A federal judge in California ruled that an antitrust class action suit is fre to proceed against Apple and AT&T for making an agreement to sell only locked phones. There is nothing that should be illegal in the deal. It doesn't hurt competition or drive up prices. On the contrary, this is competition, writes Thomas Bowden in TheStreet.
Excerpts:
"In California, a federal judge has ruled that an antitrust class action suit can proceed against Apple(AAPL) and AT&T(T). What have those companies done to warrant being hauled into court? Basically, they agreed to sell only "locked" iPhones. A locked phone is one that works only on a specific mobile network -- in this case, AT&T's network."
"Apple and AT&T decide to make money by working together. Although details of their deal aren't public, it's clear that AT&T saw an opportunity to increase its subscriber base by becoming the only retailer of iPhones. Apple, for its part, looked forward to receiving payments from AT&T based on a percentage of every iPhone subscriber's monthly bill. Was this collaboration a good idea? You be the judge: consumers have bought 50 million iPhones in three years."
"Let's pause at this point to remind ourselves that the Apple-AT&T agreement does not interfere with anyone else's smartphones or networks. "
"So far, does this sound like conduct that should be illegal?"
""Hurt competition?" This is competition. Apple and AT&T are competing with other makers of smartphones and with other mobile networks -- and those other makers and networks are competing right back. In a free market, everyone else in the universe is at liberty to enter the market and offer a product that is better, cheaper, or both. No competitor can forcibly prevent another's efforts."
""Drove up prices for consumers?" There was no price for an iPhone before Apple created and sold it. There was no price for an AT&T iPhone subscription until AT&T offered it. Those prices were not "driven up" from some arbitrary level that the plaintiffs would have wished to see. The prices were set by the owners of the goods and services being sold. Consumers were free to buy or to wait for some competitor to offer an equally attractive, unlocked phone."
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Atlas Meet in Delhi - Watch Ayn Rand's "We The Living" on DVD
The next monthly Atlas Meet in Delhi will take place on Friday, 23 July, 2010. The sequence of Atlas Meets in Delhi have completed one full year. To mark this anniversary, we have a very special treat: the screening of the movie version of Ayn Rand's debut novel "We The Living" on DVD (courtesy Rajendra Lakhotia).
This movie has a checkered history - it was made in Italy during World War II, without Ayn Rand's knowledge or permission and was based on an unauthorized Italian translation of the novel. Surprisingly, it has some stellar performances by Alida Valli and Rossano Brazzi and was a cult hit in Italy at the time of its release.
Decades later, Duncan Scott helped restore the film and re-edit it for release under Ayn Rand's guidance. The result is a stunning recreation of the novel that brings alive each of the characters and moves you to tears!
Since the film is unusually long at nearly three hours, we will watch only the first half on Friday. The viewing will be followed by discussions, and sharing of ideas, on the terrace over snacks and tea.
Date
23rd July 2010
Time
5.30 pm - 7.45 pm
The Agenda
Session I (Savor and Study)
5.30 pm - 7.00 pm: Watch the first half of the DVD of "We The Living"
7.00 pm - 7.15 pm: Tea and snacks break.
Session II (Spread and Sustain)
7.15 pm - 7.45 pm: Discussions on the movie and a broad range of topics, including ways to spread Ayn Rand's ideas
The Venue
inlingua International School of Languages,
N-12, first floor,
South Extension - Part I
It is an open meeting - anyone interested in Ayn Rand's ideas is welcome. You may call Vikram on 9810028900 for directions. If you're planning to attend, it would be helpful if you let us know by leaving a comment below or by sending an email to vbajaj@aynrand.in .
Socialism Is Tyranny
The Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn a writ petition challenging the insertion of the word “Socialism” in Indian Constitution. According to the constitution, every Indian political party should swear allegiance to Socialism. The court said that it will consider the petition when the situation comes. Earlier the application of Swatantra party was rejected because it failed to do so.
No one can claim ignorance of the consequences of Socialism, theoretically or practically. There were warnings against socialism, even in works written in the first half of the Nineteenth century (See Frederic Bastiat). Ayn Rand wrote half a century back: “Fifty years ago, there might have been some excuse (though not justification) for the widespread belief that socialism is a political theory motivated by benevolence and aimed at the achievement of men’s wellbeing. Today, that belief can no longer be regarded as an innocent error. Socialism has been tried on every continent of the globe. In the light of its results, it is time to question the motives of socialism’s advocates.” Half a century has passed since then, and India still clings to the Socialist ideal. Surprisingly, the cry of leftists is that India hasn’t lived up to that ideal.
Words do not matter, collectivists allege. People are unable to realize the harm certain words can do when they have positive or negative connotations. The image of a mindless brute evoked by the word selfishness has led to people rejecting the whole concept itself. The aversion to dogmatism has made people intolerant to anyone with strength of conviction. The same is true of words like egoism, altruism and humility. The case of socialism too is no different. It has a positive connotation in the minds of people which make them forget all the torture, mass murders and slave labor enforced in its name.
The chief justice said this while rejecting a petition in the past: "Why do you take socialism in a narrow sense defined by the Communists? In a broader sense, socialism means welfare measures for the citizens. It is a facet of democracy. It hasn't got any definite meaning. It gets different meaning in different times." This is worse than nonsense. Words are not to be used loosely, without assigning any proper meaning. In the words of Ayn Rand, “Every word of man’s language, with the exception of proper names, denotes a concept, an abstraction that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a specific kind.” The word Socialism means a politico-economic system (If it can be called so) in which all property is centralized in the hands of the state. If words are used without assigning proper meaning, it will assume meanings some scoundrels want it to assume. People(Even non-Marxists) look at it benignly only because they haven’t given it much thought or think that Socialists won’t venture to go that far. They foolishly believe that it is a system which favors welfare of the common man.
