FT.com- Judge defends US code of commerce

Conservatives and liberals- Are they any different?

In my last post "Conservatism- Intellectual backbone wanted" I wrongly assumed that Conservatism could be backed by an intellectual backbone. In his comment on the same post Burgess Laughlin said:

Conservatism, by definition, opposes capitalism. Conservat-ISM is an ideology, the ideology that holds four values as its guide: God (or religion generally), Tradition, Nation, and Family (as in "family values"). Philosophically these values mean supernaturalism, mysticism, and altruism. The step from those to statism is very short -- and it usually involves the nationalistic sort of statism.

Today I read an article "Are you a conservative or a liberal? by Linn and Ari Armstrong which addresses the issue of what exactly do conservative and liberal tags actually mean. They define both as:

What does it mean to be a conservative? Many of the same conservatives who claim to support free markets and liberty also endorse economic protectionism, censorship, welfare spending, corporate welfare, immigration restrictions, prohibitions of various substances and activities that violate nobody's rights, abortion bans, and so on.

Liberalism, one might think, has something to do with liberty. Yet today's liberals endorse political economic planning on a vast scale. They typically want to forcibly redistribute more wealth, impose controls on private property, and impose more “enlightened” forms of censorship.

Many of today's conservatives and liberals find common cause in the belief that politicians should largely control your life.

The above description renders the tags meaningless as they both lead to the same thing- a mixed Government. Armstrong's also mention Thomas Paine's discussions with Edmund Burke in his "Rights of Man" where Paine defines mixed government as:

A mixed government is an imperfect everything, cementing and soldering the discordant parts together by corruption, to act as a whole. In the mixed Government there is no responsibility: the parts cover each other till responsibility is lost; and the corruption then moves the machine, contrives at the same time its own escape.

Paine goes on to offer the alternative.

But in a well-constituted republic, nothing of this soldering, praising, and pitying, can take place; the representation being equal throughout the country, and complete in itself, however it maybe into legislative ans executive, they all have one and the same natural source. The parts are not foreigners to each other, like democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. As there are no discordant distinctions, there is nothing to corrupt by compromise, nor confound by contrivance.

In the end nobody says it better than Ayn Rand who is quoted by the authors as saying:

“The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded, and hidden under the foggy, undefined rubber-terms of ‘conservatism' and ‘liberalism' which had lost their original meaning and could be stretched to mean all things to all men.”

Conservatism- Intellectual backbone wanted

This article on American Chronicle "William F. Buckley vs. Ayn Rand: Ayn Rand's Revenge" highlights the reasons for demise of conservatives in last 50 years. It shows William F. Buckley Jr.´s antipathy towards Rand and her idea's.

"The important point here involves Buckley, but it involves a lot more. The issue with Buckley is that he truly had nothing to contribute intellectually. And when faced with a true intellectual like Rand, all he could do was guttersnipe. Yet the wider point pertains to conservatism today. Until it begins to intellectually justify itself in a logical way, conservatism will remain lost, and statism will continue its march. Rand provided the intellectual justification for capitalism and liberty and she did so by reference to the fundamental metaphysical facts of reality and human existence. She did not appeal to tradition or the supernatural. She appealed to the rational. And the public has been responding to her ever since."

I think the above argument is equally applicable to a lot of conservative parties around the world. Here in India the BJP which tasted heavy defeat is floundering after a second consecutive defeat by the leftist Congress party. It's vacillation in defining itself as a religious right or a more forward looking free-market one has cost it dear. Although BJP did well during it's tenure, it is this failure to define it's identity in clear and precise terms which today has left it virtually rudderless.

Immigration and Individual Rights

One of the best articles I have read on TOS is "Immigration and Individual Rights" by Craig Biddle. I have a special interest in this issue as I plan to immigrate to America one day. Craig says in this article:

Every year, millions of people seek to immigrate to the United States, and with good reason: Opportunities to improve their lives abound here. Immigrants and would-be immigrants want to pursue the American dream. Whether or not they would put it in these terms, they want to be free to think and act on their best judgment; they want to produce wealth and keep and use it as they see fit; they want to make better lives for themselves and their families. In other words, foreigners want to come to America for the same reason the Founding Fathers established this republic: They want lives of liberty and happiness.

