Statist Paternalism

Amit Ghate points to this description of paternalism written by Tocqueville in the 1830's in this Mark Steye editorial. Here is what Amit had to say about this quote,"I've never seen a more apt and eloquent characterization, and I particularly like how he differentiates what a father does from what a "paternal" state does." Here's the quote:

Over these is elevated an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate. It is absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle. It would resemble the paternal power if, like that power, it had as its object to prepare men for manhood, but it seeks, to the contrary, to keep them irrevocably fixed in childhood … it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs…

The sovereign extends its arms about the society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of petty regulations—complicated, minute, and uniform—through which even the most original minds and the most vigorous souls know not how to make their way… it does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them; rarely does it force one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one's acting on one's own … it does not tyrannize, it gets in the way: it curtails, it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupefies, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.

The sovereign "extends it's arm" with varying degrees. I have written a bit about the government holding a big stick in its extended arm, which is used liberally in India. So in a lot of countries, even the softening and bending would be a welcome relief. North Korea is another (extreme) example that comes to mind where one can't imagine anybody existing with their wills intact. The level of tyranny is mind boggling — the whole country is like a big concentration camp. Even more mind boggling is the indifference of the rest of the world. I guess most of the world is too busy trying not to get sucked into the same cesspool of totalitarianism. The response of the American government officially, is the suicidal policy of appeasement.

The "paternal state" has its origins in the monarchies founded in power, where the people are treated as the children of the king. We still hear about England's Queen mother — mother of the peasant masses is what it implies. Coming back to U.S., check this Paul Heish article in the Capitalism Magazine about King Obama's regulatory chief 's belief in libertarian paternalism:

The basic premise of libertarian paternalism is that the government should use its power to “nudge” people into acting in their best interest, while leaving them the choice to “opt out.” If the government decides that saving money is good, it would automatically divert a percentage of your paycheck into a savings account in your name unless you explicitly declined. Supporters claim that this preserves freedom because government is only changing the default, while leaving individuals the final choice. It is merely a gentle “nudge,” not a hard push.

However, nudging represents an assault on freedom, because it undermines man’s basic tool of survival — his mind. By creating a default, libertarian paternalism in essence says, “Don’t worry — we’ll do your thinking for you.” Sunstein’s book explicitly compares Americans to a bunch of Homer Simpsons in need of such guidance. If Americans surrender their minds to the government, they become easy prey for demagogues and dictators.

Paul goes on to say that,"every child knows that if you let a schoolyard bully get away with one seemingly harmless “nudge,” he will then escalate into shoving, then punching, then regular beatings." India is one perfect (or should I say horrible) example of that gentle Gandhi-Nehruvian socialist nudge escalating into a bone crunching beating of Nehru's daughter Indira Gandhi's emergency in 1977.

So is there no solution to this problem of overwhelming suffocation and oppression perpetuated by a group of people (government) on rest of us? Is it inevitable that the power corrupts and rest of us have to shrug, suffer, and swallow the bitter pill? No, we don't have to. Ayn Rand defined the nature of the government. She said that men can derive enormous benefits from dealing with one another but only on certain conditions.
The Nature of Government:

If men are to live together in a peaceful, productive, rational society and deal with one another to mutual benefit, they must accept the basic social principle without which no moral or civilized society is possible: the principle of individual rights.

To recognize individual rights means to recognize and accept the conditions required by man’s nature for his proper survival.

Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.

The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement.

(December 1963)

“The Nature of Government,” from The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand.

Read more about Ayn Rand’s Philosophy.

Ethics of paying for organ transplants

Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs was in the news recently for a liver transplant. He had to travel to Tennessee due to its lesser waiting time. He was lucky, some people like the 11 year old Japanese boy had to travel to another country for his heart transplant. Although there are differences in organ transplant laws, the basic premise is the same. In most countries around the world no one can buy an organ.

This highlights the stupidity of laws which ban consensual dealing between adults. In fact in Japan you can't harvest the organs of a brain dead person even if his relatives consent to it. The cessation of brain function as human death was not accepted by Japan. This resulted in only 11 heart transplants in Japan compared with more than 2,000 in the U.S. A written will is required for organ donations and there is a ban on them from children under 15 - although this law seems set for some changes.

