliminate “tax incentives that allow companies to deduct the costs of moving their business abroad,” USA Today reports. He also wants to implement tax credits for hiring new employees, raising wages, and moving companies back to U.S. shores. But, rather than try to use tax policy to manipulate the economy, Congress should lower taxes for everyone in a equitable way—and cut spending to match. Rather than raise taxes on businesses that move operations to other countries, Congress should lower corporate taxes and regulatory burdens so businesses can remain here and operate profitably.
2. Contract interference. Obama wants to “cut red tape in the mortgage market” to make it easier to refinance “at today’s lower rates.” If by “red tape” Obama means government rules arbitrarily blocking refinancing, then great. But I suspect that what Obama means by “red tape” is actually rational credit requirements by lending institutions, which Obama seeks forcibly to override. At any rate, as every thinking adult knows, the mortgage meltdown was caused by federal interference in the mortgage market and the economy at large, and Congress should act to end government interference in the economy, not expand it.
Subscribe to the
Journal for People of Reason3. Forced wealth transfers. Obama wants more corporate welfare for allegedly “clean” energy (such as the abandoned and toxic waste-filled Solyndra complex). He also wants to create a “Job Corps” for veterans so that they can work as “cops, firefighters, and [in] serving their communities” (whatever that means). But the federal government should free up the economy so veterans (and everyone else) can find work in the private sector; it should not suck more resources out of the economy to expand the federal workforce. The notion that the federal government should finance local police and fire departments (or anything of the sort) assaults the constitutional system of federalism that our veterans have fought so valiantly to preserve.
Congress has a moral and constitutional responsibility to reject Obama’s “to do list” and remind the president that he is not a Caesar but the chief executive of a constitutional republic.
Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.
Related:
- Individualism vs. Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice
- President Obama: The Preeminent “Social Darwinist”
Image: Wikimedia Commons
Posted in: Business and Economics, Presidential Candidates
Monday, May 7, 2012
Cruising Uphill, Thanks to Big Oil
Living in Colorado, out in the country, my route to civilization takes me up and over the shoulder of Dawson Butte. The road climbs steadily for about a mile and then descends on the other side into town. Because the road is beautifully scenic, bicyclists often ride the road, too. As I pass them climbing the hill with great effort, it occurs to me that while I can elect to exercise vigorously as they are doing, my frequent trips take no physical effort and get me up and over that hill with great comfort and amazing speed.
Since my car gets about 32 miles per gallon of gasoline, the climb up that hill uses about half a cup—which costs about 12¢. That’s 12¢ worth of easily gotten, safe, portable, efficient fuel, to give me the luxury of sitting and listening to music or contemplating my values and goals while I cruise uphill!
Thank you, Big Oil—or, more precisely: Thank you, producers of oil—producers who enable me to live in a pine forest yet have easy access to town and beyond, on my own terms, so quickly and inexpensively.
What do these great producers enable you to do? That’s something to think about the next time you hear someone railing against “Big Oil.”
Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.
Related:
- Extraordinary Courage, Bionic Eyes, and Remarkable Manufacturing: Good News Abounds
- Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company
Image by Hannah Krening
Posted in: Business and Economics, Science and Technology
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Extraordinary Courage, Bionic Eyes, and Remarkable Manufacturing: Good News Abounds
A few items from the benevolent news front:
- Helen Collins, an “80-year-old woman with no flying experience,” safely landed a plane as it was running out of gas after the pilot died. An airport official said, “She was remarkable on the radio… She kept her composure and sounded like she had been a pilot for years.” Hats off to Helen for having the self-esteem and presence of mind to save her life.
- A British man, “who had been totally blind for more than 20 years,” now has rudimentary vision thanks to the men of the mind who created and implanted his bionic eye.
- Emerald Touch Inc., has created an “external spine” for the U.S. Military that enables soldiers to carry heavy equipment more easily. Imagine the potential applications for civilian life and industry.
- A penny has sold for $1.15 million. Hyperinflation? No. Rational elation. In addition to its rareness (“After 200 years, we can only account for 14 of these”), the front of the coin reads, “Liberty Parent of Science & Industry.”
