Bidinotto: The Republican Betrayal of Individualism

From Robert Bidinotto:

With the recent gasoline price crisis, congressional Republicans had a matchless opportunity to rally public opinion in order to steamroll radical environmentalists, and, at long last, open taboo regions — such as the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, and offshore regions in the Pacific — to fossil fuel exploration.
But no. Once again, in the face of moral opposition — and just as they did after their 1994 “Republican Revolution” against “big government” — the congressional Republicans have blinked, and backed down. As a result, they have now guaranteed that those vital resources will remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future — and thus have also guaranteed our continuing dependence on the anti-American Muslim world for our energy needs…a dependency that is directly causing the deaths and crippling of thousands of brave young American soldiers.
Okay, I have had it.

If you agree, then keep reading…

TOC on Islamism and Terrorism

Two new articles from the lastest edition of The Objectivist Center‘s The New Individualist.

Ed Hudgins, in “The Means and Ends of Islamists,” shows that the violent means of the Islamists reflect their culture of death and that the silence of their more peaceful co-religionists is moral abdication.

Bruce Thornton, in “Multiculturalism and its Discontents,” explains how multiculturalism is at the root of the London bombings. All the more relevant now that France is suffering the same fate.

Bidinotto: Jihad Begins in Europe?

Robert Bidinotto has a terrific new article on the riots in France. He begins:

As many observers have noted, the mainstream media (MSM) have marched in lockstep in their desperation to minimize the role that Islamism may be playing in the wave of rioting and vandalism plaguing France during the past two weeks. Typical of this effort by “reporters” not to report the bald (if politically incorrect) facts is The New York Times of November 5, which declared: “While the vast majority of the young people behind the nightly attacks are Muslim, experts and residents warned against seeing the violence through the prism of religion.” Apparently we are to believe that the more significant causal factor is the fact that they are “youths,” or “young people,” or even “youngsters” — words which appear prominently in every article, in order to bury any rare, passing mentions of the word “Muslim.”
But truth will out, and it’s getting harder and harder for the Leftist press to maintain this fiction. References to Islam are increasing, and even Newsweek now speculates about the role of Islamists in the Paris terror. If this trend continues, pretty soon the MSM might even begin to acknowledge the wisdom in columns by Mark Steyn.
But what is the specific cause of the Muslim uprising in France?

Keep reading…

French Riots Caused by Welfare State

Shannon Love offers useful free-market insights into the root causes of the increasingly widespread riots in France:

Via Instapundit comes a discussion on whether the riots in France, and the general breakdown of law and order in some sections of other European countries, are primarily the result of Islamo-facism, runaway multiculturalism or the welfare-state. All three factors play into the problem but I think the primary driver is the welfare state.
One might ask, however, why should anyone riot when the welfare state provides all the basic material necessities of life? It’s not as if the residents of the suburbs of Paris are starving, exposed to the elements or deprived of medical care. By the standards of most of humanity, they live quite opulent lives. Why doesn’t the welfare state make them happy?
The short answer is that human beings are not cows. Cows are quite content if their material needs are met but people have hopes, dreams and aspirations. It is precisely these psychological benefits that the welfare state ultimately cannot provide. People are rioting not because they are deprived of material benefits but because they are wholly dependent on the whims of others for the benefits they do receive. They have no status and no control. It is these social, psychological and spiritual deprivations that they are ultimately striking out against.

Keep reading… (via Instapundit)

Google Library Infringes Copyright?

Google is undertaking a large, long-term project to make the content of hard copy books (remember those?) available via the Internet.
Such a project would unquestionably benefit many in significant ways. Nick Taylor, in a Washington Post editorial, argues they are going about it without due consideration of intellectual property rights.
In response, Authors Guild, of which Taylor is current president, has filed suit against Google.
One side argues the potential benefit to society outweighs the author’s right to compensation for his or her work. The librarian of the University of Michigan, for example, states “We cannot lose sight of the tremendous benefits this project will bring to society.”
Others argue no copyright infringement is taking place.

