Ethics: Out with the Old

In a recent CNN.com article Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate discuss our culture's moral bankruptcy within a world of technological riches.

I love this angle of demonstrating that we need a moral revolution in this country - in fact in the entire world - by showing the numerous significant benefits mankind has reaped through the advancement of science and political philosophy, while our ethics remain stuck in the ancient past.

By contrasting the state of the world's ethics against science, technology and politics the authors make a relatively abstract and difficult subject much more tangible and relevant for those that may find philosophical discussions of little interest. As one recognizes the importance of advanced theories in science and political philosophy it is hard not to ignore the possibility that the world's ethics may deserve a second look.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/16/brook.moral.code.outdated/index.html?eref=ie8slice_topstories

New York Cart Guy Shows Free Market Capitalism at its Finest

On this dark day for America (i.e. signing of monstrous Health Care Expansion bill into law), here's some inspiring counter balance: a real American success story, that shows how a true free market operates, distilled to its simplest form. One guy operating a food cart in Manhattan demonstrates so clearly what true demand and supply look like and how offering a quality product can sky rocket even the smallest of small businesses to success. And this is all the more inspiring as the 'cart guy' has risen to fame all on word and mouth and thanks to another one of the incredible examples of free markets at work, the Internet.

I just love this story:

‘Halal cart guy’ a New York original

After you are done reading the article, ask yourself what would happen if the government stepped in and started running this guy's cart, b/c the prices were too high and some "couldn't afford" the lamb platter. How long before the lines were sooo long it became impossible to serve everyone w/o rationing the portions, shortening the prep time (i.e. lowering the quality). Eventually they would force expansion of the cart's around the city, with mediocre copy cat carts attempting, but failing, to replicate the food quality. By forcing prices lower, and mandating availability for all, the government would have to start subsidizing the cart owners so they could still make a profit (see every utility, every transit company in every city, and countless other government subsidized industries that have a government sanctioned monopoly yet can't make money b/c the rules of operation force the company to operate in an unprofitable way - which is what is coming for our insurance companies as they are forced to insure the uninsurable). The next step is to raise taxes to pay for the additional subsidies. This is the vicious circle of death that is government intervention in the economy, government meddling in what should be private, free and voluntary exchanges among individuals.

How long would it take self righteous bureaucrats to essentially ruin a good thing? Voila, you've got a good image of where this country is heading, not only in health care, but generally speaking thanks to the socialist ideologies of our current administration.

Rand not only Good for Markets, but the Only Antidote to Engulfing Socialism

A recent WSJ article, Does Ayn Rand Hurt the Market, Heather Wilhelm asked the question, Is Ayn Rand Bad for the Market. Well, not only was Ayn Rand "not bad" for the markets, she was a pre-requisite to any lasting turn to Capitalism this country might ever take. The article trots out tired old objections we've heard before "Rand has this extremist, intolerant, dogmatic antigovernment stance" but even goes as far as to claim she had "shoddy manners". If you've listened to her countless Q&A sessions or interviews she is incredibly polite and patient even with her adversaries.

Rand created an entirely new philosophy, requiring the most "extreme" intellectual thought to establish truths that would help man live his life on earth. In science, there is no time for, or purpose in, marketing spin. Being "extreme" is required, extremely accurate, extremely diligent, extremely detailed, extremely encompassing, extremely logical etc. In the end she was extremely brilliant and extremely cohesive while managing to be extremely creative in presenting this new philosophy through one of the greatest novels of all time - Atlas Shrugged. I'm not sure where the critic would have liked tolerance to be factored in, perhaps he thinks Rand should have been more tolerant of incorrect views or even corrupt ones, and made a little room for them in her ground breaking new philosophy?

The intellectual and business leaders who have adopted Rand's philosophy (of whom there are many) over the past 50 years would not have been convinced by the pandering spin the article's author believes Rand has omitted, and that we need in order to make the ideas non jarring, i.e. non thought provoking. Shallow statements about Capitalism yielding the most for the greatest many were hardly original back then and it is questionable whether these adopters would have been swayed by such "arguments" alone.

Today, it may indeed be an opportune time for emphasizing the message that not only is Capitalism the only moral system, it is also the most productive, raising the standards of human living more than any other system …. a point Rand made repeatedly when referring to the early years of the United States. But this new message could not begin to pay dividends without the substantive defense created by Rand. But in today's dominantly altruistic society, if one walks into any serious debate wearing only the weak protection of the utility argument, the altruists will eat you alive. In such a case, one desperately needs Ayn Rand to decimate your opponent's arguments.

