Philosophy Learn more about our
organization and the moral basis of capitalism.
Campaigns Find out about the
Center's many activism projects.
Media Center
News mentions, press releases and
speakers.
Feedback
Send us a comment or ask
a question--we want to hear from you!
Contribute This website and the
Center's advocacy programs are not free--we depend on you to support our
efforts. Invest in your freedom today! Donate once or set up a monthly
withdrawal plan--we accept all major cards.
Under-investment in transmission lines and a weak oversight board controlled by utilities have created an unstable, unreliable and overloaded patchwork system for transmitting power from one place to the other.
Of couse, it could never be the fault of the regulators themselves.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 9:47 PM | link
| donate |
Death by Environmentalism: Thousands Die in European Heat Wave
This summer, an abnormal heat wave struck Europe. We have been accustomed to thinking of Europe as part of the First World, and area where freak natural events did not automatically mean thousands of casualties. For example, flooding last year forced the evacuation of hundreds of thousands in Germany and in the recently Communist Czech Republic. There were no results of hundreds or thousands of deaths. But, surprisingly, this summer's heat in Europe has been linked to 10,000 deaths in France and uncounted deaths throughout Europe. (Numbers were obtained by French undertakers comparing this summer to last summer.)
Why? France is not Bangladesh, not Liberia, not even Mexico. France is a member of the G-7, with an industrial economy, and for all the jokes, a serious country. France has the economic capacity to deal with unexpected problems--or should.
So why are old and sick Frenchmen dying in droves just because it's hot? It's a heat wave, not a meteor strike. It's 100 degrees Fahrenheit, not Celsius. This is not a sudden, unexpected, deadly plague. It's hot, that's all. Why do temperatures in France kill people while the same temperatures mean a hot, but playable golf day in the US. Because Europeans do not, as a rule, have air conditioning.
Patrick J. Michaels, of Foxnews.com, explains why. European governments tax energy heavily. Air conditioners are energy hogs, and so, in Europe, they are inordinately expensive. Since they cannot afford to run them, Europeans do not buy them. Since Europeans do not buy them, stores do not sell them.
Why is energy taxed heavily in Europe? To limit consumption. Environmentalism kills.
Note: I apologize for placing Mexico 2003 in the category of Third World states. I realize that Mexico is a member of the OECD and an outside shot for a Major League Baseball franchise in the relatively near future. However, many Americans still remember when Mexico was a Third World country.
::: posted by John Bragg
at 3:00 PM | link
| donate |
Capitalism and the Law: U.S. Man Pleads Guilty to Music Piracy
Reuters reports on the conviction of an online music pirate:
Federal prosecutors on Thursday said a former leader of a group that distributed pirated music ahead of its commercial release pleaded guilty to criminal infringement of copyright laws.
Mark Shumaker, 21, of Orlando, Florida, faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a fine of $250,000, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia said in a statement. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for Nov. 7.
Prosecutors charged that Shumaker headed Apocalypse Crew, a group that would recruit music industry workers, such as radio disc jockeys and employees of music magazines, to obtain pre-release copies of compact disks.
Released to the Internet, the advance copies would filter down to public distribution channels such as the file sharing networks of KaZaa and Morpheus, law enforcement officials charged.
I wonder if Shumaker will get off as lightly as David Smith.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 12:17 AM | link
| donate |
Friday, August 22, 2003 :::
Rights and Reason: 'We Can Do Better'
Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean spells out his agenda in today's Wall Street Journal:
Promising a "compassionate" administration, President Bush pledged to "recover the momentum of our economy," "reward the effort and enterprise of working Americans" and confront economic problems now, "instead of passing them on to future generations." Instead, he's offered tax cuts that don't address our needs, and saddled our children with debt for generations to come. On this president's watch, the federal debt has grown by over $1 trillion. That's the rough equivalent of putting $3,500 on the charge card of every American.
How did our nation come to this place? The answer is simple--the economic policies of this administration are aimed at ideological goals, not help for the average American.
We can do better. As president, my economic policies will be focused and clear. I will begin by repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and using the revenues that result from the repeal to address the needs of the average American, invest in the nation's infrastructure and, through tax reform, put money in the hands of those most likely to spend it.
The task of meeting the needs of American families begins with health care. My plan will not only insure millions of Americans who are without adequate care today, it will reduce costs for small business, states and communities--freeing up funds that can be used to grow businesses and meet other national and local priorities.
