Principles in Practice

The Berlin Wall and the Meaning of its Fall

2009-11-10T14:03:00.000-05:00

Here’s a superb 2-part discussion by Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate about the history of the Berlin Wall and the significance of its fall.

The Day Communism Crumbled: Remembering the Fall of the Berlin Wall

2009-11-09T15:21:00.001-05:00

Here’s a great discussion with Yaron Brook and Terry Jones on PJTV about the fall of the Berlin Wall. (Free registration may be required.)

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=2681

20th Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall

2009-11-09T14:37:00.001-05:00

Here’s a nicely done video by the folks at CEI commemorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall (HT Michelle Minton):

The Best Option For The Public

2009-11-06T15:42:00.000-05:00

In the November 4, 2009 Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby outlines the best option for the public. (Hint -- it's not the "public option".)

From his article, "An option for public: less government, more choice":

A government-run health insurer would radically tilt the health-insurance playing field. It would amount to a new entitlement program, able to undercut the price of private insurance by squeezing hospitals and doctors, reimbursing them at below-market rates. "Just like Medicaid and Medicare," which also underpay medical providers, the public option would force hospitals and doctors to charge private insurers more. Insurers would be compelled to raise their premiums, eventually losing millions of customers to the government plan.

Obama insists that any public option would have to be self-supporting, properly balancing its premiums and risk and not expecting the government to cover its losses. Sound familiar? The same assurances were made about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Instead, he recommends the following free-market reforms:

* Tear down the barriers to buying insurance across state lines
* Repeal mandatory benefits that make health insurance needlessly expensive
* De-link health insurance from employment

(Read the full text of "An option for public: less government, more choice".)

These are all excellent ideas. Let's hope our politicians are listening!

Reposted from We Stand FIRM

Praying Won't Make It So

2009-11-05T13:03:00.002-05:00

I'm a second-year student in the Objectivist Academic Center, and the class is currently working through the difference between the metaphysically given (such as the law of gravity) and the man-made (such as traffic laws). The man-made is the result of choice, and as such is subject to praise or criticism. The metaphysically given simply is what it is, and all the whining, crying, and pleading we do will not change it. Neither will praying.

What's this got to do with health? According to the Los Angeles Times, religious Congressmen have slipped into the healthcare "reform" proposal a provision that insurers be required to pay for "religious and spiritual healthcare," including "prayer treatments" offered by Christian Scientists.

If an individual believes he can deny the metaphysically given, that by praying or paying someone else to pray for him, he can kill the cancer cells growing in his body, or heal a broken bone, that is his problem. He should be left to his own devices. He can go ahead and waste his money on "treatments" that do nothing—that can do nothing. As long as he spends his own money or money given to him voluntarily, he violates no one else's rights, and he will be the only victim of his own poor decision.

But this law would force insurers to act against their own judgment, so that some individuals can indulge their fantasies that their own wishes and prayers can change nature. Any insurer willing to examine the facts of reality—and it had better examine them, if it wants to stay in business— would eliminate coverage of such "treatments," knowing that they would never produce any value in return for the money paid for them. The "religious and spiritual healthcare" provision would force insurers to act against their rational judgment and pay for these services, and it would force those of us who know the difference between the metaphysically given and the man-made to pay for them, since insurers would have to distribute the cost of "prayer treatments" across all customers.

It doesn't seem like a big issue—after all, "prayer treatments" cost an awful lot less than MRIs. But it's an illustrative one. There is no benefit—not "prayer treatments," not in vitro fertilization, not autism therapy, not even heart transplants—that justifies the violation of the rights of insurers to offer coverage on whatever terms they choose, nor the violation of the rights of consumers to purchase the coverage that best suits their personal needs. And that's why a mandate is so evil—it turns decision-making about insurance from a voluntary exchange between insurer and insured into a dictate from bureaucrats and whatever special interest of the month is calling. That insurance mandates are evil is something all the prayer in the world won't change.

Reposted from ReasonPharm

'Atlas Shrugged' Survey Delivers Surprising Results

2009-11-04T18:14:00.002-05:00

A recent Zogby national online survey indicates that 24.8 percent of the 2,232 respondents have read Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”

When asked why they chose to read “Atlas Shrugged,” 37.6 percent of respondents in the online survey said it was recommended by a friend or colleague, 18.4 percent had it assigned or recommended in school, 9.9 percent read or heard about it in a print/Internet article or radio/TV program, 8.4 percent saw it in a library, and 1.9 percent noticed it in a bookstore.

