individual rights

Archive for Tag “individual rights”


Roe v. Wade: Forty Years Later [podcast episode #01]

On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court handed down the decision on the landmark case of Roe v. Wade. With a 7-to-2 majority vote, the court struck down state bans on abortion, prompting a national debate that continues forty years later.

That decision — as well the subject of abortion itself — remains divisive. Activists on both sides debate whether and to what extent abortion should be legal, how the Supreme Court shapes the law on issues of constitutionality, and the role of morality and religious views in the political sphere.

On this episode of Eye to Eye, ARI’s new podcast, hosts Jordan McGillis and Amanda Maxham sit down with Dr. Onkar Ghate, ARI’s senior fellow, and Tom Bowden, legal analyst, to discuss the political, legal and moral questions surrounding abortion.

Some of the topics covered include:

  • Ayn Rand’s view on abortion and the Roe v. Wade ruling
  • The legal basis for the Roe v. Wade decision
  • The state-level attempts to undermine Roe v. Wade
  • Abortion and individual rights
  • The labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice”
  • “Personhood” amendments
  • Ayn Rand’s view on the nature of sex
  • Health care, abortion, and contraception
  • Abortion and the Tea Party movement
  • The separation of church and state
  • The morality of abortion
  • Objective legal interpretation
  • The future of the Roe v. Wade decision

Listen to or download this episode (Duration: 44:16 — 20.3MB)


Massachusetts rejects physician-assisted suicide

On election day, Massachusetts voters had an opportunity to make physician-assisted suicide legal in that state. But the ballot measure failed, and so there are still only three states—Oregon, Washington, and Montana—in which a terminally ill patient can request a lethal dose of medication to be self-administered once suffering erases all the rewards of living.

In an op-ed I wrote a few years back, I lamented the fact that ten years had passed since Oregon’s path-breaking statute was enacted and still no national momentum had been generated on the issue. Here is some of what I wrote in 2007:

For a decade now, Oregon doctors have been permitted to prescribe a lethal dose of drugs to a mentally competent, terminally ill patient who makes written and oral requests, consults two physicians, and endures a mandatory waiting period. The patient’s free choice is paramount throughout this process. Neither relatives nor doctors can apply on the patient’s behalf, and the patient himself administers the lethal dose.

Elsewhere in America, however, the political influence of religious conservatism has thwarted passage of similar legislation, leaving terminal patients with nothing but a macabre menu of frightening, painful, and often violent end-of-life techniques universally regarded as too inhumane for use on sick dogs or mass murderers.

The right to life includes and implies the right to commit suicide. To hold otherwise–to declare that society must give you permission to kill yourself—is to contradict the right to life at its root. If you have a duty to go on living, despite your better judgment, then your life does not belong to you, and you exist by permission, not by right.

For these reasons, each individual has the right to decide the hour of his death and to implement that solemn decision as best he can. The choice is his because the life is his. And if a doctor is willing (not forced) to assist in the suicide, based on an objective assessment of his patient’s mental and physical state, the law should not stand in his way.

Religious conservatives’ opposition to the Oregon approach stems from the belief that human life is a gift from the Lord, who puts us here on earth to carry out His will. Thus, the very idea of suicide is anathema, because one who “plays God” by causing his own death, or assisting in the death of another, insults his Maker and invites eternal damnation, not to mention divine retribution against the decadent society that permits such sinful behavior.

If a religious conservative contracts a terminal disease, he has a legal right to regard his own God’s will as paramount, and to instruct his doctor to stand by and let him suffer, just as long as his body and mind can endure the agony, until the last bitter paroxysm carries him to the grave. But conservatives have no right to force such mindless, medieval misery upon doctors and patients who refuse to regard their precious lives as playthings of a cruel God.

According to a recent report headlined “Big donations helped defeat doctor-assisted suicide in Massachusetts,” the lion’s share of the $5 million spent opposing the measure came from the Committee Against Physician Assisted Suicide, which claims support from both secular and religious sources. But if you drill down into where that Committee’s $4.27 million came from, you find that religion obviously motivated many of the biggest spenders:

Contributions to the successful effort to defeat the ballot question included $1 million from the Boston Catholic Television Center; $20,000 from the Catholic Health Association in St. Louis; $56,000 from Heartbeat International in Columbus, Ohio; $450,000 from the Knights of Columbus in New Haven; Conn., $30,000 from Mass Citizens for Life in Ludlow and about $45,000 from the Mass Citizens for Life in Boston; $250,000 from the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston; $50,000 from the Roman Catholic Bishop of Fall River; $1 million from St. John’s Seminary Corporation in Boston; $420,000 from The Catholic Association, Inc. in Washington; $50,000 from The Society of Jesus of New England in Watertown; and $475,000 from Sean Fieler, president of Equinox Partners in Princeton, N.J., who is also chairman of an anti-abortion group.