Regarding the naive comment made in the article to Rand's insistence on the folly of altruism tending to invalidate the utility message of Capitalsim, see above and realize that claiming altruism to be false is not the equivalent of being against people's successes. Rand, more than anyone, had a benevolent view of man and wanted the system where every man could succeed to the fullest of his abilities.

If one reads Rand's critique of altruism one will realize that its goal is not kindness and what it achieves is the exact opposite. She understood that altruism stands firmly in the way of achieving any lasting Capitalist society. Two of her quotes on altruism:

"Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive." and "If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject."

Rand exposes altruism for the evil social system that it really is in The Virtue of Selfishness and demonstrates how such a morality is incompatible with achieving Capitalism in America in her book Capitalism: The Unkown Ideal. Ayn Rand Bookstore

In conclusion, I have to wonder why the author of that article needed to involve and criticize Ayn Rand to make the point she is making, she could have easily wrote a much more convincing article citing all the ways in which free markets really do produce the most for the greatest many, and prescribed her strategy for getting that message out to help people on the fence, maybe considering Capitalism's benefits. But introducing Ayn Rand and claiming she might not have done enough seems like nothing more than an attempt to leverage Rand's enormously popularity.

Religious Hate Mobs Take to the Streets

Fred Phelps and his mob of evil religious fundamentalists will be spewing their hate again during upcoming God Hates Fags demonstrations. According to Phelps-a-thon.com, the anti Phelps site devoted to using Phelps' time in the spotlight to raise money for the LGBT community:

The "God Hates Fags" Westboro Baptist Church is planning at least four pickets on Tuesday, December 1st. They will protest the World AIDS Day conference at the University of Massachusetts, then taunt the students at Brookline High School, next they will head over to the Hillel House at Boston University, and then to Temple Israel to attack openly-gay, Jewish, Congressman Barney Frank.

There is little to say regarding these lunatics, they are their own worst enemy, revealing truly evil souls when they stand with their signs in the light of day - so I will merely place a suitable caption below one of their disgusting protest images - a quote from someone who lived in a time when religious evils were more commonplace:

“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” - Blaise Pascal [1623-62]

How to get the Church out of the "marriage" debate!

Recently the state legislature in Maine passed into law a statute granting Gay people the right to marry one another, and subsequently be treated equally under State and Federal laws which have made a habit of granting special favor or treatment to "married people".

Maine held a referendum to vote on the new law, and the mob ruled once again in favor of special pivileges for special classes of citizens, inclusive of nearly every class of people one can think of, but excluding Gay adults. A friend sent me a link to a video he thought had some poignant words to the people of Maine (Maine, I Wish You Could Understand).

The girl's speech is heart felt and the sentiments are nice, but sadly the message "I wish they could understand", is impotent against the primary enemy in this issue: Christianity. Addressing the enemy with such words cannot help win this fight, because religious doctrine is decreed by God and relayed to mankind by a chain of pope's throughout history. The very definition of what is right, according to Christianity, is whatever God says - literally, it is right because God said so - therefore man cannot debate it. A rather clever trick if you can get people to swallow the existence of God and that he speaks to the pope regularly (Saturday evenings I believe, before Sunday mass) to keep his subjects up to date on his demands.

Religion requires people to give up their reason, willingly, in favor of faith (primarily b/c their edicts cannot be proven). There is no point trying to use logic and reason against the faithful, they have something more "enlightened", the decree of God which they "know" only by abandoning reason, closing their eyes, and feeling it. So who are we to "argue" with God's word? In the eyes of these true believers, you are beating your head against a brick wall: logic, reason and any and all discussion mean nothing compared to the whim of their pope.

What is needed is to get religion out of this legal debate entirely - in accordance with that long forgotten tenant, the separation of Church and State. (In fact we need to completely expunge religion from public education, court rooms, the military etc., in other words our government officials should be gagged from promoting their religious beliefs while serving their tax paying constituents). Religious groups should be free to discriminate against any segments of the population they do not wish to marry in their churches. And everyone has a right not to associate with some or all religious groups.

Unfortunately the State is largely to blame for the current mess, by borrowing a historically religious term - marriage - and bringing it into the legislative domain to advance special favors and treatments for the "married". Allowing religious leaders, i.e. priests, to have the legal authority to perform a marriage, recognized by law and the US Tax Code, is the final perversion that has rendered the two seemingly inseparable.

We need a clear distinction between marriage and legal civil union to get religion out of the debate once and for all. Once we have something, call it domestic partnership, that is exclusive to the state governments, and which subsumes all the same privileges and special rules currently administered under the "marriage" umbrella, including Federal Immigration laws and tax codes, then the church will have no further claim on the legal issue. Marriages, or commitment ceremonies, can remain a purely spiritual ceremony - some may not even place in a church. When sanctioned by some religious Church, it can be between whatever two people that group's "God interpreter" decides and in some cases may continue to chain the participants with guilt laden rules regarding adultery and divorce. We can let the various religious groups argue with one another for all of eternity, just don't give them an audience in Washington.

