"The Objective Standard" – a New Objectivist Journal

The Objective Standard is a new quarterly journal of culture and politics, written from an Objectivist perspective.
The purpose of the journal is to analyze and evaluate ideas, trends, events, and policies according to the philosophy of Ayn Rand – a philosophy of reason, egoism, and laissez-faire capitalism. The new journal provides a rational, principled alternative to the ideas of both liberalism and conservatism.

“Whereas liberals hold that morality is subjective (i.e., feeling-based), that majority opinion is the standard of value, that sacrifice for the common good is noble, and that rights are social conventions; and whereas conservatives hold that morality is grounded in religion (i.e., faith-based), that Godâ??s will is the standard of value, that sacrifice in obedience to His commands is good, and that rights are divine decrees; we hold that morality is grounded in the objective requirements of human life (i.e., reason-based), that manâ??s life is the standard of value, that the selfish pursuit of oneâ??s life-serving goals is good, and that individual rights are moral principles defining the basic requirements of a civilized society.”

The permiere issue is scheduled for April 2006.

Ayn Rand's Books Censored in Philippines?

In an article for Human Events Online, Mark Skousen writes:

In 2002, a student named Franscisco (a pseudonym) at the University of the Philippines read my book, The Making of Modern Economics (ME Sharpe, 2001). The book is a popular textbook that tells the story of the great economic thinkers, from Adam Smith to modern times, all written from a free-market perspective. (Itâ??s now in its third printing, and has been translated into three languages.)
One of the most controversial chapters is chapter 6, â??Marx Plunges Economics into a New Dark Age.â? The student was a member of a Communist front student organization at University of the Philippines, but was so impressed with my critique of Marx that he typed the entire chapter into an email and sent it to all his Marxist friends and sociology professor. As a result, they all abandoned Marxism in favor of free-market economics, including his professor.
Now apparently my book has become so effective in countering Marxism in the Philippines that it has been removed from the major university libraries in Manila — along with Ayn Randâ??s books!

Keep reading for more background information.

Munich: Spielberg Pays Homage to Israeli Athletes

Many admirers of Ayn Rand’s novels feel strongly about Israel’s right to exist. In that vein, this report from Drudge might be of interest:

“There has never been an adequate tribute paid to the Israeli athletes who were murdered in â??72,” Spielberg says.
â??I donâ??t think any movie or any book or any work of art can solve the stalemate in the Middle East today,â? director Steven Spielberg tells TIME in an exclusive cover-story interview. â??But itâ??s certainly worth a try,â? Spielberg says.
Since filming began in June, the movie (reported to cost around $70 million) â??has been surrounded by rumors, criticism, and suggestions that Spielberg was too pro-Israel to make a fair movie,â? according to TIME.
“I’m always in favor of Israel responding strongly when it’s threatened. At the same time, a response to a response doesn’t really solve anything. It just creates a perpetual-motion machine,” Spielberg says. “There’s been a quagmire of blood for blood for many decades in that region. Where does it end? How can it end?”

Check out the Munich movie trailer, if you haven’t already.
UPDATE: The movie is getting slammed by some early critics for, among other things, its posturing and moral relativism. Proceed with caution…

Wal-Mart Documentary Likens Attacks to Atlas Shrugged

A new documentary from co-directors Robert and Ron Galloway examines Wal-Mart’s business practices. They assert the attacks on Wal-Mart parallel those against the producers in Ayn Rand’s magnum opus.
It is straight out of (Ayn Rand’s novel) ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ ” said Ron Galloway, co-director of “Why Wal-Mart Works.”
In an Investor’s Business Daily column, Sean Higgins discusses the Galloway film, and contrasts it with “Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price”, another documentary taking a very different view of the retail giant.
Whatever one thinks of Wal-Mart, the debate starkly highlights two opposing ideological camps. The two films accurately reflect the two sides of the controversy.
This is evident by contrasting the IBD column with a piece from the Denver Post.