- Here’s an article on beautiful efficiency in manufacturing, showing how Herman Miller’s employees and technology create an Aeron chair every 17 seconds. And here’s a video about the process:
Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.
Related:
Image: Wikipedia Commons
Posted in: History, Science and Technology
Saturday, May 5, 2012
“Who the Hell Is Julia?” TOS’s Week in Review for May 5
Noteworthy news and views from the week ending May 5, 2012
The Real Life of Julia
Barack Obama’s campaign recently launched a web page titled, “The Life of Julia.” We are supposed to “look at how President Obama’s policies help one woman over her lifetime.”
David Harsanyi sensibly asks, “Who the hell is ‘Julia,’ and why am I paying for her whole life?”
Josh Fields and Charlie Vidal created a web page devoted to criticizing the campaign. Here is a taste:
Under Government Care: Julia struggles on the SAT because her local school has failed to teach her critical thinking or math skills. The public teacher unions, who overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama, have thwarted any effort to reform education. As a result, Julia has been stuck with her failing local school.
The Heritage Foundation published a similar response (although it approaches the matter from the perspective that conservatism, rather than a consistent defense of individual rights, offers the solution).
If Julia, whoever she is, wishes to live an independent life of her own design, rather than one dependent on the state and designed for her by politicians and bureaucrats, she must fight to establish capitalism in America.
New York’s Newest Tallest Building
Although it should have been built faster and higher and solely by private parties with private money, the rise of the One World Trade Center (“Freedom Tower”) in New York is an inspiring sight.
The Daily reports, “Workers [erected] steel columns that will make its unfinished skeleton a little over 1,250 feet high, just enough to peak over the roof of the observation deck on the Empire State Building.”
Chen Guangcheng’s Future Remains Uncertain
U.S. and Chinese officials reportedly had reached an agreement to allow Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng to travel with his family to the United States to attend a university. But now the deal is looking shaky, as the Obama administration, unsurprisingly, is taking rather less than a principled stand on the matter. The Telegraph reports,
On Saturday Hillary Clinton departed Beijing leaving Mr Chen at the mercy of the Chinese authorities with whom Washington claims to have struck a deal that will allow the 40-year-old legal activist to leave China to take up a fellowship at New York University.
Yet one western source close to the case told The Sunday Telegraph that it is by no means assured that Mr Chen will ever get to the United States.
“The Americans just don’t know if Chen will be able to leave. It isn’t a done deal,” he said.
Although not all of Chen’s positions comport with individual rights, he has courageously fought oppression by officials in his home city, Linyi. MSNBC describes some of the injustices he challenged:
In 2005, the Linyi government started a campaign to “strictly enforce” the one-child policy by arresting and beating up women who broke the family planning law, forcing them to have abortions or sterilizations, heavily fining them and even arresting the relatives of those who had escaped to other cities.
Godspeed to Chen in his struggle for freedom.
Hurray for Apple’s Tax Avoidance
A recent story from the New York Times begins with an ominous tone:
Apple, the world’s most profitable technology company, doesn’t design iPhones [in Nevada]. . . Yet, with a handful of employees in a small office here in Reno, Apple has done something central to its corporate strategy: it has avoided millions of dollars in taxes in California and 20 other states.
The rational response to this is: Hurray for Apple! The only morally corrupt players in this story are the governments in California and twenty other states that drive away business with increasingly higher, increasingly rights-violating taxes.
Obama Signs Agreement Reducing U.S. Half Measures to Quarter Measures in Afghanistan
Obama this past week made a surprise visit to Afghanistan, where he signed a partnership agreement spelling out “the U.S. relationship with Afghanistan beyond 2014, covering security, economics and governance, Fox reports.
The deal is limited in scope and essentially gives both sides political cover: Afghanistan is guaranteed its sovereignty and promised it won’t be abandoned, while the U.S. gets to end its combat mission in the long and unpopular war but keep a foothold in the country.
The deal does not commit the United States to any specific troop presence or spending. But it does allow the U.S. to potentially keep troops in Afghanistan after the war ends for two specific purposes: continued training of Afghan forces and targeted operations against Al Qaeda. The terror group is present in neighboring Pakistan but has only a nominal presence inside Afghanistan.