There was a sneaking suspicion that Jobs had paid for his transplant. It is unlikely. What is done by a lot of people is to enter a lot of queues (legal) and it helps to have a jet ready to fly wherever the turn comes up. The key question is if it really such an evil to pay someone for his organ? If the laws were changed to make payments to donors legal, the entire waiting list of 80000 people waiting for a kidney in U.S. would disappear in a matter of a year or so if not a few months and out of 20000 more waiting for other organs a majority would survive. A majority of lives will be saved unlike more than 85,000 U.S. citizens who have died waiting (pdf) for a solid transplant organ since 1995.

Countries like Spain, Norway, and Belgium have a unique solution to this problem. They consider all dead as organ donors unless they have opted out. This "presumed consent" law violates individual rights and don't take into account the individuals who have no intention of become a donor but die suddenly. In countries like India a patient can accept an organ donation only from a close relative unless a non-relative can prove that he is doing it for altruistic reasons and not money. This leads to doctors and agents who recruit kidney donors for patients for up to $10000 and a lot of kidney's being stolen from unsuspecting victims. In China there have been reports of prisoners being executed for their organs.

The Current U.S. Regulatory Framework under National Organ Transplantation Act (NOTA) specifically prohibits the sale of donor organs for transplantation though the ban does not apply to blood, sperm or ova. The solid organ donor program is purely voluntary, both for living and cadaveric (dead body) organ transplantation. The donation of organs by living people is heavily screened and the law says that people who want to donate organs should be either family or close friends. In spite of thousands of people dying waiting for an organ, there are many who see no problems with the present system. This has to do a lot with the altruistic nature of the system which is killing a lot of people.
　
Dr. Bruce Patsner in his article "Human Organ Transplantation in the U.S. – Crossing New Lines? ” (pdf) mentions some solutions are being implemented and some being proposed. One of them is the recent law by New Jersey which forces people getting driver’s license to make a decision about cadaveric organ donation. This is the altruist way of forcing you to take a decision, and making you feel guilty for saying no. The article mentions a growing movement of surgeons wanting to explore the option of “paying individuals money to provide an incentive for them to donate organs for transplantation after they have died.” Even here a lot of objections are raised - like donors hiding diseases (there are laws to tackle violations of contracts) and the possibility of the payment system extending to living donors.

There is a lot of opposition against the payment for organs to living donors. These are the same arguments given in cases of drug consumption and prostitution (acts between consenting adults.) The prevention of payment for organs is the worst of all violations of individual rights, as the denial of organs is the denial of life. According to Ayn Rand in “The Virtue of Selfishness”:

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Update: ...With Functioning Kidneys for All by Virginia Postrel

If transplant centers could pay $25,000 or $50,000 to each living kidney donor, many more people would line up to contribute.

Such payments could even save taxpayers billions of dollars. Long-term dialysis is a federal entitlement. Under a special law, Medicare covers everyone, regardless of age, who has made minimal Social Security tax payments—about 319,000 of the country’s 400,000 dialysis patients. Compared with dialysis payments, every transplant from a living, unrelated donor saves an expected present value of almost $100,000 in medical costs, according to a 2003 American Journal of Transplantation article by Matas and Mark Schnitzler, an economist then at Washington University in St. Louis and now at the Saint Louis University Center for Outcomes Research.
Eliminating the waiting list would thus save taxpayers $8 billion, or $4 billion if each living donor received a lump-sum payment of $50,000.

That purely financial estimate ignores the enormous benefits for the patients’ quality of life, of course. It also excludes the economic gains from returning to productive work—only about 10 percent of dialysis patients are employed even part-time—and the fiscal effects of paying taxes rather than receiving disability payments.

Read the complete article.

Capitalism Magazine Classics

1. Hatred of Western Civilization
   Why Terrorists Attacked America
   
2. In Defense of the "Barbarous Relic"
   Why The Enemies of Capitalism Smear The Gold Standard
   
3. Immigration and Individual Rights
   Does a foreigner have a moral right to move to America? And should America welcome him?
   
4. A Tale of Two Novels
   Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged Versus James Joyce's Ulysses

A Russian Immigrant's Lesson in American Patriotism

The American Individualist:
"“America is the land of the uncommon man. It is the land where man is free to develop his genius – and to get its just rewards.” ~ Ayn Rand

As Independence Day nears and debates over immigration rage on, I’m reminded of how an atheist émigré from Soviet Russia taught me what it means to be an American patriot."