Obama on Ayn Rand: The annotated version

Obama portrait cropIn his recent Rolling Stone interview, President Obama was asked: “Have you ever read Ayn Rand?” His matter-of-fact answer: “Sure.”

It’s fascinating to read closely the key passages in Obama’s interview. I’ve reproduced his comments verbatim below, in the block indented sections (with italics for emphasis). Then I’ve interspersed links to Ayn Rand Institute articles that provide useful context for understanding what Obama said—and for identifying the falsehoods underlying his attacks on Ayn Rand.

[Q:] What do you think Paul Ryan’s obsession with her work would mean if he were vice president?

[A:] Well, you’d have to ask Paul Ryan what that means to him.

Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand (Ryan “clearly has been influenced by Ayn Rand, but he is not a devotee of her philosophy, nor does his nomination represent ‘Ayn Rand joining the ticket,’ to paraphrase the title of a recent article. Any fair account should take stock both of the areas where Rand has influenced him and those areas where they part ways.”)

Ryan, Rand, and Rights (“For anyone who believes in limited government, it is a positive sign that a leading politician talks seriously about individual rights, and this clearly is due in part to Rand’s influence. But to take rights seriously, as Rand advised? That will require a much more principled agenda.”)

Why Paul Ryan Is No Ayn Rand On Social Security (“On this issue, Ryan is worlds apart from Rand. Rand did not want to save Social Security; she wanted to end it.”)

Where Do Ryan and Rand Agree and Disagree? (“. . . when Ryan tackles issues such as entitlements, he often does so with a moral self-confidence that virtually no one else on the right has. I think that comes largely from Ayn Rand. Rand, more than anyone, taught how supporters of capitalism deserve the moral high ground.”)

Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we’d pick up.

Ayn Rand’s Appeal (“The key to Rand’s enduring popularity is that she appeals not to the immaturity but to the idealism of youth.”)

Happy Birthday, Ayn Rand—Why are you still so misunderstood? (“A political movement truly shaped by Rand’s ideas would not flinch, as Republicans and Tea Partiers do, from charges that it is the mouthpiece of the rich and the mean-spirited. It would declare that it is a movement for all producers, proudly embracing the innovative rich, the ambitious poor, and everyone in between. If you earn your wealth through production and voluntary trade, a Rand-inspired political movement would affirm that it is yours by right.”)

Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we’re only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else, in which we’re considering the entire project of developing ourselves as more important than our relationships to other people and making sure that everybody else has opportunity – that that’s a pretty narrow vision.

The Dog-Eat-Dog Welfare State is Lose-Lose (“Capitalism—real capitalism, not the mixed economies that have existed for the past century—is the system based on private property, free production, and voluntary trade. It’s not a zero-sum game where people battle over a fixed pie. Each person is free to create wealth and to trade it with others, such that they all benefit. . . . That’s the beauty of capitalism. Because all economic relationships are voluntary, people only enter into them when each party thinks it’s to his advantage. . . . Capitalism isn’t dog-eat-dog: It’s win-win.”)

It’s not one that, I think, describes what’s best in America.

Atlas Shrugged: America’s Second Declaration of Independence (“ . . . to restore America to her greatness as the country dedicated to the individual, we must be willing to challenge moral ideas inculcated since childhood. . . . We must recognize that a moral code of individualism is the only code compatible with America’s uniqueness. Atlas Shrugged is America’s second Declaration of Independence.”)

Why Ayn Rand Is Still Relevant (“The only way to stop the growth of the state and return to the Founding Fathers’ ideal of limited government is to recognize that individuals not only have a political right to pursue their own happiness, but a moral right to pursue their own happiness. This is what Ayn Rand called a morality of rational self-interest. It is a selfishness that consists, not of doing whatever you feel like, but of using your mind to discover what will truly make you happy and successful. It is a selfishness that consists, not of sacrificing others in the manner of a Bernie Madoff, but of producing the values your life requires and dealing with others through mutually advantageous, voluntary trade.”)

Man’s Rights (“The Declaration of Independence laid down the principle that ‘to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.’ This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence.”)

Unfortunately, it does seem as if sometimes that vision of a “you’re on your own” society has consumed a big chunk of the Republican Party.

The “On Your Own” Economy (“The Founding Fathers took a crucial leap forward . . . , declaring that the collective has no claim on you; that the government exists only to protect your right to live your own life, earn your own wealth, and seek your own happiness. Other people’s wants and needs are not your responsibility.”)

