VOICES for REASON

Over the next week, ARI speakers will participate in “Capitalism Awareness Week.” Capitalism Awareness Week is being spearheaded by the student publication The Undercurrent, and will feature a series of events at college campuses addressing what capitalism really is and how our country would be far more prosperous and just if markets were free.

• Tonight Yaron Brook will debate Dane Smith, the president of Growth and Justice, on whether regulating capitalism is a moral necessity or moral treason.
• On Thursday, Sept. 29, Don Watkins will tackle America’s entitlement crisis and answer whether the entitlement state and its leading programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security—can and should survive.
• On Tuesday, Oct. 4, John Allison, an ARI board member and retired chairman and CEO of BB&T Corporation, will discuss the causes, consequences, and cures of the recent financial crisis.

The best part is: all of these events will be streamed live over the web. So be sure to check them out!

More information can be found at capitalismweek.org (which is also where the events can be streamed live).

If intellectual obscenities could be ranked, it would be hard to outdo Elizabeth Warren’s recent tirade against America’s wealth creators:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

There is a lot one could say about this quote–notice, for instance, that it totally ignores the benefits made possible by the factory–but I’ll confine myself to this: underlying Warren’s rant is a disastrous view of the proper relationship between the individual and society.

On Warren’s view, society is some collective entity with its own interests and prerogatives, and if you want to be a part of society, you have to surrender some of your interests and prerogatives–above all, some of your freedom. Warren calls it a “social contract.” I call it a “social shakedown.”

The Founding Fathers, in a view they inherited from Locke and which was elaborated by Ayn Rand, had a radically different view of the relationship between the individual and society. They held that society is not some collective entity. It is only a collection of individuals–each with his own aims and interests. The basic problem of politics, they held, was how sovereign individuals could gain the benefits of living in society without surrendering their ability to pursue their own interests.

The solution was to base society on the principle of individual rights: each individual has an inalienable right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. You were free to live your life for your own sake and according to your own independent judgment. The government’s job was simple: to make sure no one interfered in that pursuit by violating your rights. Not to build roads or schools or to confiscate what you earn when you build a factory. To protect your freedom.

The result was the first voluntary society in history–a society where people dealt with one another only by mutual consent to mutual advantage. In such a society, if no voluntary cooperation is possible, individuals are free to go their own way.

In a voluntary society there is no such thing as some undefined, unlimited debt to “society.” Those who educate workers, pave roads, or put out fires are fully remunerated for their work by their customers. They have no further claim on anyone’s wealth–to say nothing of the bizarre idea that their services give Elizabeth Warren or Barack Obama a claim on anyone’s wealth. As for the government itself, that’s more complicated. A limited government is indispensible for individuals to flourish and we certainly have a moral obligation to pay for it. But in today’s context, when most of what government does is violate rights, interfere with wealth creators, and tax away their profits, it takes no small amount of chutzpah to talk about the debt they owe to government.

Individuals do create wealth, and morally they have a right to the wealth they create. But to appreciate that, you have to reject Warren’s collectivist social shakedown in favor of the individualist tradition of the Founding Fathers.

At the United Nations this week, the Palestinians will ask for — and possibly get — endorsement for their own independent state. But first, a quick reality check on what a Palestinian state means. This seven-part report from the Middle East Media Research Institute documents the rule of Hamas since it took over Gaza — in a bloody civil war — four years ago. To draw a brief sketch: Hamas has arbitrarily seized private land and bulldozed homes; censored the press; mocked freedom of assembly; killed political opponents (including those accused of “collaboration” with Israel); exploited civilians and private homes as human shields for armaments; imposed sharia law; and colluded in and carried out rocket attacks on Israel. And so the Islamists of Hamas have followed in the footsteps of the rival faction, the Fatah/PLO, which under Yasser Arafat had built up a horrifically repressive dictatorial regime. Arafat’s successor, Mahmoud Abbas, whose faction nominally has authority over parts of the West Bank, is known to celebrate suicide bombers, even honoring terrorists by naming streets after them.

For Palestinian leaders to demand a state of their own in order to sanctify their tyrannical rule is perverse.

Earlier this week Penguin, the publisher of Atlas Shrugged, released an application for Apple’s iPad that offers readers an amplified edition of Ayn Rand’s magnum opus. Instead of buying the text-only e-book of the novel, you can purchase this application, which offers many additional features that allow you to learn more about the novel, Ayn Rand, and her ideas.