An important part of my program for a full-employment recovery will be extending a helping hand to states and communities. My policies as governor kept Vermont strong fiscally; but all over America, the financial resources of other states and cities are strained to the limit. Teachers are being laid off, highways lack repairs, firehouses are closed. Instead of tax cuts that have not created jobs, we need to make investments in America. I will increase federal aid for special education, and provide more temporary help to the states--for homeland security and school construction and infrastructure modernization. And I will increase the availability of capital for small businesses, so that they can invest in new technology and create more jobs.
Dean believes that allowing the people who create wealth keep their fruits of their labor is a foolish ideological flight of fancy, but redistributing it to “average American[s]” is not. By Dean’s account, respecting the individual rights of wealth creators is not a “national and local priorit[y].” Nationalized healthcare is.
How does one defeat a candidate like Dean? I do not think it is enough to show that Dean is “impractical,” one must also show that he is immoral. Dean and his supporters do not understand humankind. Dean believes that one man’s need is a mortgage on the life of another, and that claiming this mortgage is the moral course. To thoroughly expose the viciousness of Dean’s proposals, one must name and attack its moral premise. One must defend egoism.
That ought not to be hard in a nation dedicated to the individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The trouble is that Dean’s opponents, the conservatives, share that same premise as Dean at root. That makes me reluctant to write Dean off as the George McGovern of 2004. How can the conservatives attack Dean’s national health care plan when they themselves support things like prescription drug benefits for seniors? Both sides ultimately differ only in degree, and on that question, it is conservatives that looks like hypocrites. Dean’s candidacy is a strong candidacy, if only by the weakness of his opponents.
There is of course an antidote to today’s conservative impotence and that is Objectivism. Yet it remains to be seen if and when Objectivists will play the full role they ought to in the nation’s intellectual and political life. Will Objectivists sit out another election? Will they even attempt to set the terms of the debate to questions that ought to be debated? It remains to be seen.
If politicians like Dean are foolish and evilly inspired, what are those who do little or nothing to defend themselves against them?
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 10:09 AM | link
| donate |
Thursday, August 21, 2003 :::
Capitalism and the Law: Spread of 'Sobig.F' Virus Is Fastest Ever
Anick Jesdanun, AP Internet Writer reports that the 'Sobig.F' virus is the fasted propagating computer virus ever.
MessageLabs Inc., which scans e-mail for viruses, said that within 24 hours it had scanned more than 1 million copies of the "F" variant of the "Sobig" virus, which was blamed for computer disruptions at businesses, colleges and other institutions worldwide.
The previous record was "Klez," with about 250,000 copies spotted during its first 24 hours earlier this year, MessageLabs chief technology officer Mark Sunner said Thursday.
* * *
Sobig does not physically damage computers, files or critical data, but it tied up computer and networking resources, forcing networks like the University of Wisconsin-Madison to shut down outside access to its e-mail system Wednesday.
"We were removing 30,000 bad e-mails an hour," said Jeff Savoy, an information security officer at the school.
In India's high-tech city of Bangalore, dozens of cybercafes shut down and home computers blacked out. Some cafes were hit because their service provider was affected, but others got the virus in their machines using Windows operating systems.
"Our cybercafe has been down since Tuesday night," said Afar, a cafe manager in north Bangalore who goes by a single name. "Customers are returning home disappointed."
The owner of one of the Internet's most popular e-mail lists, technologist David Farber, was livid about Sobig.
"I got 1300 junk e-mails `delivered' this AM," he said in a message to subscribers Thursday. "Find the person and put him/her in jail."
What exactly should the punishment be for unleashing a computer virus?
According to newsfactor.com, in 2002, David Smith pleaded guilty to creating and unleashing the Melissa computer virus -- the first major virus spread by e-mail. Smith, whose virus caused more than $80 million in damage, was sentenced to 20 months in federal prison.
A computer virus is a pre-meditated attack on the property of others. 20 months for $80 million in property damage--how about 20 years?
