The Objective Standard Blog
Topics: Environmentalism
Monday, April 26, 2010
The Government May Soon Control All Waters
James Oberstar, a representative from Minnesota, is attempting to rewrite the Clean Water Act so that the government has control of all waters—not just those that are navigable. This includes everything from puddles and ponds to irrigation ditches.
Investors Business Daily points out that farmers should be concerned. “The Oberstar bill gives federal regulators the power to police farming practices and to take their land through regulatory restrictions if those practices are deemed to be in violation of the law.”
But everyone, not just farmers, is affected. The economy is an integrated whole; that which affects the businesses of fishermen, farmers, shippers, and energy producers affects the lives of everyone in the marketplace. Oberstar’s bill, by dictating how producers may and may not use water, and thus violating their right to liberty, would throttle the production of everything from fish to cotton to transportation to energy. It would make the production, availability, and prices of all such goods dependent on the whims of bureaucrats.
Further, given its unlimited scope, the bill effectively negates private property. In principle, if the bill became law, the government could take control of any plot of land on which water flows or rain falls. In the 20th century, the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and other governments seized such power over property and citizens. The result? Millions starved to death while millions more lived in squalor.
Will Americans sit idly by while Oberstar and his ilk take one large step in that direction by nationalizing water? Or will we stop them?
Related Articles:
- The Practicality of Private Waterways
- The California Coastal Commission: A Case Study in Government Assault on Property Rights
Related Posts:
- The Little Dictators
- There’s Nothing “Bright” About the Stimulus Bill
- Capitalism: The Only Moral System
Image: Wiki Commons
Posted in: Business and Economics, Environmentalism, Individual Rights and Law, Science and Technology
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day
Because Earth Day is intended to further the cause of environmentalism—and because environmentalism is an anti-human ideology—on April 22, those who care about human life should not celebrate Earth Day; they should celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day.
Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.
According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may. Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.
Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Under capitalism, people are fully free to choose their goals, to identify the means of attaining them, and to act on their best judgment. Accordingly, those who recognize that in order to live well they and their loved ones need abundant energy, clean air, clean water, and the like tend to use the available resources rationally, with an eye to the distant future. Further, under capitalism, if a person (or corporation) spews toxins onto someone’s land, or poisons his water supply, or in any other way violates his property rights, the offender is held accountable in a court of law. But, so long as a person does not violate anyone’s rights, he is free to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind.
Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature into the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.
Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.
The basic principle of environmentalism is that nature (i.e., “the environment”) has intrinsic value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of human life—and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: man. Rivers must be left free to flow unimpeded by human dams, which divert natural flows, alter natural landscapes, and disrupt wildlife habitats. Glaciers must be left free to grow or shrink according to natural causes, but any human activity that might affect their size must be prohibited. Naturally generated carbon dioxide (such as that emitted by oceans and volcanoes) and naturally generated methane (such as that emitted by swamps and termites) may contribute to the greenhouse effect, but such gasses must not be produced by man. The globe may warm or cool naturally (e.g., via increases or decreases in sunspot activity), but man must not do anything to affect its temperature.
In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil.
Stating the essence of environmentalism in such stark terms raises some illuminating questions: If the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, fruits, and vegetables. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist.
It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist?
There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not.
On April 22, make clear where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why.
Posted in: Announcements, Environmentalism, Events, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Science and Technology
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Evolutionary Theory and the Global Warming Hypothesis: A World (of Evidence) Apart
A recent story in the New York Times draws attention to recent legislative attempts by creationists to force public schools to “teach the controversy” between evolution and creationism, and between the man-made global warming hypothesis and criticisms of it.
Two recent developments have pushed the creationists to draw parallels between the controversies. First, attempts to enforce the view that evolution is “only a theory” have been struck down on the grounds of church/state separation. (The court noted that no other scientific theory of equal evidential status has been singled out for such demotion.) Second, the recent “ClimateGate” scandal—in which hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia revealed what appears to be evidence of a conspiracy to fudge and suppress data—has raised fresh doubts about the veracity of the climate science behind the recent push to regulate carbon emissions.