Objectivist Views

1. The speech our President should have made on Iran by Debi Ghate
   
2. The New Sons of Liberty - by Edward Cline on Objectivists being the new Sons of Liberty, who must keep on arguing, talking, writing, and protesting, to get as many people on our side as possible.
   
3. Nadir In the House - Myraf on implications of the climate-change bill.
   
4. Obama Around the Web - Myrhaf on some interesting pieces on Obama around the web.
   
5. Congress Should Emulate Australia On Cap And Trade - by C. August
   
6. What If God Disappeared? - by Ari Armstrong
   
7. Atlas Shrugged on Floor Displays at Largest Bookstores - The Ayn Rand Institute
   
8. Good Night, America? from Robbservations

New on ARCTV

1. ObamaCare: Will Dr. Atlas Shrug?
   Yaron Brook discusses the moral roots of socialized medicine, and why a morality of self-interest will lead to better policies. The failure of U.S. policy towards Iran is also examined. (Pajamas TV interview; 19 min.)
   
2. The Michael Jackson Effect: Shenanigans in DC & Lockdown in Iran
   Yaron Brook discusses what could happen in the U.S. and in Iran while the news media are distracted by the death of Michael Jackson. (Pajamas TV interview; 8 min.)
   
3. What the Tea Party Movement Must Stand For
   Don Watkins explains why it is not enough for the Tea Party protests to be against the latest Washington power grabs–they must also stand for the individual’s right to live for his own sake, and not as a servant of society.
   

The evolutionary origin of depression

The evolutionary origin of depression: Mild and bitter The Economist

"Depression may be linked to how willing someone is to give up his goals."

I agree with the above statement and you see examples of people who are unhappy with their existing jobs because of money or some pressures. Most people in the first place have trouble finding what exactly their goals are and meandering along in life is not a way to achieve happiness. This what Ayn Rand had to say about the importance of having a goal:

"A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man's life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos."
["Purpose," Ayn Rand Lexicon, p. 398]

I would suggest reading these posts by Burgess Laughlin at his blog "Making Progress."
1. What is a central purpose in life?
2. The third greatest sacrifice?

Dull Asians who study, study, study

Sarita from The Kalamazoo Objectivist points to this article "The Viciousness Of Academic Liberals" by Walter Williams who talks about Mr. Connerly's conversation with this high-ranking University of California administrator who wanted more campus diversity. When asked his reasons, this is what he had to say:

His response was that unless the university took steps to "guide" admissions decisions, the UC campuses would be dominated by Asians. When Connerly asked, "What would be wrong with that?", the UC administrator told him that Asians are "too dull — they study, study, study." Then he said to Connerly, "If you ever say I said this, I will have to deny it."

Mr. Connerly who originally wrote the article ""Study, Study, Study — A Bad Career Move" in the June 2, 2009, edition of Minding the Campus rightly terms this evil and asks the pertinent question if this approach of diversity should be applied in other areas as well:

With blacks making up about 80% of professional basketball players, there is little or no diversity in professional basketball. Even at college-level basketball, it's not unusual to watch two teams playing and there not being a single white player on the court, much less a Chinese or Japanese player.
I can think of several rule changes that might increase racial diversity in professional and college basketball. How about eliminating slam dunks and disallowing three-point shots? Restrict dribbling? Lower the basket's height?

It sounds ridiculous and would bring down the standards of the game and it is equally applicable to other field including academics. Racism is unacceptable and would bring down standards in any field where ability is not the guiding principle. It's not just about protecting the rights of the Asians as a minority but as Ayn Rand said it's about protecting the rights of the smallest minority on earth - the individual.

Rationing and Capitalism

In this article Chuck tells us about this The New York Times article which claims that socialized medicine will lead to health care rationing which according to NYT is "an inescapable part of economic life." It confuses rationing in our daily lives with the government mandated one. How is my buying stuff with my own money the same as a bureaucrat doing that with my money; and supposedly knowing what is best for me. It all starts with this one statement "access to medical care is a fundamental right."

