Number of results to display per page
Search Results
302. How Morality is Grounded in Reality
- Author:
- Craig Biddle
- Publication Date:
- 10-2009
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The Objective Standard
- Institution:
- The Objective Standard
- Abstract:
- Author's note: This is chapter 3 of my book Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It (Richmond: Glen Allen Press, 2002), which is an introduction to Ayn Rand's morality of rational egoism. Chapters 1 and 2 were reprinted in the prior two issues of TOS. In the book, this chapter is titled "To Be Or Not To Be: The Basic Choice." In chapter 2, we encountered the problem known as the "is-ought" dichotomy, the notion that moral principles (principles regarding what people "ought" to do) cannot be derived from the facts of reality (from what "is"). We also saw that this problem persists for lack of an observation-based, objective standard of value. Here we turn to the solution to that problem. First, we will discover just such a standard; then, we will discover a number of objective moral principles-principles in accordance with that standard. To begin, note that the basic fact that makes morality such a difficult subject is the very fact that makes it a subject in the first place: free will. As human beings we have the faculty of volition, the power of choice; we choose our actions. This fact gives rise to our need of morality. Indeed, the realm of morality is the realm of choice. What makes the issue complicated is the fact that our choices are guided by our values-which are also chosen. This is why it is so difficult to get to the bottom of morality: Human values are chosen-every last one of them. Consequently, peoples' values seem to differ in every imaginable way. Some people choose to play soccer; they value footwork, teamwork, and winning. Some choose to dance ballet; they value grace, poise, and flight. And some choose to attend church; they value sermons, faith, and prayer. A person who goes hiking values the scenery and exercise. One who goes fishing values the nibble and catch. And one who takes heroin values the so-called "high." A person who steals jewelry values "free stuff." One who makes jewelry values craftsmanship. A sculptor values the process of creating art. A software developer values that creative process. A student who cheats on a test values "getting away" with it. One who studies for the test values the knowledge he gains thereby. A doctor specializing in internal medicine values the process of curing disease. A terrorist specializing in biological warfare values the process of spreading disease. A man who treats his wife with respect values certain qualities in her. One who abuses his wife values having power over her. A General who fights for mandatory "volunteerism" values involuntary servitude. One who fights to defend individual rights values freedom. And so on. Different people act in different ways; they value different things. So the question is: How do we know if our choice of values is good or bad, right or wrong? What is our standard of value? As we have already seen, if we do not consciously hold something as our standard of value, then we have nothing by reference to which we can determine what goals we should or should not pursue-how we should or should not act. And if we do not hold something rationally provable as our standard of value, then we default to some form of subjectivism-personal, social, or "supernatural"-which can lead only to human sacrifice, suffering, and death. If we want to live and achieve happiness, we need a non-sacrificial standard of value that is grounded in perceptual evidence-facts we can see. In search of such a standard, the proper approach is to turn not to personal opinion or social convention or "super-nature," but to actual nature and ask, as the American philosopher Ayn Rand did: "What are values? Why does man need them?" . . .