To make it mandatory that every political party should swear allegiance to socialism is to prevent people from choosing the political system people want. It is an assault on individual liberty and Capitalism. This would mean that anyone who wishes to fight the brutality of socialist policies would be prevented from doing so at the outset. It proves that even the pretense to “democracy” is a sham. It shouldn’t escape our attention that the 42nd amendment was passed during the emergency period. So, the intentions behind it should be evident for everyone to see. People should see the word for what it is and act upon their knowledge if we are to move towards a society which respects individual liberty.
No one can claim ignorance of the consequences of Socialism, theoretically or practically. There were warnings against socialism, even in works written in the first half of the Nineteenth century (See Frederic Bastiat). Ayn Rand wrote half a century back: “Fifty years ago, there might have been some excuse (though not justification) for the widespread belief that socialism is a political theory motivated by benevolence and aimed at the achievement of men’s wellbeing. Today, that belief can no longer be regarded as an innocent error. Socialism has been tried on every continent of the globe. In the light of its results, it is time to question the motives of socialism’s advocates.” Half a century has passed since then, and India still clings to the Socialist ideal. Surprisingly, the cry of leftists is that India hasn’t lived up to that ideal.
Words do not matter, collectivists allege. People are unable to realize the harm certain words can do when they have positive or negative connotations. The image of a mindless brute evoked by the word selfishness has led to people rejecting the whole concept itself. The aversion to dogmatism has made people intolerant to anyone with strength of conviction. The same is true of words like egoism, altruism and humility. The case of socialism too is no different. It has a positive connotation in the minds of people which make them forget all the torture, mass murders and slave labor enforced in its name.
The chief justice said this while rejecting a petition in the past: "Why do you take socialism in a narrow sense defined by the Communists? In a broader sense, socialism means welfare measures for the citizens. It is a facet of democracy. It hasn't got any definite meaning. It gets different meaning in different times." This is worse than nonsense. Words are not to be used loosely, without assigning any proper meaning. In the words of Ayn Rand, “Every word of man’s language, with the exception of proper names, denotes a concept, an abstraction that stands for an unlimited number of concretes of a specific kind.” The word Socialism means a politico-economic system (If it can be called so) in which all property is centralized in the hands of the state. If words are used without assigning proper meaning, it will assume meanings some scoundrels want it to assume. People(Even non-Marxists) look at it benignly only because they haven’t given it much thought or think that Socialists won’t venture to go that far. They foolishly believe that it is a system which favors welfare of the common man.
To make it mandatory that every political party should swear allegiance to socialism is to prevent people from choosing the political system people want. It is an assault on individual liberty and Capitalism. This would mean that anyone who wishes to fight the brutality of socialist policies would be prevented from doing so at the outset. It proves that even the pretense to “democracy” is a sham. It shouldn’t escape our attention that the 42nd amendment was passed during the emergency period. So, the intentions behind it should be evident for everyone to see. People should see the word for what it is and act upon their knowledge if we are to move towards a society which respects individual liberty.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Atlas Shrugged Essay Contest
Atlas Shrugged Essay Contest Information
Eligibility: 12th Graders, College Undergraduates, and Graduate Students Entry Deadline: September 17, 2010FIRST PRIZE: $10,000 |  |
Topics
Select ONE of the following three topics:
According to John Galt, selfishness is both moral and practical. Explain what he means by this and how events of the story illustrate and dramatize his point.
Explain the meaning and wider significance of the following quote: “The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.” According to the story of Atlas Shrugged, what ideas underlie the opposing maxims that “money is the root of all evil” and that “money is the root of all good”?
Capitalism’s defenders usually appeal to the “public good.” Contrast their approach to capitalism to Ayn Rand’s approach in Atlas Shrugged.
Judging
Essays will be judged on both style and content. Judges will look for writing that is clear, articulate and logically organized. Winning essays must demonstrate an outstanding grasp of the philosophic meaning of Atlas Shrugged.
Essay submissions are evaluated in a fair and unbiased four-round judging process. Judges are individually selected by the Ayn Rand Institute based on a demonstrated knowledge and understanding of Ayn Rand’s works. To ensure the anonymity of our participants, essay cover sheets are removed after the first round. Winners’ names are unknown to judges until after essays have been ranked and the contest results finalized. The Ayn Rand Institute checks essays with Ithenticate plagiarism detection software.
Rules
No application is required. Contest is open to students worldwide.
Entrant must be a 12th Grader, College Undergraduate, or Graduate Student.
To avoid disqualification, mailed in essays must include a stapled cover sheet with the following information:
- your name and address;
- your e-mail address (if available);
- the name and address of your school;
- topic selected (#1, 2 or 3 from list above);
- your current grade level; and
- (optional) the name of the teacher who assigned the essay, if you are completing it for classroom credit.
Essay must be no fewer than 800 and no more than 1,600 words in length, and double-spaced.
One entry per student, please.
Essay must be postmarked no later than September 17, 2010, no later than 11:59 PM, Pacific Standard time.
The Ayn Rand Institute has the right to provide contest deadline extensions when deemed appropriate.