The survey also indicated that 19.8 percent of respondents have read Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead,” 6.9 percent “Anthem,” 4 percent “We the Living,” and 3 percent “The Virtue of Selfishness.”

In the past two years, national telephone surveys of about 1,100 people have indicated that 8.1 percent of respondents had read “Atlas Shrugged.” The latest online survey was randomly drawn from a pool of several hundred thousand people while the telephone surveys were drawn at random from larger lists of people who own telephones.

Debate: 'Is Government Intervention in the Free Market Moral?'

2009-11-02T01:15:00.000-05:00

This Wednesday, November 4, I will debate UNC Adjunct Professor of Economics Ralph Byrns on the question: "Is Government Intervention in the Free Market Moral?"

When: Wednesday, November 4, 7:00 PM

Where: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Murphey 116

Website: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=178947119387&ref=ts

Audio Article: 'Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet'

2009-10-21T16:43:00.000-04:00

We have posted an MP3 audio version of Raymond C. Niles’s timely article “Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet.” This audio article is accessible for free and can be played directly on our website or downloaded to your MP3 player. This is the first of many audio articles to come. Over the next few weeks, we will be posting audio versions of several articles from past issues, and we are considering the possibility of offering audio versions of all future TOS articles.

I hope you enjoy this first one. Let us know what you think.

Explore Atlas Shrugged

2009-10-11T12:05:00.001-04:00

Diana Hsieh, of NoodleFood and Rationally Selfish Radio fame, has created a new website dedicated to Exploring Atlas Shrugged. The purpose of the site is to help readers deepen their understanding of Ayn Rand’s epic novel and to provide a resource for those interested in creating Atlas Shrugged reading groups. Diana has divided the novel into 20 parts, each covering about 65 pages, and for each part she plans to post a podcast along with discussion questions. Session 1, in which she discusses chapters 1–3, has been posted and is superb. I expect the next 19 sessions will be as well. Listen and see.

Net Neutrality Means an Unfree, Slow, and 'Stupid' Internet

2009-10-08T11:44:00.001-04:00

The chairman of the FCC recently called for applying “net neutrality” to the wireless spectrum. Such a measure would dramatically extend the reach of proposed “net neutrality” rules, which were originally slated to govern the delivery of Internet content via wire—cable and DSL lines—but not via wireless signals. The expanded rules would govern the delivery of Internet content to cell phones, iPhones, Kindles, and other wireless devices. The advocates of net neutrality claim they are seeking to preserve a “free” and “open” Internet and to prohibit the “unfair” policies of Internet service providers that favor some content over others. According to them, to preserve this openness and freedom, the FCC must be granted vastly greater powers to coercively determine the business practices of Internet service providers.

That claim, however, is a sham.

An “open” and “free” Internet cannot be achieved by means of further FCC regulations. Extending FCC controls to the wireless spectrum would not “open” anything or free anyone; rather it would further violate the rights of Americans to produce and trade according to their own judgment and thus thwart this vital new realm of life-serving technology. It would unleash a torrent of government control over every aspect of the Internet, granting the government power to dictate how content is to be delivered and at what price, making it less profitable for Internet service providers to invest in costly infrastructure, and thereby quashing their incentive to innovate.

To the extent that “net neutrality” is implemented, the result will be a slower, less robust Internet—a “stupid” Internet, as one of the chief advocates of this pernicious idea aptly describes it. For an elaboration on how “net neutrality” violates the rights of Internet service providers and users alike, and why it is a bad idea for the wired Internet and by implication the wireless spectrum, read my article “Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet.”

John David Lewis on 'The Big Biz Show'

2009-10-07T13:30:00.000-04:00

John David Lewis will be on “The Big Biz Show” with Bob “Sully” Sullivan & Russ “T” Nailz, Wed, Oct 7 at 2:40 p.m. Pacific Time. The show can be heard live online from 1 to 3 p.m. Pacific Time at www.businesstalkradio.net (click on “Listen Live”).