Immigration is the act of moving to a country with the intention of remaining there. Morally speaking, if a person rationally judges that immigrating to America would be good for his life, he should immigrate; a rational morality holds that one should always act on one’s best judgment. But does a foreigner have a right to move to America? And should America welcome him? Yes, he does—and yes, she should. Recognition of these facts was part and parcel of this country’s founding.

The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.

Unfortunately this pro-immigration attitude, expressed by George Washington in 1783, has all but vanished from American politics. Indeed, the policies of America—the republic built by and for immigrants—have become hostile to immigrants.

People today in most countries who even want to visit are interrogated at the embassies during the interview with suspicion. When they ask if you intend to settle in U.S. and if you hesitate even for a second, you can wave your tourist visa goodbye. Craig goes on to mention some brilliant American immigrants like Ayn rand, Issac Asimov and a lot others who would have been denied entry under today's laws and how immigration to the land of liberty is now largely prohibited by American law. He goes on to say:

This prohibition, however, is un-American and immoral. The basic principle of America—the principle of individual rights—demands a policy of open immigration.
Open immigration does not mean that anyone may enter the country at any location or in any manner he chooses; it is not unchecked or unmonitored immigration. Nor does it mean that anyone who immigrates to America should be eligible for U.S. citizenship—the proper requirements of which are a separate matter. Open immigration means that anyone is free to enter and reside in America—providing that he enters at a designated checkpoint and passes an objective screening process, the purpose of which is to keep out criminals, enemies of America, and people with certain kinds of contagious diseases.2 Such a policy is not only politically right; it is morally right.

He further explains at length why it is moral and that to prohibit a person from immigrating to the U.S. is to violate his right to act on his judgment; it is to retard his ability to live a life proper to man; it is to commit a moral crime. I almost got up and applauded when I read this. He then explains the invalidity of the arguments against open immigration one point at a time. They include protection of culture, crime, jobs, welfare, terrorism, and more. One of the more controversial issue's he discusses is the solution to the problem of the estimated 12 million “illegal” immigrants currently residing in the America. His solution is:

In light of the immoral and illegitimate law they “broke” by moving to (or remaining in) America—and in light of the suffering they have endured by being labeled “illegal” (e.g., having to live in the shadows, not being able to market their goods or services openly, not being able to use banks or credit cards, etc.)—the solution to the problem of so-called “illegals” is to grant them unconditional amnesty and a presidential apology. Just as the principle of individual rights mandates open immigration, so too it mandates amnesty for those whose moral actions were made “criminal” by immoral laws. (“Amnesty” is really the wrong word, as one logically should not have to be “pardoned” for having acted morally, but there is no accurate word for what has been necessitated by our irrational immigration policy.)

Some argue that granting amnesty to “illegal” immigrants would make a mockery of the rule of law and that “illegals” broke our laws and should be held accountable for having done so. On the contrary, what mocks the rule of law is the existence and attempted enforcement of anti-immigration laws...

Upholding the rule of law does not mean upholding whatever laws happen to be on the books. Should the citizens of Nazi Germany have turned Jews over to the Gestapo? Nazi law dictated that they must. Would the refusal to obey that law have been a mockery of the rule of law?

Upholding the rule of law does not mean enforcing illegitimate laws; it means establishing and maintaining a government and legal system based on the objective social requirements of human life—namely: the recognition and protection of individual rights. Laws that violate individual rights are illegitimate laws, and such laws morally must be repealed.

He ends this article by offering a five-point plan to achieve a rights-respecting and thus moral immigration policy for the U.S. which as he says," will require substantial time, effort, and intellectual activism, but there is no shortcut; these are the actions necessary to solve the misnamed “immigration problem,” which is, in fact, a problem of too few Americans recognizing, embracing, and upholding the basic principle on which America was founded."

Sotomayor and Thomas- will reason win the race?

The Malaysian Insider highlights the difference between the two judges Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Clarence Thomas. If Sotomayor wins the nomination she will be only second minority judge. This is where the similarity ends. Sotomayor reveled in her racial identity and used it to describe why she would be better then a white man in coming to a better decision. Thomas regretted mentioning his race on his Yale application and tried to escape the stigmatising effects of racial preference as he describes it in his autobiography.