Essay must be solely the work of the entrant. Plagiarism will result in disqualification.
Decisions of the judges are final.
Employees of the Ayn Rand Institute, its board of directors and their immediate family members are not eligible for this contest. Past first-place winners are not eligible for this contest.
All entries become the property of the Ayn Rand Institute and will not be returned.
Winners, finalists, semifinalists and all other participants will be notified via e-mail and/or by mail by November 27, 2010.
Contest winners agree to allow the Ayn Rand Institute to post their names on any of ARI’s affiliated websites. The winning first place essay may be posted in its entirety on any of these websites with full credit given to the author.
Winners will be solely responsible for any federal, state or local taxes.
To Enter
Or mail your essay with stapled cover sheet to:
Atlas Shrugged Essay ContestThe Ayn Rand Institute
P.O. Box 57044
Irvine, CA 92619-7044
Please do not submit duplicate essays!
If submitting your essay electronically, you will be sent an email confirming our receipt. If you have not received an e-mail notification within 24 hours, please e-mail info@aynrandnovels.com. If you are submitting by mail, please paperclip a stamped, self-addressed postcard to the your essay and we will return it to you.
To learn more about Atlas Shrugged, go to: http://atlasshrugged.com
Comments or Questions
Comments or questions about the essay contests are welcome. Please write to info@aynrandnovels.com.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
The Road To Economic Security
The Indian Government is hatching one welfare scheme after another. What is being forgotten is that we can’t legislate economic security into existence. If it were possible to do so, we would have been in a Garden of Eden long time back. Government plans have never lacked ambition. Yet, the history of India is full of government policies which failed miserably.
Rashmee Roshan Lall writes in The Times of India: “Nearly half a century ago, Ayn Rand would rail about the promise of an impossible "right" to economic security for all. This Russian Jewess, who fiercely held to the individualist and laissez faire capitalist beliefs of her adopted American homeland, denounced the "right to economic security" as an infamous attempt to abrogate the concept of rights. She argued that it could mean only one thing: a promise to enslave the men who produce, for the benefit of those who don't. In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, she wrote, "If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labour."
What is being forgotten is that if economic security means anything, freedom is its foundation. It is ridiculous to think that security means granting the Government to initiate force against us. A man is free and secure when no one initiates force against him. All this might seem too simplistic to collectivized mentalities, but this insight involves a profound truth. When people are free from coercion by the Government they are free in the pursuit of economic security. It is not a sufficient condition, but it is a necessary condition to economic security. Whether a man achieves it depends on his efforts and capabilities. Freedom provides him with a way to achieve his goals. It also guarantees that the people who deal with him are free to act on their own judgment. Economic security needs competition in the economic sphere, and it is possible only under capitalism. Statism hampers competition through anti trust laws, taxation and various other regulations.
Man doesn’t need “Food Security Bill”, “Health Care Bill”, “NREGA” or “Right to Education Act” for economic security. All such legislations would only prevent men from achieving security, as these involve initiation of physical force. This can’t be done without taxing innocent citizens. Taxation hampers capital accumulation. It is capital accumulation which leads to high invested capital and in turn higher wages and economic security. All this is counterintuitive, but these are the facts we should understand it we are to achieve anything close to economic security.
Rashmee Roshan Lall writes in The Times of India: “Nearly half a century ago, Ayn Rand would rail about the promise of an impossible "right" to economic security for all. This Russian Jewess, who fiercely held to the individualist and laissez faire capitalist beliefs of her adopted American homeland, denounced the "right to economic security" as an infamous attempt to abrogate the concept of rights. She argued that it could mean only one thing: a promise to enslave the men who produce, for the benefit of those who don't. In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, she wrote, "If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labour."
What is being forgotten is that if economic security means anything, freedom is its foundation. It is ridiculous to think that security means granting the Government to initiate force against us. A man is free and secure when no one initiates force against him. All this might seem too simplistic to collectivized mentalities, but this insight involves a profound truth. When people are free from coercion by the Government they are free in the pursuit of economic security. It is not a sufficient condition, but it is a necessary condition to economic security. Whether a man achieves it depends on his efforts and capabilities. Freedom provides him with a way to achieve his goals. It also guarantees that the people who deal with him are free to act on their own judgment. Economic security needs competition in the economic sphere, and it is possible only under capitalism. Statism hampers competition through anti trust laws, taxation and various other regulations.
Man doesn’t need “Food Security Bill”, “Health Care Bill”, “NREGA” or “Right to Education Act” for economic security. All such legislations would only prevent men from achieving security, as these involve initiation of physical force. This can’t be done without taxing innocent citizens. Taxation hampers capital accumulation. It is capital accumulation which leads to high invested capital and in turn higher wages and economic security. All this is counterintuitive, but these are the facts we should understand it we are to achieve anything close to economic security.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Food Security: At Whose Expense?
Sainath is one of India’s most well known Journalists. He was the winner of the Ramon Magsaysay award for journalism, literature, and creative communication arts. Amartya Sen once said that he is “one of the world's great experts on famine and hunger". He is a passionate defender of the “little man”. Even his libertarian critics admit that he does a wonderful job in point out facts which most libertarians would readily concede. However, the conclusions he derive from the facts he present are worse than absurd.
