About Me
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Commentary 38- Guilty Without a Trial
I have previously stated that Capitalism is repeatedly blamed for the failures of government policy. E.J. Dionne, a widely read left wing columnist, has declared in a recent piece that “capitalism is ailing.” In a brazen act of context-dropping, Mr. Dionne looks around, sees economic problems, and declares that free markets are at fault without any reference to the role that our massively intrusive government might have played. I have responded strongly to this classic statist ploy. Here are a few excerpts:
To read the article and my full commentary, click here
Mr. Dionne is attacking a straw man. Capitalism and free markets don’t exist today, except in bits and pieces here and there. Massive government intervention and control in our lives now approaches or exceeds the elements of freedom that still exist.
Today, it is not the distorted and shackled free market remnants, but ever-growing government interventions in private economic decision-making that has failed. Yet, Mr. Dionne and other statists blame free market capitalism, then call for even wider government powers to close whatever “loopholes” of freedom still exist.
To read the article and my full commentary, click here
Friday, July 11, 2008
Oil Execs and Polar Bears
Real-life events can sometimes coincide in such a way as to dramatize the fundamentals of an issue better than any theoretical discussion can. In this case, one cause and effect relating to the current energy crisis is demonstrated by two concrete government actions occurring within about a week of each other.
The first event was another in a long line of congressional kangaroo court lambastings of American oil company executives for the purpose of determining “how their companies can in good conscience make so much money, while American drivers pay so much at the pump.” (CNNMoney.com, May 21, 2008)
The executives responded timidly, but factually.
The second event came in the form of a ruling by the Bush administration declaring the polar bear an endangered species. While there are many “endangered species” listed under the Endangered Species Act, what makes this ruling unique is that the polar bear is not actually endangered. If you want to find a major cause of “American drivers pay[ing] so much at the pump” and for which the oil execs are being subjected “to yet another barrage of rhetorical questions, interruptions, accusations, and sermons” (Capitalism Magazine, May 28, 2008) , look no farther than this news item.
This polar bear designation has likely gone over the heads of most Americans, who are busily trying to, among other things, keep up with soaring energy costs. But we should all really be paying close attention to this, because the disastrous long-term consequences for our standard of living…indeed, our way of life…that this ruling can have cannot be overstated. That is because this decision is unique.
What the Interior Department has declared is that, for the first time, a species has been given protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), not because it is actually endangered, but because it can become endangered…by man-made global warming. Now, environmentalism is one of the main culprits in the energy price spiral. The polar bear ruling represents an exponential increase in the scope of the ESA, placing a powerful new weapon in the hands of what can more accurately be called the anti-industrial revolutionaries. .
The threat to American energy production that this precedent-setting ruling represents is significant. Already, the prospects for a proposed major natural gas pipeline across Alaska have diminished in it’s wake.
But the threat goes well beyond any particular energy project. For the environmentalist movement, armed with nothing more than hypothetical computer models and a dogmatic zealotry, this dangerous precedent means there is no limit to the number of species that can be deemed to be “threatened” in some distant future. Therefore, there is no limit to the restrictions that may be imposed on our freedom and our very lives, or on the growth of the power of government. Writes George Will:
While not the only cause, if you want to see a real-life demonstration of one of the primary causes of the energy price explosion, don’t bother to blame the oil producers and their executives who are unjustly being made scapegoats. Look no further than the Bush Interior Department’s polar bear ruling, the Endangered Species Act itself, and the anti-science, anti-industrial religion of environmentalism.
Post Reference 32
The first event was another in a long line of congressional kangaroo court lambastings of American oil company executives for the purpose of determining “how their companies can in good conscience make so much money, while American drivers pay so much at the pump.” (CNNMoney.com, May 21, 2008)
The executives responded timidly, but factually.
“ ‘We cannot change the world market,’ said Robert Malone, chairman and president of BP America Inc. ‘Today's high prices are linked to the failure both here and abroad to increase supplies’…In addition, [John] Hofmeister [president of Shell] said access to resources in the United States has been limited for the past 30 years. ‘I agree, it's not a free market,’ he said.