Supreme Court is the ultimate yardstick of justice and how badly will it be damaged by Sotomayors blatant racism is yet to be seen. However it is a foregone conclusion that by the end of Obama's term the damage caused to America as a nation will take a long time to repair.

Drive thru truth

I'll just post the picture of this Memphis-area Burger King franchisee’s. For the reactions around the world to the fur our this sacrilege (global warming is the new religion you know) has caused read about it on Tim Blair Blog.


(Pic via the Memphis Flyer)

I'll just quote J.J. McNelis, marketing president of the company running the Burger King franchise, who said:
"If someone wants to stand up and say “Global Warming is Baloney”, then I’m all for it. It doesn’t matter to me, whether I believe in it or not. They have first amendment rights to say whatever’s on their mind. And nobody dictates otherwise."

Spreading the piracy

Are we going to hear the old pirate song (Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of rum!) in many different languages? It's possible if the problem spreads. Strategypage makes an interesting point that the wildly reported success (more than $50 million ransom) has the potential to encourage piracy and outright thefts from the ships worldwide. It is already costing shipping industry (besides costing the affected countries-see graphic) more in hiring specializes security firms, in training their people, and proving non-lethal equipment to fend-off pirates. For now it is limited to the select routes which bypass Somalia but if the problem spreads then the costs could rapidly escalate.

Read ARI's solution for ending the pirate crisis. I quote from the article:

“When America has once again earned a reputation as a power that none dare cross,” Mr. Journo concluded, “we won’t have to worry about pirates.”

Well! if America earns that reputation then we won't have to worry about a lot of other villains (Islamic terrorists, Iran, North Korea) as well.

Beyond modern nation states - The China Post

Sometimes you find interesting stuff in the unlikeliest of places. Taiwan's leading English-language newspaper The China Post has this nice editorial extolling the virtues of constitutional republicanism. The article "Beyond modern nation states" states:

The modern nation state is the instigator and perpetuator of the war of all against all because it is a perpetrator of injustice. It is a perpetrator of injustice because it “robs Peter to pay Paul.” It robs Peter to pay Paul because it is endeavoring to re-engineer society. It is endeavoring to re-engineer society because it has exceeded its original charter, which was merely to defend against aggression.

Does this sound familiar in times of Obamanomics? In fact it is true of almost all countries today and with our Obama the Robin Hood the long crumbling bastion of Republicanism seems to have fallen. The Post goes on to blast the "free and fair elections" as an excuse for all excesses.

Champions of democracy believe the modern nation state is well within its rights to coerce individuals, as long as it performs certain rituals as “free and fair” elections, plebiscites, and referenda.

It advocates repudiating democracy and reaffirming constitutional republicanism to counter the power that makes the modern nation state a constant threat to all its citizens.

George Reisman on demise of GM

Reisman in this post discusses the demise General Motors. He talks about it's glorious history.

It was once not only the world’s greatest and most prosperous automobile company but the world’s greatest and most prosperous manufacturing company. Its success, wealth, and economic power, were symbolic of the success, wealth, and economic power of the United States.

He mentions the reasons for this devastating and depressing loss. He talks about the unfortunate election of the wealth redistributive Obama. Isn't it ironic that the politicians who talk about redistributing wealth are the ones who ultimately cause it's destruction and in the end there is nothing left to distribute. They are like leaches whose bellies are never full and they never drop off. They are the parasites who destroy their host. That's why the countries who choose this path of anti-capitalism have a dark future. We have seen this time and again but it's the ignorance and denial which makes sure that history will keep repeating itself.

I suggest reading George Reisman's Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics. A free pdf replica is available for download. I am reading this book and I can tell you that reading economics with an Objectivist angle (Reisman knew Ayn Rand) is quite unique and illuminating.

Reismans blog is back on blogger. Read about Google's stupid handling of the whole affair.

Right to bear arms

A. C. KLEINHEIDER:

Guns have been so fetishized and derided in our politically correct and increasingly suburbanized culture that they have transformed into this huge monster that clouds what firearms really are and always have been
To rural folks who grew up with guns in their house, firearms are just a way of life. You learn what they are, how to use them safely, and what not to use them — for ever.
They are, in fact, a tool. A dangerous tool to be sure but no more than a circular saw or a chainsaw.

