![]() |
| Home | ![]() | Forum | ![]() | About Us | ![]() | Web Links | ![]() | Wiki | ![]() | Fliers | ![]() | Calendar | ![]() |
The Objectivism Online Meta-BlogA pro-reason, pro-capitalism Objectivist Meta-Blog
Greek Crisis Deepens—TOS’s Week in Review for May 19Greek Crisis Deepens—TOS’s Week in Review for May 19: Noteworthy news and views from the week ending May 19, 2012Greece Cracks—Is the Eurozone falling apart? The New York Times reports increased tension “between Berlin and Athens in the unfolding crisis over Greece’s membership in the euro.” MSNBC reports that Greeks “withdrew at least 700 million euros” on Monday alone, signaling fear about the nation’s economic future. The Wall Street Journal reports, “Greek President Karolos Papoulias dissolved the country’s two-day-old parliament . . . paving the way for fresh elections on June 17.” Will Israel Stop Iran?—The Israeli government is seriously considering a military strike against Iran to prevent the rogue nation from gaining nuclear weaponry, Reuters reports. Meanwhile, an Iranian rapper is in hiding after two clerics called for his death, and an Iranian cartoonist got lashed for daring to caricature a politician. Government-Run Medicine—Writing for Forbes, Paul Hsieh explains that, when people spend their own money on health care, they tend to make prudent choices. When government “helps” people spend other people’s money on health care, they tend to spend foolishly. Hsieh summarizes, “Our choice is simple: The marketplace or the bureaucrat?” Scapegoating JP Morgan—David Harsanyi nails it: When banks earn huge profits, politicians call for more banking controls, and when banks rack up large losses, politicians also call for more banking controls. Heads, politicians win; tails, politicians win. Even Robert Samuelson, whatever his inconsistencies, decries the recent attacks on banking. Meanwhile, Steve Horwitz points out that Paul Krugman, in using JP Morgan’s financial loss as a pretext to call for more banking regulations, fundamentally misrepresents the history of American banking and the role of federal laws in crippling the banking system. Unfortunately, and shockingly, Arnold Kling, writing for the presumed pro-liberty Mercatus Center, advocates forcibly “breaking up the big banks” and setting “limits on the asset size of individual banks.” Kling’s proposal would constitute a far worse violation of rights than anything Krugman has proposed in this context. With “friends” like these . . . Scapegoating Saverin—Both leftists and conservatives have expressed outrage that Eduardo Saverin, co-founder of Facebook, dared to renounce his U.S. citizenship to avoid onerous taxes. The entrepreneur may be barred from reentering the United States, TPM reports. Senator Chuck Schumer has called for a new law to “impose a mandatory 30 percent tax on the capital gains of anybody who renounces their U.S. citizenship,” ABC reports. Maybe next Schumer and company can build a wall to keep people from escaping. Thankfully, Harsanyi offers commentary both sensible and just: “If high taxation chases successful people out of the country, that’s the country’s fault.” Fracking Hypocrites—Vermont banned hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), today’s most innovative and productive method of energy production. The state, which doesn’t actually have any reserves worth fracking, imports 8.4 billion cubic feet of fracked natural gas annually from Canada, notes David Biederman for the Center for Industrial Progress. Living by one’s standards is so difficult when one’s standards are anti-life. Subscribe to the Journal for People of ReasonShovel-Ready Jobs Program—“The vast majority of money we spend in job training doesn’t go to job training, it goes to employ people in those job training federal programs,” Senator Tom Coburn told Fox News. Who could have guessed such mindless waste is possible to federal politicians and bureaucrats? Abort, Abort—SpaceX, a private company (which unfortunately has received “nearly $400 million in taxpayer funds”) aborted its launch, which was intended to send supplies to the International Space Station. Leaving China—Finally! Chinese activist “Chen Guangcheng and his family are en route to the United States so he can pursue studies at an American university.” We welcome Chen with high hopes that he might encourage Americans to reconnect with our country’s founding principles. Congratulations, Facebook—The social media king is now publicly traded. Thank You Vets—Today is Armed Forces Day. Cheers to the veterans who have defended America from foreign aggressors and barbarians. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related:
2011 Image from Wikimedia Commons For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Review: Living ProofReview: Living Proof: by Jason Stotts As a writer myself trying to get my first book published, I know how hard it is to get a book in front of a publisher, let alone get them to read it. To actually take it all the way to publication is quite the achievement today, when publishers would much rather go with established writers, even if their work is trite, than to try something new. So, my cynical side thought that this was going to be one of those books that was crap, but that got published anyway because Leonard Peikoff is Kira’s father and the publisher thought they could leverage that fact. I was, thankfully, very wrong. Living Proof is an excellent book and an amazing book for a first time author. The writing is tight, the plot is motivated, and the story is gripping. Living Proof is one of those books that you don’t want to put down until you’re finished. The story is set in a dystopian future (is it dystopian if it’s nearly real now?) where the christian religion has taken control of much of government and has declared all fertilized eggs to be full legal persons and their death to be murder. This complicates everything from miscarriage to in vitro fertilization. The heroine, of course, is not happy with that state of affairs and has a very selfish reason to motivate her to want to work against the laws. I dare not say too much more lest I give away interesting plot points, but if you’re looking for a good book and you want to support a great up and coming Objectivist author, go buy Living Proof! For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Good Advice is Like a MirrorGood Advice is Like a Mirror: This past week, over at Hacker News (where links are promoted based on popularity among its user group), I've noticed a couple of interesting posts regarding etiquette bubble up to the