“The executives pushed the idea that large parts of the U.S. that are currently closed to drilling - like sections of Alaska, the Rocky Mountains and the continental shelf - should be opened.
‘The place to start the free market is in our own country,’ said one executive.”
The second event came in the form of a ruling by the Bush administration declaring the polar bear an endangered species. While there are many “endangered species” listed under the Endangered Species Act, what makes this ruling unique is that the polar bear is not actually endangered. If you want to find a major cause of “American drivers pay[ing] so much at the pump” and for which the oil execs are being subjected “to yet another barrage of rhetorical questions, interruptions, accusations, and sermons” (Capitalism Magazine, May 28, 2008) , look no farther than this news item.
This polar bear designation has likely gone over the heads of most Americans, who are busily trying to, among other things, keep up with soaring energy costs. But we should all really be paying close attention to this, because the disastrous long-term consequences for our standard of living…indeed, our way of life…that this ruling can have cannot be overstated. That is because this decision is unique.
What the Interior Department has declared is that, for the first time, a species has been given protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), not because it is actually endangered, but because it can become endangered…by man-made global warming. Now, environmentalism is one of the main culprits in the energy price spiral. The polar bear ruling represents an exponential increase in the scope of the ESA, placing a powerful new weapon in the hands of what can more accurately be called the anti-industrial revolutionaries. .
The threat to American energy production that this precedent-setting ruling represents is significant. Already, the prospects for a proposed major natural gas pipeline across Alaska have diminished in it’s wake.
But the threat goes well beyond any particular energy project. For the environmentalist movement, armed with nothing more than hypothetical computer models and a dogmatic zealotry, this dangerous precedent means there is no limit to the number of species that can be deemed to be “threatened” in some distant future. Therefore, there is no limit to the restrictions that may be imposed on our freedom and our very lives, or on the growth of the power of government. Writes George Will:
“Now that polar bears are wards of the government, and now that it is a legal doctrine that humans are responsible for global warming, the Endangered Species Act has acquired unlimited application. Anything that can be said to increase global warming can -- must -- be said to threaten bears already designated as threatened.
"Want to build a power plant in Arizona? A building in Florida? Do you want to drive an SUV? Or leave your cell phone charger plugged in overnight? Some judge might construe federal policy as proscribing these activities. Kempthorne says such uses of the act, unintended by those who wrote it in 1973, would be ‘wholly inappropriate.’ But in 1973, climate Cassandras were saying that ‘the world's climatologists are agreed’ that we must "prepare for the next ice age" (Science Digest, February 1973)…
“No one can anticipate or control the implications that judges might discover in the polar bear designation. Give litigious environmentalists a compliant judge and the Endangered Species Act might become what New Dealers wanted the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 to be -- authority to regulate almost everything.” (Emphasis added.FDR’s National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. We may not be so lucky, this time.)
While not the only cause, if you want to see a real-life demonstration of one of the primary causes of the energy price explosion, don’t bother to blame the oil producers and their executives who are unjustly being made scapegoats. Look no further than the Bush Interior Department’s polar bear ruling, the Endangered Species Act itself, and the anti-science, anti-industrial religion of environmentalism.
Post Reference 32
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Commentary 37-On State/Church Separation
...the Founders were deeply suspicious of organized religion, including Christianity and its multiple sects. They understood fully the inherent dangers to liberty of placing into the hands of people whose beliefs rest on faith rather than reason the coercive power of government...
In America, the practice of religion by one is no threat to any other. We owe the unfettered right to our own beliefs free from fear of persecution to that "wall of separation." As an athiest, I cannot understand how any religionist would want to begin chipping away at that safeguard with such nonsense as "faith-based initiatives."
The battle today is not between Islam and Christianity. It is between theocratic tyranny and political freedom. Our soldiers are fighting not for an atheistic government or a Christian government, but for the freedom to hold his, and our, own personal beliefs and for a government that protects that freedom.
A nations legal framework, to be just and fair, must be based upon some set of ideas...of universal principles...that all people can relate to and that can be the basis for resolving disputes peacefully. The Declaration of Independence is America's set of universal principles.