Most Americans don't appreciate the right to bear arms. The increasing tendency to look at the nanny state to do everything for them has become a bad habit. While it is the job of government to protect a citizen from violence, it would be foolish to give up your own right to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your property. Increasing dilution of the gun-right laws should be a concern for all Americans.

I live in a virtual police state where owning a gun is almost impossible unless you happen to have an old license. Freedom is most appreciated in places where it is missing. Owning a gun in India is only possible for the privileged few who are politicians , have connections with them, or can afford to dole out huge bribes for the license.

Abhijeet Singh whose web-site is an excellent resource on gun ownership laws in India talks about the history of Indian law.

India became independent in 1947, but it still took 12 years before this act was finally repealed. In 1959 the British era Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878.) was finally consigned to history and a new act, the Arms Act, 1959 was enacted. This was later supplemented by the Arms Rules, 1962. Unfortunately this new legislation was also formulated based on the Indian Government's innate distrust its own citizens. Though somewhat better than the British act, this legislation gave vast arbitrary powers to the "Licensing Authorities", in effect ensuring that it is often difficult and sometimes impossible for an ordinary law abiding Indian citizen to procure an arms license.

He goes on and describes the current scenario.

This changed towards the mid to late 1980s, when the Government, citing domestic insurgency as the reason, put a complete stop to all small arms imports. The fact that there is no documented evidence of any terrorists ever having used licensed weapons to commit an act of terror on Indian soil seems to be of no consequence to our Government. The prices of (legal & licensed) imported weapons have been on an upward spiral ever since - beating the share market and gold in terms of pure return on investment.

Abhijeet's blog also mentions a news report where people used rocks to fight the terrorists during the Mumbai terror attack . Can you imagine that? They actually threw rocks to protect the Jewish center which was the terrorist's target. The terrorists shot back with AK-47's and threw grenades at them. The police which is good only for extortion was missing. Finally 195 people were killed and many more seriously injured.

Image courtesy Oleg Volk - http://www.olegvolk.net/

I believe in what Ayn Rand said:

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

“The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness.

Rhode Island- prostitution allowed indoors

An interesting and a well written story from Providence Journal about a change in law to get prostitutes off the streets. The lawmakers changed the law to make prostitution a misdemeanor crime instead of a felony to speed prosecution in the courts. The unintended effect of the law was that prostitutes were barred from soliciting in public but it could not be applied to the undercover activity taking place indoor.

The story goes on to highlight futile attempts by the police to shut down brothels/massage parlours. The article quotes John C. Revens Jr., a former Senate Majority leader and a lawyer:
“They would never sponsor a bill decriminalizing prostitution if they knew what it was,” Revens said. “No way. Not in a million years.”

I thought the story was very amusing. So finally a place in America which decriminalizes activity between consenting adults, even if it was by mistake.

(via The Volokh Conspiracy)

What about albino hunchback lesbians of Vietnamese descent:
"The nomination of a “wise Latina woman” to the Supreme Court of the United States has signaled the Obama administration’s intent to scrap the Constitution. Whereas SOTUS jurists are charged with interpreting the constitutionality of laws and court rulings, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Court is the opening salvo in Mr. Obama’s attempt to dismantle the Constitution in favor of a Court that looks upon each individual ruling in light of the appellant’s personal background and life history."

Free-market capitalist system is the best medicine

An epidemic of cerebral sclerosis: "By RANDY ALCORN — May 26, 2009
While honest debate can be effective in gaining understanding and finding solutions, debate today has too often become a competition of rigid ideologies among adamantine adherents who believe that they have found the ultimate, universal, truth in some grand philosophical doctrine."

This my response to the above article:

I agree with Ted Potts's comment. I live in India where for almost 50 years people suffered due to the socialist agenda of the country. The country saw a huge movement of brain-drain where best of country's talent-doctors, engineers all left for the western countries. In last decade or so with reforms taking place and even with half-hearted moves towards a free-market system we have seen an unprecedented levels of prosperity. I work on a poultry farm where the laborers 10 years ago were barely able to buy food and clothing are now carrying cell-phones, wear western clothing and use DVD players.