As a purely legal contract between two adults, primarily to govern guardianship implications where children are involved, and bestowed only by the government, a domestic partnership must be open to all tax paying citizens. It is hardly different from businessmen forming legal partnerships or corporations for the legal protections those arrangements carry. Yes, this may take some romance out of the legal side of this decision, as well it should, but it will not infringe upon any couple's freedom to celebrate their spiritual commitment through traditional or non traditional means.

We Can Thank Hillary for the Vaccine Shortage

It should come as no surprise that government meddling into the Health Care industry is at the root of the United States' inability to create enough vaccine to meet demand, but did you know that while the Obama administration takes cover pointing to manufacturing companies for an inability to produce more, and more quickly (somehow), the actual explanation begins with the fact we now have only 6 companies licensed to manufacture these vaccines. The full explanation reveals that once upon a time we had 25 such companies, and today there are only 6, with some vaccines having only a single producer.

The reduction is directly related to government bureaucracy and Hillary Clinton's inept "Vaccines for Children" program. This 1993 legislation is the real culprit here, as pointed out back out in an article in 2003 by the Wall Street Journal. Because most liberals don't understand even the most basic economic facts, they were unable to predict the devastating effects that having manufactures sell over 50% of the vaccine supply to the government, at a 50% discount, would necessarily cause in reduction in the companies that could remain in business, profitably. This is just a variant of the classic economic fallacy that wage and price controls lead to higher overall wages or lower prices. The economic facts show the exact opposite to be true.

This is yet another blatant, irrefutable example (in a very long list) of what the government achieves when it sticks its nose into healthcare - or into any field of production for that manner.

The following is a very colorful blog on the same topic

http://texan2driver.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/who-caused-the-vaccine-shortage/

Health Care Is Not A Right

It's so typical of those in favor of government reform to cite all these "apple pie" type ideals, that amount to "full and free coverage for all, for life" ... with no cognizance of the fact that medicine is a service, medical products don't grow on trees and doctors should not be enslaved to work for free just because there are sick people in the world. What a lovely fantasy, how could one not be for that sort of utopia? Unfortunately, it is not realizable, and setting it as a goal means we must all be required to "chip in" against our will by forced taxation to pay for those who do not take the same preventative measures as we do to remain healthy, or even for those who do, but are simply victims of life and fate and fall ill to a disease through no fault of their own, the point is, it's not my fault if I'm lucky, and if I'm unlucky it's not your job to pay for me. If you want to live in that sort of country, move to Sweden or Canada! (Of course, if we had a free society then the private charity we see today would explode, as people had more of their own money to dispense on causes they chose to support, rather than having it stolen from them by an oppressive, out of control government that dictates what and who we all must support!)

Every socialist government program, of which the proposed socialized medical reform bill is just the latest, is run as a Ponzi scheme, relying on the increase in population and higher and higher taxes of succeeding generations to pay for them. It is irrelevant if Obama thinks he has found a way to pay for the INITIAlL costs of this program through cuts and efficiencies. Even if that were true, and there is no historical evidence to give us one iota of hope to believe politicians are capable of this, this program will, like every other program before it, eventually run out of control in costs and necessarily must increase the cost burden to pay for the lofty, fantastic ideals it proposes. The bill's free for all goals are simply not economically sound - not until the day doctors,nurses and technicians start working for free, hospitals can be built and maintainted for free, labs operate at no cost, etc. Ultimately, the only way to sustain these socialist programs going forward will be for the US to start rationing the population, through China like laws that forbid children or limit their numbers. The only way to bring a free food line to a close, is to close the line and deny further entrants. But our government has no plan to close the line, instead they are going to start charge higher and higher entrant fees - i.e. raise taxes further. When is the last time the government was able to reduce taxes because their programs were going to cost less to run in the following years? Uh, never has happened, never will!

Nothing is free, and nothing that is not free is - or can be - a right, including health care. It is a contradiction in reason to decree something as a right, that requires the enslavement - and therefore denial of rights - to another to provide. Health care must be provided by the brilliant minds of those who search for cures for disease and develop medicines, and they owe us nothing, on the contrary, we owe them everything! Health care is not one big ocean that we simply have to figure out how to split up among ourselves, its not a pie we need to cut at the dinner table. Those who believe anything to the contrary simply need to "Snap out of It" and go to the doctor for an economic reality check-up! Look at what the government has done with Medicare and Medicaid, which are bankrupt, and ask yourself, do we need more or LESS government involvement in our current system?