That New York Court's decision to force Catholic hospitals to pay for abortion coverage for their employees is, indeed, an abomination. It is a violation of the rights of the owners of the Catholic hospitals (or their representatives) to be true to their religious principles (a blatant violation of the establishment clause, as I interpret it). It is also a violation of a whole host of other rights, such as their right to set the terms and conditions of employment at their institutions, including what to include in the health care coverage they offer.
Excerpts from my latest activism. Read the rest.
In America, the practice of religion by one is no threat to any other. We owe the unfettered right to our own beliefs free from fear of persecution to that "wall of separation." As an athiest, I cannot understand how any religionist would want to begin chipping away at that safeguard with such nonsense as "faith-based initiatives."
The battle today is not between Islam and Christianity. It is between theocratic tyranny and political freedom. Our soldiers are fighting not for an atheistic government or a Christian government, but for the freedom to hold his, and our, own personal beliefs and for a government that protects that freedom.
A nations legal framework, to be just and fair, must be based upon some set of ideas...of universal principles...that all people can relate to and that can be the basis for resolving disputes peacefully. The Declaration of Independence is America's set of universal principles.
That New York Court's decision to force Catholic hospitals to pay for abortion coverage for their employees is, indeed, an abomination. It is a violation of the rights of the owners of the Catholic hospitals (or their representatives) to be true to their religious principles (a blatant violation of the establishment clause, as I interpret it). It is also a violation of a whole host of other rights, such as their right to set the terms and conditions of employment at their institutions, including what to include in the health care coverage they offer.
Excerpts from my latest activism. Read the rest.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Independence Day- Bittersweet, But Hope for the Future
The Fourth of July is a national holiday that, to me, stands far above all of the others. It represents the greatest political achievement in world history. More than that, the birth of the United States of America represents a towering and unprecedented philosophical achievement. America, born of the Enlightenment, is the first nation founded on the principle that man the individual has a fundamental, natural right to his own life, and that government’s responsibility is to protect that right…that the people act by right, while the government acts by permission.
I quote from Michael S. Berliner’s June 26, 2008 post at Principles in Practice
“ ‘Independence Day’ is a critically important title. It signifies the fundamental meaning of this nation, not just of the holiday. The American Revolution remains unique in human history: a revolution--and a nation--founded on a moral principle, the principle of individual rights…
“The Declaration of Independence was a declaration against servitude, not just servitude to the Crown but servitude to anyone…
“Political independence is not a primary. It rests on a more fundamental type of independence: the independence of the human mind. It is the ability of a human being to think for himself and guide his own life that makes political independence possible and necessary…
“To the Founding Fathers, there was no authority higher than the individual mind, not King George, not God, not society. Reason, wrote Ethan Allen, is ‘the only oracle of man,’ and Thomas Jefferson advised us to ‘fix reason firmly in her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God.’ That is the meaning of independence: trust in your own judgment, in reason; do not sacrifice your mind to the state, the church, the race, the nation, or your neighbors.
“Independence is the foundation of America. Independence is what should be celebrated on Independence Day. That is the legacy our Founding Fathers left us.”
Americans are more and more ignoring and moving away from the glorious principle of which Mr. Berliner speaks, “the independence of the human mind.” This is what gives Independence Day a bittersweet quality for me. Our freedom erodes steadily as its only real guardian, intellectual independence, gradually gives way to a growing entitlement mindset. Just surrender one more bit of our individual self-determination and personal responsibility in exchange for the free lunch of the illusion of government-guaranteed security, and our “national” problems can be solved…in healthcare, in education, in finance, in housing, in energy.
As a result, America is moving towards a time when the government acts by right, but the people act by permission. Or, as America’s Philosopher, Ayn Rand, puts it:
“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”
But our drift toward statism is not inevitable. There is no such thing as historical determinism. Ideas move human history. The ideas that created America still exist, waiting to be rediscovered. That rediscovery is beginning to emerge. This time, however, those ideas come armed with a full philosophical and moral defense and justification. That armament is Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
So the bittersweet feeling that, for me, accompanies Independence Day should not be mistaken for pessimism or cynicism. If I thought that the fight to save America long term was futile, I would not have started this blog, or speak up at every opportunity for my beliefs in conversation, online forums, or any other medium open to me. And I am not alone, as the two linked articles in this piece show.