On the question of whether doubts about evolution and those about man-made global warming are justified, the Times article reveals a remarkable degree of agreement between the pro- and anti-evolution camps. According to John G. West of the Discovery Institute, which promulgates creationism, “There is a lot of similar dogmatism on this issue. . . . We think analyzing and evaluating scientific evidence is a good thing, whether that is about global warming or evolution.” On the other side, Lawrence M. Krauss, a pro-evolution physicist at Arizona State University, “described the move toward climate-change skepticism as a predictable offshoot of creationism.” Says Krauss:
Wherever there is a battle over evolution now [. . .] there is a secondary battle to diminish other hot-button issues like Big Bang and, increasingly, climate change. It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science—to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism.
Both sides are right to some degree. “Many scientists” agree with both evolutionary theory and the theory of man-made global warming. As the Times summarizes it:
For mainstream scientists, there is no credible challenge to evolutionary theory. They oppose the teaching of alternative views like intelligent design, the proposition that life is so complex that it must be the design of an intelligent being. And there is wide agreement among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activities are probably driving it.
But suppose for the moment that every scientist on the planet expressed belief in both theories. Suppose further that as laymen, we have no way of assessing all of the technical details of each theory. Could we nevertheless identify differences between the quality of the evidence scientists appeal to in support of their theories?
Even moderately educated adults know (or could readily learn) that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is based on a vast array of evidence accumulated over more than a century and a half of investigation. It integrates observations from a variety of disparate scientific disciplines: Linnaeus’ taxonomy of the species, Lyell’s geology, Malthus’ population dynamics, as well as Darwin’s own collection of data from biogeography, paleontology, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, and common sense observations about the success of dog breeders. And following Darwin’s own work, which integrated all of that, other scientists discovered further evidence in support of his theory—evidence such as later 20th-century discoveries in biochemistry that accounted for the mechanism by which evolved traits are passed on to descendents.
Compare such evidence to the evidence supporting the hypothesis of man-made global warming. A simple first pass indicates that the theory is relatively young compared to Darwin’s: Scientists have only considered it seriously for the last thirty years. Even now, the data alleged to support the theory is poor compared to the plethora of evidence in support of evolution. The most direct data scientists have about temperature extends back only about 100 years; the rest of their evidence is itself a product of inference based on ice cores and tree rings. And scientists do not yet clearly understand the role of CO2 as a factor contributing to temperature change. Many say there is evidence suggesting that other factors, such as sunspots, may play a bigger role.
Whatever the merits of the hypothesis of man-made global warming, it cannot claim the evidential virtues of the theory of evolution. Evolution by natural selection is the central integrating principle of the entire field of biology. As evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky put it, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” The hypothesis of man-made global warming is far from central to climate science, and could be dispensed with without altering our understanding of other climate principles.
Even leaving aside questions about the comparative quality and comprehensiveness of the evidence behind each theory, there is an additional factor that could lead us rationally to doubt one theory but not the other: the factor of ideological and political motivation.
Acceptance of evolutionary theory does not serve any ordinary or obvious political agenda. Each side of the political spectrum has attempted to lay claim to the theory, whether Herbert Spencer’s social Darwinist argument for laissez-faire, or Peter Singer’s invocation of a “Darwinian Left.”
Contrast this with man-made global warming hypothesis—a thesis advanced after our culture had been steeped for decades in environmentalist and anti-capitalist ideology. Long before scientists considered the effect of carbon dioxide on temperature and human well-being, intellectuals had convinced themselves (and others) that capitalism is evil and that human material progress is an arrogant intrusion in nature. That a scientific theory consonant with this view is now being asserted—and that the scientists pushing the theory are funded by cultural and governmental institutions insistent upon further entrenching the environmentalist and anti-capitalist ideology—could easily appear too convenient to be a coincidence.
Even if the global warming hypothesis turns out to be true, given the comparative quality of evidence currently in support of it and the legitimate concern regarding motivations behind the theory, there are plenty of rational grounds to doubt the veracity of its advocates. This stands in stark contrast with evolutionary theory.