The person who created the 'Sobig.F' virus, with its own e-mailing software, clearly hoped to disable the Internet as a whole. If the hundreds of infected e-mails I’ve cleaned off my computer are any indication of what others face, this person has done a good job of it. If this computer virus ends up being linked to Bin Laden, I would say that this was an attack on the civilized world. If this virus ends up being linked to a 40 year old man in his underwear working out of his mom’s basement, I’m almost inclined to hold him in the same contempt. You should not be able to destroy mountains of wealth and walk away from your crime in less than two years.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 9:15 PM | link
| donate |
Can we have a moment of appreciation please for the characteristic gutsiness of President Bush’s expected recess appointment of Daniel Pipes to the board of the US Institute for Peace. Radical Muslim groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations had organized to defeat Pipes. Despite the modest importance of the Institute itself, these groups understood that the struggle over Pipes was a potentially decisive political event. For underneath the wild allegations against him (about which more in a moment), the argument over Pipes boiled down to this: is it an act of bigotry to notice that the terrorists we are fighting commit their acts of terror in the name of Islam
Pipes’ critics claimed that it was. All of their other slanders against him quickly collapse on examination into a pile of distorted quotations. Pipes has never impugned Muslims in general – on the contrary, he has been an eloquent voice in favor of the need for and possibility of democracy and liberty in the Islamic world. But he has eloquently and presciently sounded the alert for a decade and a half over the gathering menace of extremist Islamic ideology – and he has fearlessly and tirelessly struggled against that menace as it has tried to sink roots into American soil.
It is for these services to the American people that this scholar who has devoted his life to the study of Islamic civilization, and who has mastered modern and medieval Arabic for his studies, has been damned by CAIR and others as a bigot.
Some people might have feared that CAIR might succeed. President Bush has boldly and consistently championed the rights and good name of the American Muslim community, and he has taken his sympathy for American Muslim to the point of being willing to meet with some of that community’s least responsible members. This openness triggered a familiar pattern of conservative response to President Bush:
Bush speaks gently.
Conservatives panic.
Bush acts firmly.
Conservatives are surprised.
Now issn’t [sic] it past time to stop being surprised when this president acts in a principled manner?
Bush surely understood better than anyone what it was that the radical Muslim groups were claiming when they called for Pipes’ defeat. They were implicitly contending that anyone willing to name the enemy in this war thereby disqualified himself for a role in the prosecution of the war. They were demanding a veto over the conduct of the war for those people in American life who have shown the most sympathy for the enemy: It would be rather as if the leaders of the Communist Party USA asserted veto power over national-security nominations during the Cold War.
Huh? I've read this three times and I still can't figure it out. Does Frum mean that groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations are akin to the old Pinks? I agree with that. But when did President Bush say this? Can’t we applaud the Pipes nomination and still be appalled at the president’s utter failure to say that it is the consistent application of Islam that leads to poverty, murder, and suffering?
Oh, wait, we’d have to see that there is something wrong with faith to do that. And no one at NR is going to be fighting that battle any time soon.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 2:11 PM | link
| donate |
Rights and Reason: The Northeast blackout
Jim Woods is the winner of the "find a parallel between the blackout and The Fountainhead contest" with his entry below.
The recent blackout is a concrete consequence of the elevation a secondhander’s values to governance.
In the electric utility industry, the producer is not free from coercive restraint to produce and trade value for value with his customers. Instead through government intervention, the productive capacity is checked by the requirement to consider the feelings and opinions of anyone and everyone regardless of the protection of individual rights. Thus the rational is subordinated to any arbitrary claim seeking to impose its voice upon the product of another.
Based upon demand for electricity, an electrical utility could plan to expand generating capacity, expand its distribution network, acquire the market of weaker utilities, or implement revolutionary new technology. But first, we must have public hearings, environmental impact studies, the consideration of arbitrary health concerns that lack scientific evidence, and baseless lawsuits appealing to the authority of non-objective law. Instead of profitable investment, capital is squandered on satisfying the whims of the non-productive.
Consequently, productive ability is thwarted while mediocrity reigns. And when the lights go out, the secondhander’s do not accept responsibility, while inflicting upon the productive the double burden of the blame and the shame of begging their inferiors for permission to produce.
Well, there you have it folks.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 8:50 AM | link
| donate |
Wednesday, August 20, 2003 :::
Our Favorites: Dr. Michael Hurd
I greatly enjoy the insight of Dr. Michael Hurd and his "Daily Dose of Reason". Here is a gem that fits perfectly with the EPA story below.
"I hope you still feel small when you stand beside the ocean."
So says a popular song. The implication, clear from the rest of the song, is that man should feel in awe of nature, because nature is far superior to anything human beings can generate.
I don't know about you, but I actually feel tall when I stand beside the ocean.
I feel tall because I belong to the human race, and I know that the human race can sail great ships, even aircraft carriers, on the ocean; I know that gigantic jetliners cross the ocean in the sky; I know the human race can develop sophisticated underwater cameras to photograph century-old shipwrecks with the clarity of a family portrait; I also know that the human race can build wonderful hotels and condominiums, not to mention candy popcorn and salt water taffy stands, to allow human beings to relax and enjoy the wonderful ocean air and sounds.