In his latest article in The Hindu, Sainath makes a case against fuel price decontrol. At the same time he points out that the “food price inflation” is at seventeen percentage. This is the typical collectivist attitude, Ayn Rand had in mind when she criticized people who desire cheap gasoline and at the same time want the industry to be taxed out of existence. They see no connection between these two positions. They are unable to perceive beyond the proximate benefits. Governments have been unsuccessfully trying to control prices for at least four thousand years. It was a disaster everywhere. It leads to shortages, black-markets, long queues, wasted time, poor quality products, expensive methods of production, and in the long run, higher prices. It might even breed further controls and take us straight to a socialist totalitarian cage. Sainath’s argument that “fuel price decontrol will profoundly affect the prices of just about everything.” is true in a sense Sainath didn’t intend it to be. Contrary to his belief there won’t be a general rise in prices if fuel prices are decontrolled. If the prices of fuel are high, people will cut down their purchase of other goods and its prices will fall. Only an expansion of money supply can cause a general price rise.
Sainath is worried that the “government seeks ways to spend less and less on the very food security it talks about.” In his eyes Government has unlimited funds from which it can draw for his pet welfare projects. It is forgotten that one of the fundamental economic principles is that scarcity exists, and always will, short of the Garden of Eden. Government, he points out, is endlessly searching for a low BPL figure. I doubt whether it can be supported by facts. There were several reports which made evident that so many people want to come under the BPL label. The Government, he proposes, should make sure that access to food, healthcare, education and decent work are universal. To paraphrase Ayn Rand:”At whose expense? “How are positive rights universal? Positive rights miserably fail the universalization test. When some people are provided with food, healthcare, education and work, some unfortunate beings are forced to provide for them. Nothing is more unjust than that.
Another logical fallacy is that the tax write-offs for the rich are morally wrong. To claim so, one would have to assume that all the wealth belongs to the state. A tax write off is not a subsidy, by any normal definition of the term. If X is subsidized at the expense of Y, money should be mulcted from Y to support X. Nothing of that sort happens here. The wealth of the rich should belong to them, as long as they earn it rightfully. The Government has no legitimate rights over the property of the citizens of the country over which it governs.
In his latest article in The Hindu, Sainath makes a case against fuel price decontrol. At the same time he points out that the “food price inflation” is at seventeen percentage. This is the typical collectivist attitude, Ayn Rand had in mind when she criticized people who desire cheap gasoline and at the same time want the industry to be taxed out of existence. They see no connection between these two positions. They are unable to perceive beyond the proximate benefits. Governments have been unsuccessfully trying to control prices for at least four thousand years. It was a disaster everywhere. It leads to shortages, black-markets, long queues, wasted time, poor quality products, expensive methods of production, and in the long run, higher prices. It might even breed further controls and take us straight to a socialist totalitarian cage. Sainath’s argument that “fuel price decontrol will profoundly affect the prices of just about everything.” is true in a sense Sainath didn’t intend it to be. Contrary to his belief there won’t be a general rise in prices if fuel prices are decontrolled. If the prices of fuel are high, people will cut down their purchase of other goods and its prices will fall. Only an expansion of money supply can cause a general price rise.
Sainath is worried that the “government seeks ways to spend less and less on the very food security it talks about.” In his eyes Government has unlimited funds from which it can draw for his pet welfare projects. It is forgotten that one of the fundamental economic principles is that scarcity exists, and always will, short of the Garden of Eden. Government, he points out, is endlessly searching for a low BPL figure. I doubt whether it can be supported by facts. There were several reports which made evident that so many people want to come under the BPL label. The Government, he proposes, should make sure that access to food, healthcare, education and decent work are universal. To paraphrase Ayn Rand:”At whose expense? “How are positive rights universal? Positive rights miserably fail the universalization test. When some people are provided with food, healthcare, education and work, some unfortunate beings are forced to provide for them. Nothing is more unjust than that.
Another logical fallacy is that the tax write-offs for the rich are morally wrong. To claim so, one would have to assume that all the wealth belongs to the state. A tax write off is not a subsidy, by any normal definition of the term. If X is subsidized at the expense of Y, money should be mulcted from Y to support X. Nothing of that sort happens here. The wealth of the rich should belong to them, as long as they earn it rightfully. The Government has no legitimate rights over the property of the citizens of the country over which it governs.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Capitalism In India
The growing libertarian movement in India was featured in Time Out Mumbai recently by Aditya Kundalkar.
Excerpts:
"In Mumbai, the Swatantra Party and their magazine Freedom First and the Forum of Free Enterprise were among the prominent groups that demanded more freedom for the private sector. With the onset of liberalisation in the early 1990s, they seem to have won their battle. But they have not shut shop. Ironically, where once they were considered right-wing, they now find their liberalism shoved to the middle of the road by the more-extreme notions of capitalism being advocated by younger free-market cheerleaders."
"Among these new laissez-faire proponents is The Atlas Club, formed in 2006 by Mumbai resident Jerry Johnson to bring together people who admire the ideas of the Russian-American novelist Ayn Rand. Johnson advocates complete deregulation of the markets. “When we have truly free markets, we will have competitive prices and quality products and services” and corruption will disappear, said Johnson."
"Rand’s championing of the virtues of selfishness have come in for criticism, especially after the recent global financial crisis. In the US, Rand’s adopted home, increasingly esoteric financial instruments created by private banks resulted in mounting debt and ultimately chaos. But Johnson is convinced that the path to progress lies in complete deregulation of the financial markets and the withdrawal of the government from all endeavours except for defence, foreign policy and law and order."