So I will continue to do my part as a patriotic American citizen by exercising “the independence of the human mind”…my own. This has and will continue to include the radical, but quintessentially American, Jeffersonian urging to “Question with boldness… every fact, every opinion.” I will continue at the task of "Changing the Wind.”
Have a great and happy Independence Day.
I quote from Michael S. Berliner’s June 26, 2008 post at Principles in Practice
“ ‘Independence Day’ is a critically important title. It signifies the fundamental meaning of this nation, not just of the holiday. The American Revolution remains unique in human history: a revolution--and a nation--founded on a moral principle, the principle of individual rights…
“The Declaration of Independence was a declaration against servitude, not just servitude to the Crown but servitude to anyone…
“Political independence is not a primary. It rests on a more fundamental type of independence: the independence of the human mind. It is the ability of a human being to think for himself and guide his own life that makes political independence possible and necessary…
“To the Founding Fathers, there was no authority higher than the individual mind, not King George, not God, not society. Reason, wrote Ethan Allen, is ‘the only oracle of man,’ and Thomas Jefferson advised us to ‘fix reason firmly in her seat and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God.’ That is the meaning of independence: trust in your own judgment, in reason; do not sacrifice your mind to the state, the church, the race, the nation, or your neighbors.
“Independence is the foundation of America. Independence is what should be celebrated on Independence Day. That is the legacy our Founding Fathers left us.”
Americans are more and more ignoring and moving away from the glorious principle of which Mr. Berliner speaks, “the independence of the human mind.” This is what gives Independence Day a bittersweet quality for me. Our freedom erodes steadily as its only real guardian, intellectual independence, gradually gives way to a growing entitlement mindset. Just surrender one more bit of our individual self-determination and personal responsibility in exchange for the free lunch of the illusion of government-guaranteed security, and our “national” problems can be solved…in healthcare, in education, in finance, in housing, in energy.
As a result, America is moving towards a time when the government acts by right, but the people act by permission. Or, as America’s Philosopher, Ayn Rand, puts it:
“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”
But our drift toward statism is not inevitable. There is no such thing as historical determinism. Ideas move human history. The ideas that created America still exist, waiting to be rediscovered. That rediscovery is beginning to emerge. This time, however, those ideas come armed with a full philosophical and moral defense and justification. That armament is Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
So the bittersweet feeling that, for me, accompanies Independence Day should not be mistaken for pessimism or cynicism. If I thought that the fight to save America long term was futile, I would not have started this blog, or speak up at every opportunity for my beliefs in conversation, online forums, or any other medium open to me. And I am not alone, as the two linked articles in this piece show.
So I will continue to do my part as a patriotic American citizen by exercising “the independence of the human mind”…my own. This has and will continue to include the radical, but quintessentially American, Jeffersonian urging to “Question with boldness… every fact, every opinion.” I will continue at the task of "Changing the Wind.”
Have a great and happy Independence Day.
Commentary 36 and 36a
The only way freedom can be preserved is for every citizen to be willing to stand up and defend not only his own rights, but all peoples' rights. This issue is about more than gun owners, and the anti-2nd Amendment crowd should think again here. Those who would vote away the rights of others, should know that they are voting away their own, as well.
Excerpt from my latest activism. Read the rest.
Excerpt from my latest activism. Read the rest.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Licensure Epidemic
“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion- 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.” Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged, page 413)
Those words of warning were uttered half a century ago. We’re not there yet, but today there are growing signs all around us that it is time to heed them. One such sign…in a Forbes magazine article entitled The New Unions, Suzanne Hoppough documents the out-of-control government occupational licensure epidemic sweeping the country.
What started out as a state power limited to certain occupations dealing in “public safety” such as doctors, lawyers, airline pilots, plumbers, and electricians, government licensing has exploded into an epidemic covering occupations such as hairdressers, florists, interior decorators, secretaries, and librarians. According to Ms. Hoppough, the accelerating licensure trend is being led not by power-hungry government bureaucrats and politicians, but by private citizens looking to protect their occupational turf through governmental coercion.