We’re Not in This Together (“When I hear the phrase ‘We’re all in this together’ I think back to high school. Were the straight-A students ‘in this together’ with the stoners who cut class? Were the band students ‘in this together’ with the jocks who beat them up? Was the teenage Woz ‘in this together’ with the rabble who spent their nights partying while he spent his nights designing computers in his bedroom?”)

Time to Read Ayn Rand? (“Not surprisingly, with all the attention, the culture is suddenly full of pundits and instant Rand experts eager to describe her ideas in a nutshell. And it’s natural to consider all this commentary in deciding whether Rand’s novels and essays are worth reading for yourself. But be careful; unfortunately, much of the commentary on Rand gets her badly wrong.”)

Of course, that’s not the Republican tradition. I made this point in the first debate. You look at Abraham Lincoln: He very much believed in self-sufficiency and self-reliance. He embodied it—that you work hard and you make it, that your efforts should take you as far as your dreams can take you. But he also understood that there’s some things we do better together. That we make investments in our infrastructure and railroads and canals and land-grant colleges and the National Academy of Sciences, because that provides us all with an opportunity to fulfill our potential, and we’ll all be better off as a consequence. He also had a sense of deep, profound empathy, a sense of the intrinsic worth of every individual, which led him to his opposition to slavery and ultimately to signing the Emancipation Proclamation. That view of life—as one in which we’re all connected, as opposed to all isolated and looking out only for ourselves—that’s a view that has made America great and allowed us to stitch together a sense of national identity out of all these different immigrant groups who have come here in waves throughout our history.

President Obama vs. My Grandfather (“One of the greatest things about freedom is the extent to which we can profit from collaborating with other people. As Ayn Rand points out, ‘Men can derive enormous benefits from dealing with one another. . . . The two great values to be gained from social existence are: knowledge and trade. But knowledge and trade are not gifts from the collective—let alone gifts that come with undefined strings attached. They come from the past and present achievements of other individuals.”)

Why Ayn Rand’s Absence from Last Thursday’s Debate Benefits Big Government (“Your life belongs to you, not to others. That is the root of Rand’s opposition to the entitlement state. It’s not because, as she is often accused, Rand hates poor people. It’s that she deeply respects the sanctity of the individual. Morally, no individual, no matter how poor or how rich, exists to serve others.”)

Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand’s Ideas Can End Big Government (“Rand, however, is not primarily a critic. She does not simply censure the mainstream—she defines and fights for a revolutionary ideal to replace it: a new philosophy of individualism. ‘My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.’”)


Two New Articles on Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand

In Yahoo! Finance, Harry Binswanger contrasts Ryan’s budget plan with what an “Ayn Rand budget” would look like. He writes:

The buzz is huge. The web is “aTwitter” and the streams of the mainstream media are churning: VP candidate Paul Ryan is an admirer Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”

The left is particularly exercised. Just Google “Ryan-Rand ticket” and you will find a slew of articles at Huffington Post, Daily Kos, etc., claiming that Rand’s Objectivism has “taken over the Republican Party” and that Ryan’s budget was an “Ayn Rand budget.”

If only!

Read the rest of the article here.

In Foreign Policy magazine, Elan Journo contrasts Ryan’s foreign policy proposals with Rand’s conception of a proper foreign policy. He writes:

Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has credited philosopher Ayn Rand with inspiring him to enter politics — and made her 1,000-plus-page opus, Atlas Shrugged, required reading for his staff. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he said in 2005 at a gathering of Rand fans. “The fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.” It is a theme that pervades Rand’s corpus.

Given the Wisconsin congressman’s interest in Rand’s writings, Ryan’s addition to the GOP ticket has naturally unleashed a flash-mob of analysts parsing his speeches, articles, and signature proposals for evidence of her influence. On domestic policy, the impact of Rand’s ideas on Ryan’s outlook is marked, though uneven and sometimes overstated. Religion, in particular, has driven a wedge between Ryan, who would enact Catholic dogma into law, and Rand, an atheist, who championed the separation of church and state. But what has received far less attention is Ryan’s outlook on foreign policy — and whether it bears the mark of Rand’s thought.

Read the rest of the article here.


Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand: Four ARI Commentaries Published

ARI writers have had articles published in four different media outlets over the last few days:

  • In the UK’s The Guardian, Don Watkins explores the question, “Why are so many Americans, from students to politicians, talking about Rand’s novel – and why are her books comparatively unknown in Europe?.”
  • On FoxNews.com, Onkar Ghate comments on the view that people respond to Ayn Rand’s ideas in their youth and then outgrow her. He says, “The key to Rand’s enduring popularity is that she appeals not to the immaturity  but to the idealism of youth.”
  • In Christian Science Monitor, Don Watkins contrasts Paul Ryan’s views on Social Security with those of Rand. Commentators have labeled Ryan “the Ayn Rand candidate.” On the issue of Social Security, Watkins shows, “Ryan is worlds apart from Rand. Rand did not want to save Social Security; she wanted to end it.”
  • In The Daily Caller, Don Watkins explores Ryan’s views on individual rights and how they compare to Rand’s. Watkins says, “[D]on’t be too quick to leap…to the conclusion that  Ryan is an avowed Randian on rights. Even if we leave aside Ryan’s Catholic  dogma about souls and embryos, which Rand completely rejected, and focus only on  the economic issues for which Ryan is most known, the differences remain stark.”

Read, comment on, and share the articles!


The FDA Is the Problem, Not Its Budget

The Wall Street Journal recently ran an op-ed by a former commissioner of the FDA on the agency’s impact on medical innovations such as stem cell therapy (a subject we’ve blogged about at length). The author, Andrew von Eschenbach, boils down the FDA’s dousing of innovation to one major problem: lack of funding.

But the problem is the FDA itself, not its current budget.

The FDA has no business coercively keeping drugs, devices and other therapies off the market before it deems them worthy. By what right does the FDA force innovative companies like Regenerative Sciences to take a “time out” on the procedure they spent years developing and testing so that the FDA can play catch-up to the new technology? By what right does the FDA make it illegal for Americans to use their own cells until bureaucrats give permission?

The FDA, by its nature, treats innovators as guilty until proven innocent—what’s a bigger extinguisher of innovation, in terms of the costs and time involved for gaining regulatory approval, than that? And the FDA forces the rest of us to abide by its collective edicts, rather than our own doctors’ assessment of risks and benefits in our own, individual medical circumstances.

According to Eschenbach, “Regulatory approval is the only bridge between miracles in the laboratory and lifesaving treatments.” It’s time to dismantle that bridge and establish a system by which the government puts on trial only cases of demonstrable fraud, not all promising therapies.


The Mideast’s real “apartheid”?

Think of some of the most tyrannical regimes you’ve heard of–ones that enforce racist policies, deny their subjects basic freedoms, condone slavery. Now suppose that they concoct and push a story ascribing their own crimes to a regime that in fact respects individual rights. Would anyone believe that? Would anyone let the tyrannies downplay their own oppressive record and damn an unjustly accused state?

Sadly, yes, argues this incisive oped by Efraim Karsh, a Middle East scholar. Responding to “Israel Apartheid Week” which is going on at college campuses, Karsh contends that the “apartheid” charge against Israel “is not only completely false but the inverse of the truth.

If apartheid is indeed a crime against humanity, Israel actually is the only apartheid-free state in the Middle East – a state whose Arab population enjoys full equality before the law and more prerogatives than most ethnic minorities in the free world, from the designation of Arabic as an official language to the recognition of non-Jewish religious holidays as legal days of rest.

By contrast, apartheid has been an integral part of the Middle East for over a millennium, and its Arab and Muslim nations continue to legally, politically and socially enforce this discriminatory practice against their hapless minorities.

Well worth reading; the whole thing is here.


In honor of Dr. Jack Kevorkian

The death of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who agitated ceaselessly for laws that would allow competent adults to seek medical assistance in ending their own lives, painlessly and with dignity, brought to mind an op-ed I wrote a while back. Here’s an excerpt:

The Declaration of Independence proclaimed, for the first time in the history of nations, that each person exists as an end in himself. This basic truth—which finds political expression in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—means, in practical terms, that you need no one’s permission to live, and that no one may forcibly obstruct your efforts to achieve your own personal happiness.

But what if happiness becomes impossible to attain? What if a dread disease, or some other calamity, drains all joy from life, leaving only misery and suffering? The right to life includes and implies the right to commit suicide. To hold otherwise—to declare that society must give you permission to kill yourself—is to contradict the right to life at its root. If you have a duty to go on living, despite your better judgment, then your life does not belong to you, and you exist by permission, not by right.

For these reasons, each individual has the right to decide the hour of his death and to implement that solemn decision as best he can. The choice is his because the life is his. And if a doctor is willing (not forced) to assist in the suicide, based on an objective assessment of his patient’s mental and physical state, the law should not stand in his way.

While I don’t necessarily endorse all of Dr. Kevorkian’s positions and actions, I do honor his insistence that the legal system should accommodate the right of a competent, terminally ill adult to end his life at the time, and in the manner, of his own choosing.

