Ayn Rand Scholars and Fans Gather in Boston

 
Ayn Rand Scholars and Fans Gather in Boston

July 1, 2009

Irvine, CA On July 3rd the Ayn Rand Institute will hold its annual Objectivist Summer Conference (OCON) at the Seaport Hotel in Boston.  From all over the world admirers of the late novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand will gather for nine days of intellectual stimulation and fellowship.
 
OCON will feature classes by the world’s leading Objectivist scholars and businessmen, such as BB&T Corporation Chairman John Allison, and the President and CEO of Hutchinson Technology, Wayne Fortun.  Ayn Rand Institute president and executive director Yaron Brook will also be giving a course on the causes of the financial crisis. 

“OCON is a very unique opportunity for enthusiasts of Ayn Rand to associate and discuss Objectivist ideas”, Dr. Brook said. “For many of our conferees this is their only, and most cherished, vacation of the year.”

### ### ###

 

Read more…

Atlas Shrugged on Floor Displays at Largest Bookstores

Atlas Shrugged on Floor Displays at Largest Bookstores

Washington, D.C., June 29, 2009– Shortly after Independence Day, new free-standing floor displays of Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, first published 52 years ago, will be placed in more than 850 bookstores across the United States. Borders will display the novel’s trade edition at 520 of its stores and Waldenbooks will feature the mass market paperback edition at 336 of its stores. Thousands of copies of Atlas Shrugged will be on display.

Barnes & Noble also had copies of Atlas Shrugged for sale in special floor displays in most of its bookstores from late May into early June.

According to Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, “This is the most prominent and widespread display for this novel in all of its publishing history. It is particularly remarkable because it comes more than a half century after its initial publication.

“The fact that the largest bookstore chains in America have chosen to make such a prominent display of Atlas Shrugged is a testimony to the current and growing interest in Ayn Rand’s novels and ideas, and an encouraging sign for America’s future.

“As Americans confront the scary growth of government control over their lives and the economy, they need, more than ever, to learn about Ayn Rand’s conception of a new morality of rational self-interest and her unprecedented defense of freedom and individual rights.”

—————- 
 

 

Read more…

Punishing Google for Its Success

By Alex Epstein (Investor’s Business Daily, June 4, 2009)

The Obama administration’s Department of Justice recently announced that it will dramatically increase enforcement of antitrust laws against successful, dominant companies who allegedly harm competition by wielding too much “market power.” What sorts of companies? Experts agree that the first targets might include one of America’s most beloved. “This will be bad news for heavyweights in the tech industries,” a leading scholar told the New York Times, “companies like Google.”

But wait: Isn’t Google a company whose products and services, centered around its fabulously popular search engine, benefit millions of Americans and businesses? Shouldn’t Americans be celebrating Google, and shouldn’t the government be leaving it alone?

No, antitrust enforcers say. Google has become too “dominant” in the search engine market–that is, too many of us choose to type in http://www.google.com/ instead of http://www.yahoo.com/ or http://www.live.com/. This allegedly gives Google too much power over those who wish to buy its coveted, keyword-based advertising. In an influential article on leading technology blog TechCrunch, Wharton professor Eric Clemons argued that “Google enjoys monopoly power over corporations that participate in its keyword auctions” and “Google is abusing its monopoly position by overcharging corporations for access to consumers.”

But what does it even mean to have “abusive monopoly power?”  Well, consider what the “power” of Google–a company no one is forced to deal with and anyone is free to compete with–really amounts to.

Through incredible technical innovation and brilliant management and marketing, Google has created by far the most popular search engine on the planet, attracting hundreds of millions of users. Through additional innovation, it has created the AdSense program, which offers advertisers the ability to reach users whose searches contain keywords associated with the advertisers’ products. Millions of advertisers eager to reach that Google user-base are willing to pay substantially higher rates than less-popular search engines can charge. Google even holds expensive auctions for top keywords.

Google’s prices and terms, often denigrated as “overcharging” and “unfair,” are in fact earned. And Google’s power to attain them exists only as long as it continues to offer superior value to its advertising customers. The minute AdSense’s rates stop making financial sense to advertisers, Google will see its dominance disappear. Critics bemoan the difficulty faced by competitors trying to overtake Google in search and advertising revenue–but that just proves how much value Google brings to the table, relative to anyone else. This is grounds for admiration of a superior competitornot prosecution for being “anticompetitive.”