How do we reach this point of deciding that anybody has a right to a good or a service being offered by another person. Right in this context means that the goods/services can be had forcibly and that the person who thinks that he has the right will decide if he wants to pay anything for it. Now, how is that person supposed to indulge in that long honored American tradition of "making money?" Well he can't - he is forced to accept whatever is offered to him. Pretty much like slaves who live on whatever the master deems acceptable. How did the bastion of freedom, individual rights, and the land of pursuit of happiness reach this point where enslaving another person is considered - in fact advocated openly in so called respectable media?

The mainstream media plays an important role in mobilizing the public opinion against Capitalism. The freedom to work, private property, money, division of labor, are all denounced and are blamed for all the problems of the society. These are the very things missing under Socialism and that has been the cause of the collapse of various Socialist countries in recent times. The environmentalism, animal-rights, are nothing but attacks on Capitalism in various forms.

Profit which indicates to what extent a person has succeeded in creating surplus over and above the resources with which he started to begin with, has become a dirty word. What is a businessman supposed to do? Feel ashamed that he created a profitable business? It's not a coincidence that the most profitable companies in America like Coca-cola, Microsoft, Walmart, are some of the most hated ones. They have consistently been the target of anti-trust regulators. The very concept of anti-trust is that if you are very successful you become a target. This very immoral law is undefined and it is up to the government to decide based on unknown parameters if you have broken the law.

I remember reading in Fortune magazine about a decade ago an article where the author suggested taking over Microsoft's patents. I was flabbergasted. Penalizing a company for it's success? In effect nationalizing the company. I was furious and wrote a letter to the magazine. I suggested the author be sent to India to see the result of his suggestion that had already been implemented. The patent system in India was in a primitive state then and the effects of nationalization had rotted the system to it's core. Fortune printed that letter but it was the last time I read that magazine.

In fact everything from inflation, depression, monopolies, just about everything which can be is blamed on Capitalism. It is another matter that in a perfect Capitalist system none of these things would exist. This where government steps in to protect the society from the evil, profiteering, greedy, businessmen. This where the "planned" society begins. It starts the avalanche of laws, regulations, codes, rules, to manage every aspect of the lives of people - supposedly to liberate them from the clutches of the Capitalists. Thus begins the task of freeing people from the free-markets.

The laws range from progressive income taxes, wealth taxes, labor laws, sales taxes (in India), licensing norms, public schooling, public transportation, and the list goes on. To manage all this - hordes of bureaucrats are needed along with hordes of inspectors and other state employees. Laws to regulate food, water, air, open spaces, closed spaces, vacant properties, occupied properties, laws to create laws, are constantly written and re-written even before people get used to the previous ones. I am talking mostly about India but in last few years I have realised distressingly a lot of these laws exist in America. In last decade India has moved closer towards free-markets and America away from it.

One of the key aspects of Capitalism has always been under attack, it's the capital or the money. One of the champions of this policy has been Krugman of NYT. The inflation of money supply as propagated by Keynes has been a consistent feature of governmental control. The removal of gold standard led to removing any restraints on politicians and the beginning of boom and bust economies across the world. In 2002 Paul Krugman advocated the creation of housing bubble and once the economy suffered from it, guess who is around to give advice to governments on how to tackle it - Paul Krugman. America did very well before the creation of Federal reserve, in fact prospered at unprecedented rates.

Here is what Reisman said in his book:

The ability to create money has also been demanded because it is vital in enabling additional government expenditures to be financed by means of budget deficits and thus in fostering the delusion that the government can provide benefits for which citizens do not pay. And when, as is inevitable, the policy of inflation results in rising prices, capital decumulation, and the destruction of credit, people demand price and wage controls, and then, in response to the shortages and chaos that result, the government's total control over the economic system, in the form of rationing and allocation.

We have seen the above result in country after country and yet in this conflict of economics versus altruism and self-interest versus self-sacrifice - it is altruism and self-sacrifice which keep coming out on top. Here in India rationing has been a way of life for a long time. Even though a ration card has lost some of its importance, it has been kept relevant for majority of the masses. The ration card is supposed to be the visa to the Socialist paradise. In reality a lot of food-stuff meant to be distributed through the government controlled fair-price shops is diverted to the black-markets. The corruption is rampant and all public officials and the shop owners associated with the scheme benefit from it.