- Political Geography:
- America
303. Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz
- Author:
- Dina Schein Federman
- Publication Date:
- 10-2009
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The Objective Standard
- Institution:
- The Objective Standard
- Abstract:
- People today sense that something is wrong with the world and are searching for answers. What they generally find is disappointing. Skeptics tell us that there is no clear-cut right and wrong in any issue, that all issues are "complex," that wisdom consists of dropping the notion that there are absolute truths. The most prevalent alternative to the skeptical, relativist position comes from religionists, who accept the existence of absolute truths but insist that they may be found only within a religious framework-a belief in a supernatural being who is the source of truth and morality. Both camps agree that absolutes cannot be discovered by a rational process. Both camps agree that morality consists of selfless service to others. Both camps support the welfare state. Ayn Rand rejects all these claims and sweeps aside both skepticism and mysticism. Her philosophy, Objectivism, holds that reality is an objective absolute, independent of anyone's beliefs or feelings; that reason, based on the evidence of the senses, is our only means of knowing reality and, consequently, our only proper guide to action; that each man is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others, and, therefore, that the pursuit of his own rational self-interest and happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life; that the proper political system is that of laissez-faire capitalism, in which men deal with one another as "traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit."1 The reader may find the elucidation of her philosophical principles and their application in her novels, essays, and cultural commentary. Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed is a recent addition to this body of work. It is a collection of radio and television interviews conducted with Ayn Rand from 1932 to 1981, in which she applies Objectivism to current events. Starting with her earliest known interview at age twenty-seven, it goes on to include a series of interviews conducted with her at Columbia University from 1962 to 1966, in which students and professors asked her questions on the principles of Objectivism and their application. It also includes a series of interviews in various media, ranging from the 1959 interview with Mike Wallace to her final public appearance, a 1981 interview with Louis Rukeyser. The epilogue is an interview with Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Rand's best student, heir, and the leading exponent of her philosophy, in which he recounts his thirty-year professional and personal association with her. Among the topics Rand discusses in her interviews are the political structure of a free society, the American constitution, objective law, the nature of capitalism and various myths about it, why political conservatives are worse enemies of capitalism than the leftists, the crucial need for a free press, proper foreign policy, the moral nature of businessmen, education, the arts, the nature of humor, the foundations of morality, individual rights, and many others. For example, in one interview from the 1960s, during a discussion of the origin of individual rights, Rand is asked to elucidate her rejection of various alleged "rights," such as rights to a minimum wage, free education and medical care, and the like. She explains that because jobs, education, medical care, and other goods and services do not grow on trees but are produced and provided by individuals and businesses, a "right" to these things means that the providers are to be forced to serve those who allegedly have a right to the largesse, which is slavery. "Nobody can have a right to the unearned. . . . [These things] can only come from other men-and nobody may claim the right to enslave others" (pp. 154-55). She explains that the only political-economic system in which force is banished from human relations is the system of laissez-faire capitalism, in which men deal with one another as traders, voluntarily exchanging value for value to mutual benefit. Discussing the nature of capitalism and debunking the myths that surround it, Rand answers the allegation that government must regulate the economy in order to prevent financial crises: "Depressions and panics are the result of government intervention in the economy-specifically, government manipulation of credit and money. That was the cause of the Depression of 1929. Once more, it is capitalism that is taking the blame for the evils created by its opposite: statist intervention" (p. 42). In order to prevent financial crises, she counsels, the government must stay out of the economy. . . .
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy
304. The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder New York: Bantam, 2008. 976 pp. $35 (cloth).
- Author:
- Daniel Wahl
- Publication Date:
- 10-2009
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The Objective Standard
- Institution:
- The Objective Standard
- Abstract:
- Nine-year-old Warren Buffett is in his yard playing in the snow. Warren is catching snowflakes. One at a time at first. Then he is scooping them up by handfuls. He starts to pack them into a ball. As the snowball grows bigger, he places it on the ground. Slowly it begins to roll. He gives it a push, and it picks up more snow. Soon he reaches the edge of the yard. After a moment of hesitation, he heads off, rolling the snowball through the neighborhood. And from there, Warren continues onward, casting his eye on a whole world full of snow (prologue). Many decades later, Alice Schroeder, a former insurance analyst at Morgan Stanley and the author of The Snowball, is sitting in front of Warren Buffett, one of the world's richest men. "Where did it come from," she asks, "Caring so much about making money?" Buffett leans forward, "more like a teenager bragging about his first romance than a seventy-two-year-old financier," and begins to tell his story: "Balzac said that behind every great fortune lies a crime. That's not true at Berkshire [Hathaway]" (p. 4). Thus begins The Snowball, one of the most highly anticipated biographies of the past few years and the first to be written about Buffett with his full cooperation. As its full title indicates, The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life sets out to present Buffett's thinking, not only about business but about life in general. Among the many topics this hefty volume explores are those individuals who influenced his thinking. A major figure in this respect is Buffett's father, whom he idolizes and from whom he learned a crucial point when it comes to judging both oneself and others: The big question about how people behave is whether they've got an Inner Scorecard or an Outer Scorecard. It helps if you can be satisfied with an Inner Scorecard. I always pose it this way, I say: "Lookit. Would you rather be the world's greatest lover, but have everyone think you're the world's worst lover? Or would you rather be the world's worst lover but have everyone think you're the world's greatest lover?" . . . Now my dad: He was a hundred percent Inner Scorecard guy. He was really a maverick. But he wasn't a maverick for the sake of being a maverick. He just didn't care what other people thought" (p. 33). In addition to the valuable lessons he learned from important figures in his life, Schroeder shows how Buffett's own interests and thinking during childhood contributed to his development. Schroeder reveals him to have been an efficacious child, intensely interested in collecting and processing facts. . . .