Google has no power to force consumers to use its products and no power to prevent competitors from offering products of their own. Consequently, it can pose no threat to anyone’s rights or to the competitive process. (If Google ever does use coercion, as is alleged in a copyright case against the company, it should be prosecuted–but this has nothing to do with antitrust.)

There is, however, one player in today’s market that can thwart competition: the government. By using the vast and arbitrary political power given to it by antitrust law, the government can forcibly control successful companies such as Google and Microsoft, telling them what products they cannot sell, what markets they cannot enter, what prices they cannot charge. Obama’s new push to “protect competition” is the real threat to competition. Under the reign of antitrust, any superior company can be stopped in its tracks because some bureaucrat, company, or academic decides that the prices in its voluntary contracts are too high, or its voluntary terms are too onerous, or evento take another common accusation against Google–that its stable of free products is too large! In other words, Google is to be shackled so that future competitors can catch up to Gmail, Google Maps, and Google Books.

Success earned in a free, competitive process is an achievement. Our Department of Justice regards it as a crime. Thus, we may well see Google undergo the fate of Microsoft, which has been tortured, drained, and shackled by more than a decade of antitrust persecution–for adding a web browser to its fabulously successful operating system. Google famously encourages employees to devote 20% of their time to creative projects of their own choosing. An antitrust case could effectively force much of that precious time and energy to be devoted to mollifying and obeying Washington’s economic little Caesars. Let’s challenge this travesty-in-the-making, along with its underlying theory that successful companies possess “monopoly power,” before America commits yet another sin against capitalism.

He’s No Rand Disciple

By Alex Epstein (Published in American Banker, May 20, 2009)

In a recent story about former BB&T CEO John Allison’s support of Ayn Rand’s laissez-faire ideas, including a gold standard, (“Allison Shrugs”) American Banker repeats an unfortunate misconception about Rand, one that is often used to undermine anyone who agrees with her: “Even former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, Rand’s most famous student, has backed away from her ideas as the financial crisis has deepened.”

But Greenspan can’t “back away” from something he hasn’t believed or supported for decades. Remember, this is a man who for two decades reveled in wielding the manipulative power granted to him as Fed Chairman–a job he once (rightly) argued should not exist. The New York Times called him “the infallible maestro of the financial system.” Free markets don’t have “infallible maestros”; they liberate us from such “maestros”–the central planners who have time and again falsely claimed the ability and the right to orchestrate (dictate) millions of economic lives.

Greenspan long ago degenerated into another central planner–and a particularly bad one, both because of his highly inflationary policies (a fundamental cause of the crisis) and because he implemented them under the banner of laissez-faire. If one wishes to understand or argue with the laissez-faire ideas of Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan is the last person to look to. He stands for free markets about as much as a Chinese censor stands for free speech.

What We Owe Our Soldiers

By Alex Epstein

Every Memorial Day, we pay tribute to the American men and women who have died in combat. With speeches and solemn ceremonies, we recognize their courage and valor. But one fact goes unacknowledged in our Memorial Day tributes: all too many of our soldiers have died unnecessarily–because they were sent to fight for a purpose other than America’s freedom.

The proper purpose of a government is to protect its citizens’ lives and freedom against the initiation of force by criminals at home and aggressors abroad. The American government has a sacred responsibility to recognize the individual value of every one of its citizens’ lives, and thus to do everything possible to protect the rights of each to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This absolutely includes our soldiers.

Soldiers are not sacrificial objects; they are full-fledged Americans with the same moral right as the rest of us to the pursuit of their own goals, their own dreams, their own happiness. Rational soldiers enjoy much of the work of military service, take pride in their ability to do it superlatively, and gain profound satisfaction in protecting the freedom of every American, including their own freedom.

Soldiers know that in entering the military, they are risking their lives in the event of war. But this risk is not, as it is often described, a “sacrifice” for a “higher cause.” When there is a true threat to America, it is a threat to all of our lives and loved ones, soldiers included. Many become soldiers for precisely this reason; it was, for instance, the realization of the threat of Islamic terrorism after September 11–when 3,000 innocent Americans were slaughtered in cold blood on a random Tuesday morning–that prompted so many to join the military.

