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…

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.

Supporters of Smoking Bans Are Ignoring a Crucial Danger

By Don Watkins (Santa Monica Daily Press, March 23, 2009)

Referring to my March 12 op-ed criticizing a proposal to further restrict smoking in Newport Beach, Jack Neworth accuses me of ignoring “the reason for smoking bans–the dangers of second-hand smoke.” But it’s the supporters of smoking bans who are ignoring a crucial danger: the danger of allowing the government to violate private property rights.

Is second-hand smoke obnoxious? Some of us think so–just as some of us think certain kinds of music are obnoxious. Can second-hand smoke pose certain risks? Perhaps–just as certain foods may put us in danger of developing various diseases. Property rights protect our ability to make these kinds of assessments, and thereby pursue our health and happiness. If you abhor second-hand smoke, for instance, you can refuse to allow smokers into your home or your restaurant.

But by the same token, you must recognize others’ right to allow smoking in their home or restaurant. That means if the owner of your favorite diner wants to let customers light up, you can voluntarily choose to tolerate the smoke, try to persuade the owner to change his policy, or take your business elsewhere–but you can’t force him to comply with your views. To be free to act on your own judgment, you have to leave others free to act on theirs.

While supporters of smoking bans may cheer today, they should keep in mind: there is no telling what voluntary activity a government that rejects property rights will ban tomorrow.

Britain Should Start "Easing" Government Stranglehold on the Economy

By Alex Epstein (Sunday Telegraph, March 8, 2009)

Responding to a crisis caused by the inflationary policies of central banks, the Bank of England has decided to generate still more inflation, just in a different form: “quantitative easing.” And so Britain, along with the rest of the world, continues to fight fire with petrol.

If Britain really wants to solve its financial crisis, why doesn’t it start “easing” the government stranglehold on the economy that caused this mess? What about stripping away housing restrictions that prevented supply from keeping up with demand? What about slashing the massive government spending that crowds out private ventures? What about ending the policy of propping up insolvent financial institutions, a policy that only freezes taxpayers’ capital?

And what about calling for an international free banking system and gold standard that would make a credit crisis like today’s impossible?

The Ayn Rand Institute Speaks Out on ‘Going Galt’

rvine, CA, March 18, 2009–In a recent appearance on PJTV, Yaron Brook, president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, addressed the current media sensation known as “going Galt,” in which productive individuals consider withdrawing their labor from society. The phrase is a reference to John Galt, the central character in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, and a strike that he leads against an oppressive government, and the society that supports it.

“I would encourage people not to go on strike, in that sense,” says Brook. “It’s not time to go on strike, to leave and go to Galt’s Gulch. It’s time to fight. What I would call for is a moral revolution. Let’s get rid of the morality that says ‘your moral responsibility is toward your neighbor,’ that ‘you are your brother’s keeper.’ Ayn Rand presents us with a new morality, a morality of rational self-interest. There is a lot of fight left in us, and I think it’s too early to give up on this world.”

Ayn Rand Center Launches Blog: Voices for Reason

Washington, D.C., March 17, 2009 – The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights has launched its blog, Voices for Reason. The Center’s experts post commentary every weekday on today’s most pressing issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of reason, individualism and laissez-faire capitalism.

At Voices for Reason media professionals will find unique, thoughtful and controversial commentary on current events and the state of our culture, which can be found nowhere else. The blog covers the economic crisis, environmentalism, foreign policy, free speech and property rights, and provides journalists and the general public with the principled answers Ayn Rand’s philosophy offers to today’s political, economic and cultural problems.

Experts from the Ayn Rand Center are available for print, radio and TV interviews based on the commentary they publish.

To read our most recent commentary in Voices for Reason, go to http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/. To interview our experts, e-mail Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (ARC) is a public policy research and outreach group. The Ayn Rand Center’s mission is to advance individual rights (the rights of each person to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness) as the moral basis for a fully free, laissez-faire capitalist society.

Pain of Recession Foretells Agony of Green Economy

Washington, D.C.–For the first time in 25 years, global demand for oil is expected to decline two years in a row. The decline is an effect of the global economic recession, which has dramatically reduced production and trade worldwide.
 
“This recession, with all its grim news of job loss and economic hardship, should be seen as a cautionary tale against coercive energy and climate policies,” said Keith Lockitch, fellow of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.
 
