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.
Foreign Policy: Six-Party Talks Produce DPRK-China split
The Bush policy on North Korea has recently enjoyed two limited successes. The Administration consistently demanded multilateral rather than bilateral talks with North Korea to dismantle the DPRK nuclear program. After much posturing, and much criticism of the Administration this spring at home and abroad, the North agreed, first to three-party talks with China (which, at the talks, became bilateral US-Chinese and Chinese-DPRK talks) and then to six-party talks with both Koreas, China, Russia, the US and Japan.
The talks were held, and nothing was agreed to. But the first partial victory is that the North Koreans, who desperately need foreign money, "blinked" and accepted the US terms for the negotiations. The US was not stampeded into a negotiation on the North's terms. The six-party talks also have the benefit of sharing the responsibility for the issue with the other Northeast Asian regional powers.
The second partial victory is that, by involving the Chinese in the diplomacy, the North Koreans have been split from their Chinese allies. After the talks, the Chinese statement was that all parties agreed that a second round of talks would be held sometime somewhere, that everyone wanted a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, and (more implied than stated) that the meeting was a constructive, limited success for Chinese diplomacy and prestige.
The North Koreans today declared the talks a failure, refused to give up their nuclear weapons or weapons program and either did or did not rule out future talks, depending on the translation. In response, according to ABC Radio Australia, China declared that all parties should continue meeting.
China is the country with the most significant leverage over North Korea, their historic ally as well as their largest contributor of subsidies, especially fuel oil for the army. North Korea's only source of fuel is a pipeline from China. The pipeline was shut down for a few days in March for allegedly technical reasons, which coincided with reports of Chinese messages to North Korea to enter negotiations with the US.
Keeping the option of war against North Korea on the table is paying dividends—there is increasing pressure on the Chinese to deliver a solution. The Chinese are certainly in a position to squeeze the Kim regime, and may be in a position to replace is with a more amenable, nonnuclear puppet state.
This was a good week for the Administration's North Korea policy.
::: posted by John Bragg
at 8:28 AM | link
| donate |
Tuesday, August 26, 2003 :::
Rights and Reason: Atheists Demand Equally Arbitrary Exemptions
As long as there are public schools, there will be public school rules. Children who go to public schools must follow public school rules. If you don't like the public schools, there are private schools. There is homeschooling in most states.
A lawsuit by a Pennsylvania atheist parent and the American Atheists group demands that an atheist child get a religious exemption from a school-uniforms policy. The lawsuit claims that the uniforms "hinder her children's creativity... and freedom of expression" and are militaristic, too, which the mother opposes.
As a public school teacher, I "hinder my students' creativity" every flipping day when I stop them from drawing Japanese-style fighting cartoons when they should be reading. I also hinder their "freedom of expression" by telling them when they may and may not speak and what they may and may not talk about. Schools have to be able to set rules and enforce them to function.
If there is a rule that anyone can opt out of for any reason they choose, then it isn't a rule. The Constitution protects the free exercise of religion--access to a public facility such as a school cannot be denied or limited as a result of someone's religion or the demands of that religion. That means that if someone's religion says that they wear all black without buttons, or a skullcap, or a turban, or a feathered headdress, then public facilities must admit those costumes and headgear. Atheists' personal views, however, are not religions, they are personal views. Personal views, if they are not religiously based, are not the free exercise of religion and they do not have to be accommodated in the public schools. A child who is a Jehovah's Witness does not have to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. A child who simply hates America does. This is why we require the signature of a minister, to have a standard for denying frivolous exemptions.
The suit raises an equal protection claim, that anything religious folks get, atheists should get. Religious exemptions are exceptions to rules based essentially on the fact that a religion claims that to follow the rule would cause God to be angered and smite them. The religious exemption protects the believer from the smiting. Only incidentally does it exempt them from the rule. Whereas if God is going to smite an atheist, it's probably not because I didn't wear the proper hat. Reason does not enjoy the constitutional protection that religion does. Fortunately, we don't need it.
::: posted by John Bragg
at 10:22 PM | link
| donate |
Rights & Reason: Exempting Rationality
Nick Provenzo is on vacation this week, and I remain on blogging recess until after Labor Day, but I did want to share one brief observation regarding Eugene Volokh's post on the constitutional limits of government-school dress codes:
Exemptions for religious observers: This story about a public school dress code raises the perennial constitutional question: May the government exempt religious observers from a generally applicable rule (here, a dress code, though it could equally be military conscription, a high school biology vivisection requirement, or a variety of other rules) but not extend the same exemption to conscientious nonreligious observers? If you're interested in this general question, you might check out this summary in an article of mine -- I don't take a stand on the subject, but I outline the issues. (As a policy matter, I think that secular conscientious objectors should generally be treated the same as religious objectors, but it's not clear to me whether, and to what extent, the Establishment Clause requires this.)