front page. They make similar points, but I was somewhat bemused by them at first: I found myself initially wondering why either post was written at all. One writer, upset with the ... communication style ... of several prominent software developers, makes the following valid point: As I grow older, I am starting to realize the people who were idiots when you were younger are likely idiots later in life, just more set in their ways. These people are out there, learn how to deal with them.But then he titles his post, "Stop Calling People Morons". Whom does he address? If being gratuitously insulting reflects badly on someone, why not let such people go on doing it, as a sort of warning sign to everyone else? Likewise, another author explains why he thinks that "Smart People Don't Think Others Are Stupid". He, too, makes a good point: So when someone says "They are so stupid!" - it means they've stopped thinking. They say it to feel finished with that subject, because there's nothing they can do about that. It's appealing and satisfying to jump to that conclusion. [bold in original](Of course, I think it is possible to very carefully consider what someone is saying or doing and conclude on better-than-kneejerk grounds that that person is foolish. Perhaps the author would agree.) But again, if someone in the habit of calling others stupid has indeed quit thinking, he won't learn anything from hearing this. I think each post serves as a way of reaching people (usually young or inexperienced) who might absorb (or continue) the bad behavior because it seems acceptable, but without realizing that it is to their own detriment. That is, appearances to the contrary, neither author is wasting his time offering advice that will not be heard. -- CAV For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Breakthrough in Gene Therapy Holds Great PromiseBreakthrough in Gene Therapy Holds Great Promise: Kurzweil reports that “Mouse lifespan was extended up to 24 percent with a single gene treatment in research at the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO), using gene therapy, a strategy never before employed to combat aging.”Mice treated at the age of one lived longer by 24% on average, and those treated at the age of two, by 13%. The therapy, furthermore, produced an appreciable improvement in the animals’ health, delaying the onset of age-related diseases – like osteoporosis and insulin resistance – and achieving improved readings on ageing indicators like neuromuscular coordination.The report indicates that it will be a while before this type of treatment can be used safely on human beings to increase their lifespan, but that it may be applicable in treating human diseases in the near future. Hats off to the brilliant scientists involved in this research. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: Image: Creative Commons by Luis García For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post Sam Harris Couldn’t Help But Smear Ayn RandSam Harris Couldn’t Help But Smear Ayn Rand: Although Sam Harris is wrong about various important issues (e.g., he denies free will and advocates utilitarianism), he occasionally writes cogently about important matters. For example, he skewers moral relativism and aptly identifies the dangers of Islamic ideology. It is disappointing, then, to see Harris engage in intellectual dishonesty such as this against Ayn Rand:As someone who has written and spoken at length about how we might develop a truly “objective” morality, I am often told by followers of Rand that their beloved guru accomplished this task long ago. The result was Objectivism—a view that makes a religious fetish of selfishness and disposes of altruism and compassion as character flaws. If nothing else, this approach to ethics was a triumph of marketing, as Objectivism is basically autism rebranded. And Rand’s attempt to make literature out of this awful philosophy produced some commensurately terrible writing. Even in high school, I found that my copies of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged simply would not open.Harris’s account of Rand’s ideas is patently wrong in practically every detail—which is not surprising given that by his own admission he has not actually read her works (not that he had a choice; after all, he lacks free will and the books “simply would not open”). Those who care to learn what Rand actually advocated would do well to ignore Harris’s smears, read Rand for themselves, and reach their own conclusions. I do, however, want briefly to address the ways in which Rand’s views differ from Harris’s fantasies. Subscribe to the Journal for People of ReasonRand did not treat “selfishness” as a fetish; rather, she saw it as a factual, life-serving necessity. She advocated rational self-interest, recognizing that one’s interests entail thinking long range about the requirements of one’s life and happiness, and acting in accordance with principles formed on the basis of such thinking. The principles she recognized as necessary to human life include (among many others) respecting people’s rights, developing loving romantic relationships, and building meaningful friendships. Rand did not confuse altruism with being friendly or helpful; rather, she saw it as a creed of self-sacrifice, a morality that demands that one sacrifice the values on which one’s life and happiness depend for the alleged benefit of others. Consequently, she rejected altruism because it holds “that man has no right to exist for his own sake.” Nor did Rand reject compassion; rather, she viewed it from the perspective of justice: She endorsed compassion “toward those who are innocent, but not toward those who are morally guilty.” Harris’s claims about Rand are, one and all, perfect misrepresentations of her views (not to mention ad hominem). Ironically, Harris complains when others misrepresent his views without bothering to read them: What should I say, for instance, when the inimitable Deepak Chopra produces a long, poisonous, and blundering review of The Moral Landscape in The San Francisco Chronicle while demonstrating in every line that he has not read it?Perhaps Chopra’s copy of The Moral Landscape “simply would not open.” Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: Image: Wikimedia Commons For original, see link at the top of this re-blogged post |
![]() |
Objectivism Online Recent Forum PostsLatest EssaysLatest NewsThe Objectivism Wiki: Recent Changes
Meta-Blog ArchivesRecent Meta-Blog Entries
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Powered by Joomla | Designed by David Veksler |