First, Google does not intend to sell digital copies of the books themselves, selling instead targeted advertising links embedded on the results page. Second, only very small snippets of the books (less then three lines) will be displayed at any one time.

While agreeing about the likely benefit, Taylor argues that “Society has traditionally seen its greatest value in the rights of individuals, and particularly in the dignity of their work and just compensation for it.”

Between Jam and Jelly: Government Folly Part 3,326

In a stellar short essay, Uriah Kriegel illuminates a dangerous trend in legislative thinking — adherence to the principle: that which is not explicitly allowed is therefore forbidden.
Kriegel focuses on some absurd recent rulings of the European Commission, but his insights apply equally well to all countries’ regulatory bodies.
He rightly points out that such a principle is entirely antithetical to the American system of government, in principle if not always in practice.
His use of Justice Stephen Bryer’s recent book, Active Liberty, as an example is apropos, especially in light of recent debates over ‘judicial activism’.
Readers of Anthem and Atlas Shrugged will understand the principle already, but Kriegel makes his own case with no explicit reference to Rand’s philosophy.
And make it he does… in spades.
The essay is available on Tech Central Station’s web site.

Weighing the Columbus Cargo

An op-ed, in today’s Washington Times, by Ed Hudgins of The Objectivist Center on why we should celebrate Columbus.

Many critics argue Christopher Columbus gave us a devil’s bargain. In October 1492 that Italian explorer, working for Spain, opened America to his fellow Europeans. The result: We got a prosperous New World by impoverishing, enslaving and murdering the natives who were already here.
But this fails to distinguish between two types of exploitation, one over other humans and the other over nature. The former should be expunged from our moral codes and civilized society, the latter is the essence of morality and civilization.
Human exploitation was suffered especially by the tens of millions of inhabitants of the pre-Columbian lands from Mexico through South America. Cortes the Conquistador, for example, defeated the Aztec rulers of Mexico. Many of the tribes that were subject to the Aztecs sided with Cortes; they hated the Aztecs for, among other things, their practice of cutting the living hearts out of members of tribes they subjugated, as sacrifices to their gods. Cortes imposed his rule on the Aztecs and their subjects alike, replacing one tyranny with another. The natives were treated harshly and many forced to work as de facto or actual slaves for their new masters.
On the other hand, many settlers, especially in North America which had far fewer natives, took a different path. They came to the New World to build their own lives. They did not prosper by conquering other men but, rather, by conquering nature.
They had to clear the land, plant and sow crops. They had to practice the trades of carpenters, masons, loggers, miners, blacksmiths and tailors to build their towns and to create the necessities for life and prosperity. In the centuries that followed, their descendants — including Americans today — built the richest, most prosperous country on Earth.
Today it is chic among back-to-nature types to idealize the pre-Columbian natives and question whether what we have today constitutes real progress. This silliness was given philosophical credence by the 18th-century thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s notion of the “noble savage.” No doubt many individual natives were as noble as one could be in savage circumstances, but America before Columbus was no Eden.
Let’s put aside the wars between tribes, the outright brutality and the like, and just look at the daily lives of the Indians before Columbus. Life was lived simply, in primitive cycles. Natives inhabited crude hovels and hunted or used subsistence farming to sustain themselves. Yes, they could enjoy family and friends, tell tales of bringing down buffalo, and imagine that the stars in the sky painted pictures of giant bears and other creatures. The ancestors of Europeans did the same.
But true human life, either for an individual or society, is not an endless, stagnant cycle. Rather, it is a growth in knowledge, in power over the environment, and in individual liberty.
Perhaps many pre-Columbian natives were content with their lot in a simple, animal-like existence. But what of young Indian children who wondered why family members sickened and died and if there were ways unknown to the shamans to relieve their pain or cure them; if there were ways to build shelters that would resist bitter winters, stifling summers and the storms that raged in both seasons; whether there were ways to guarantee food would always be abundant and starvation no longer a drought away; why plants grow and what those lights in the sky really were; and whether they could ever actually fly like birds and observe mountains from the height of eagles? Where were the opportunities for these natives?
Three ideas from Enlightenment Europe provided keys to true human life. First was the idea we as individuals have a right to our own dreams and desires, that we are not simply tied to a tribe or the wishes of others, that civilization means individuals are free to live their own lives, as long as they acknowledge the similar freedom of others.
Second was the understanding that through the rational exercise of our minds we can truly discover the nature of the world around us, replacing myths — no matter how beautiful or poetic — with real knowledge.
And third was the appreciation such knowledge allows us to bend nature to our wills. Through our thoughts and actions, we gain the pride of achieving the best within us.
The clash between the cultures of pre-Columbian natives and European immigrants certainly produced injustices for natives. But it would have been unjust for those natives to expect the immigrants to hold themselves to the level of primitive cultures and beliefs. The true long-term tragedy is that so many descendants of the pre-Columbian peoples in North America ended up on reservations rather than integrated into a society that offers opportunities for each individual to excel.
Columbus opened a whole new land for those who would tame nature and build a new, free and prosperous nation. We should celebrate the opportunity for America that he gave us — not apologize for it.