It is no surprise that creationists would exploit legitimate doubts about the hypothesis that human activity is causing global warming to cast doubt on completely legitimate science: As advocates of faith, they are critical of the scientific method as such. But it is also not surprising that die-hard defenders of the hypothesis would attempt to smear all critics of their view as akin in motivation to creationists: They have already attempted the same smear job by labeling critics of global warming as “denialists,” likening them to Holocaust deniers—as if the certainty of man-made global warming were on par with the occurrence of the Holocaust.
Both of these groups are on the non-objective premise of finding ways to criticize everything believed by an opposing group. The consensus of modern scientists, in their view, is either all up for doubt or all sacrosanct. But the hallmark of objectivity in this context is the ability to evaluate as true or false different components of a theory or hypothesis. Considering the genuine difference in the evidential status between evolutionary theory and the man-made global warming hypothesis, all interested parties should insist on such objectivity.
Posted in: Environmentalism, Philosophy, Religion, Science and Technology
Monday, January 25, 2010
The Real Goal of the Green Climate Crusade
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
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
2009 Front Range Objectivism Media Output
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, Healthcare, Individual Rights and Law
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
The Winter Issue of TOS
The print edition of the Winter issue is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning December 20. For promotional purposes, we are making Robert Mayhew’s review of Jennifer Burns’s Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right available on our website early and for free.
The contents of the Winter issue are:
ARTICLES
Pharmacide: The Pharmaceutical Industry’s Self-Destructive Effort to Loot America
by Cassandra ClarkAntitrust with a Vengeance: The Obama Administration’s Anti-Business Cudgel
by Eric DanielsWhat the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” HR 3962, Actually Says
by John David LewisThe California Coastal Commission: A Case Study in Governmental Assault on Property Rights
by Paul BeardThe Barbary Wars and Their Lesson for Combating Piracy Today
by Doug AltnerObjective Moral Values
by Craig BiddleBOOKS REVIEWED
Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns
Reviewed by Robert MayhewHeaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science by Ian Plimer
Reviewed by Gus Van HornRed Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher C. Horner
Reviewed by Daniel WahlIslamic Imperialism: A History by Efraim Karsh
Reviewed by Andrew LewisThe Israel Test by George Gilder
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl
Due to popular demand, we have extended our 60% off sale through January 1. Online subscriptions—including gift subscriptions—are only $19. If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, now is the perfect time to give it a try. And if you are looking for the perfect gift for an active-minded friend or relative, what could be better than a steady stream of clearly written, easy-to-read articles addressing current events and cultural issues from a rational, principled perspective? You can purchase gift subscriptions online or by calling 800-423-6151.
Enjoy your holidays!
Posted in: Announcements, Ayn Rand and Objectivism, Business and Economics, Environmentalism, Foreign Policy and War, Healthcare, History, Individual Rights and Law, Philosophy, Religion
Friday, April 17, 2009
On April 22, Celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day
Because Earth Day is intended to further the cause of environmentalism—and because environmentalism is an anti-human ideology—on April 22, those who care about human life should not celebrate Earth Day; they should celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day.
Exploiting the Earth—using the raw materials of nature for one’s life-serving purposes—is a basic requirement of human life. Either man takes the Earth’s raw materials—such as trees, petroleum, aluminum, and atoms—and transforms them into the requirements of his life, or he dies. To live, man must produce the goods on which his life depends; he must produce homes, automobiles, computers, electricity, and the like; he must seize nature and use it to his advantage. There is no escaping this fact. Even the allegedly “noble” savage must pick or perish. Indeed, even if a person produces nothing, insofar as he remains alive he indirectly exploits the Earth by parasitically surviving off the exploitative efforts of others.
According to environmentalism, however, man should not use nature for his needs; he should keep his hands off “the goods”; he should leave nature alone, come what may. Environmentalism is not concerned with human health and wellbeing—neither ours nor that of generations to come. If it were, it would advocate the one social system that ensures that the Earth and its elements are used in the most productive, life-serving manner possible: capitalism.