For an American soldier, to fight for freedom is not to fight for a “higher cause,” separate from or superior to his own life–it is to fight for his own life and happiness. He is willing to risk his life in time of war because he is unwilling to live as anything other than a free man. He does not want or expect to die, but he would rather die than live in slavery or perpetual fear. His attitude is epitomized by the words of John Stark, New Hampshire’s most famous soldier in the Revolutionary War: “Live free or die.”

What we owe these men who fight so bravely for their and our freedom is to send them to war only when that freedom is truly threatened, and to make every effort to protect their lives during war–by providing them with the most advantageous weapons, training, strategy, and tactics possible.

Shamefully, America has repeatedly failed to meet this obligation. It has repeatedly placed soldiers in harm’s way when no threat to America existed–e.g., to quell tribal conflicts in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. America entered World War I, in which 115,000 soldiers died, with no clear self-defense purpose but rather on the vague, self-sacrificial grounds that “The world must be made safe for democracy.” America’s involvement in Vietnam, in which 56,000 Americans died in a fiasco that American officials openly declared a “no-win” war, was justified primarily in the name of service to the South Vietnamese. And the current war in Iraq–which could have had a valid purpose as a first step in ousting the terrorist-sponsoring, anti-American regimes of the Middle East–is responsible for thousands of unnecessary American deaths in pursuit of the sacrificial goal of “civilizing” Iraq by enabling Iraqis to select any government they wish, no matter how anti-American.

In addition to being sent on ill-conceived, “humanitarian” missions, our soldiers have been compromised with crippling rules of engagement that place the lives of civilians in enemy territory above their own. In Afghanistan, we refused to bomb many top leaders out of their hideouts for fear of civilian casualties; these men continue to kill American soldiers. In Iraq, our hamstrung soldiers for years were prevented from smashing a militarily puny insurgency–and to this day, the much-heralded “surge” notwithstanding, are being murdered unnecessarily at the hands of an undefeated enemy, with no end in sight.

To send soldiers into war without a clear self-defense purpose, and without providing them every possible protection, is a betrayal of their valor and a violation of their rights.

This Memorial Day, we must call for a stop to the sacrifice of our soldiers and condemn all those who demand it. It is only by doing so that we can truly honor not only our dead, but also our living: American soldiers who have the courage to defend their freedom and ours.

Atlas Shrugged Triples in Sales

Irvine, CA, May 12, 2009 – Reports from trade sources indicate that consumer purchases of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged have tripled in the first four months of 2009 compared to the first four months of 2008.

According to Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, “The tripling in sales of Atlas Shrugged is remarkable, especially considering that in 2008 a new all-time record in annual sales of the novel was established with more than 200,000 copies sold in the United States.”

As Dr. Brook pointed out, “Annual sales of Atlas Shrugged have been increasing for decades to a level not seen in Ayn Rand’s lifetime. Sales of the U.S. paperback editions averaged 74,000 copies a year in the 1980s, 95,000 copies a year in the 1990s and 139,000 copies a year in the current decade. After reaching an all-time high during the novel’s 50th anniversary in 2007, another new high was reached in 2008 and an even higher mark is expected for 2009.”

More than 6,500,000 copies of Atlas Shrugged have been sold to date.

“As America faces a devastating economic crisis fundamentally caused by government policies, it is a hopeful sign for the future that increasing numbers of concerned Americans are turning to Atlas Shrugged and discovering Ayn Rand’s original morality of rational egoism and her uncompromising defense of laissez faire capitalism.”

CO2 Restrictions Threaten Human Life

CO2 Restrictions Threaten Human Life

Washington, D.C., April 30, 2009–The Environmental Protection Agency’s “finding” that carbon dioxide emissions endanger “the health and welfare of current and future generations” is absurd, said Alex Epstein, analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. According to Mr. Epstein, the real danger to Americans’ “health and welfare” is policies designed to fight global warming by throttling energy sources that emit CO2.

“Carbon energy has been and remains vital to the industrial society that has doubled human life-expectancies, and, among a million other benefits, enables us to cope with all manner of changes in climate.

“Right now,” Mr. Epstein pointed out, “carbon-based sources of energy produce the most, cheapest energy, period—while sunshine and wind gusts, despite decades of subsidies and propaganda, produce an expensive 1 percent of our energy.

