April — 2010 — VOICES for REASON

We are told that Earth Day is about enjoying nature, anticipating exciting green technologies, and promoting human health. It isn’t. It is about guilt for the very thing that makes enjoyment, technology, and health possible–our industrial, capitalist way of life. When environmentalists tell us to be “green” on Earth Day by turning out our lights, hand-washing our clothes, and not using our cars, they are saying that what we do every other day of the year is wrong–that it is destructive and “unsustainable.”

At the Ayn Rand Center, we believe that industrial life is something to be proud of and something billions around the globe desperately need to emulate. We condemn the 40 years of apocalyptic, pseudo-scientific environmentalist predictions–such as environmentalist hero Paul Ehrlich’s prediction that hundreds of millions of people would starve by 1980. We recognize the ability of free minds and free markets to make human life better and better, no matter what nature throws at us.

For a unique perspective on the history, science, economics, and philosophy behind Earth Day, we invite you to explore the following resources.

Read the rest of this entry »

In response to a recent post called “Who cares about the doctors?” I received several thoughtful comments, including two that recounted poignant personal stories. As you read this first comment, ask yourself whether ObamaCare and the whole federal-state medical regulatory system treats physicians with the respect they deserve:

My wife did a mid-life career change from power systems engineer to doctor (ER). It was a family decision. We put our own savings and investments on the line to bet on her ability to take our family to the next level of success in America. We did this willingly, as free people intending to enjoy the fruits of our labors. When I look back at the amount of time, sacrifice and work it took from all of us, most of all my wife, to get to this point, the action of the Obama administration is breathtaking in its sense of entitlement to her labor and its arrogance in assuming that the doctors will go along.

Most doctors already willingly donate their time, money and labor to treat the poor. When it is no longer their decision where to apply their labor, then we have lost the country.

But of course, it’s not just the Obama administration that displays a “sense of entitlement to her labor.” For decades, both political parties have displayed “arrogance in assuming that the doctors will go along.” Now the question is: Will doctors keep “going along,” or will they start standing up for their rights? Listen to another physician expressing a sense of personal loss: Read the rest of this entry »

Many of the opponents of ObamaCare objected to it on the grounds that it didn’t reflect the “will of the people”–as if the biggest problem with herding doctors and patients into a government health care system was that too few Americans supported the herding.

Well, wouldn’t you know it: “More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.”

Whatever the accuracy of the poll, trying to defend health care freedom on the grounds of public opinion is to place health care freedom on a foundation of shifting sand. As the founders warned us, the majority can be as great a threat to individual rights as a minority; Patrick Henry didn’t say, “Give me liberty…so long as 51% of Americans approve.”

We at VfR, on the other hand, continue to oppose ObamaCare on the grounds that it is a rights-violating, immoral monstrosity.

The Federal Communication Commission’s crusade to impose net neutrality rules on the Internet hit a speed bump Tuesday. A U.S. appeals court ruled that the FCC exceeded its regulatory authority when it sanctioned Comcast for slowing down bandwidth hogs on its network and issued net neutrality guidelines for ISPs. (Net neutrality is a murky term meaning, roughly, that the government should regulate the Internet in order to ensure that all data is treated equally.)

This is good news for proponents of Internet freedom. As my colleague Alex Epstein has written:

Because the Internet is based on voluntary association, no one can properly compel others for their ad space, bandwidth, publicity–or network priority. Those who create these values have the right to use and profit from them as they see fit. Google has no more right to demand that Verizon be “neutral” with its network than Verizon has a right to demand that Google be “neutral” with its coveted advertising space. . . . Read the rest of this entry »

Throughout Washington, the most powerful politicians (including Barack Obama) and bureaucrats (including Ben Bernanke) are sparring over the apportionment of new government powers–in particular, how much additional power should the Fed have–to prevent future financial crises. (See stories here, here, and here for more background.)

But notice that this “debate” essentially features only one position on the financial crisis: that it was caused by insufficient government control of the economy, especially by the Fed–and therefore that the solution is more controls. But what about the position that the government, in particular the Fed, was the essential cause of the crisis? Without the Fed lending out money at below the rate of inflation, without government-guaranteed mortgages, without government bailout guarantees, the housing bubble never would have gotten off the ground.

Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, et al. want to pretend that such a position doesn’t exist. Read the rest of this entry »

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the CEOs of both Google and Verizon have endorsed that portion of the FCC’s new National Broadband Plan that calls for “making high-speed Internet connections available to all Americans.” Oh, and by the way, the executives agree it should be accomplished with “minimal government involvement.”

Pardon me? Do these guys read the newspapers? The whole nation just witnessed what happens when government creates a new entitlement, and it sure ain’t “minimal government involvement.”

When Congress decided to make health insurance “available to all Americans,” the result was a sprawling bill that imposes unprecedented government controls on the health insurance industry. And of course, this entitlement mentality has a long history (think Medicare, Medicaid, and the prescription drug program) that demonstrates how controls breed controls.

And that’s the way it has to be. Once everyone agrees on any new entitlement—I don’t know, something like “making high-speed Internet connections available to all Americans”—then government must become involved. Why? Because the very essence of an entitlement is a claim by those who lack a value against those who have earned it. And government is the only agency that can enforce such a claim.

If the top executives of giant cellular and Internet companies can’t see that contradiction in their own op-ed, how can they hope to defend their companies from creeping regulation? What’s at stake here is the freedom that has allowed these industries to innovate, profit, and flourish—while more regulated parts of the economy stagnate.

Image: WikiMedia Commons

The U.S. is not only a founding member of the U.N. but for a long time has been its largest financial backer. What are we getting for our money? An institution that makes a mockery of protecting rights around the world. Consider this report from veteran U.N. observer Anne Bayefsky, cataloguing just some of the recent perversities of the U.N.’s (notorious) Human Rights Council.

The Council, which meets in Geneva, is the personal playground of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. They hold the balance of power by controlling the Asian and African regional groups, which together form a majority at the Council. The Council’s agenda is accordingly fixated on issues of priority to the Islamic bloc— number one, delegitimizing Israel; number two, trumping free speech in the name of Islam; and number three, avoiding any criticism of human-rights violations in their own backyards. None of which has anything to do with protecting human rights.

Later, Bayefsky observes, “The Obama administration lost every time it called for the vote on a resolution at the Council session.” But don’t be misled into thinking that Obama’s diplomats were all that energetic. Read the rest of this entry »