Last year under right to information law, a major scam was uncovered when one women was discovered to have 901 cards in her name. Everything which is rationed is scarce and is available in the black market at a premium. Kerosene oil is one of the items and majority of it's supply is diverted and used by government licensed gas stations to adulterate petrol and diesel. This causes huge damage to the engines and ends up with vehicles producing far more pollution. So, for people interested in environment I would suggest backing the free-market system.

Capitalism has resulted in rising productivity and improved standards of living and Socialism has caused nothing but economic chaos and totalitarian dictatorship. I'll end by quoting Ayn Rand:

Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on earth. The evidence is incontrovertible. The contrast between West and East Berlin is the latest demonstration, like a laboratory experiment for all to see. Yet those who are loudest in proclaiming their desire to eliminate poverty are loudest in denouncing capitalism. Man’s well-being is not their goal.

“Theory and Practice,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

Auto Atlas Has Shrugged

Mike from The New Clarion in this article talks about the state of the auto industry in America being discussed at the National Summit on the economy in Detroit. He talks about Nolan Finley, editor of the Detroit News who laments the fact that nobody seems to care about business and industry any more. In reponse to his charge that no one in charge is much interested in hearing their ideas for fixing things, Mike highlights the role of media:

Could it be all those past editorials claiming that some taxes, some emission regulations, some fuel economy regulations, some labor regulations and other government mandates were noble and virtuous goals, but we mustn’t over do it by trying to be too noble and virtuous. Could it be that people no longer believe that it’s virtuous to take poison with their food?

Some of the media morons might be having some doubts but the majority still thinks that a little bit of poison will act like a digestive and be good for you. The conference had a CEO wanting reviving business by making it "cool." So it's not the principles involved but the cool factor which is important. In response to this appealing to "feelings", Mike say:

Never mind appealing to anyone’s mind, their reason, or their own moral and constitutional right to make the cars they want to make with the kind of fuel efficiency and emissions people are willing to pay for. No. We must figure out a way to make life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the prosperity it brings, ‘cool’. In a culture where sacrificial emotions take precedence over reason, the more consistent emotionalists will prevail. That’s why Obama, Pelosi and Reid are now in charge.

Mr. Finely also talks of the free market lesson one of the Senators got from a CEO who just ended up extolling the Senator to fine tune his powers to distribute the resources. This is a classic case of "sanction of the victim." Instead of standing up to these leeches, businessmen all over the world are convinced about their mortal sin of being producers, originators of that horrible word, dare I say it - profit. They should listen to Yaron Brook, who said in his keynote speech to the Virginia Republicans," businessmen are the heroes."

I see Industrialists coming on TV every year after the broadcast of that marvel of Socialism - budget, the annual exercise of allocation of resources in India by the Finance Minister. Their companies are in hands of one man and I have yet to see even one business federation give the budget a thumbs down. They just make polite noises (could have been better.) The business schools need to make Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal mandatory reading.

Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the World Today

“Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the World Today”: An Interview with Yaron Brook

"Yaron Brook: In Atlas Shrugged we see a world crumbling under the weight of government interventions and regulations. The economy has ground to a halt. Roads and bridges are breaking down, buildings are falling apart, new inventions are few and far between, and each day more and more businesses are shutting their doors. The government blames greed and the free market, frantically imposes further controls, but the crisis only deepens.

The similarities to today are striking. Since the start of our current crisis, we’ve been told that the free market and “greedy” businessmen are to blame, and that the only solution is to hand progressively more power over to the government. We’re hearing the same charges, and seeing the same policies, with the same destructive consequences that Rand wrote about more than half a century ago.

In Atlas, we even read about a “banker with a heart of gold” who went out of business after lending to borrowers on the basis of their “need” rather than their ability to repay. Anyone who understands how the government’s “affordable housing” crusade led to an orgy of subprime lending can appreciate Rand’s foresight [see Richard M. Salsman, “Altruism: The Moral Root of the Financial Crisis”]. "

Read the complete article.

The meaning of Inflation

Most people have trouble understanding the meaning of inflation. Jim May at The New Clarion has done a wonderful job in this article "Say’s Revenge" of explaining this very immoral tool of governments around the world. The lack of understanding of Inflation has today encouraged governments (with help from Keynesian economists) to turn this method to covert stealing into an overt act of robbery.