It is the current US governments agenda which is driving people back to their home countries. The author implies that freedom causes casualties without any substance. The health-insurance he talks about has become so necessary only because of the socialized medicine. It is the lack of freedom in the health-care which is causing misery and death. Even in India in big cities where the government allows private hospitals (most rural areas have pathetic govt. hospitals) it is very affordable to consult and get treated by the top doctors (some who have practised in US before). The Insurance is still cheap (free competition).

How do you know that free-market capitalist system is not the apex of perfection? It has not been seen by the last few generations. Can you imagine if there was no interference from agencies like FDA and other what kind of discoveries and cures which will be unleashed. Unlike now where thousands die waiting for trials of drugs to fully satisfy the govt. agencies.

Your last sentence needs close scrutiny. "We need open minds, uncluttered by doctrine, uncoupled from selfish special interests, and free to explore new possibilities and find pragmatic solutions." Open minds-but not to reason, uncluttered by Doctrine-even the right one? uncoupled from selfish interest-even if selfishness is a virtue? As for pragmatism, I will quote Rand here,"in pragmatist’s universe, there are no absolutes. There are no facts, no fixed laws of logic, no certainty, no objectivity".

What we need is logic, certainty and objectivity in a very healthy dose to fix the enormous problems of the medical and the political field in America.

Government: Our Thigh Master

Obama's penchant for control is becoming both ridiculous and extreme. In this article Government: Our Thigh Master from The Kalamazoo Objectivist it is becoming obvious that this administration will stop at nothing in trying to exercise control over what Americans eat, drink, spend, when they spend it, let them earn enough to spend it, breathe (CO2 you know). I could go on and on, but this should be enough to give any freedom loving American nightmares.

Mainstream Press Treachery

Canada Free Press has this article about the treachery of American mainstream press. It raises some important points about the lack of balanced reporting. The press in America totally veers towards the leftist view point with no pretense of fair reporting. It says:

Honest unbiased reporting in the American news room has been so absent for so long that most Americans now seek information elsewhere. Americans no longer trust the free press to be their eyes and ears, to keep them abreast of the facts needed to make intelligent decisions about daily life or politics. Sadly, at this moment in history, even Russia has a more reliable free press than America. If Americans don’t read foreign news sources, they have no clue what is going on in their own country, much less the world.

It also mentions some very important stories like the one where US Federal Reserve Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman stated brazenly before the US Congress that she has “no idea” where $9 Trillion of US taxpayer has gone, or who got it (see the video here).

The story is equally applicable to the mainstream world press. Here in India I would not know a thing if I got my news from the press. I get 90% of my news from the Internet. The mainstream media here is completely leftist/anti-capitalist with stories on ever thing from evils of plastic bags to the pollution from industries. The business channels have no interest in questioning the polices of the government. There are no opposing viewpoints presented. At least in U.S. CNBC had the token Peter Schiff (see him predict the recession) to present the other side even though they thought he was a joke.

Obama's Slavocracy

A thought provoking piece of writing from Mark Steyn "Live Free or Die" (HT: Mad Minerva) where he says:
Americans face a choice: They can rediscover the animating principles of the American idea—of limited government, a self-reliant citizenry, and the opportunities to exploit your talents to the fullest—or they can join most of the rest of the Western world in terminal decline. Read it all.
It's time for Americans to decide what kind of future they want for themselves; do they want to be adults and make their own choices regarding health care, education etc. or do they want to become the wards of the state? Will America let itself be lured by Obama's promise of the welfare utopia and willingly tie shackles of slavery? In a mockery of the great fathers of the Republic Obama wants to reward the majority with the fruits of productiveness of the few. He has become the uncompromising, unblushing representative of a flagrant Socialism. I hope the American idea prevails and I say this with a lot of passion "live long and prosper, America".

Jefferson and the Somali pirates

I was reading this very interesting post Ranking the Founding Presidents from Powell History Recommends. While reading about Thomas Jefferson's (ranked 2nd) Powell mentions that "Jefferson continued to steer the new nation with its self-interest as his guiding star as its third president and his most notable accomplishment in that area was his leadership in the war against the Barbary Pirates." The mention of pirates immediately piqued my curiosity and I did a google search on Barbary pirates and I found a recent story on New York Times called Lessons From the Barbary Pirate Wars.