The app contains four main sections: “The Book,” “The Author,” “The Philosophy” and “Hall of Atlas.”

• “The Book” section offers the full text of Atlas Shrugged. In addition, app users can share their favorite passages from the text on social media sites and see manuscript pages of various sections of the novel.
• “The Author” section features a biography of Ayn Rand, a graphic timeline of her life, a gallery of photos of Rand and key documents related to her work, and recollections of Rand by Leonard Peikoff, her longtime associate and intellectual heir.
• In “The Philosophy” section, users can read about the essentials of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism and listen to an audio lecture by Rand describing her philosophy. Users can also listen to Rand’s 1964 talk “Is Atlas Shrugging?”
• The “Hall of Atlas” section offers users many video and audio interviews of Rand discussing the main themes in Atlas Shrugged and other intellectual topics. Users can also take an interactive quiz that tests whether they can correctly attribute quotes from the novel to their respective characters, access discussion questions, and view further reading resources.

To find out more about the Atlas Shrugged iPad app, and to see a gallery of screen shots, please visit the iTunes App Store. The app sells for $14.99.

The economic downturn, the deficit and debt crisis, the struggle businesses have in making payroll, the challenge many people now face to find work — all of these issues, naturally, are front-and-center in the headlines, on Main Street, on Capitol Hill, on the campaign trail. Foreign policy — despite the tumult in the Middle East — has receded from public awareness. It’s understandable, for example, that people’s interest in Iraq and Afghanistan should wane. Consider how Iraq and Afghanistan have turned out — nearly a decade later, neither has been the success we were led to expect. But there’s a real danger in turning our attention away from foreign policy: the threats we face continue to grow.

Take one major example: Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capability. In a column at the New York Post, Peter Brookes helpfully spells out the latest dismaying news about Iran. He writes that “despite all the bloviating, finger-wagging and sloppy United Nations sanctions, there doesn’t seem to be much — if anything — holding back the ayatollahs’ atomic aspirations.”

…Iran is outfitting its new nuclear facility at Qom with new centrifuges — which experts believe will permit it to further increase uranium-enrichment levels far beyond what’s needed for peaceful nuclear-reactor fuel.

The “fissile fortress” at Qom — located on a Revolutionary Guard base and securely tucked into the side of a mountain — is pretty clearly meant to produce the highly enriched uranium needed for the making of Iran’s first bombs.

It’s been estimated Iran already has enough low-enriched uranium on hand to produce enough highly enriched uranium for two to three bombs in relatively short order. And the IAEA (from its own detective work and intel provided by members) has “increasing concern” that Iran’s peaceful nuclear program has a military angle.

That is, the IAEA fears Tehran is working on a nuke warhead to put that uranium in.

Bear in mind that this news comes from an IAEA report, and that the organization (in Brookes’s aptly phrase) is “always-cautious-and-slow-to-accuse.”

image: wiki commons

In BusinessWeek’s “Debate Room” this week, I take the “pro” position on the topic: “Dear Government, U.S. Business Doesn’t Need You.” Here’s part of what I said:

Jobs are created by private businesses when they expand production, launch new products, and develop new markets. Government’s proper task is to protect the rights of these job creators (and the people who fill the jobs). That means enforcing laws against embezzlement, fraud, breach of contract, and all the other crimes and civil wrongs that violate the right to free, voluntary trade.

After that, government’s No. 1 priority is to butt out. Our lawmakers need to be pondering how to roll back the programs that stifle job creation. From Federal Reserve-driven currency manipulation that fogs up the economic prediction windshield to costly and demoralizing regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley that treat businesspeople as guilty until certified innocent and on to runaway “stimulus” spending that sucks capital out of the private sector, government “help” actually kills business initiative.

My opponent advocates economic protectionism, even higher spending on education, and other forms of what I call “welfare for business.” Who’s the winner of this debate? You be the judge—and be sure to post your comments on the BusinessWeek.com website.

Image: WikiMedia Commons

Forbes.com has just published the latest column by Yaron Brook and me, “The Entitlement State is Morally Bankrupt.”

The basic principle behind the entitlement state is that a person’s need entitles him to other people’s wealth. It’s that you have a duty to spend some irreplaceable part of your life laboring, not for the sake of your own life and happiness, but for the sake of others. If you are productive and self-supporting, then according to the entitlement state, you are in hock to those who aren’t. In Marx’s memorable phrase: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

As we’ve argued in past columns, no system that treats you as other people’s servant can be called moral. What made America the noblest nation in history was that it was the first country founded on the idea that each of us has a right to live and work for our own sake, that it’s our own job to try to make the most of our life, and that the government’s sole purpose is to protect our freedom to do so.