The Fall issue of TOS has been Posted and Mailed

2009-10-01T16:11:00.002-04:00

The print edition of the Fall issue has been mailed, and the online version has been posted to our website. (Due to production difficulties, the print edition was mailed a few days late. I apologize for the delay.) The contents of the Fall issue are:

From the Editor

Letters and Replies

ARTICLES
Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda
by John David Lewis

America’s Self-Crippled Foreign Policy: An Interview with Yaron Brook, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein

An Unwinnable War?
by Elan Journo

The Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty
by Craig Biddle

The Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here
by Michael Dahlen

How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability
by Paul Hsieh

How Morality is Grounded in Reality
by Craig Biddle

BOOKS REVIEWED
Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz
Reviewed by Dina Schein Federman

The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl

Fred Astaire by Joseph Epstein
Reviewed by Scott Holleran

The Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants by Jane S. Smith
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl

If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, there is no time like now. You can subscribe online or by calling 800-423-6151.

Raymond C. Niles on 'The Big Biz Show'

2009-09-30T07:35:00.000-04:00

Ray Niles will be on “The Big Biz Show” with Bob “Sully” Sullivan & Russ “T” Nailz, discussing his article “Property Rights and the Crisis of the Electric Grid,” on Wednesday, Sept 30, at 2:40 p.m. Pacific Time. The show can be heard live online from 1 to 3 p.m. Pacific Time at www.businesstalkradio.net (click on “Listen Live”).

John David Lewis on 'The Big Biz Show'

2009-09-29T19:35:00.001-04:00

John David Lewis will be on “The Big Biz Show” with Bob “Sully” Sullivan & Russ “T” Nailz, on Wednesday, October 7, at 2:40 p.m. Pacific Time. The show can be heard live online from 1 to 3 p.m. Pacific Time at www.businesstalkradio.net (click on “Listen Live”).

Rationally Selfish Radio with Dr. Diana Hsieh

2009-09-27T13:08:00.001-04:00

I’d like to recommend a new podcast program called Rationally Selfish Radio, hosted by Dr. Diana Hsieh. Dr. Hsieh posts two podcasts per week, discussing a broad spectrum of topics—from how an introvert can meet people, to the conditions under which a person can morally accept an inheritance, to the essential factors in choosing a career, to the nature and status of cosmological arguments for the existence of God. She has also interviewed me (on the subject of sacrifice vs. liberty) and plans to interview other writers and intellectuals in the future.

In the nine episodes to date, Dr. Hsieh has consistently zeroed in on the principles pertaining to the subjects at hand; she has applied them with precision and with clarifying examples; and she has done so in an entertaining and easy-to-follow manner. (Don’t be thrown by her slow talking in episode #1; she picks it up in subsequent shows.) I highly recommend Rationally Selfish Radio to anyone interested in the application of sound philosophy to good living. Click on, tune in, live well!

John David Lewis on Scoreboard

2009-09-18T16:23:00.001-04:00

On Thursday, September 24, at 7:00 PM (EST) Dr. Lewis will appear on Scoreboard with David Asman (Fox Business News) to discuss why there is no ‘right’ to health care.

The Fall Issue of TOS

2009-09-14T15:54:00.001-04:00

The print edition of the Fall issue is at press and will be mailed shortly; the online version will be accessible to subscribers beginning September 20. For promotional purposes, we are making both John David Lewis’s article “Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda” and Paul Hsieh’s article “How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability” available on our website early and for free.

The contents of the Fall issue are:

From the Editor

Letters and Replies

ARTICLES
Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda
by John David Lewis

America’s Self-Crippled Foreign Policy: An Interview with Yaron Brook, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein

An Unwinnable War?
by Elan Journo

The Creed of Sacrifice vs. The Land of Liberty
by Craig Biddle

The Rise of American Big Government: A Brief History of How We Got Here
by Michael Dahlen

How the Freedom to Contract Protects Insurability
by Paul Hsieh

How Morality is Grounded in Reality
by Craig Biddle

BOOKS REVIEWED
Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz
Reviewed by Dina Schein Federman

The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl

Fred Astaire by Joseph Epstein
Reviewed by Scott Holleran

The Garden of Invention: Luther Burbank and the Business of Breeding Plants by Jane S. Smith
Reviewed by Daniel Wahl

If you have not yet subscribed to TOS, why not subscribe today? You can do so online or by calling 800-423-6151.

Our Self-Crippled Warby Elan Journo

2009-09-11T17:12:00.000-04:00

Watching video of the Twin Towers imploding, we all felt horror and outrage. We expected our government to fight back—to protect us from the enemy that attacked us on 9/11. We knew it must, and could, be done. Fighting all-out after Pearl Harbor, we had defeated the colossal naval and air forces of Japan. But eight years later—twice as long as it took to smash Japanese imperialism—what has Washington’s military response to 9/11 achieved?

