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.

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.

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.

Reinventing the Magazine-WSJ.com

How would you like your magazine-on a T-shirt or inside a can?

This article from WSJ.com talks about the unique marketing by some magazines in order to stand out and survive. Now is the mode of delivering more important than the content itself?
(via Techdirt)