Some have raised objections to this line of argument, however. Here are three of the most popular objections.

You can read the whole column here.

If you haven’t yet checked out Elan Journo’s edited collection, Winning the Unwinnable War: America’s Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism, this month you can read the introduction and first two chapters of the book for free here.

Winning the Unwinnable War analyzes U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East since 9/11.

From the book’s introduction:

Chapter 1 [titled "The Road to 9/11"] demonstrates how unprincipled U.S. policy–from Carter through Clinton–worked to galvanize the enemy to bring its holy war to our shores on 9/11. Chapter 2 [titled "What Motivates the Jihad on America"] explores the widely evaded nature and goals of the enemy, and indicates how that should figure in America’s military response.

You can buy the book here.

It has been a decade since the Sept. 11 attacks shocked and angered our nation. What lessons have we learned since then? ARC will be hosting a symposium on this subject, titled “Sept. 11—A Decade Later: Lessons for the Future,” on September 8, in Washington, D.C. The program will feature three panel discussions, presenting a range of viewpoints.

If you can’t make this event, it will also be streamed live over the web starting at 1p.m. ET.

Check out the panel topics and speakers on the event’s site. You can also watch the live stream of the event from there.

On ARC’s Facebook page, you can read, watch, and listen to ARI’s numerous efforts throughout the last decade to push for an egoist foreign policy that puts the lives and individual rights of Americans first.

With Medicare facing unfunded liabilities that top $30 trillion, Washington is scrambling for ways to hold down the program’s soaring costs. And in the usual fashion, the proposals on the table ignore the fact that it is the government that created this problem in the first place.

One of the main ways ObamaCare attempts to address Medicare’s spending spree is by creating the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a fifteen-member board empowered to reduce payments to health care providers.

But critics of IPAB have voiced concern that cutting fees for doctors and hospitals will make them less willing to accept Medicare patients and as a result, retirees will find it difficult to find doctors. For the same treatment, doctors today are already paid 20% less by Medicare than they are by private insurers. More than 13% of family physicians don’t accept Medicare patients, and a quarter of doctors limit the number they treat. Under ObamaCare, Medicare’s chief actuary predicts that the program’s payment rates will fall below even Medicaid’s, which infamously underpays doctors by more than 40%, in which case many more doctors will likely stop treating Medicare patients.

Taking a step back, it’s important to recognize that we’ve been debating what to do about skyrocketing Medicare spending since the program was first brought into existence four decades ago. One side argues that Medicare costs are out of control and we need to cut back on spending, and the other side retorts that cutting spending will lead to lower quality care. The usual compromise has been to try to root out “fraud, waste, abuse” through “smart” cuts. But these have proved elusive—Medicare costs continue to rise.

In reality, there are only two basic ways the government can curb its costs—rationing services by shrinking who and what Medicare covers or capping the amount it pays for services, i.e., price controls. Both approaches amount to reducing the amount of care Medicare provides. IPAB is not a novel concept—it is just another price control that will lead to a further shortage of doctors and hospitals, thereby subjecting Medicare patients to longer wait times.

Are we forced then to choose between spending ourselves into bankruptcy and limiting the quality of the elderly population’s medical care? No. This conflict is inherent only in a system where people are forced to subsidize each others’ health care, as we are today.

In a system where you are responsible for your own health care, what your retired neighbor spends on medical services is no one’s business but his own. If he wants to see an expensive specialist or try a costly drug, he is free to do so because the expense will come out of his own pocket (or whatever arrangement he has with a private insurance company). People in such a system pay for the quality of health care they want and can afford.

But in the system we have today, the quality of health care a retiree gets is everybody’s business because it is paid for by our tax dollars. And when taxpayers and their representatives decide that the price of a treatment is more than they are willing to shell out, they cut back by reducing coverage or capping prices. Individual retirees who may have benefited from the treatment then have no choice but to accept poorer quality care. In today’s system, the quality of health care a retiree can get depends not on the kind of care he wants and how much he has saved but on what government bureaucrats have decided they can “afford” to give him.

The solution to Medicare’s problems is not to allow government bureaucrats to dictate how much providers get paid and what level of care is “reasonable.” The solution is to challenge the fundamental idea of the program, which forces all of us to foot the bill for seniors’ health care needs.

Image: dreamstime