“If scientists and entrepreneurs can discover and implement superior sources that happen not to emit CO2, at better prices than today’s energy sources, great. But whether that happens or not, we need to recognize that our ‘health and welfare’ depend on free markets producing industrial-scale energy above all else—and that anyone who tries to shut down life-giving coal plants and oil rigs, in the name of avoiding bad weather, is an enemy of humanity.”

 

Read more…

Pakistan’s Surrender to the Taliban

Pakistan’s Surrender to the Taliban

Washington, D.C., April 23, 2009–In reaction to the Pakistani government’s decision to give Islamists the power to enforce sharia (Islamic law) in the north of the country, Elan Journo, fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, warned that all of Pakistan is at risk of falling under Islamic rule.

According to Mr. Journo, “Instead of living up to its stated goal of opposing the Islamists, by defeating them militarily, Islamabad has opted for the losing policy of appeasement–a policy that can only strengthen the jihadists.” If the current trend of appeasement continues to unfold, argued Mr. Journo, nuclear-armed Pakistan may soon “look a lot like Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.”

Just like other cases of appeasement, noted Mr. Journo, Pakistan’s surrender “was predicated on willfully ignoring crucial facts about the goals of the Islamists–goals that are well known. For the last three-odd decades, jihadists all over the world have been vocal in asserting their ultimate aim of expanding Allah’s dominion across the face of the earth. Not alongside other forms of government, but in place of them.

“By evading the Islamist movement’s nature,” concluded Mr. Journo, “Pakistan has handed it a signal victory–the Swat Valley today, plausibly the rest of Pakistan tomorrow.”

————–

 

 

Read more…

Obama Evades Government’s Role in the Crisis

Obama Evades Government’s Role in the Crisis

Washington, D.C., April 10, 2009–In an op-ed published this week by Canada’s Financial Post, Alex Epstein, analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, argued that “In calling for a massive increase in government control over the economy,” Obama “has evaded the mountain of evidence implicating the government.”
 
The primary cause of the current crisis, explained Mr. Epstein, was “drastic attempts by the government to control the housing and financial markets–via a Federal Reserve that cut interest rates to all-time lows, and via a gigantic increase in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s size and influence.” Through these entities, Epstein pointed out, “the government sought to ‘stimulate the economy’ and promote homeownership by artificially extending cheap credit to home-buyers.”
 
But, Mr. Epstein noted, Obama did not mention the Fed, Fannie, or Freddie even once, during his recent 52-minute speech to Congress. “Not once did he suggest that government manipulation of markets could have any possible role in the present crisis. He just went full steam ahead and called for more spending, more intervention, and more government housing programs as the solution.”
 
But the “fundamental solution to our problems,” said Epstein, is “to disentangle the government from the markets to prevent future manipulation.” To achieve that, Epstein concluded, we need to consider “pro-free-market remedies such as letting banks foreclose, letting prices reach market levels, letting bad banks fail, dismantling Fannie and Freddie, ending bailout promises, and getting rid of the Fed’s power to manipulate interest rates.”

———-

 

Read more…

Misrepresenting "How We Arrived at This Moment"

By Alex Epstein

What must be done to recover from this financial crisis? Barack Obama rightly stresses that we first must understand how today’s problems emerged. It is “only by understanding how we arrived at this moment that we’ll be able to lift ourselves out of this predicament.”

Unfortunately, Obama (along with most of the Washington establishment) has created only misunderstanding. In calling for a massive increase in government control over the economy, he has evaded the mountain of evidence implicating the government.

For example, Obama’s core explanation of all the destructive behavior leading up to today’s crisis is that the market was too free. But the market that led to today’s crisis was systematically manipulated by government. Fact: this decade saw drastic attempts by the government to control the housing and financial markets–via a Federal Reserve that cut interest rates to all-time lows, and via a gigantic increase in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s size and influence. Fact: through these entities, the government sought to “stimulate the economy” and promote homeownership (sound familiar?) by artificially extending cheap credit to home-buyers. Fact: most of the (very few) economists who actually predicted the financial crisis blame Fed policy or housing policy for inflating a bubble that was bound to collapse.
Read more

Next Page »