The FCC’s Plan to Censor the Internet

Washington, D.C. – The Federal Communications Commission is preparing to auction off a portion of the airwaves for Internet use. Under the terms of the auction, the winning bidder would be forced to use a quarter of the auctioned spectrum to provide free wireless Internet service to all Americans.

“If you think free Internet access under this plan would be a good thing, think again,” said Don Watkins, a writer for the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “This ‘free’ access comes at the price of giving government unprecedented control over the Internet.

“Since no ISP can compete with free, omnipresent Internet access, this plan means that virtually all online users will be herded into the government-controlled Internet. And as the history of radio and television has shown, once the government guarantees ‘free’ access to a communications medium, it will inevitably exercise control over its content–i.e., censorship.

“In fact, this plan already comes with censorship strings attached; the FCC has declared that this ‘free’ Internet must filter out pornography and other material deemed unsuitable for children. Not only will this prevent vast numbers of Americans from accessing content the government regards as inappropriate, but it will unavoidably lead to massive self-censorship by websites struggling to avoid government sanitization.

“The FCC should auction off these airwaves without preconditions–not use the prospect of ‘free’ wireless access to lure us into accepting an online censorship regime.”

Open the Borders, End the Housing Glut

Washington, D.C. – As the housing glut continues to send home prices spiraling downward, leaving millions of homeowners unable to unload houses they can’t afford, Washington is debating ways to address the oversupply of housing.

“This crisis was caused by government intervention into the economy, yet every proposal to fix the housing market involves more power for Washington,” said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “Instead of more government distortion of markets, we should be looking for ways to get the government off our backs. That will require us to think outside the box, so here’s one–admittedly radical–suggestion to get us started: free up immigration.

“At a time when Americans are suffering from an oversupply of housing, it is tragic that the government continues to forcibly prevent millions of peaceful people around the globe from bringing their wealth, talent, and ambition to this country.

“Imagine if the number of annual immigrants increased from around 650,000 a year to, say, five million. Virtually overnight we would see money pour into the American real estate market, as millions of new businessmen and workers bought and rented homes. Not only would this eliminate the oversupply of houses, we would enjoy the broader, long-term economic benefits of welcoming legions of highly skilled and motivated individuals into the American economy.”

Since When Does America Allow Czars?

Washington, D.C. – “Our Founding Fathers must be turning over in their graves hearing Americans, of all people, discussing the need for a ‘car czar’ and an ‘energy czar,’” said Alex Epstein, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

“The whole purpose of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was to liberate individuals from czars, kings, and other dictators who violate individual rights and kill progress by shackling everyone to their ‘vision’ of how others should act.

“The new advocates of czarism claim that freedom has failed, and so we need some economic strongman to order everyone into line. But in fact, the energy and auto industries are suffering because they have been the victims of central planning and regulatory strangulation for decades. The solution to our problems is not to centralize government intervention from many czars to a few, but to remove it altogether. We must de-socialize the electric grids, liberate nuclear power, end bankrupting fuel economy mandates, and remove the many other government interventions that destroy freedom and progress.

“What we need is not a new set of czars, but freedom.”

The High Cost of Washington’s Price Manipulation Policy

By Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

For decades Washington has been manipulating prices to encourage homeownership and “steer” the economy. To “incentivize” you to buy a house, it made mortgage payments tax deductible, largely exempted homes from capital gains taxes, and created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After the stock market tumbled in 2001 and 2002, Washington established a policy of artificially low interest rates that created the illusion of cheap credit; leery of the stock market, and looking for someplace else to put all this easy money, Americans began buying homes in droves.

But eventually the drug-induced high of artificial credit wore off, and out-of-whack housing prices plummeted, sparking the financial crisis. What was Washington’s response? It ramped up its price manipulation policy, injecting us with a new round of “easy money” amphetamine:  Bush doled out “stimulus” checks, the Treasury began funneling billions into banks, and the Fed started frantically slashing interest rates. And, we are told, this is only the beginning. A new dose of bailouts, interest rate cuts, and “stimulus” giveaways is just around the corner.

Maybe it’s time for a new approach. How about we start thinking of ways to address this crisis by getting the government out of the business of price manipulation–and let prices, from home values to interest rates, be determined by people’s free choices and the law of supply and demand?

This will require some unconventional thinking–and here’s a suggestion to get us started: free up the housing market by freeing up immigration. That’s bound to be controversial, but indulge us for a moment.

Right now the housing market is in disarray. Too many homes built for our current population has sent prices spiraling downward, and millions of homeowners, stuck with mortgages they can’t afford and houses they can’t unload, are facing foreclosure. Meanwhile, there are millions of peaceful people around the globe eager to bring their wealth, talent, and ambition to this country, but can’t because Washington forcibly prevents them from immigrating.

This government-enforced cap on the number of potential home-buyers is just another instance of price manipulation. Imagine if the number of annual immigrants increased from around 650,000 a year to, say, five million. Virtually overnight we would see money pour into the American real estate market, as millions of new businessmen and workers bought and rented homes. Not only would this eliminate the oversupply of houses, we would enjoy the broader economic benefits of welcoming legions of highly skilled and motivated individuals into the American economy.

You might be thinking, “Won’t this lead to lower wages or unemployment at a time when we can least afford it?” The history of this country attests to the fact that, in the long run, immigration fosters economic growth. Even in the short run, however, the effect on wages and employment is an open question–it depends on how much capital and entrepreneurial acumen the new immigrants bring and create.