"For instance, he advocates the privatisation of Mumbai’s water resources. He believes that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation creates artificial water shortages “so that water tankers, with whom the BMC is in cahoots with, can benefit by being paid exorbitant rates to deliver water”. To stop the corruption, why not let the water tankers – that is, private companies – handle water supply completely? he suggests."
"Another forum which propagates Rand’s ideas is The Liberty Institute in New Delhi. Led by Barun Mitra, an engineer who says he has a passion for economics, it was formed in 1996. Mitra has a market-driven idea for tiger conservation. “I suggested breeding them to provide a supply of tigers for tourism, hunting, or Chinese medicine,” he said. This would help wild tigers survive, he claims."
Excerpts:
"In Mumbai, the Swatantra Party and their magazine Freedom First and the Forum of Free Enterprise were among the prominent groups that demanded more freedom for the private sector. With the onset of liberalisation in the early 1990s, they seem to have won their battle. But they have not shut shop. Ironically, where once they were considered right-wing, they now find their liberalism shoved to the middle of the road by the more-extreme notions of capitalism being advocated by younger free-market cheerleaders."
"Among these new laissez-faire proponents is The Atlas Club, formed in 2006 by Mumbai resident Jerry Johnson to bring together people who admire the ideas of the Russian-American novelist Ayn Rand. Johnson advocates complete deregulation of the markets. “When we have truly free markets, we will have competitive prices and quality products and services” and corruption will disappear, said Johnson."
"Rand’s championing of the virtues of selfishness have come in for criticism, especially after the recent global financial crisis. In the US, Rand’s adopted home, increasingly esoteric financial instruments created by private banks resulted in mounting debt and ultimately chaos. But Johnson is convinced that the path to progress lies in complete deregulation of the financial markets and the withdrawal of the government from all endeavours except for defence, foreign policy and law and order."
"For instance, he advocates the privatisation of Mumbai’s water resources. He believes that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation creates artificial water shortages “so that water tankers, with whom the BMC is in cahoots with, can benefit by being paid exorbitant rates to deliver water”. To stop the corruption, why not let the water tankers – that is, private companies – handle water supply completely? he suggests."
"Another forum which propagates Rand’s ideas is The Liberty Institute in New Delhi. Led by Barun Mitra, an engineer who says he has a passion for economics, it was formed in 1996. Mitra has a market-driven idea for tiger conservation. “I suggested breeding them to provide a supply of tigers for tourism, hunting, or Chinese medicine,” he said. This would help wild tigers survive, he claims."
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Can there be a system of morality without God?
Some months ago, in one of the Atlas Sunday Meets, we started discussing Atheism and the necessity of it to be an objectivist. There were a few present who didn't belong to that fold, so we all debated. We discussed for long. As usual, there was no conclusion to the discussion regarding ‘existence of God’. We left, with more thoughts to be sorted and more ideas to sort these thoughts.
To, take this discussion to the next level and to concretise the arguments, we invited Father Anthony to come and speak on the topic “Can there be a system of morality without God”. We thought, who better than a God’s man to come and present His case. From the objectivist perspective, we had our own Jerry Johnson to put his thoughts. Deepak was moderating the discussion.
All others who were present, were either atheists, agnostics or with a different belief system than the conservative religion.
The date was set as Sunday, the 20th of June 2010. With the rains pouring down on Mumbai with a vengeance, we all reached the venue slightly drenched and out of breath trying our best to remain dry. The discussion started with Father’s opening comments suggesting secular morality. Here is my account of what transpired.
He said that secular morality is a morality which has come of age through the generations and at present is something which can be defined and re-defined. He presented examples of such a morality for propagating love between people and to make relationships stronger. Morality according to him was, to accept values of other people. The art of doing things for others was to spread love in the world. When you do something unconditionally, you also motivate the same action from the ‘acceptor’. And so, this cycle continues to a stage where there is a world of peace and contentment.
Jerry answered saying that loving everybody is not possible. And that’s what religion demands. Religion demands one to love God , without any evidence or substantiation. Love is not an empty principle to base religious morality. One cannot love a person who is harming oneself. One cannot love an enemy. To expect such a love is itself immoral. When a person loves someone, it’s because of the values. So, if the other person doesn’t have any values, you cannot love him/her. With the same argument, it’s not possible to love God for which there is not verification of such a value-addition.
Father Anthony further responded to Jerry’s comments. There were others present who were passionately presenting responding to either of the takes.
As a conclusion, we had a discussion which perhaps opened our minds to either of the systems of morality due to the direct comparisons. However, those of us who already belong to the “selfish” morality find it difficult to digest the other kind. Same applies to the believers of God. Hence, as useful as it is to have these debates, they will hardly convince the one of the other. So, in the end, we all parted to “agree to disagree”.
*ps: This above is my account of the event. If anybody feels misrepresented, please feel free to comment on the same.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Randed for life
Nilanjana Roy has a wonderful review of Anne C Heller's "Ayn Rand And The World She Made: in Business Standard. Excerpts:
"It is impossible to explain to Ayn Rand believers why some readers outgrow The Fountainhead and why Atlas Shrugged and Anthem are not taught in universities; it is impossible to explain to Ayn Rand sceptics why millions of readers never outgrow the lure of Rand’s philosophy. G B Shaw at once skewered and (faintly) praised another seductive ideology in his famous aphorism: “A man who is not a communist at the age of twenty is a fool. A man who is still a communist at the age of thirty is an even bigger one.”"