The article mentions some striking similarities with Somali pirates like: "how those brigands, like today’s Somalis, usually kept their hostages alive. They only hanged captives from giant hooks or carved them into little pieces if they resisted. The Barbary pirates used small wooden boats, often powered by slaves chained to the oars, to attack larger European ships." Thomas Jefferson's description is very striking: "When they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth, which usually struck such terror in the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”

In another article "Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates" Christopher Hitchens says:
Perhaps above all, though, the Barbary Wars gave Americans an inkling of the fact that they were, and always would be, bound up with global affairs. Providence might have seemed to grant them a haven guarded by two oceans, but if they wanted to be anything more than the Chile of North America—a long littoral ribbon caught between the mountains and the sea—they would have to prepare for a maritime struggle as well as a campaign to redeem the unexplored landmass to their west. The U.S. Navy’s Mediterranean squadron has, in one form or another, been on patrol ever since.

And then, finally, there is principle. It would be simplistic to say that something innate in America made it incompatible with slavery and tyranny. But would it be too much to claim that many Americans saw a radical incompatibility between the Barbary system and their own? And is it not pleasant when the interests of free trade and human emancipation can coincide? I would close with a few staves of Kipling:

It is wrong to put temptation in the pathof any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:—“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

It may be fortunate that the United States had to pass this test, and imbibe this lesson, so early in its life as a nation.

The solution to this problem according to Ayn Rand Center in it's article "How to End Piracy in the High Seas" is:

“What we need--in response to piracy as well as other foreign threats--is an across-the-board reversal in U.S. policy. When, for example, it became clear more than a year ago that the waters off the coast of Somalia are a playground for pirates, the minimum that Washington should have done was to lay down an ultimatum to the pirates to leave Americans alone or else--and lived up to it.

The substance of that warning: if any American vessel is captured by pirates, we will use military force to destroy every last pirate base in Somalia. When such a threat of retaliation is made fully credible, it can be sufficient to deter would-be aggressors. If any dare test us, then we must apologetically respond with force."

Some other sources of information:
America and the Barbary Pirates: An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe
Terrorism In Early America

FBI spied on TEA Party Americans!

Canada Free Press Reports that FBI spied on TEA Party Americans. It says that:
"Even as average Americans were planning to get out in towns and cities to demonstrate against Big Government and Big Taxes, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) surveillance was being unleashed upon them. In fact, unsuspecting Tax Day TEA Party participants were being closely watched during the demonstration planning stages in a covert operation that began on or about March 23, 2009."

This is exactly the the reason why increasing number of Americans are reading Ayn Rand and taking her philosophy seriously. The individual rights are being corroded gradually and government is becoming the dominant force in the lives of the citizens. This is exactly what the founding fathers didn't want to happen.

If the news of FBI at the Tea parties is true, it points towards Obama's America increasingly resembling Putin's Russia. Obama might take this as a compliment but let this be a warning to all freedom loving Americans, and let this be the time for adding an intellectual backbone to the Tea party protests. I would ask people living in US or elsewhere to read Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged" to understand the recent events and to find a why we need philosophy in our lives.

"In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is—i.e., he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts—i.e., he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance."
“Philosophy and Sense of Life,” The Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand.

The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: How to End Piracy in the High Seas

The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: How to End Piracy in the High Seas: "Washington, D.C., April 20, 2009--In a dramatic rescue operation a week ago, U.S. Navy Seals succeeded in freeing Capt. Richard Phillips from captivity by Somali pirates.

According to Elan Journo, analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, even though the operation was successful, it did not teach the pirates the appropriate lesson, as evidenced by news of a pirate attack on another American-flagged ship, the Liberty Sun."
Read the full article.

Meaning of a Tea Party

Principles in Practice: "John Lewis on the Proper Meaning of a Tea Party
Posted by Craig Biddle at 9:47 AM
Here’s a video of John Lewis’s excellent speech at yesterday’s tea party in Charlotte, North Carolina. (Thanks to Andy Clarkson for recording it)"