Senior administration officials said the U.S. is seeking an enduring partnership and will not repeat the mistakes of the past by allowing the Taliban to rise and provide a safe haven for terrorists.
The United States began its military engagement in Afghanistan in 2001. That we did not utterly destroy America’s enemies in the region then, that we have not done so to date, and that we clearly do not plan to anytime soon is testament to the grotesquely self-sacrificial nature of modern U.S. foreign policy.
Salt Lake Story Shows Value of Citizens Carrying Guns
“A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith’s store,” reports ABC. A witness said, “A guy pulled gun on [the criminal] and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith’s grabbed him.”
People don’t stop murderous criminals; people with guns do.
Don’t Blame Walmart
In a recent TOS post, Ryan Krause discusses the accusations that Walmart executives bribed officials in Mexico in order to conduct business, noting that “such bribery is made possible and necessary only by government interference in the marketplace.”
“Occupy” Antics Roundup
TOS released several posts on the violent, rights-hating Occupy Wall Street movement and its May Day melee:
- On May Day, Remember the Victims of Communism—and Condemn the Evil Ideology
- Occupiers Celebrate Communism, Socialism, and Anarchism for May Day
- “Occupier” Thug Clubs A Female Cop Over the Head
- The Israeli Freedom Movement Stands Against Leftists on May Day
Hopefully Americans will overwhelmingly reject the mindlessness, collectivism, and mayhem of the Occupy movement and embrace a future of reason, individualism, and capitalism.
In any event, we at TOS will continue providing the most crucial tools toward that end: clear, concise, principled arguments in support of a civilized, rights-respecting society.
Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.
Related:
Image of One World Trade Center: Creative Commons by Bosc d’Anjou
Posted in: Business and Economics, Foreign Policy and War, History, Individual Rights and Law, Week in Review
Friday, May 4, 2012
Don’t Blame Walmart for Bribery in Mexico
The great producer Walmart, loathed by Marxists, “Progressives,” and Occupiers everywhere, has once again found itself at the center of a controversy. Recently, the New York Times broke the story that, for years, Walmart systematically bribed government officials in Mexico in order to secure building permits, which enabled Walmart to expand and thrive to the extent that one in five of its stores is now located in Mexico. As a result of these allegations, Walmart executives may go to jail, as bribery of foreign officials is a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. In addition, the company’s image and stock price have suffered.
But such bribery is made possible and necessary only by government interference in the marketplace.
In a free market, if a business wants to build a new store, it purchases the necessary property from the current owner. If the owner does not want to sell the property for the price the business is willing to pay, the business is free to look elsewhere for property, or not to build the store. There is no possibility of bribery in such a market because no one holds the power to grant or withhold permits. The only role of the government in such a market is to protect the rights to property and voluntary contract.
Of course, Mexico is not a free market but a highly controlled, heavily regulated mixed economy, with a complex bureaucracy of government officials dictating who is permitted to sell what and to whom. In fact, in a report quantifying how easy it is to do business in various countries, Mexico ranks 53rd, right between St. Lucia and Botswana.
When government officials are able to permit or forbid businesses to engage in voluntary transactions, businesses must either pay the officials for permission or go out of business. And the more power government has in this regard, the less businessmen can produce the goods and services on which our lives depend. As Ayn Rand put it:
When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed.
Unless Walmart has somehow violated someone’s rights (via force or fraud), the company is morally innocent. If the company is legally guilty of violating some illegitimate laws—such as laws forbidding voluntary contracts or mandating government permits—then the illegitimate laws should be repealed and the company should be praised for bringing the problem to the light of day.
Mexican society, like American society, may simply be doomed at this point. But if Mexicans and Americans care to save their faltering societies from that tragic end, they need to unshackle the producers. They can start by standing up for Walmart.
Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.