"It is impossible to explain to Ayn Rand believers why some readers outgrow The Fountainhead and why Atlas Shrugged and Anthem are not taught in universities; it is impossible to explain to Ayn Rand sceptics why millions of readers never outgrow the lure of Rand’s philosophy. G B Shaw at once skewered and (faintly) praised another seductive ideology in his famous aphorism: “A man who is not a communist at the age of twenty is a fool. A man who is still a communist at the age of thirty is an even bigger one.”"
"Rand’s childhood was marked by the persecution her Jewish family suffered in the Russia of the early 20th century, and by an early determination to make something of her life — in later years, she would reinvent herself as a writer. In the US, she met and married a young, charismatic actor, Frank O’Connor, but her life would always overshadow his. She struggled to make it in Hollywood as a script writer, but it would be her books and her unparalleled ability to command attention and attract a loyal, sometimes terrified, but always fascinated audience that would make her what she became.
It’s hard to explain what constitutes charisma, so much more powerful and inescapable than beauty, intellect or charm, but what Ayn Rand possessed and honed was in the nature of an undeniable, inscrutable inner force. She was a heavy Benzedrine user, and displayed some of the characteristics of the addict, from a restless, relentless mind to paranoia. In later years, she had an affair with Nathaniel Branden, a much younger acolyte who would become a kind of founder of the American self-help movement. It is characteristic of Rand that it was not enough to have the affair — she had to gain the consent of her husband and Branden’s wife, and when Branden fell in love, years later, with another, younger woman, Rand would deal with it by endless rounds of “therapies” with him before a final, irrevocable break."
"None of this explains the continued force of Rand’s ideas, or the continued power of The Fountainhead and Atlas ShruggedM, in particular, to sway the minds and hearts of readers. Heller’s biography will make Rand sceptics and the faithful uncomfortable in equal measure — but like its subject, this book is impossible to ignore. To steal a phrase from the Simon & Garfunkel song, once you’ve been Ayn Randed, the scar is permanent."
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Atlas Sunday Meet, Mumbai
Here are the details of the next Atlas Meet in Mumbai.
Date: 20th June 2010
Time: 6:30pm
Venue:
LJ Business & Training Centre
364, CD Parvati Gangadhar Building,
NC Kelkar Road,
Behind PNB Bank,
Dadar West,
Mumbai
Agenda:
Also present during this meet will be members from the Time Out Magazine to cover the event.
Please do let us know how many of you are coming, so that we can make the necessary arrangements.
See ya!
Date: 20th June 2010
Time: 6:30pm
Venue:
LJ Business & Training Centre
364, CD Parvati Gangadhar Building,
NC Kelkar Road,
Behind PNB Bank,
Dadar West,
Mumbai
Agenda:
Discussion on "Can there be a Moral System without God"
In one of the past meets, we had a discussion on Atheism and a view that one of the aspects of being an objectivist is to be an atheist. It was quite a discussion and we had many interesting points on the table. Hence, to take the discussion forward in a more organised manner, this time we have invited Father Anthony to join us in the discussion.Also present during this meet will be members from the Time Out Magazine to cover the event.
Please do let us know how many of you are coming, so that we can make the necessary arrangements.
See ya!
Friday, June 18, 2010
Atlas Meet in Delhi - Watch "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life" on DVD
After a break, we're back!
The next monthly Atlas Meet in Delhi will take place on Friday, 18 June, 2010. We have an unfinished agenda from the meeting in March - viewing the second half of a DVD of Michael Paxton's Oscar-nominated documentary "Ayn Rand: A Sense Of Life" (courtesy of Rajendra Lakhotia). As usual, our members are bubbling with other topics to discuss, so, of course, discussions will follow on the terrace over snacks and tea.
Date
18th June 2010
Time
5.30 pm - 7.45 pm
The Agenda
Session I (Savor and Study)
5.30 pm - 6.30 pm: Watch a DVD of Michael Paxton's Oscar-nominated documentary "Ayn Rand: A Sense Of Life" (2nd Half)
6.30 pm - 6.45 pm: Tea and snacks break.
[Those interested in coming in only for one session, could arrive or depart during this time.]
Session II (Spread and Sustain)
6.45 pm - 7.45 pm: Discussions on a broad range of topics, including ways to spread Ayn Rand's ideas
Not in Delhi? No worries, you can also participate in the discussions live over the internet via audio/video conferencing. If interested, send an email to vbajaj@aynrand.in at least one day in advance.
The Venue
inlingua International School of Languages,
N-12, first floor,
South Extension - Part I
It is an open meeting - anyone interested in Ayn Rand's ideas is welcome. You may call Vikram on 9810028900 for directions. If you're planning to attend, it would be helpful if you let us know by leaving a comment below or by sending an email to vbajaj@aynrand.in .
Date
18th June 2010
Time
5.30 pm - 7.45 pm
The Agenda
Session I (Savor and Study)
5.30 pm - 6.30 pm: Watch a DVD of Michael Paxton's Oscar-nominated documentary "Ayn Rand: A Sense Of Life" (2nd Half)
6.30 pm - 6.45 pm: Tea and snacks break.
[Those interested in coming in only for one session, could arrive or depart during this time.]
Session II (Spread and Sustain)
6.45 pm - 7.45 pm: Discussions on a broad range of topics, including ways to spread Ayn Rand's ideas
Not in Delhi? No worries, you can also participate in the discussions live over the internet via audio/video conferencing. If interested, send an email to vbajaj@aynrand.in at least one day in advance.