The enemy that struck us—properly identified not as “terrorism” but rather the jihadist movement seeking to impose Islamic law worldwide—is not merely undefeated, but resurgent.

Islamist factions in Pakistan fight to conquer that country and seize its nuclear weapons. The movement’s inspiration and standard-bearer, the Islamic Republic of Iran, remains the leading sponsor of terrorism, and may soon acquire its own nuclear weapons.

Then there’s the Afghanistan debacle. Eight years ago, practically everyone agreed we must (and could) eliminate the Taliban and its jihadist allies—a primitively equipped force thousands of times less powerful than Imperial Japan. Now that goal seems unreachable.

Today swaggering holy warriors control large areas of the country. They summarily execute anyone deemed un-Islamic, and operate a shadow government with its own religious law courts and “virtue” enforcers. Last year the CIA warned that virtually every major terrorist threat the agency was aware of threaded back to the tribal areas near the Taliban-infested Afghan-Pakistan border.

Why have we been so unsuccessful?

No, the problem is not a shortage of troops, nor is the remedy another Iraq-like “surge.” That sham, appeasing solution entails not quelling the insurgency, but paying tens of thousands of dollars to insurgents not to fight us, for as long as the money flows. And it means leaving Iraq in the hands of leaders far more committed to jihadists than Hussein. No, the crucial problem is the inverted war policy governing U.S. forces on the battlefield.

Defeating the Islamist threat demanded that we fight to crush the jihadists. Victory demanded we recognize the unwelcome necessity of civilian casualties and place blame for them at the hands of the aggressor (as we were more willing to do in World War II). Victory demanded allowing our unmatched military to do its job--without qualification. Instead, our leaders waged a “compassionate” war.

Before the Afghan war began, Washington defined lengthy “no-strike” lists including cultural sites, electrical plants--a host of legitimate strategic targets ruled untouchable—for fear of affronting or harming civilians. Meanwhile, we sent C-17 cargo planes to drop 500,000-odd Islam-compliant food packets to feed starving Afghans and, inevitably, jihadists.

Many Islamists survived, regrouped and staged a fierce comeback.

The no-strike lists lengthened. So, necessary bombing raids are now often canceled, sacrificing the opportunity to kill Islamist fighters. Jihadists exploit this to their advantage. Lt. Gen. Gary L. North tried to justify the policy to a reporter: “Eventually, we will get to the point where we can achieve—within the constraints of which we operate, which by the way the enemy does not operate under—and we will get them.”

“Eventually”—for another eight years?

In Washington’s “compassionate” war, we give the enemy every advantage--and then compel our soldiers to fight with their hands tied . . . ever tighter.

Naturally, U.S. deaths have soared. More Americans died in the first eight months of this year (182) than in all of last year--the bloodiest year of the war, up till now.

If Afghanistan now seems unwinnable, blame Bush and Obama. Bush crusaded not to destroy the Taliban but to bring Afghans elections and reconstruction. Obama’s “new” tack is to insist we spend billions more on nation-building and bend over backwards to safeguard the local population. Both take for granted the allegedly moral imperative of putting the lives and welfare of Afghans first--ahead of defeating the enemy to protect Americans.

This imperative lies behind Washington’s self-crippled war—a war which could have worked to deter other jihadists and their state-sponsors, but instead encourages them to attempt further attacks.

How many more Americans must die before we challenge this conception of a proper war?

Four Important Articles for this God-Awful Date

2009-09-11T10:17:00.001-04:00

“End States Who Sponsor Terrorism” by Leonard Peikoff

“Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein

The “Forward Strategy” for Failure by Yaron Brook and Elan Journo

“No Substitute for Victory”: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism by John David Lewis

Yaron Brook Interviewed by Larry Greenfield

2009-09-03T12:10:00.001-04:00

Here is part one of a four-part interview with Yaron Brook, conducted by Larry Greenfield of The Claremont Institute.

John David Lewis Interviewed on KOGO, August 31

2009-08-31T19:37:00.000-04:00

Monday August 31, at 7:30 p.m. PST (10:30 EST) John David Lewis will be on KOGO radio (San Diego) discussing why Obama has ignited nationwide protests. The show can be heard online at www.kogo.com (click “Listen Live”).

The Dire Message of Mr. David Walker

2009-08-28T15:13:00.001-04:00

A person who is in the pay of the government is not always free to speak publicly about the most pressing issues he confronts. Administrators who are appointed to perform specific tasks are generally not free to contradict or even to challenge policies. They often cannot advocate for specific proposals, even if they think that such proposals will be needed to prevent catastrophe.