There are many other simple measures we could take to roll back the government’s manipulation of prices. For instance, we could eliminate restrictions on bank ownership, which coercively limit how much capital banks can raise.

Besides such quick, immediate steps to end government price distortions, we need a long-term strategy to eliminate all government policies that manipulate prices. We need to eliminate the countless regulatory shackles on financial institutions, which distort market forces and encourage reckless actions. We need to put an end to the government’s crusade to encourage homeownership through Fannie and Freddie, the Community Reinvestment Act, tax code manipulation, and many other avenues. Above all, we need to end the government’s ability to set interest rates and create inflationary booms–and their inevitable busts–by phasing out the Federal Reserve and allowing the United States to return to a gold standard.

These would be radical reforms, to be sure–but that’s because the government has been radically expanding its price manipulation policies for the better part of a century. We’re seeing where that path leads. It’s time to start moving in a new direction.

Yaron Brook is the president of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Don Watkins is a writer at the Ayn Rand Center. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

Save the Big Three, Kill the U.S. Auto Market

Washington, D.C.– Advocates of a bailout for the Big Three claim that if we allow these giants to fail, it will destroy the U.S. auto industry. “In fact,” said Alex Epstein, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, “it is the bailout, a veritable marriage between Detroit and Washington, that will destroy the U.S. auto industry.

“The Big Three have no right to demand that taxpayers risk money on them when private investors won’t. They do, however, have a right to demand the repeal of the policies that have helped destroy the auto industry. These include the labor laws that have forced them to acquiesce to economically catastrophic UAW demands, and fuel economy laws that have forced them to produce small cars that they can’t profit from given their labor costs. Indeed, the Big Three should have done this long ago–so that they would have been free to produce desirable cars at a profit in America, just as they do in scores of countries around the world.

“But instead of demanding their freedom and making a case to the market, the automakers are surrendering even more of their freedom to the government in exchange for taxpayer money. They have met Congress’s demand to commit to producing more small cars–even though it is small cars that have bankrupted the companies in the first place.

“By seeking handouts, not freedom, the auto industry is helping to destroy any remnant of a genuine auto market. In a real market, free companies would make money by producing the cars that free individuals judge best. In the new pseudo market, companies will make money by collecting taxpayer dollars in exchange for making whatever cars Washington tells them to. If this is what it means to save the U.S. auto industry, then the industry should die, and then real, freedom-seeking, profit-making companies might emerge.”

The Left and the Right vs. Free Speech

Washington, D.C.–Calling for a return of the Fairness Doctrine, Senator Chuck Schumer noted that some of the same people who oppose such “equal time” mandates support restrictions on broadcasting they deem offensive. According to Don Watkins, a writer for the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, “Schumer’s comments highlight an ominous fact: that both the left and the right are opponents of free speech.

“Conservatives have long supported the FCC’s war on so-called indecency, arguing that broadcasters should not have the right to engage in ‘offensive’ speech. The liberals, meanwhile, have been eagerly trying to resurrect the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which would allow the government to dictate which ideas deserve how much airtime, and lead many radio stations to avoid discussing controversial issues altogether.

“In fact, this is a disagreement without a difference: both sides endorse the principle that the government should be dictating what Americans can and can’t say–they just want to use the censor’s pen to support their own political agendas.

“Whoever values free speech should oppose government regulation of the airwaves. Freedom of speech is the freedom of every American to say whatever he wants, regardless of how offensive others find it, through any medium he can rightfully access. There seem to be no such defenders among liberals or conservatives–and that is truly offensive.”

Stop Blaming Capitalism for Government Failures

By Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

Speaking of the financial crisis, French president Nicolas Sarkozy recently said, “Laissez-faire is finished. The all-powerful market that always knows best is finished.”

Sarkozy was echoing the views of many, including president-elect Obama, who assume that the financial crisis was caused by free markets–by “unbridled greed” unleashed by decades of deregulation and a “hands off” approach to the economy. And given this premise, the solution, they say, is obvious. To solve this crisis and prevent another one, we need a heavy dose of Uncle Sam’s elixir: government intervention. Whether it’s more bailouts, stricter regulation, a new round of nationalizations, or some other scheme, the only question since day one has been how, not whether, government is going to intervene.
Read more

National Surveys Show Atlas Shrugged Is Widely Read

Washington, D.C. — For the second year in a row, a question included in a Zogby International omnibus telephone survey of American adults indicated that 8.1 percent of respondents have read Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged. The surveys conducted in October 2007 and again in October 2008 indicated that more than 17 percent of U.S. college graduates have read the novel. That is a remarkable number for a serious, intellectual novel of more than 1100 pages whose theme is the role of the mind in man’s existence.

Read more

Let Them Fail

By Amit Ghate

Everywhere today politicians are blaring that they must save America’s financial institutions, alleging catastrophic risk to the economy were any to fail. Paulson and the entire Bush administration, in a discernible panic, are now pouring $700 billion into the big banks, having already bailed out AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns to the tune of $300 billion.

Capitalism doesn’t work, they declare, but fortunately the government is here to rescue us.

Sadly, they have it all backwards. The credit crisis is just more evidence that whenever the government supplants the free market and attempts to “manage,” i.e., control, the economy–disaster ensues.
Read more

End the FCC’s War on Free Speech

Washington, D.C.–On November 4 the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations. At issue is whether the FCC can declare “fleeting expletives” indecent and fine broadcasters for violations.

“The government should put an end to the non-objective ‘indecency’ laws that permit the FCC to dictate what Americans can say and hear on the airwaves,” said Don Watkins, a writer for the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.
Read more

« Previous Page — Next Page »