The Productive Meaning of Thanksgiving

This op-ed will appear on Thanksgiving Day in the Washington Times.
The Productive Meaning of Thanksgiving
by Edward Hudgins
American homes on the fourth Thursday in November will waft with more than the aroma of turkey and pumpkin pie. Also in the air will be the joy at the start of the holiday season running from Thanksgiving to Christmas through New Years. As temperatures turn cold outdoors, we’ll warm ourselves inside and out with gatherings of friends and family, festivities, parties and presents.
Inevitably this season also gives rise to queries about the “true meaning” of this or that holiday, usually with complaints about the superficiality of the season. To these critics I say, “Stop being an ugly hair in the sweet potato casserole!”
Let’s review just a few of the things that people traditionally do during the month starting with turkey- time. To begin with, we travel, facing lots of crowded roads, airports, bus terminals and train stations. Yes, it’s a hassle, but isn’t it great that if we live on the Atlantic seaboard we can fly to see family on the Pacific coast in under six hours? Several centuries ago it took weeks to go from Massachusetts to Georgia, the original extent of the country, and months to go west to find the Promised Land, if you survived the journey. Separated families usually remained separated.
And you were lucky to have family members at all; life expectancy in the time of the Pilgrims was under forty. Infant morality was extremely high. Today most Americans can be expected to live to their late seventies. Modern medicine has worked wonders.
The center of Thanksgiving Day is a great feast. We can understand why. The Pilgrims were so pleased that they hadn’t starved to death following their arrival in 1620 that even that often dour lot saw it as an occasion for a party. Hunger and the threat if not reality of starvation were the rule through much of human history.
Remember, less than a year after the founding of the Jamestown settlement in 1607, only 46 of the 104 original colonists were left alive, most having perished for lack of food. No wonder this earlier settlement in North America did not inspire a holiday!
Of course, their real problem was political. The company that sponsored Jamestown made provisions for settlers to be fed from a common store. There was no incentive to be productive. But communism did not work. Gentlemen settlers spent their time hunting for gold — they found none. John Smith later instituted a new rule: those who do not work shall not eat. That produced an incentive to produce food.
In free-market America today we have so much food at such a low cost that obesity rather than emaciation is a health problem.
Which brings us to what we do the day after Thanksgiving and the month that follows: We shop! We crowd the malls to buy gifts for others — and usually a little something for ourselves! Yes, some people complain about commercialized holidays but the whole notion of fall harvest feasts throughout human history was to celebrate production. How wonderful that we can make our lives comfortable with attractive clothes and fun toys, consumer electronics and interesting books, movies and music, fine furniture and furnishings, to say nothing of tasty treats! And we can share our regard for those significant individuals in our lives with gifts of same.
As to the “deeper” meaning of the holidays, that is found in the travel, long-lived family members, food and stores full of goods. The deeper meaning is that we have the capacity to produce such wealth and that we live in a country that affords us our right to exercise the virtue of productivity and to reap its rewards.
So let’s celebrate wealth and the power in us to produce it; let’s welcome this most wonderful time of the year and partake without guilt of the bounty we each have earned.
————
Hudgins is executive director of the Objectivist Center and its Atlas Society, which celebrates human achievement.

Harry Potter and Political Philosophy

Instapundit points us to an interesting article, “Harry Potter and the Half-Crazed Bureaucracy,” scheduled to be published the Michigan Law Review. From the abstract:

This Essay examines what the Harry Potter series (and particularly the most recent book, The Half-Blood Prince) tells us about government and bureaucracy. There are two short answers. The first is that Rowling presents a government (The Ministry of Magic) that is 100% bureaucracy. There is no discernable executive or legislative branch, and no elections. There is a modified judicial function, but it appears to be completely dominated by the bureaucracy, and certainly does not serve as an independent check on governmental excess.
Second, government is controlled by and for the benefit of the self-interested bureaucrat. The most cold-blooded public choice theorist could not present a bleaker portrait of a government captured by special interests and motivated solely by a desire to increase bureaucratic power and influence. Consider this partial list of government activities: a) torturing children for lying; b) utilizing a prison designed and staffed specifically to suck all life and hope out of the inmates; c) placing citizens in that prison without a hearing; d) allows the death penalty without a trial; e) allowing the powerful, rich or famous to control policy and practice; f) selective prosecution (the powerful go unpunished and the unpopular face trumped-up charges); g) conducting criminal trials without independent defense counsel; h) using truth serum to force confessions; i) maintaining constant surveillance over all citizens; j) allowing no elections whatsoever and no democratic lawmaking process; k) controlling the press.
This partial list of activities brings home just how bleak Rowling’s portrait of government is. The critique is even more devastating because the governmental actors and actions in the book look and feel so authentic and familiar. Cornelius Fudge, the original Minister of Magic, perfectly fits our notion of a bumbling politician just trying to hang onto his job. Delores Umbridge is the classic small-minded bureaucrat who only cares about rules, discipline, and her own power. Rufus Scrimgeour is a George Bush-like war leader, inspiring confidence through his steely resolve. The Ministry itself is made up of various sub-ministries with goofy names (e.g., The Goblin Liaison Office or the Ludicrous Patents Office) enforcing silly sounding regulations (e.g., The Decree for the Treatment of Non-Wizard Part-Humans or The Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery). These descriptions of government jibe with our own sarcastic views of bureaucracy and bureaucrats: bureaucrats tend to be amusing characters that propagate and enforce laws of limited utility with unwieldy names. When you combine the light-hearted satire with the above list of government activities, however, Rowling’s critique of government becomes substantially darker and more powerful.
Furthermore, Rowling eliminates many of the progressive defenses of bureaucracy. The most obvious omission is the elimination of the democratic defense. The first line of attack against public choice theory is always that bureaucrats must answer to elected officials, who must in turn answer to the voters. Rowling eliminates this defense by presenting a wholly unelected government.
A second line of defense is the public-minded bureaucrat. Some theorists argue that the public choice critique ignores what government officials are really like. They are not greedy, self-interested budget-maximizers. Instead, they are decent and publicly oriented. Rowling parries this defense by her presentation of successful bureaucrats (who clearly fit the public choice model) and unsuccessful bureaucrats. Harry’s best friend’s Dad, Arthur Weasley is a well-meaning government employee. He is described as stuck in a dead end job, in the least respected part of the government, in the worst office in the building. In Rowling’s world governmental virtue is disrespected and punished.
Lastly, Rowling even eliminates the free press as a check on government power. The wizarding newspaper, The Daily Prophet, is depicted as a puppet to the whims of Ministry of Magic. I end the piece with some speculation about how Rowling came to her bleak vision of government, and the greater societal effects it might have. Speculating about the effects of Rowling’s portrait of government is obviously dangerous, but it seems likely that we will see a continuing uptick in distrust of government and libertarianism as the Harry Potter generation reaches adulthood.

Of course, the philosophical significance of the Harry Potter series is old news to Atlasphere members like Shawn Klein!

Diamond Ring vs. First Edition of Atlas Shrugged

Here’s a cute anecdote from the article “Diamonds Not Always A Bride’s Best Friend,” about the role of diamonds, currently and historically, in wedding engagements:

Sandy Chin, 31, said her feminist side would never allow her to have a ring that, as she puts it, “shows you are the possession of someone else, which is disgusting to me.” So, instead of a ring, her fiance bought her a first edition copy of “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand.

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)

C-SpanII Book TV: Was Communism A Threat to Hollywood?

As pointed on this blog entry, the Liberty Film Festival featured a panel of authors who have written books about Hollywood debate the quesstion: Was Communism a threat to Hollywood? The event was recorded and will be broadcasted on C-SPAN II’s Book TV on Saturday, November 5 at 9:00 pm and Sunday, November 6 at 7:00 pm
See the announcement of the show on C-Span II Book TV.