It is a national disgrace that only two states (Oregon and Washington) make physician-assisted suicide legal under procedures calculated to supply objective evidence of the patient’s choice in the matter, and only one other state (Montana) has opened the door to reform.

Image: Wikimedia Commons


Jefferson’s immortal deletion

As we approach the November elections, a lot of people (especially those in the tea party movement) are concerned that government is acting like our master, not our servant. Politicians expect us to take whatever new controls, taxes, bailouts, or welfare schemes issue from Washington as if we were the subjects of a monarch, duty-bound to take orders and obey.

Now there’s a new flash of inspiration for those who are resisting the trend toward statism. It comes from one of the greatest of the Founding Fathers by way of an unlikely source: the document preservation department at the Library of Congress.

As is well known, Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence in 1776. Using ink on parchment, it was his custom to cross out his mistakes and write a new word nearby in a separate space. But scholars have long been puzzled by the one exception to that rule, found on an early draft of the Declaration. Instead of crossing out his mistake, Jefferson obliterated a word and over it wrote the word “citizens.”

Thanks to spectral imaging technology, research scientists have recently found a way to read the word that Jefferson wanted no one else to see: it’s the word “subjects.” That’s right, “subjects”–as in subjects of the King, subjects of His Majesty.

American colonists, like their countrymen back in England, had referred to themselves as subjects for more than a century. But on the brink of revolution, here was Jefferson, eradicating an important vestige of the idea that government is the master and individuals are the loyal servants. From an article in The Washington Post:

“Seldom can we re-create a moment in history in such a dramatic and living way,” Library of Congress preservation director Dianne van der Reyden said . . . .

“It’s almost like we can see him write ‘subjects’ and then quickly decide that’s not what he wanted to say at all, that he didn’t even want a record of it,” she said. “Really, it sends chills down the spine.”

Living as we are in a time when government’s power over private companies, private pocketbooks, and private lives is expanding at an unprecedented rate, I take sustenance from Thomas Jefferson’s ardent determination to make it crystal clear that government is the individual’s servant, established to protect individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

Everyone who takes pride in his status as a citizen of the United States of America should take a moment to salute Thomas Jefferson, and then dedicate himself to understanding and upholding the Founders’ political ideals.

[Update: Thanks to Steve Simpson for linking here. Congress Shall Make No Law readers, welcome!]

Image: Wikimedia Commons


Argumentum ad un-Americanum?

In posts criticizing my recent Forbes.com column (written with Yaron Brook), Ezra Klein and Will Wilkinson challenge my claim that government housing policy is un-American. As Wilkinson puts it in the comments section of his post:

The argument [that government housing policy is un-American] as stated is obviously (1) untrue: subsidizing specific patterns of settlement, land, houses, etc. is a longstanding American tradition; and (2) fallacious: implying that an idea has merit because it is distinctive of one’s own tradition is a subtle form of appeal to authority.

I can sympathize with people who bristle at claims that this or the other thing is “un-American.” Usually that tactic is used as an undefined smear or an appeal to the authority of tradition. But that’s not what Yaron and I were doing.

Yaron and I have a certain view of what the essence of America is. Our view is that certain basic ideas shaped the founding of this country: namely, the sovereignty of the individual, and government as the protector of the individual’s rights.

Whether or not government housing policy is un-American, therefore, has nothing to do with whether most Americans (now or in 1776) think the government should promote housing. It has nothing to do with what housing policies the Founders themselves might have advocated. The Founders were great men but they were not infallible oracles–they made mistakes and were not always fully consistent. The issue is: something is un-American if it is inconsistent with the principle of individual rights. That’s not a matter of tradition, but of logic.

Klein and Wilkinson suggest that all of this is irrelevant. It shouldn’t matter if a given policy is consistent with America’s founding principles–what matters is the policy’s merits. In Klein’s words, “we should stick to policy argument rather than philosophical projection.”

But Yaron and I share a radically different view of what constitutes the merits or demerits of a policy. We reject the widespread idea that to debate a policy on its merits means to engage in some sort of utilitarian calculus. Our view is that the standard for whether a policy is desirable is precisely its relationship to America’s founding principles–not out of blind obedience to tradition, but because those principles are true. To examine a policy on its merits is to ask: is it consistent with individual rights or not?

Our Forbes.com piece was not an appeal to authority or tradition. In fact, we went out of our way to declare our opposition to government’s traditional promotion of homeownership. Our point was that if you agree with us and the Founding Fathers, that government should protect your right to pursue happiness, then you have to reject the idea that the government should have a position on the wisdom of homeownership.