Capitalism is the only social system that recognizes and protects each individual’s right to act in accordance with his basic means of living: the judgment of his mind. Environmentalism, of course, does not and cannot advocate capitalism, because if people are free to act on their judgment, they will strive to produce and prosper; they will transform the raw materials of nature into the requirements of human life; they will exploit the Earth and live.
Environmentalism rejects the basic moral premise of capitalism—the idea that people should be free to act on their judgment—because it rejects a more fundamental idea on which capitalism rests: the idea that the requirements of human life constitute the standard of moral value. While the standard of value underlying capitalism is human life (meaning, that which is necessary for human beings to live and prosper), the standard of value underlying environmentalism is nature untouched by man.
The basic principle of environmentalism is that nature (i.e., “the environment”) has intrinsic value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of the requirements of human life—and that this value must be protected from its only adversary: man. Rivers must be left free to flow unimpeded by human dams, which divert natural flows, alter natural landscapes, and disrupt wildlife habitats. Glaciers must be left free to grow or shrink according to natural causes, but any human activity that might affect their size must be prohibited. Naturally generated carbon dioxide (such as that emitted by oceans and volcanoes) and naturally generated methane (such as that emitted by swamps and termites) may contribute to the greenhouse effect, but such gasses must not be produced by man. The globe may warm or cool naturally (e.g., via increases or decreases in sunspot activity), but man must not do anything to affect its temperature. And so on.
In short, according to environmentalism, if nature affects nature, the effect is good; if man affects nature, the effect is evil.
Stating the essence of environmentalism in such stark terms raises some illuminating questions: If the good is nature untouched by man, how is man to live? What is he to eat? What is he to wear? Where is he to reside? How can man do anything his life requires without altering, harming, or destroying some aspect of nature? In order to nourish himself, man must consume meats, fruits, and vegetables. In order to make clothing, he must skin animals, pick cotton, manufacture polyester, and the like. In order to build a house—or even a hut—he must cut down trees, dig up clay, make fires, bake bricks, and so forth. Each and every action man takes to support or sustain his life entails the exploitation of nature. Thus, on the premise of environmentalism, man has no right to exist.
It comes down to this: Each of us has a choice to make. Will I recognize that man’s life is the standard of moral value—that the good is that which sustains and furthers human life—and thus that people have a moral right to use the Earth and its elements for their life-serving needs? Or will I accept that nature has “intrinsic” value—value in and of itself, value apart from and irrespective of human needs—and thus that people have no right to exist?
There is no middle ground here. Either human life is the standard of moral value, or it is not. Either nature has intrinsic value, or it does not.
On April 22, make clear where you stand. Don’t celebrate Earth Day; celebrate Exploit-the-Earth Day—and let your friends, family, and associates know why.
Posted in: Environmentalism, Events, Philosophy, Science and Technology
Thursday, April 2, 2009
A Critique of Global Warming Science and Policy: A panel discussion at UCLA
What: A panel discussion challenging widely accepted views on global warming science and policy, followed by a Q&A
Who: Keith Lockitch, fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, and Willie Soon, geoscientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Where: UCLA Campus, Ackerman Grand Ballroom, Los Angeles, California
When: Monday, April 13, 2009, at 7 p.m.
Admission: FREE. The public and media are invited.
Sponsored by: LOGIC, the UCLA Objectivist Club
More information: Visit http://www.clublogic.org/ or e-mail info@ClubLogic.org
Description: It is now widely believed that man-made greenhouse gases are causing an unnatural warming of the earth that will have devastating consequences for human life. Environmentalists and politicians are pressing for severe restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions aimed at preventing global warming. But are these beliefs and policies justified? What does the scientific evidence actually support regarding the causes of climate variability and the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases? Are the predictions of catastrophic changes supported by scientific fact? Is government economic intervention aimed at severely restricting greenhouse gases an appropriate policy response? Panelists will address these critical issues in a lively discussion.