I feel tall beside the ocean because I am human, and humans can navigate, master and enjoy the ocean better than any fish, whale or bird ever could.
Many look at the ocean and exclaim how tiny they are. I look at the ocean and marvel at how great it is to be human.
Yes!
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 5:29 PM | link
| donate |
Rights and Reason: EPA agrees to clean up scenic skies
Jane Kay, Environment Writer at the San Francisco Chronicle reports on a victory for "Banana* Environmentalists":
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency signed a court settlement Tuesday intended to clear the skies and improve the views in national parks and wilderness areas.
The settlement with Environmental Defense, a national environmental group, places the EPA on a court-ordered schedule to curb by April 2005 haze-forming pollutants that threaten such national parks as Yosemite, Sequoia, Glacier, Big Bend, Great Smoky Mountains, Shenandoah, Big Bend and Acadia. The deal applies to 156 parks and wilderness areas in all.
Hundreds of industrial plants nationwide could be affected by the settlement, including cement plants, copper smelters and coal-fired power plants in the West that supply energy to California.
The settlement must go through a public comment process and requires approval by a Washington, D.C., court before it takes effect.
"This settlement is a big step toward cleaning up the air in our national parks and wilderness areas," said David Baron, attorney for Earthjustice, a nonprofit legal organization that represents Environmental Defense.
"The law sets a national goal of clearing the skies in these special places, for the enjoyment and inspiration of present and future generations," Baron said.
Under 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, industrial plants are prohibited from creating "regional haze" that spoils scenic vistas in parks and wilderness areas. The National Park Service has blamed fine particles created by emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that blow hundreds of miles and impair visibility in many of its wild parks.
So the enjoyment and inspiration of a pretty view comes before the enjoyment and inspiration made possibe by cement plants, copper smelters and coal-fired power plants. Brilliant.
*BANANA--Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 5:13 PM | link
| donate |
Rights and Reason: Ala. Ten Commandments Group Holds Vigil
Supporters of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore held a candlelight vigil early Wednesday, hoping to convince state and federal leaders that his Ten Commandments monument should not be removed from the state judicial building.
Nine pastors led some 30 worshippers from across the country in prayer just after midnight.
"Even if they should remove this monument--and God forbid they do--they'll never be able to remove it from our hearts," said the Rev. Greg Dixon of Indianapolis Baptist Temple.
Moore later reiterated his refusal to move the 5,300-pound monument by the deadline, set by a federal judge, of midnight Wednesday.
"This case is not about a monument, it's not about politics or religion, it's about the acknowledgment of God," he said during an interview on CBS' "The Early Show."
"We must acknowledge God because our constitution says our justice system is established upon God. For (the judge) to say 'I can't say who God is' is to disestablish the justice system of this state."
That's an interesting statement by Roy Moore. I checked my copy of the constitution and found no mention of "God" (there is mention that the constitution was "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven," but I don't think that establishes the Lord as the foundation of the American system of justice).
I did find this in Article III, Section One however:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Maybe Moore thinks Congress is Lord almighty, as they "ordain and establish" the lower courts. Hmmmm . . .
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 8:22 AM | link
| donate |
Rights and Reason: The Northeast blackout
At CAC, we have come across more than one comparison between the blackout and Atlas Shrugged. Elementary, my dear Objectivists. Here's our charge to you: find a good parallel between the blackout and The Fountainhead.
Submit your entrees to info_at_moraldefense.com. Best integration gets bragging rights and their integration featured in tomorrow's Rule of Reason.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 8:06 AM | link
| donate |
Tuesday, August 19, 2003 :::
Rights and Reason: FCC to Allow Video on AOL Messenger
The Federal Communications Commission has agreed to allow America Online to transmit video entertainment over its popular Instant Messenger system, ending a restriction imposed when it approved the merger of the online company with media giant Time Warner Communications in early 2001.
A source familiar with this week's decision said that the commission's three-member Republican majority decided in favor of lifting the ban while the two Democrats dissented. The result of the vote, which is not required to be conducted in a public session, is expected to be announced in the next 48 hours.
The decision is a victory for struggling AOL Time Warner Inc., which lobbied hard for the change and hopes to use instant messaging to promote its video content. AOL spokeswoman Tricia Primrose declined to comment on the decision before an official announcement from the FCC but said the company has been hoping for a favorable decision.
"We think that we made a compelling case," Primrose said.
FCC spokesmen declined to comment.