When Dr. Alan Carlin, a federal Environmental Protection Agency official, wrote a report in March, 2009 that criticized the EPA’s process of formulating regulations, the report was squashed both internally and publicly. Emails from EPA officials state that “a very negative impact on our office” made use of the report impossible. To protect the bureaucracy, Dr. Carlin was told to cease his criticisms.

Such officials must often make a choice: to remain silent and keep their jobs, or to resign and speak the truth. Faced with this dilemma, on March 12, 2008, David Walker chose to resign.

David Walker is the former Comptroller General of the United States, and former head of the Government Accountability Office. As the nation’s chief accountant he was appointed by President Clinton. He resigned near the end of George W. Bush’s second term. He had no authority to decide how a single penny of government funds should be collected or distributed. His job was to count those funds.

Mr. Walker’s enormous range of mind extends far beyond a single budget year. His long-range perspective allows him to project fiscal trends decades into the future, and to assess, through simulations, the impacts of policy decisions beyond their immediate effects. He truly understands the economic maxim, promoted by Henry Hazlitt, to look beyond the visible effects of any given policy and to consider its unseen consequences.

When Walker plotted these trends, and considered demographics among many other factors, what he found was “chilling.” If fundamental reforms are not begun now, he concluded, the United States will experience a financial and political collapse comparable to the fall of Rome.

In a presentation to the National Press Foundation, January 17, 2008, Mr. Walker brought forth the following facts and projections:

From 1966 to 2006, the percentage of federal funds spent on Medicare rose from 1% to 19%. This trend will grow exponentially as millions of “baby boomers” enter the entitlement pool.
For the same period, spending for mandated government commitments rose from 26% to 53% of the total budget. The budget is increasingly out of the control of government officials.
As of 2007, Medicare is running in arrears. In 2017 Social Security will be in deficit. By the year 2040, Medicare and Social Security alone will be running annual deficits of nearly 900 billion dollars.
Medicare spending from now until 2032 will be 235% of economic growth. By 2040, Medicare will be spending about 10% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product annually, and the annual deficits of the United States will total some 20% of the total Gross Domestic Product.

The bottom line is this: mandated fiscal entitlements, projected into the future, are over 52,000 billion dollars. That will equal 90% of all household wealth in the U.S., and will place a burden of over 450 thousand dollars on every household in the land. This is almost ten times the present median household income level.

Mr. Walker concludes that “We face large and growing structural deficits largely due to known demographic trends and rising health care costs.” Further, “GAO’s simulations show that balancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as cutting total federal spending by 60 percent, or raising federal taxes to two times today's level.”

To close the revenue gap through growth, the United States economy would need to expand in the double-digit range for the next seventy-five years. During the boom years of the 1990s, the economy grew at an average rate of 3.2%. Walker concludes, succinctly: “we cannot simply grow our way out of this problem.”

Health care entitlements constitute by far the largest single piece of this economic disaster. Those who think that creating thousands of billions of dollars in new government entitlements—in a health care bill that adds tens of millions of Americans to government programs—will do anything except hasten the coming bankruptcy are out of touch with reality.

Mr. Walker has taken his show on the road, in an attempt to educate Americans about the financial disaster they are creating. He was accompanied by both the Brookings Institute on the left, and the Heritage Foundation on the right. He stresses that this coming financial meltdown is known by everyone in Washington--but no one wants to acknowledge it.

The Rasmussen poll shows that almost twice as many Americans think that cutting the deficit, rather than health care reform, should be the president’s top priority. Another poll shows that twice as many people think that the reform legislation will drive up costs than think it will lower costs. Perhaps these Americans grasp Mr. Walker’s point better than their elected representatives do.

A nation that violates the rights of its citizens cannot, in the long run, escape the consequences of its moral failure. When a nation with the unique strength of the United States does so systematically and over decades, the results must necessarily be catastrophic. The dire economic forecast of David Walker illustrates the connection between the moral and the practical. To regain our economic viability we must regain our moral viability.

Virtual Objectivist Club

2009-08-26T00:49:00.002-04:00

Here’s a note from Keith Schacht, who is involved in the start up of a new organization called the Virtual Objectivist Club (OCN).

I helped start the Objectivist Club Network (OCN), an organization dedicated to helping all Objectivist Campus Clubs. OCN is not affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute, although we support them and regularly communicate with them to ensure our respective organizations are not duplicating efforts.