- Political Geography:
- New York
305. Fred Astaire by Joseph Epstein New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. 198 pp. $22 (cloth).
- Author:
- Scott Holleran
- Publication Date:
- 10-2009
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The Objective Standard
- Institution:
- The Objective Standard
- Abstract:
- In the light and lively Fred Astaire, author and journalist Joseph Epstein offers an excellent overview of the career of the world's greatest male ballroom and tap dancer. This short biography, part of Yale University's Icons of America series, is like its subject-accessible yet elegant. Astaire began his dance training at the age of five after his mother, Johanna Austerlitz, brought him to New York City in the hopes of grooming him and his talented older sister, Adele, for careers in show business. Attending dance school with his sister, young Frederick took to the art form and was soon rehearsing with Adele in routines developed by their instructor. Changing their last names to "Astaire," the brother-sister act hit the theatrical circuit and began a professional career that lasted many years and included appearances on Broadway with Al Jolson and Fanny Brice; and work with famed showman Flo Ziegfeld, who paid the duo an impressive $5,000 per week during the Depression (pp. 12, 15). After Adele retired at the age of thirty-five, Astaire sought fortune in Hollywood. Shortly after being famously dismissed by a studio executive as "Balding. Can't sing. Dances a little." (p. 18), Astaire was noticed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) and signed to a three-week contract for $1,500 per week. His first role-playing himself in Dancing Lady opposite Joan Crawford-proved that he had potential as a screen star.
- Political Geography:
- New York
306. The Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants by Jane S. Smith New York: The Penguin Press, 2009. 368 pp. $25.95 (cloth).
- Author:
- Daniel Wahl
- Publication Date:
- 10-2009
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The Objective Standard
- Institution:
- The Objective Standard
- Abstract:
- In 1849, millions were starving due to a then-mysterious disease that "in a matter of days, if not hours, could transform a thriving field [of potatoes] into a slimy, foul-smelling patch of rotting vegetation" (pp. 38-39). Everywhere, plants were "extremely inconspicuous, [tasted] terrible, or [went] to seed in a fast and fabulously prolific way, leaving nothing behind to harvest." And plants had evolved characteristics by which they survived just long enough to reproduce, characteristics that were unsuitable for feeding a large and fast-growing population (p. 40). But all this was about to change, and dramatically so, thanks to a man born that year: Luther Burbank (p. 6). In her new book The Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants, Jane S. Smith presents the life of this extremely influential but mostly forgotten plant breeder and businessman, emphasizing his innovations and the methods he used to develop and sell them. Burbank displayed some mechanical ingenuity as a child, but, Smith reveals, apart from this, nothing in Burbank's background suggested that he might become an inventor of new plants (p. 19). Though young men of his time were encouraged to work in an academic setting, Burbank, fond as he was of the outdoors, was unsure whether he wanted to follow suit-until, at the age of 21, he picked up a copy of Charles Darwin's The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication. Smith describes this book as a "detail-crammed response to those who had criticized On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection as a hypothesis unsupported by sufficient proof" (p. 27), then concisely sums up what Burbank read: From gooseberries to gladioli, Darwin compiled his evidence: plants changed in response to outside stimulus (like the cabbages Darwin described that changed their shape or color when planted in different countries), and these changes could happen within a short time span (like the hyacinths he said growers had managed to improve from the offerings of only a few generations earlier). The causes of the changes were still largely unknown, but their occurrence was a fact beyond dispute. This was evolution measured in human time (p. 28). Burbank took from the book several big ideas-each of which Smith relates in an easy-to-read style: The first was that it was possible to force the emergence of latent differences in fruits and flowers, even to the point of generating what seemed to be entirely new varieties. Still more exciting was Darwin's tentative suggestion that selecting, grafting, hybridizing, or simply moving a plant to a new environment might spur changes that would persist over generations. According to Darwin, these alterations were often inadvertent, but as Burbank immediately realized, such happy accidents could also be deliberately pursued. The creation of new plant varieties, something far beyond the familiar efforts to breed the best of an existing stock, did not need to wait for the slow accumulation of natural advantages Darwin had described in his Origin of Species. Evolutionary change could be accelerated by human intervention (p. 28). Darwin's words "opened up a new world" for Burbank (p. 27). Not only did the book give him an intellectual framework for viewing the world and man's place in it, but an advertisement on the last page of Burbank's edition of Darwin's tract (for a book called Gardening for Profit) enabled him to see for the first time his place in it. He would not have to choose "between the outdoor life and the inventor's bench" after all-plant life "could be a subject for experimentation and improvement, and a commercial garden could provide a good living for an imaginative and enterprising man".