AOL and Time Warner were primarily in different businesses when they announced their merger in early 2000. But regulators were concerned about the marriage of the largest online service provider with one of the nation's most powerful media conglomerates.
They reasoned that a combined company that included a large cable television system, magazines, CNN, and Warner movies and music could dominate news and entertainment over the Internet and lock out competitors.
Well thank God our federal fathers were protecting us from video transmitted via Instant Messenger. Until they changed their minds, of course.
And I'm glad AOL spokeswoman Tricia Primrose is pleased with AOL's "compelling case" to the FCC. I wonder if anywhere in that case was there an argument that AOL has a right to its property and that was outright idiotic for the government to regulate IM in the first place. The Post article would indicate there was not.
When it approved the [Time-Warner/AOL] merger, the FCC said it would need to see convincing evidence that AOL's instant-messaging dominance had significantly lessened.
According to people familiar with the vote to lift the ban, AOL prevailed by demonstrating that since the merger, its share of the instant-messaging market had dropped from a percentage in the mid-sixties to the mid-fifties.
I wonder if it bothers AOL that their ability to improve their product and profit accordingly hinges not on their technological ability, but on their declining share of the market.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 7:53 PM | link
| donate |
Crime and Punishment: E-mail virus attack
CAC's e-mail is being spoofed along with a virus. As much as I would like to see the perp's punished under the full weight of the law, there is not much we can do. E-mail spoofing is practically impossible to track.
Needless to say, if you get an e-mail attachment from CAC or someone claiming to be CAC and you don't know us, don't open the attachment.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 5:04 PM | link
| donate |
Humor: Bride in Conn. Rages at Reception, Jailed
OK, this has nothing to do with capitalism, but . . . the AP reports:
A North Haven bride spent part of her wedding night in a jail cell, after police said she hurled things at reception hall workers who closed the bar.
Adrienne T. Samen, 18, was arrested on criminal mischief and breach of peace charges Saturday after police responded to The Mill on the River restaurant.
When workers there closed the bar, Samen allegedly began throwing things, including wedding cake and vases. Samen left the restaurant, and police found her walking down the road in her gown.
While being taken into custody, police said she kicked the door and window of the police cruiser and tried to bite an officer.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 1:09 PM | link
| donate |
Foreign Policy: 'Bush Good, Saddam Bad!'
A motivated Marine Lance Corporal reports from Iraq in today's Wall Street Journal:
There's more to America than New York, Washington and Los Angeles. The same is true for Iraq; there's a vast country outside Baghdad and the "Sunni triangle" that's now the center of a guerrilla campaign. It's understandable that Western press reports are fixated on attacks that kill American soldiers. But that focus is obscuring what's actually happening in the rest of the country--and it misleads the public into thinking that Iraqis are growing angry and impatient with their liberators.
In fact, there is another Iraq that the media virtually ignore. It is guarded by the First Marine Division, and, unlike Baghdad, it has been a model of success. The streets are safe, petty and violent crime are low, water and electrical services are almost universally available (albeit rationed), and ordinary Iraqis are beginning to clean up and rebuild their neighborhoods and communities. Equally important, a deep level of mutual trust and respect has developed between the Marines and the populace here in central and southern Iraq.
I know because I'm one of those Marines. My reserve unit was activated before the war, and in April my team arrived in this small city roughly 60 miles south of Baghdad. The negative media portrait of the situation in Iraq doesn't correspond with what I've seen. Indeed, we were treated as liberating heroes when we arrived four months ago, and we continue to enjoy amicable relations with the local populace.
Well, what do you know. Jut!!
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 12:56 PM | link
| donate |
A federal judge in Pennsylvania has certified three separate classes of purchasers to pursue antitrust claims against two of the world's top manufacturers of microcrystalline cellulose, or MCC, a binding agent used in pills and vitamins and as a food additive.
In a significant victory for the plaintiffs in the case, In re Microcrystalline Cellulose Antitrust Litigation, the judge applied the "Bogosian short-cut" -- named for a 1977 decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- in which the court presumes that all buyers of that product have suffered an antitrust injury where the anti-competitive behavior artificially raised the price of a product.
In the suit, purchasers allege that Chicago-based FMC Corp. set out to neutralize competition in the MCC market and to secure monopoly power for itself in North America by conspiring with a Japanese firm, Asahi Kasei Co., to divide the world MCC market into two territories.
The alleged conspiracy came to light in December 2000 when the Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint that said FMC had agreed not to sell any MCC product to customers in Japan or East Asia without Asahi's consent, while Asahi promised not to sell in North America or Europe without the consent of FMC.