Recently we've expanded our efforts to solve a new problem: there are students interested in joining an Objectivist club where no club exists. Some of these students start their own club, but others don't have time to start a club or do not find enough participants on campus to form a club.

We've created the Virtual Objectivist Club (VOC) for these students -- a phone-based discussion group dedicated to the study of Objectivism. Meetings will be weekly, beginning this September, each moderated by an experienced Objectivist. The group is open to any current students who would like to learn more about Objectivism.

My request: Please help spread the word to any students you know who may be interested in learning more about Objectivism. The deadline for applying to the VOC is August 31st. Students can learn more and apply at: http://www.oclubs.org/voc

Please let me know if you have any questions and we greatly appreciate you sharing this with others!
Keith & the OCN Team

Activism with TOS

2009-08-22T13:05:00.002-04:00

American culture is at a critical juncture. Over the next few years, the country will move substantially toward either further violations of individual rights or better protection of individual rights. So I’d like to offer a few suggestions about how you can employ The Objective Standard in the fight for the latter alternative.

TOS, now in its fourth year of publication, is written consistently from an Objectivist perspective, which means it goes consistently to fundamentals, anchoring political arguments in the principle of individual rights and the morality of rational egoism. And TOS stands alone in this regard. No other periodical publishes essays such as “Altruism: The Moral Root of the Financial Crisis” by Richard M. Salsman, “Reason or Faith: The Republican Alternative” by John David Lewis, “The Menace of Pragmatism” by Tara Smith, “Energy at the Speed of Thought: The Original Alternative Energy Market” by Alex Epstein, “Deeper Than Kelo: The Roots of the Property Rights Crisis” by Eric Daniels, “Moral Health Care vs. ‘Universal Health Care’” by Lin Zinser and Paul Hsieh, or “The Morality of Moneylending: A Short History” by Yaron Brook.

Importantly, however, articles in TOS presuppose no familiarity with Objectivism; they are written entirely in layman’s terms and are thus accessible to active-minded people in general. This makes TOS a crucial tool for spreading the ideas on which a culture of reason and the politics of freedom depend. The articles are easy to read, easy to comprehend, and anchored in sound philosophic principles. Such articles change minds.

But few people know that TOS exists, and our articles cannot change minds if they are not read. Here is where you can make all the difference. The following are three key ways in which you can help TOS reach a wider audience:

Let your university, alma mater, or local librarian know about the journal.
TOS is now indexed and abstracted in Columbia International Affairs Online (CIAO), Public Affairs Information Services (PAIS), and Political Science Complete (PSC). Periodicals covered by these indices are more appealing to libraries, so now is a good time to try (or retry) persuading your university, alma mater, or local librarian to subscribe. To inform a librarian about the existence and nature of TOS, please print and hand (or mail or email) him our Library Recommendation Letter, which can be found here.
Purchase PDFs of TOS articles, and distribute them far and wide.
TOS articles are now available in Portable Document Format (PDF) for $4.95 ea. For activism purposes, once you purchase a TOS article in PDF, you are welcome (and encouraged) to email or print and distribute it to as many people as you see fit—friends, relatives, colleagues, politicians, pundits, talk show hosts—anyone who might be moved by rational ideas and logical arguments. The more the merrier! We ask only that you not resell the article nor post it on the internet. PDFs of articles can be purchased here.
Give the journal as a gift.
Nothing changes minds more effectively than a steady stream of clearly written, easy-to-read articles that address current events and cultural issues from a rational, principled perspective. Gift subscriptions can be purchased for individuals or institutions (libraries, doctors’ offices, corporations, etc.), and although institutions themselves pay a higher subscription rate, gifts to institutions are sold at the regular (i.e., individual) rate. Gift subscriptions can also be purchased in packages of 5 at a discount of 15% (the “Standard-Bearer”). For more information or to purchase a gift subscription, click here.

People are looking for answers to today’s cultural and political problems. TOS articles provide principled answers in plain English on a regular basis. Please help us distribute these articles to a wider audience.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Craig Biddle, Editor
The Objective Standard

John David Lewis on the Bill LuMaye Show August 27

2009-08-22T01:03:00.001-04:00

Thursday, August 27, at 4:00 p.m. (EST), John David Lewis will be interviewed again on the Bill LuMaye Show (WPTF, Raleigh, NC) elaborating why there is no right to health care. The show can be heard online at www.wptf.com (click on “Listen Live”).