- Political Geography:
- New York
307. From the Editor
- Author:
- Craig Biddle
- Publication Date:
- 12-2009
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The Objective Standard
- Institution:
- The Objective Standard
- Abstract:
- Merry Christmas readers! And welcome to the Winter 2009-10 issue of The Objective Standard.
- Topic:
- Government
- Political Geography:
- United States
308. Letters and Replies
- Author:
- Craig Biddle
- Publication Date:
- 12-2009
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The Objective Standard
- Institution:
- The Objective Standard
- Abstract:
- Michael Dahlen's article "The Rise of American Big Government" [TOS, Fall 2009] is a clarifying survey, in essentials, of the interventionism that has eroded freedom in America for more than a century. But as to the alleged economic successes of Reagan and Clinton, weren't these funded with deficit financing and inflation? I'd like to hear Mr. Dahlen's thoughts on this.
- Topic:
- Government
- Political Geography:
- America
309. Pharmacide: The Pharmaceutical Industry's Self-Destructive Effort to Loot America
- Author:
- Cassandra Clark
- Publication Date:
- 12-2009
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The Objective Standard
- Institution:
- The Objective Standard
- Abstract:
- Pharmaceutical industry executives are frequently accused of greedily putting "profits before patients" (as if drug companies could profit by means other than serving patients). This accusation would be unjust if these executives were after profits. Unfortunately, however, today's pharmaceutical executives are not after profits. They are after loot. They seek to gain, through legislation, money coercively taken by the government from American citizens. But, unbeknownst to these executives, their looting is self-destructive. In fact, by aiding and abetting the government in its violation of individual rights, the pharmaceutical industry is committing suicide. To see why, let us begin by examining some of the ways in which the industry calls for the violation of rights and receives loot as a result. Then we will turn to the reasons why this practice is killing the pharmaceutical industry. Consider the industry's support for the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). The MMA expanded Medicare to include coverage of prescription drugs for Americans over the age of 65 and was the largest expansion of welfare in America since the creation of Medicare itself.1 When the Act took effect in 2006, it made the U.S. federal government the single largest purchaser of prescription drugs in America.2 In 1999, years before this bill had been conceived, Alan Holmer, then president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the industry's lobby group, made clear in a trade journal the industry's view that "the question is not whether, but how, to expand Medicare coverage of prescription drugs."3 In 2000, Holmer testified before the Senate Finance Committee that at "some point in the not-too-distant future, a Congress will pass, and a President will sign, legislation to expand drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. . . . Expanded drug coverage for seniors will be a positive development." Holmer emphasized: The pharmaceutical industry strongly supports . . . expanding Medicare coverage of prescription medicines. . . . Medicare beneficiaries need high-quality health care, and prescription medicines often offer the most effective therapy for them. We believe that the best way to expand prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries is through comprehensive Medicare reform.4 The pharmaceutical industry got its desired "reform," and when the MMA became law, the government not only began dictating the terms by which private insurers would provide prescription drug coverage to Medicare beneficiaries, it also began spending tens of billions of dollars annually to subsidize that coverage. From where does the U.S. government get this money? The government does not create wealth; it does not produce anything. Every penny the government spends on drugs (or anything else) comes from taxpayers. The government gets this money by taking it under threat of force from hard-working Americans (or by printing or borrowing it, which is deferred taxation). This is legalized theft; the money taken by force is loot. And when the government spends this loot on prescription drugs for the elderly, the loot is passed on to the pharmaceutical industry. Now, merely receiving loot from the government does not in and of itself constitute the moral crime of complicity in the government's coercion. But the pharmaceutical industry is not merely receiving money from the government as a result of the MMA. The industry advocated this socialist scheme of forced wealth redistribution from the start, supported it at every stage of development, and is now receiving the loot as planned. Although the industry exchanges drugs for the loot, the entire arrangement on the part of taxpayers whose money is taken by force to buy the drugs is involuntary. Taxpayers do not choose to fund the industry in this way; they are forced to do so-by a law that the pharmaceutical industry enthusiastically helped to create. . . . To read the rest of this article, select one of the following options: Subscriber Login | Subscribe | Renew | Purchase a PDF of this article.