“Such occupations are the new unions. These modern-day guilds have replaced organized labor as the main vehicle for workers seeking to shield themselves from competition. As the economy has switched from manufacturing to services, some 28% of U.S. workers--or 43 million people--now belong to a licensed profession, according to a Princeton University/Gallup survey last year. That's up from 4.5% 50 years ago.” (emphasis added)
There is a lesson to be learned here. Government power, once granted, begets more government power. Once we granted to the state the power to require a license to earn a living in a single occupation…to require men to seek permission to produce from men who produce nothing (government bureaucrats)…there was no way to contain it. And the costs, in lost economic output and in lost freedom, are mounting;
“University of Minnesota economist Morris Kleiner recently estimated what occupational licenses cost the U.S. through higher fees and the lost output of people excluded from the roped-off professions: $100 billion a year. Some guilds are especially adept at keeping out new members even as demand balloons. The population has grown 22% since 1990, but the number of dentists and hairdressers hasn't budged. The shortage of dentists has pushed up their average real hourly pay 45% over that period.” (emphasis added)
In other words, political pull and favoritism…rather than ability or ambition or goal-oriented personal achievement…are increasingly becoming the passkey to “success”, thanks to government’s licensing powers.
In addition, it is the people who need a free market the most that are hurt the most;
“Licensing laws hit the poor particularly hard. They're often shut out of jobs that would hoist them onto the first rungs of the economic ladder--shampoo assistant, pipe layer's helper, home health aide--because they lack the time and money to take the classes and serve the apprenticeships to pass the exam.”
Senator John Edwards, oh great champion of the poor, where are you?
While “There are occasional victories for competitive markets”, the trend is disturbingly clear;
“Today there are 1,100 occupations--from secretaries and librarians in Georgia to wallpaper hangers in California--that require a license in at least one state, according to the Council of State Governments. That's up from roughly 80 in 1981. ‘These are monopolies created by the government,’ says William Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit in Arlington, Va. that litigates on behalf of property rights and other civil liberties.” (emphasis added)
Government licensing powers are a threat to our liberty, and should be repealed. The function of certifying occupational qualifications can be easily handled by private agencies without the rights-violating coercive powers of government. Private producers seeking to build public trust can apply for the “label” of one of the competing certification agencies relating to one’s particular field, if one wants. But no one should be forcibly prevented from selling his goods or services to willing consumers for failure to obtain permission from the state. (For a detailed discussion on a related topic, the FDA, check out Stella’s piece over at ReasonPharm. Many of the points expressed there are relevant to the licensing issue here.)
One final note. The government’s proper role is to protect individual rights…and that includes laws against fraud and deception. Compulsory government occupational licensing is not needed to prosecute, and indeed does not prevent, unscrupulous and unqualified charlatans from operating. All it does is trample the rights of many honest people seeking to earn a living, while awarding established players the power to coercively block competition…a bulwark of a free market.
Post Reference 31
Those words of warning were uttered half a century ago. We’re not there yet, but today there are growing signs all around us that it is time to heed them. One such sign…in a Forbes magazine article entitled The New Unions, Suzanne Hoppough documents the out-of-control government occupational licensure epidemic sweeping the country.
What started out as a state power limited to certain occupations dealing in “public safety” such as doctors, lawyers, airline pilots, plumbers, and electricians, government licensing has exploded into an epidemic covering occupations such as hairdressers, florists, interior decorators, secretaries, and librarians. According to Ms. Hoppough, the accelerating licensure trend is being led not by power-hungry government bureaucrats and politicians, but by private citizens looking to protect their occupational turf through governmental coercion.