“Energy is the motive power that fuels production and trade. When economic activity slows, so does energy demand. But it goes the other way too. Imposing restrictions on the use of energy–as would occur under a system of carbon regulation–would choke off the economy’s fuel and shut down productive activity. The economic pain we’re all feeling in this recession is nothing compared to the pain we would feel if we adopt green policies that cut off fossil fuel consumption.
 
“For one thing, a recession is a temporary downturn; we can expect that once the economy picks up again, producers will increase their demand for energy toward renewed growth and prosperity. Also, nobody sets out to cause a recession. But if we voluntarily adopt green policies that force cutbacks in energy, the result would be a self-inflicted depression that would cause economic pain for as long as the policies are in place.
 
“Those who claim that we could avoid economic hardship by running a green economy on windmills and solar cells are seriously out of touch with reality. None of the so-called alternative energies that are supposedly going to power the ‘green energy revolution’ have proven themselves to be practical sources of energy. And this despite decades of research and billions of dollars in subsidies.

“Whatever you think about global warming–and there is ample evidence to reject the hysterical claim that we are facing any sort of planetary emergency–the reality is that a drastic reduction in carbon emissions means a reduction in the use of energy far greater than anything we are seeing right now, and the corresponding economic decline would make this recession seem like a party.”

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.”

Unions Tout "Free Choice," Except for Employers

Washington, D.C. – If Democrats gain control of Congress this November, they are likely to enact some version of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, which would revamp the way employees choose whether to endorse a labor union. Under current law, employees vote anonymously. But under the new scheme, they would vote with signed cards, open to union inspection, showing each employee’s name and vote.

“Even by Washington standards, this proposal is high hypocrisy,” said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “This misnamed law claims to promote free choice for employees, but where’s the freedom for employers? Companies are forced by law to recognize and bargain with any union approved by a majority of employees–no choice allowed. Why is nobody speaking up for their rights?

“In a free society, the law would recognize the absolute right of companies and employees to deal with each other on an entirely voluntary basis. That means an employer would be free to bargain with workers individually, or through a union, as the parties’ economic self-interest dictates.

“Opponents of the proposed law fear, with good reason, that unions would intimidate anti-union workers into casting pro-union votes. But such problems arise only when government grants unions special privileges. In an unregulated labor market, if union promoters resorted to intimidation, a company would boot them from the premises, just as it would any employee, vendor, or visitor who introduced threats or violence to the workplace.

“The Employee Free Choice Act, if enacted, will obviously allow unions to target employees who can be pressured into voting yes. But the proper response to this transparent scheme is not merely to reject it, but to begin repealing the various labor laws that deny free choice in bargaining.”

Mr. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on legal issues. A former lawyer and law school instructor, who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland, his op-eds have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Philadelphia Inquirer, Miami Herald, Los Angeles Daily News, and many other newspapers. Mr. Bowden has given dozens of radio interviews and has appeared on Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes.

The Real Lesson of the Great Depression

Washington, D.C. – Many of those calling for greater government control over the economy in response to the current financial crisis point to the Great Depression, arguing that it provides a clear example of the crucial need to curb the “excesses” of the free market through government intervention.

“The Great Depression does have something to teach us about the current crisis,” said Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, “but it’s not that we need more government control over the economy.

“Most people believe the Great Depression was caused by an ‘excessively’ free market–and they regard the massive expansion of government intervention under FDR as its cure. But as many economists have demonstrated, it was government intervention that caused and exacerbated the Depression–from the massive tariffs of Smoot-Hawley to a series of disastrous interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve to antibusiness measures such as the National Recovery Act.

“Few acknowledged this at the time, however. The Great Depression–a failure of government intervention–was called a failure of capitalism, and was used to justify even more government intervention. We are seeing this same process repeat itself today.

“There is overwhelming evidence that our current crisis is the result primarily of government intervention in the economy, from the Fed’s inflationary policy of keeping interest rates artificially low to the creation and regulatory coddling of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to the government’s quasi-official policy of bailing out large financial institutions deemed too big to fail. But despite such evidence, this crisis is being blamed on too little government control of markets, and is being used to justify an even greater expansion of the state’s control over financial markets.

“It’s time we learn the real lesson of the Great Depression: that instead of rushing to blame capitalism and businessmen for an economic crisis, we should work to discover its real cause–and its real cure.”

Next Page »