- Political Geography:
- United States and America
310. Antitrust with a Vengeance: The Obama Administration's Anti-Business Cudgel
- Author:
- Eric Daniels
- Publication Date:
- 12-2009
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The Objective Standard
- Institution:
- The Objective Standard
- Abstract:
- Not yet a year into its term, the initially popular Obama administration has plummeted in popularity. In light of Washington's escalated meddling in the economy, many Americans are expressing deep concerns and anger about the statist direction in which this administration is steering the country. Unfortunately, however, few Americans are aware of-and the media is ignoring-one of the administration's most serious threats to our freedom: its stated intention to bolster antitrust enforcement. Since May, Christine Varney, the newly appointed assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, has conducted a speaking tour promoting the Division's new mandate under Obama and affirming the president's many campaign promises to "reinvigorate antitrust enforcement." Varney and her counterpart at the Federal Trade Commission, Jon Leibowitz, are publicly threatening "possible investigations" of businesses ranging from Google to Monsanto to IBM. In response to this new climate, antitrust advocates from Senator Charles Schumer to the American Booksellers Association have called on Varney to undertake new prosecutions. And New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo recently joined the push by filing a suit against Intel.1 Americans should not only be aware of this ominous trend; they should be up in arms about it. Antitrust laws violate the rights of American businessmen and consumers, thwart economic development, and stifle our quality of life in myriad ways. To see why, we must first understand what antitrust law is. During the second half of the 19th century, as American companies grew and acquired assets around the country, they found themselves in a difficult position. Although companies could achieve economies of scale by acquiring smaller firms and unifying their efforts, state laws prevented them from doing so. Whereas some state legislatures imposed special taxes on out-of-state corporations doing business in their states, other legislatures forbade corporations in their state from holding the stock of companies based elsewhere. (Legislators established such restrictions in the hope that they would force successful companies to incorporate-and thus pay taxes-in their state.) In response to these restrictions on acquisitions, C. T. Dodd and John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil created a new form of business using the device of a legal trust, which enabled them to hold the stock of dozens of companies and thus effectively manage vast productive assets.2 The operational and financial advantages of this novel corporate structure were immense, yet critics alleged that the newly created trusts were "odious monopolies," charging them with "making competition impossible," "raising prices," and "disregarding the interests of the American consumer."3 Critics condemned this new legal device as a "problem" and branded businessmen who employed it as "robber barons." Yet these businessmen used this legal device to create their vast fortunes by increasing competition, lowering prices, and providing American consumers with more and better products.4 The problem was not that their novel form of business had generated economic inefficiencies-it had done the opposite. Rather, the problem was a political one. Because these businesses were becoming fabulously successful and their owners enormously wealthy, egalitarian-minded and envious Americans pressured politicians to "do something," and politicians, seeking approval, got "tough" on the issue. A solution to the trust "problem" came in the form of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Senator John Sherman and his colleagues claimed that trusts were "combinations that affect injuriously the industrial liberty of the citizens of these States."5 Critics of the trusts claimed that their high profits were achieved-not through the entrepreneurial, managerial, and productive genius of men such as Rockefeller, Edison, and Carnegie-but by "the few extorting the many."6 Because of the "public outcry on the trust question" and the alleged need to protect the "interests of the consumer," Sherman and his colleagues advocated the creation of a broad law that outlawed "monopolization" and "restraint of trade." That law was the Sherman Antitrust Act, and since its passage in 1890 Congress has added five other antitrust laws to the books, prohibiting dozens of supposedly "anticompetitive" business practices.7 . . . To read the rest of this article, select one of the following options: Subscriber Login | Subscribe | Renew | Purchase a PDF of this article.
- Topic:
- Economics and Oil
- Political Geography:
- America