The FTC suit also accused FMC of trying to secure agreements with three smaller Asian manufacturers of MCC in order to maintain its monopoly position.
FMC and Asahi settled the suit with a consent decree in which both companies offered no admission of wrongdoing but nonetheless pledged to end the practice.
Under the terms of the settlement, FMC and Asahi were prohibited from agreeing with competitors to divide or allocate markets; agreeing with competitors to refrain from producing, selling or marketing MCC; and inviting or soliciting other companies to enter into agreements not to compete.
The settlement sparked a flurry of lawsuits brought by purchasers of MCC -- pharmaceutical companies, vitamin producers and food manufacturers -- that said the illegal practice had inflated MCC prices since 1984. Now Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas N. O'Neill Jr. has certified the suit as a class action on behalf of three classes of FMC's customers -- vitamin producers, pharmaceutical companies, and companies that purchased MCC to be used as a food additive.
The lure of treble damages is a powerful incentive.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 12:51 PM | link
| donate |
Rights and Reason: Majority Favors Law Against Gay Marriage
More than half of Americans favor a law barring gay marriage and specifying wedlock be between a man and a woman, an Associated Press poll found.
The survey also found presidential candidates could face a backlash if they support gay marriage or civil unions, which provide gay couples the legal rights and benefits of marriage.
The poll, conducted for the AP by ICR-International Communications Research of Media, Pa., found 52 percent favor a law banning gay marriages, while 41 percent oppose it.
About four in 10 — 41 percent — support allowing civil unions, roughly the same level found in an AP poll three years ago. But 53 percent now say they oppose civil unions, up from 46 percent in the earlier survey.
The increase came largely from people who previously were undecided, the polls suggested.
Close to half those surveyed said they would be less likely to support a presidential candidate who backs civil unions (44 percent) or gay marriage (49 percent), while only around 10 percent said they would be more likely.
"I don't think it's a great idea, the whole idea of marriage is bringing up children," said Jim Martin, a 64-year-old engineer from Alexandria, Va. "If somebody was promoting it, I would vote against them."
Well, Mr. Martin from Alexandria is wrong. Marriage is whatever the parties involved choose to make it, and Mr. Martin's opinion on marriage is patently irrelevant. Not finding the raw poll data on the web, I can't comment on the question, but I'm intrigued as to exactly what was asked. I doubt it was "do adults have a right to set the terms of their relationships without restraint by others."
But whatever question was asked, it is disturbing that the rights of gays to the advantages of legal recognition of their relationships is denied them, simply because they are a pariah group in the eyes of many. The principle of individual rights has yet to animate this debate, and I find that appaling.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 9:00 AM | link
| donate |
Monday, August 18, 2003 :::
Rights and Reason: Recall Republicans Must Stand for Individual Rights
Not long ago, the GOP offered an alternative to Big Government: individual rights, which were once implicit as the Republican Party's premise. The Republican philosophy was represented by the late Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, who opposed Medicare, favored a woman's right to an abortion, and promoted a strong defense. With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, religion replaced individual rights as the guiding Republican philosophy.
To the extent Americans have resisted theocratic notions of government, the GOP's religious right domination is mixed with pragmatism, resulting in a Republican Party whose goal is a smaller welfare state under God. The arch proponent of this blend is the GOP's standard-bearer, faith-based President Bush, who is pushing the largest expansion of Medicare since it was enacted in 1965.
Contrary to Jefferson's contention that the best government is that which governs the least, today's Republicans increase public school subsidies. While Goldwater opposed Medicare, today's Republicans expand it. Individual rights -- the right to own property, to make money and to be left alone -- have no meaningful place in the Republican Party.
Goldwater's defiant cry that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue, has been abandoned. Before the party that cheered Goldwater at the 1964 San Francisco convention recalls California's governor, the GOP must restore individual rights as their essential philosophical principle. Then, Republicans will win elections -- or, in losing, they will at least have been right.
Exactly.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 12:47 PM | link
| donate |
The Culture: The Northeast Blackout
Do you remember the year 2000 bug? How civilization was supposed to come unglued when all the computers crashed. Didn't happen. Nor did the northeast come unglued despite being without power last Friday and Saturday. Makes you wonder what the motives of all they naysayers are.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 12:43 PM | link
| donate |
The success of the Center for
the Advancement of Capitalism is made possible thanks to
voluntary contributions by people like you. If you would like
to help support the Center's efforts, please make an
online contribution. We accept all major credit cards.