Related:
Image: Creative Commons by Sven
Posted in: Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Individual Rights and Law
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Steve Jobs, Willy Wonka, and Good Reason for a Torrent of Expletives
When reading about the life of Steve Jobs, my favorite moments are those when I get to see him enjoying his work. A fascinating new book by Ken Segall, who worked with Jobs for seventeen years at NeXT and Apple, shares one such moment that I hadn’t heard of before:
At one of our regular agency meetings, about a year after the launch of iMac, Steve walked into the room giddy with enthusiasm for a new idea. . . . On this day he was pitching an idea to the rest of the room rather than the other way around.
According to Apple’s calculations, the one millionth iMac was about to be sold. That was huge news. Remember, Apple had undergone some tough times, and iMac was the first new computer to be launched by Steve upon his return to the company. To have sold a million iMacs in a relatively short time was proof that something very right was happening, and it deserved some serious fanfare.
Steve’s idea was to do a Willy Wonka routine with it. Just as Wonka does in the movie, Steve wanted to put a golden certificate representing the millionth iMac inside the box of one iMac, and publicize this fact. Whoever opened the lucky iMac box would be refunded the purchase price and then be flown to Cupertino, where he or she (and, presumably, the accompanying family) would be taken on a tour of the Apple campus.
Steve had already instructed his internal creative group to design a prototype golden certificate, which he shared with us. But the killer was that Steve wanted to go all out on this. He wanted to meet the lucky winner in full Willy Wonka garb. Yes, complete with top hat and tails.
It was one of those ideas that everyone in the room chuckled about, maybe more so because Steve seemed to be so enamored by it. He saw the potential to get massive PR for iMac and Apple, and he was more than willing to do his share by donning the costume. Unlike what happened in the movie, however, the winner would not become the new owner of Apple. He or she wouldn’t even get a junior assistant CEO position. It would all be for fun—along with the big, juicy headlines.
That made me smile when I first read it. It still does.
Why is this the first time you’ve heard about it? Surely it would have made the news, and the image of the one-millionth iMac buyer standing in awe next to Jobs in full Willy Wonka garb would have become a popular sign of the times. What happened to this wonderful idea?
Unfortunately, Apple couldn’t proceed with it, because the legal issues were too restrictive.
For one, California regulations required that this be classified as a sweepstakes, which meant that there had to be a “no purchase required” provision. It would be impossible to make that golden certificate work under these rules, so it would be more of a drawing. Which meant anyone off the street could win, and the odds were that whoever did win probably wouldn’t even have purchased an iMac. Faced with the restrictions imposed by lawyers, Steve decided it wasn’t worth it.
Such is the state of the regulatory nightmare in America today. Even something as simple and benevolent as a certificate for purchasing the one millionth iMac can’t be implemented without permission and mountains of red tape.
I expect Jobs let loose a torrent of expletives. He certainly had good reason to.
Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.
Related:
Image: Creative Commons by Matt Yohe
Posted in: Business and Economics, History, Individual Rights and Law
Thursday, May 3, 2012
The Israeli Freedom Movement Stands Against Leftists on May Day
The Israeli Freedom Movement (aka the New Liberal Movement), led a counter protest against leftist organizations celebrating May Day.
Boaz Arad a founder of the IFM, was quoted in Israel National News, saying, “We came here to commemorate more than 100 million victims of the socialistic agenda in the 20th century. . . . This is the forgotten Holocaust which we, as Jews, should remember and remind others about.” Tomer Tal, another counter protester said, “This is not right, because one hundred million people died because of communism.” Michael Jaffe, also with the IFM, said, “There is almost a utopian perspective of socialism and communism that simply leaves out the basic premise that it is the negation of the individual and is the negation of individual liberties… the freedom of thought… the freedom of the marketplace for people to enter into consensual contracts without government interference…”
Not surprisingly, leftists cursed at and shouted down the counter protesters, telling them to “Go back to Auchwitz,” and “It’s too bad you weren’t killed in the Holocaust.”
Aside from the leftists’ predictable reaction, the IFM protesters received a lot of positive feedback. As Boaz told me, “our message is new to many people, and considered as a strong answer to the left’s arguments.”
Hats off to Boaz and the Israeli Freedom Movement for promoting freedom and for opposing those who celebrate totalitarianism.