The Venue
inlingua International School of Languages,
N-12, first floor,
South Extension - Part I
It is an open meeting - anyone interested in Ayn Rand's ideas is welcome. You may call Vikram on 9810028900 for directions. If you're planning to attend, it would be helpful if you let us know by leaving a comment below or by sending an email to vbajaj@aynrand.in .
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Force And Mind
Recently, the department of science and technology (DST), government of India decided to sanction grants to science departments of different colleges and universities in Bihar for strengthening their infrastructure, including laboratories. The Indian government is actively encouraging universities to make use of government support, on the guarantee that there is no dearth of funds. The government is trying to bring together two opposites-mind and force, not giving a moments reflection to the fact that both are incompatible.
Government funding of science is an outright infringement of individual rights. It attracts all kinds of rogues to science, who wouldn’t have otherwise in the field, and are more interested in the politicization of science than in the pursuit of knowledge. It would be irrational to expect the government to accept ideas which threaten its existence, or prevent the expansion of its power. Government funding of global warming alarmism and the green movement is a case in point. So, is the fact that the leading universities breed all variants of collectivism.
Take the case of embryonic stem cell research. If the government is to fund it, it should collect the funds from people who may or may not approve of it. Once this is recognized, its inherent immorality becomes visible irrespective of whether the reasons people hold for opposing it are rational or not.
It should be obvious that there can be no moral or economic justification for taxing individual for the alleged benefits in the future. Taken to its extremes, The results would obviously be the slaughterhouse of Soviet Russia. If there is any difference, it would be a matter of degree. People will have to wait and wait while giving up all their pleasures and important needs. As Ayn Rand wrote on the Soviet Union, “Soviet Russia is still unable to feed her people— while the rulers scramble to copy, borrow, or steal the technological achievements of the West. Industrialization is not a static goal; it is a dynamic process with a rapid rate of obsolescence. So the wretched serfs of a planned tribal economy, who starved while waiting for electric generators and tractors, are now starving while waiting for atomic power and interplanetary travel. Thus, in a "people's state," the progress of science is a threat to the people, and every advance is taken out of the people's shrinking hides.”
It is of course true that the pursuit of science is important for human beings. However, to say so is far from proving that the Government should fund it. The Government shouldn’t fund it, precisely because it is important and can’t be left to the arbitrary whims of the state and its parasites. As Ayn Rand noted, when people ask whether science is necessary, it is an out of context goal. “Is science desirable? To whom? Not to the Soviet serfs who die of epidemics, filth, starvation, terror and firing squads—while some bright young men wave to them from space capsules circling over their human pigsties. And not to the American father who died of heart failure brought on by overwork, struggling to send his son through college—or to the boy who could not afford college—or to the couple killed in an automobile wreck, because they could not afford a new car—or to the mother who lost her child because she could not afford to send him to the best hospital—not to any of those people whose taxes pay for the support of our subsidized science and public research projects.”
Government funding of science is an outright infringement of individual rights. It attracts all kinds of rogues to science, who wouldn’t have otherwise in the field, and are more interested in the politicization of science than in the pursuit of knowledge. It would be irrational to expect the government to accept ideas which threaten its existence, or prevent the expansion of its power. Government funding of global warming alarmism and the green movement is a case in point. So, is the fact that the leading universities breed all variants of collectivism.
Take the case of embryonic stem cell research. If the government is to fund it, it should collect the funds from people who may or may not approve of it. Once this is recognized, its inherent immorality becomes visible irrespective of whether the reasons people hold for opposing it are rational or not.
It should be obvious that there can be no moral or economic justification for taxing individual for the alleged benefits in the future. Taken to its extremes, The results would obviously be the slaughterhouse of Soviet Russia. If there is any difference, it would be a matter of degree. People will have to wait and wait while giving up all their pleasures and important needs. As Ayn Rand wrote on the Soviet Union, “Soviet Russia is still unable to feed her people— while the rulers scramble to copy, borrow, or steal the technological achievements of the West. Industrialization is not a static goal; it is a dynamic process with a rapid rate of obsolescence. So the wretched serfs of a planned tribal economy, who starved while waiting for electric generators and tractors, are now starving while waiting for atomic power and interplanetary travel. Thus, in a "people's state," the progress of science is a threat to the people, and every advance is taken out of the people's shrinking hides.”
It is of course true that the pursuit of science is important for human beings. However, to say so is far from proving that the Government should fund it. The Government shouldn’t fund it, precisely because it is important and can’t be left to the arbitrary whims of the state and its parasites. As Ayn Rand noted, when people ask whether science is necessary, it is an out of context goal. “Is science desirable? To whom? Not to the Soviet serfs who die of epidemics, filth, starvation, terror and firing squads—while some bright young men wave to them from space capsules circling over their human pigsties. And not to the American father who died of heart failure brought on by overwork, struggling to send his son through college—or to the boy who could not afford college—or to the couple killed in an automobile wreck, because they could not afford a new car—or to the mother who lost her child because she could not afford to send him to the best hospital—not to any of those people whose taxes pay for the support of our subsidized science and public research projects.”