“Such occupations are the new unions. These modern-day guilds have replaced organized labor as the main vehicle for workers seeking to shield themselves from competition. As the economy has switched from manufacturing to services, some 28% of U.S. workers--or 43 million people--now belong to a licensed profession, according to a Princeton University/Gallup survey last year. That's up from 4.5% 50 years ago.” (emphasis added)
There is a lesson to be learned here. Government power, once granted, begets more government power. Once we granted to the state the power to require a license to earn a living in a single occupation…to require men to seek permission to produce from men who produce nothing (government bureaucrats)…there was no way to contain it. And the costs, in lost economic output and in lost freedom, are mounting;
“University of Minnesota economist Morris Kleiner recently estimated what occupational licenses cost the U.S. through higher fees and the lost output of people excluded from the roped-off professions: $100 billion a year. Some guilds are especially adept at keeping out new members even as demand balloons. The population has grown 22% since 1990, but the number of dentists and hairdressers hasn't budged. The shortage of dentists has pushed up their average real hourly pay 45% over that period.” (emphasis added)
In other words, political pull and favoritism…rather than ability or ambition or goal-oriented personal achievement…are increasingly becoming the passkey to “success”, thanks to government’s licensing powers.
In addition, it is the people who need a free market the most that are hurt the most;
“Licensing laws hit the poor particularly hard. They're often shut out of jobs that would hoist them onto the first rungs of the economic ladder--shampoo assistant, pipe layer's helper, home health aide--because they lack the time and money to take the classes and serve the apprenticeships to pass the exam.”
Senator John Edwards, oh great champion of the poor, where are you?
While “There are occasional victories for competitive markets”, the trend is disturbingly clear;
“Today there are 1,100 occupations--from secretaries and librarians in Georgia to wallpaper hangers in California--that require a license in at least one state, according to the Council of State Governments. That's up from roughly 80 in 1981. ‘These are monopolies created by the government,’ says William Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit in Arlington, Va. that litigates on behalf of property rights and other civil liberties.” (emphasis added)
Government licensing powers are a threat to our liberty, and should be repealed. The function of certifying occupational qualifications can be easily handled by private agencies without the rights-violating coercive powers of government. Private producers seeking to build public trust can apply for the “label” of one of the competing certification agencies relating to one’s particular field, if one wants. But no one should be forcibly prevented from selling his goods or services to willing consumers for failure to obtain permission from the state. (For a detailed discussion on a related topic, the FDA, check out Stella’s piece over at ReasonPharm. Many of the points expressed there are relevant to the licensing issue here.)
One final note. The government’s proper role is to protect individual rights…and that includes laws against fraud and deception. Compulsory government occupational licensing is not needed to prosecute, and indeed does not prevent, unscrupulous and unqualified charlatans from operating. All it does is trample the rights of many honest people seeking to earn a living, while awarding established players the power to coercively block competition…a bulwark of a free market.
Post Reference 31
Thursday, June 19, 2008
"Changing the Wind"
With my inspirational new design in place…and with the first anniversary of my introductory post approaching next month…I thought that this might be a good time to restate my purpose for launching my blog.
Recently, my wife Kathy had this conversation. An acquaintance stated that this election would be an “interesting” one. With that Kathy engaged the woman, laying out in some detail (about 10 or 15 minutes worth) her beliefs about one of the key issues in the upcoming campaign…“universal healthcare.” She argued the case against it, and the case in favor of government-run health care’s opposite…free market medicine. As Kathy spoke, the acquaintance didn’t really have much to say, mostly listening and nodding. But Kathy was given an “opening”…i.e., an opportunity to advocate for the ideas she believes in, and she seized it. During the conversation, she quoted from Dr. Paul Hsieh's letter circulated to other doctors, stating a crucial principle which sits at the heart of the debate…that “health care is a *need*, but not a right.”
This may seem like an inconsequential encounter. But, in actuality, it captures the essence of the purpose of this blog. The episode discussed above is an example of intellectual activism. Ideas are a powerful force, the force that determines the political direction of a country. By taking a stand, at an appropriate time and place, on an issue based on fundamental premises, Kathy was fighting in the only meaningful arena…the battleground of ideas.
The Objectivist Movement, of which I am a part, is not a political, but a philosophical, movement. (Kathy is not an Objectivist, but she shares many Objectivist positions.) Politics follows culture, and so the aim is to change the culture by bringing Ayn Rand’s ideas of reason, individualism, rational egoism, and laissez-faire capitalism into the mainstream of American dialogue.