Here are a few brief interviews with some of the pro-freedom protesters:
Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.
Related:
- Interview with Boaz Arad on the Israeli Freedom Movement
- “Occupier” Thug Clubs A Female Cop Over the Head
Image: Creative Commons by Fipplet
Posted in: History, Individual Rights and Law
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
“Occupier” Thug Clubs A Female Cop Over the Head
Here’s footage of an “Occupier” thug clubbing a female cop over the head.
This is but a fraction of their violent ways. For a good recap of some of their pro-communist, pro-violence activities, see Ari Armstrong’s post on the “Occupiers” May Day celebrations.
HT: Jonathan Hoenig
Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.
Related:
- Occupiers Celebrate Communism, Socialism, and Anarchism for May Day
- On May Day, Remember the Victims of Communism—and Condemn the Evil Ideology
Posted in: Individual Rights and Law
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Occupiers Celebrate Communism, Socialism, and Anarchism for May Day
Communist regimes enslaved, tortured, and slaughtered hundreds of millions of people in the last century, and to this day communists in North Korea, China, and elsewhere tyrannize citizens. To cite but a couple of examples from recent headlines, North Korean communists continue to murder even children in brutal concentration camps, and Chinese officials “jailed and harassed [blind activist Chen Guangcheng] for years for his campaigns against forced abortions and sterilizations under China’s birth control policies.”
Anyone who values human life and liberty must condemn communism as horrifically evil. So, of course, many in the Occupy Wall Street movement celebrated it yesterday for May Day.
In New York, one Occupier carried a Chinese flag while others carried a banner stating, “Kill Capitalism, Save the World.” In Chicago, Occupiers carried a sign that read, “Long Live Communism.”
Other Occupiers promoted a generic form of socialism. In Denver, for instance, Occupiers carried a banner stating, “Democratic Socialists of America”—apparently either oblivious or indifferent to the well-known fact that any degree of socialism (the essence of which is the state’s use of force to redistribute wealth as “society” sees fit) violates individuals’ rights—and oblivious or indifferent to the equally well-known fact that the National Socialists of Germany came into power through “democratic” elections.
Subscribe to the
Journal for People of ReasonBut the Occupiers’ May Day celebration was not restricted to glorifying genocidal communists and rights-violating socialists. In Cleveland, an Occupier was arrested for (allegedly) trying to bomb a bridge. In Seattle, anarchists smashed store windows and vandalized cars. In Los Angeles, Occupiers assaulted two police officers. And so on.
Many Americans, lulled to sleep by cries for “tolerance” and calls to “judge not that ye be not judged,” either cannot see the danger posed by the left, or do not know what to do about it. To defend America and its core principles, we must condemn as evil the ideologies of communism, socialism, and anarchism—and the people who seek to instate them. And we must champion as just and moral capitalism, the system of individual rights and rule of law.
Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.
Related:
- On May Day, Remember the Victims of Communism—and Condemn the Evil Ideology
- Marxism “Begins with Theft and Ends with Murder,” Shows C. Bradley Thompson
Image: Creative Commons by The Eyes of New York
Posted in: Events
TOS Updates & Commentary
Sign up to receive TOS updates & commentary.
Featured Posts
- Marine Returns to Beautiful Surprise: Sees Son with Cerebral Palsy Walk for the First Time
- Sam Harris Couldn’t Help But Smear Ayn Rand
- JPMorgan’s Big Loss Highlights the Virtue of Capitalism
- Teacher Accountability Follows from Genuine Market Activity
- Health Care and the Separation of Charity and State
Blog Archive
Blog Topics
- Announcements (168)
- Ayn Rand and Objectivism (116)
- Business and Economics (274)
- Education (64)
- Environmentalism (65)
- Events (110)
- Foreign Policy and War (233)
- Health Care (103)
- History (73)
- Individual Rights and Law (421)
- Philosophy (146)
- Presidential Candidates (30)
- Productivity (6)
- Psychology (12)
- Religion (141)
- Romance (3)
- Science and Technology (88)
- Sports (3)
- The Arts (49)
- Uncategorized (2)
- Week in Review (15)
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.