Bio: Dr. Keith Lockitch has a PhD in physics from University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee and is a resident fellow focusing on science and environmentalism at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. He lectures publicly on these topics, and his writings have appeared in such publications as the Washington Times and USA Today magazine. Dr. Lockitch is also a professor in the Objectivist Academic Center, where he teaches undergraduate writing and a graduate course on the history of physics. Before joining the Ayn Rand Institute in 2003, Dr. Lockitch was a postdoctoral researcher in physics at the University of Illinois and at Pennsylvania State University.
Bio: Dr. Willie Soon is an astrophysicist and a geoscientist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He is also the chief science adviser of the Science and Public Policy Institute (based in Washington, D.C.). He writes and lectures on issues related to the sun, other stars, the Earth as well as general science topics in astronomy and physics. He is the author of The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection published March 2004. (All views expressed are strictly of his own and do not reflect upon any other persons or institutions.)
Copyright © 2009 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
Posted in: Announcements, Environmentalism, Events, Science and Technology
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
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Green Energy Fantasy by Keith Lockitch
Will a green energy industry be an engine of economic growth? Many want us to think so, including our new President. Apparently a booming green economy with millions of new jobs is just around the corner. All we need is the right mix of government “incentives.”
These include a huge (de facto) tax on carbon emissions imposed through a cap-and-trade regulatory scheme, as well as huge government subsidies for “renewable,” carbon-free sources. The hope is that these government sticks and carrots will turn today’s pitiful “green energy” industry, which produces an insignificant fraction of American energy, into a source of abundant, affordable energy that can replace today’s fossil-fuel-dominated industry.
This view is a fantasy—one that could devastate America’s economy. The reality is that “green energy” is at best a sophisticated make-work program.
There is a reason why less than 2 percent of the world’s energy currently comes from “renewable” sources such as wind and solar—the very sources that are supposedly going to power the new green economy: despite billions of dollars in government subsidies, funding decades of research, they have not proven themselves to be practical sources of energy. Indeed, without government mandates forcing their adoption in most Western countries, their high cost would make them even less prevalent.
Consider that it takes about 1,000 wind turbines, occupying tens of thousands of acres, to produce as much electricity as just one medium-sized, coal-fired power plant. And that’s if the wind is blowing: the intermittency of wind wreaks havoc on electricity grids, which need a stable flow of power, thus requiring expensive, redundant backup capacity or an unbuilt, unproven “smart grid.”
Or consider the “promise” of solar. Two projects in development will cover 12.5 square miles of central California with solar cells in the hope of generating about 800 megawatts of power (as much as one large coal-fired plant). But that power output will only be achieved when the sun is shining brightly—around noon on sunny days; the actual output will be less than a third that amount. And the electricity will cost more than market price, even with the life-support of federal subsidies that keeps the solar industry going. The major factor driving the project is not the promise of abundant power but California’s state quota requiring 20 percent “renewable” electricity by 2010.
More than 81 percent of world energy comes from fossil fuels, and half of America’s electricity is generated by burning coal. Carbon sources are literally keeping us alive. There is no evidence that they have—or will soon have—a viable replacement in transportation fuel, and there is only one in electricity generation, nuclear, which “green energy” advocates also oppose.
We all saw the ripple effects last summer when gas prices shot above $4 per gallon, and higher transportation costs drove up prices of everything from plane fares to vegetables. If green policies cause a permanent, and likely far greater, hike in the cost of all forms of energy, what shockwaves would that send through our already badly damaged economy?
We don’t want to find out.
Regardless of one’s views on global warming—and there is ample scientific evidence to reject the claim that manmade carbon emissions are causing catastrophe—the fact is that kneecapping the fossil fuel industry while diverting tax dollars into expensive, impractical forms of energy will not be an economic boon, but an economic disaster.
We in developed countries take industrial-scale energy for granted and often fail to appreciate its crucial value to our lives—including its indispensable role in enabling us to deal with drought, storms, temperature extremes, and other climate challenges we are told to fear by global-warming alarmists.
If we want to restore economic growth and reduce our vulnerability to the elements, what we need is not “green energy” forced upon us by government coercion but real energy delivered on a free market.
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, Individual Rights and Law
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.