Richard Ralston said it best over at Americans for Free Choice in Medicine:
"Don't worry about changing the politicians. The politicians will wear their fingers to the bone
sticking them in the air to test which way the wind is blowing.
Instead, work on CHANGING THE WIND. If you change the wind, the
politicians will follow."
This is, admittedly, no easy task. Neither will it be accomplished quickly. It took decades for the poisonous ideas that have brought us to the point of having a choice for president between two statists to penetrate the culture. But it will have to be accomplished, if America’s course toward economic and political disaster is to be turned. With the century-plus long trend toward collectivism and statism re-asserting itself with a vengeance after a brief respite following the “Reagan Revolution” and the fall of Communism, it is only Objectivism that offers a clear alternative to the bankruptcy of American liberalism and conservatism. It is only Objectivism that offers a moral defense of Americanism and capitalism. Objectivists are, in Ayn Rand’s descriptive language, radicals for capitalism.
America, I believe, is ripe for a radical alternative. A radical philosophical alternative. “A philosophical battle is a battle for men’s minds,” wrote Ayn Rand in 1972, “History is made by intellectual movements, which are created by minorities. In an intellectual battle, you do not need to convert everyone.” We will, as Kathy was attempting to do, change the culture one mind at a time.
We intend to “Change the Wind.”
Recently, my wife Kathy had this conversation. An acquaintance stated that this election would be an “interesting” one. With that Kathy engaged the woman, laying out in some detail (about 10 or 15 minutes worth) her beliefs about one of the key issues in the upcoming campaign…“universal healthcare.” She argued the case against it, and the case in favor of government-run health care’s opposite…free market medicine. As Kathy spoke, the acquaintance didn’t really have much to say, mostly listening and nodding. But Kathy was given an “opening”…i.e., an opportunity to advocate for the ideas she believes in, and she seized it. During the conversation, she quoted from Dr. Paul Hsieh's letter circulated to other doctors, stating a crucial principle which sits at the heart of the debate…that “health care is a *need*, but not a right.”
This may seem like an inconsequential encounter. But, in actuality, it captures the essence of the purpose of this blog. The episode discussed above is an example of intellectual activism. Ideas are a powerful force, the force that determines the political direction of a country. By taking a stand, at an appropriate time and place, on an issue based on fundamental premises, Kathy was fighting in the only meaningful arena…the battleground of ideas.
The Objectivist Movement, of which I am a part, is not a political, but a philosophical, movement. (Kathy is not an Objectivist, but she shares many Objectivist positions.) Politics follows culture, and so the aim is to change the culture by bringing Ayn Rand’s ideas of reason, individualism, rational egoism, and laissez-faire capitalism into the mainstream of American dialogue.
Richard Ralston said it best over at Americans for Free Choice in Medicine:
"Don't worry about changing the politicians. The politicians will wear their fingers to the bone
sticking them in the air to test which way the wind is blowing.
Instead, work on CHANGING THE WIND. If you change the wind, the
politicians will follow."
This is, admittedly, no easy task. Neither will it be accomplished quickly. It took decades for the poisonous ideas that have brought us to the point of having a choice for president between two statists to penetrate the culture. But it will have to be accomplished, if America’s course toward economic and political disaster is to be turned. With the century-plus long trend toward collectivism and statism re-asserting itself with a vengeance after a brief respite following the “Reagan Revolution” and the fall of Communism, it is only Objectivism that offers a clear alternative to the bankruptcy of American liberalism and conservatism. It is only Objectivism that offers a moral defense of Americanism and capitalism. Objectivists are, in Ayn Rand’s descriptive language, radicals for capitalism.
America, I believe, is ripe for a radical alternative. A radical philosophical alternative. “A philosophical battle is a battle for men’s minds,” wrote Ayn Rand in 1972, “History is made by intellectual movements, which are created by minorities. In an intellectual battle, you do not need to convert everyone.” We will, as Kathy was attempting to do, change the culture one mind at a time.
We intend to “Change the Wind.”