This article is also available on TOC’s website.

Cold War Part II: Russia and China vs. the U.S.

The Heritage Foundation’s Ariel Cohen has an interesting article today titled “War Games: Russia, China Grow Alliance.”
After reviewing various aspects of a warming alliance between Russia and China, Cohen makes the following observations and recommendations:

If the U.S. and the three European powers, which failed to negotiate a halt in the Iranian nuclear program, bring the case against Tehran to the U.N. Security Council, Russia and China are likely to block real sanctions. They may threaten to veto a resolution calling for the use of force to terminate Iranâ??s nuclear-arms bid.
Moscow and Beijing want to work together because each country now views the other as its â??strategic rear.â? Given this reality, the U.S. should take prudent steps to drive a wedge between Russia and China. To do that, the Bush administration should:
â??Work with Russia to battle radical Islamic groups in Central Asia. Opposing Islamic terrorism and militancy is a joint interest for the two powers. Washington should help develop joint energy, services and manufacturing projects in Central Asia among, for example, Russian, Turkish and Indian firms.
â??Increase intelligence monitoring of relations between Russia and China, especially in national security areas. Intelligence gathering should focus on the condition of Russian forces in the Far East, including the possibility of the Russian Pacific Fleetâ??s intercepting the U.S. Seventh Fleet in any confrontation in the East China Sea.
â??Strengthen military and security cooperation with India and Japan. The U.S. should work with them to secure shipping lanes and develop Central Asia and the Russian Far East to offset Chinaâ??s growing economic power.
Despite strides in Sino-Russian rapprochement, Moscow remains nervous about China, especially its intentions in the Russian far east and Siberia. Riding the Chinese dragon may well prove even less comfortable for the Russians than they anticipate.
At that point, they may wish to renew a genuine partnership with the United States. But until then, we must monitor this emerging partnership carefully â?? and work to keep it from getting too cozy.

See the full article for more.

In Praise of Price Gouging

John Stossel has a terrific new article titled “In Praise of Price Gouging.” It begins:

Politicians and the media are furious about price increases in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. They want gas stations and water sellers punished.
If you want to score points cracking down on mean, greedy profiteers, pushing anti-“gouging” rules is a very good thing.
But if you’re one of the people the law “protects” from “price gouging,” you won’t fare as well.
Consider this scenario: You are thirsty — worried that your baby is going to become dehydrated. You find a store that’s open, and the storeowner thinks it’s immoral to take advantage of your distress, so he won’t charge you a dime more than he charged last week. But you can’t buy water from him. It’s sold out.
You continue on your quest, and finally find that dreaded monster, the price gouger. He offers a bottle of water that cost $1 last week at an “outrageous” price — say $20. You pay it to survive the disaster.
You resent the price gouger. But if he hadn’t demanded $20, he’d have been out of water. It was the price gouger’s “exploitation” that saved your child.
It saved her because people look out for their own interests. Before you got to the water seller, other people did. At $1 a bottle, they stocked up. At $20 a bottle, they bought more cautiously. By charging $20, the price gouger makes sure his water goes to those who really need it.

Read the full article for more.