"As Milton Friedman correctly wrote, inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. By extension, therefore, so is deflation — which is why, contrary to mainstream economists, we are not in a truly deflationary period at present, insofar as there is no reduction in the supply of *money* that has happened over the last two years. Rather, it is demand destruction that has been happening, and that’s a horse of a different color."

Read the whole article.

Positive thinking's negative results

This article in the The Economist claims,"for some people, optimistic thoughts can do more harm than good" which doesn't surprise me. It says:

Self-help books through the ages, including Norman Vincent Peale’s 1952 classic, “The Power of Positive Thinking”, have encouraged people with low self-esteem to make positive self-statements. New research, however, suggests it may do more harm than good.

Baseless optimism not in sync with reality will definitely do harm. It is bad for individuals and it is bad for societies. People today seem to be high on this opium of ignoring reality and indulging in baseless optimism. I'll quote from the "Brief summary of Objectivism."

The universe exists independent of consciousness. Man is able to adapt his background to his own requirements, but "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" (Francis Bacon). There is no mental process that can change the laws of nature or erase facts. The function of consciousness is not to create reality, but to apprehend it. "Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

The philosophic source of this viewpoint and its major advocate in the history of philosophy is Aristotle. Its opponents are all the other major traditions, including Platonism, Christianity, and German idealism. Directly or indirectly, these traditions uphold the notion that consciousness is the creator of reality. The essence of this notion is the denial of the axiom that existence exists.

Today people seem to be in the business of recreating reality whole sale for other people. It is a lack of philosophy which makes these people live in a chimeric world. It is easy to retreat from reality even when you have caught glimpses of it because it is so god damned harsh. Now it is tough to cure a disease if you can't diagnose it in the first place. If we have an inkling of reality then all the "positive self-statements" in the world will not fool us and instead cause even more distress as claimed by the Economist article. It is the other lot who is "blind" and flailing about asking for the very next confident con artist to come to his help who are in a worse shape.

What is required is a system of philosophy advocating reason. It exists in form of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, presented in detail in works- both non-fiction and fiction (Atlas Shrugged, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness.)
In her own words, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3, Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.

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.

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.

Definition of "Excessive force"

There has been a lot of hue and cry over the attacks on Indian students in Australia. There are over 90000 Indian students in Australia and there have been half a dozen attacks recently of varying degrees ranging from beatings to a stabbing. There has been a lot of noise over the racial nature of violence.

What I would like to know is whether the brutal beating of the non-racial nature is any less painful or acceptable? A lot of the acts were robberies gone wrong. In any case racism of all variety is deplorable but to condemn the whole country as racist because of a few nuts is ridiculous. A lot of my relatives have been and some still are in Australia and they can't stop singing it's praises.

The role of media in whipping up of hysteria is verging on unethical. There have been no figures given on the comparisons in attacks on Indian students and other students, number of attacks in past and the current year. The TV channels in their enthusiasm now are going hysterical on the alleged excessive force used by the Melbourne police in removing protesters forcibly who refused to move from one of the busiest streets of Melbourne. Excessive force? You've got to be kidding me? I saw the footage and I saw nothing of that sort. Besides, what were they supposed to do? Let them sit there and inconvenience everybody else?

The students by their mass protest and blocking of the streets have done their cause no good. I'll quote Ayn Rand who said the following:

The forcible occupation of another man’s property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a “sit-in” in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob.
The Cashing-In: The Student ‘Rebellion,’” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 256.

In India a protest like this would not be handled by Indian police with such civility. There are far more worse things police here do then bodily lift protesters. These include tear gassing, cane charge, hitting with rifle-butts (I was beaten-up during anti-reservation protest in 91, couldn't walk for three days), molestation of women (the whole country saw the groping of doctors on TV), shooting- frequently resulting in seriously wounding and killing of protesters (retaliation against stone throwing).

The hypocrisy of the Indian media is unbelievable. I have not seen such massive collective cry of outrage by the media in recent past over the far more serious violations by the police in India. If the conduct of Aussie police is labeled "excessive force", I wonder if we can ever find the right words to suitably describe the barbaric behavior of the Indian police.

Introducing Objectivism

Introducing Objectivism

Ayn Rand delivers a capsule description of her philosophy, Objectivism.

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.