Sunday, June 6, 2010
The Objectivist Conference 2010
The Objectivist Conference 2010 will be held in Las vegas, Nevada from July 2-10. There will be presentations by Objectivist scholars, and Leonard Peikoff will present “The DIM Hypothesis”, .It is a six-part sequel to the lectures Leonard Peikoff delivered in 2007.DIM hypothesis deals with three approaches to integration in human thought—disintegration, integration, and misintegration. There will be eleven general session lectures, sixteen optional courses and other activities and events. There will be courses in Politics(Yaron Brook's “Defending Capitalism”), Writing (“Writing Objectively” by Keith Lockitch), History (“Reformation and Religious Wars” by Andrew Lewis) and Poetry(“Making Poetry Part of Your Life” by Lisa VanDamme). The general sessions also include "The Inductive Method" by David Harriman, "The Hoover Dam" by Talbot Manvel and "Intellectual Property Rights" by Adam Mossoff. Robert Mayhew and Brian P Simpson are among the scholars holding optional sessions. There will also be a question and answer session to celebrate the 25th Anniversary of the Ayn Rand Institute by Michael S Berliner and Yaron Brook.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Divide And Rule
The Indian Government has decided to include caste in the next census. The Yadav leaders Mulayam Singh, Lalu Prasad and Sharad were pushing for it for some time by now. The finance minister Pranab Mukherjee said last day that the decision was made to include caste information in the next census. "Yes, we will include it (caste) in this census.” he said. A column on OBC’s will be included in the census. There are already columns for SCs and STs. The Government argument is that such data is required for welfare policies for OBCs- “to make proportional financial allocations”. “Caste is still a reality”, says the proponents of such policies. Welfare measures, hence, are required to correct past inequities. There are several problems with this mode of reasoning. Firstly, statistical data is irrelevant for sound economic policies. A priori reasoning would do. Secondly, what happened in the past is completely irrelevant for public policy decisions.
This is the classic trick of collectivists to create an “us versus them” feeling. This is “racism”. Ayn Rand wrote decades back in “The Virtue of Selfishness, that “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.” This is true of “casteism” too.
What the backward castes need is not reservations or ‘welfare”. What they need is capitalism-the free market. Racial (and caste) discrimination is inversely proportional to the degree of freedom of a country. For instance, in North America, as of higher economic freedom, blacks are much better off in comparison to their Southern counterparts. Racism was more prevalent in the feudal South America than in the more capitalist North.
Such decisions and policies by the Government is a product of the hampered market economy. Under a hampered market economy, each group tries to grab special privileges at the expense of others, and the decision to include caste in the census is a move towards it. To quote Rand again: “The growth of racism in a “mixed economy” keeps step with the growth of government controls. A “mixed economy” disintegrates a country into an institutionalized civil war of pressure groups, each fighting for legislative favors and special privileges at the expense of one another.”
This is the classic trick of collectivists to create an “us versus them” feeling. This is “racism”. Ayn Rand wrote decades back in “The Virtue of Selfishness, that “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.” This is true of “casteism” too.
What the backward castes need is not reservations or ‘welfare”. What they need is capitalism-the free market. Racial (and caste) discrimination is inversely proportional to the degree of freedom of a country. For instance, in North America, as of higher economic freedom, blacks are much better off in comparison to their Southern counterparts. Racism was more prevalent in the feudal South America than in the more capitalist North.
Such decisions and policies by the Government is a product of the hampered market economy. Under a hampered market economy, each group tries to grab special privileges at the expense of others, and the decision to include caste in the census is a move towards it. To quote Rand again: “The growth of racism in a “mixed economy” keeps step with the growth of government controls. A “mixed economy” disintegrates a country into an institutionalized civil war of pressure groups, each fighting for legislative favors and special privileges at the expense of one another.”
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Earth Day II
John Tierney, writing in the New York Times has some lessons for “Turqs” on “Earth day”- environmentalist guided by science, not nostalgia or technophobia. He writes that on the first earth day, orators were creating scary predictions on “overpopulation, famine, exhaustion of fossil fuels, global shortages of vital minerals, pollution, pesticides, cancer epidemics, nuclear-reactor meltdowns, and assorted technological disasters.” Nothing came true. The problem of climate change is relatively new. He quotes Michael Specter: “Total reliance on organic farming would force African countries to devote twice as much land per crop as we do in the United States. An organic universe sounds delightful, but it could consign millions of people in Africa and throughout much of Asia to malnutrition and death.” And Mr. Brand on frankenfood: “I daresay the environmental movement has done more harm with its opposition to genetic engineering than with any other thing we’ve been wrong about. We’ve starved people, hindered science, hurt the natural environment, and denied our own practitioners a crucial tool.” He also points out that less than 1% of the earth is dependent on green energy as it is costly.
Richard Tren and Donald Roberts have another column on “How Bad Science Opened Door for Malaria” in USA Today. “Back in the 1940s, scientists realized that the chemical dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or DDT, could stop epidemics of insect-borne diseases such as typhus. Its lifesaving potential was considered such a boon to mankind that the scientist who discovered it, Paul Mueller, won the Nobel Prize. The chemical would soon surpass all expectations in controlling malaria around the world and go on to save millions of lives.” “Early environmentalists made pesticides one of their chief bugaboos. Rachel Carson, who helped launch the modern environmental movement, was among them. In her now-famous 1962 book Silent Spring, she argued that DDT, when sprayed on a Michigan campus to halt the spread of Dutch elm disease, would spread far and wide and harm robins' ability to reproduce. Carson's anti-pesticide stance was taken up by many ecologists and led to the decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ban DDT. By then, malaria had been eradicated in the USA, but it was still a scourge across much of the world.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