Note, though, that the dress code case also includes a different twist: Not all religious objectors are entitled to an exemption, but only those who can get a note from their religious leader. This, I'm pretty sure, is unconstitutional, because it privileges those religions that have organized clergy over those that don't, and those people whose religious beliefs match their leader's and those whose beliefs are more idiosyncratic. The Supreme Court held, in Thomas v. Employment Division (1981), that constitutionally mandated religious accommodations (when the Free Exercise Clause was interpreted as mandating such accommodations) turn on a person's own sincere beliefs; and I think the same principle would apply to religious accommodations that the government voluntarily creates.
My observation: How would an Objectivist get exempt from the dress code? Would they need a note from the Ayn Rand Institute, or would they need only submit a note proving the irrationality of the dress code according to Objectivist ethics? Not that Objectivism is a religion, mind you, but it is an integrated philosophy. It surely is entitled to the same legal protections as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.
::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 7:42 PM | link
| donate |
Monday, August 25, 2003 :::
Capitalism and the Law: Fox News Drops Suit Vs. Franken Over Book
Erin McClam of the Associated Press reports it's the end of the line for the Fox News suit against liberal humorist Al Franken:
Fox News dropped its lawsuit against Al Franken on Monday, three days after a federal judge refused to block the liberal humorist from using the Fox slogan "Fair and Balanced" on the cover of his book.
The lawsuit had sought unspecified damages from Franken and Penguin Group, publisher of "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right."
"It's time to return Al Franken to the obscurity that he's normally accustomed to," Fox News spokeswoman Irena Steffen said.
The story of how Al Franken got Fox to plug his book for him for free has got to be one of the great tales of modern communication. Don't get me wrong--I think Franken is a big dumb idiot, but Fox's idiocy against him was bigger and more idiotic, and has to be one of the least savvy moves since new Coke.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 7:44 PM | link
| donate |
Antitrust News: CAC Opposes Federal Antitrust Settlement With Gambling Services Organization
CAC commented on another antitrust settlement. This from our press release:
Alexandria, VA--The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism (CAC) today filed formal comments with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia opposing the U.S. Justice Department's settlement with the National Council on Problem Gambling, Inc. (NCPG), a nonprofit trade association representing organizations that assist individuals addicted to gambling.
NCPG consists of 34 state affiliates that provide "problem gambling services" within particular states. The DOJ charged NCPG with illegally restraining trade among its affiliates by maintaining internal policies designed to prevent one affiliate from offering services in another state's territory.
"NCPG's members entered into a voluntary agreement governing their operations, and that agreement was arbitrarily and capriciously negated by the Justice Department's antitrust police," CAC Chairman Nicholas Provenzo said. "No consumer was deprived of their legal rights by NCPG's actions, but rather the DOJ has deprived of NCPG of its right to associate with one another on mutually agreeable terms."
The proposed settlement, which must be approved by the district court, prevents NCPG from maintaining any policy governing competition that contradicts the beliefs of the Justice Department. "The proposed settlement goes so far as to prevent NCPG from lobbying Congress and the public to overrule the Justice Department's erroneous and unconstitutional attack on the organization's First Amendment rights," CAC senior fellow Skip Oliva said.
The NCPG settlement could become final after the Justice Department reviews and replies to CAC's comments and the court makes a determination of whether the agreement is in the "public interest", a process that could take three to six weeks.
One has to wonder about the DOJ enforcing antitrust against a nonprofit? After all, it's a nonprofit. Do we really want nonprofits competing against one another?
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 2:26 PM | link
| donate |
Elections: How will you vote?
This in from Mike Walker:
California Taco Bell restaurants are offering their own election.
I'll just have a salad. To go.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 2:21 PM | link
| donate |
In nearly every American city or town, you can find people like Peter Jaquith. He is 67 and has $150 in his checking account. He lives on $1,100 a month in Social Security and a little help from family members. To make ends meet, he has worked as a deliveryman and a toilet cleaner.
It hasn't always been like this for Mr. Jaquith. In the 1980's, he was a partner at Lazard Frères, the elite investment bank, and the right-hand man of Felix Rohatyn, its legendary deal maker. At his peak, Mr. Jaquith was worth at least $20 million.
Back then, he led the glamorous life of a major Wall Street player. For Thanksgiving, he thought nothing of spending $40,000 to fly 30 friends to his weekend home in Palm Springs, Calif. He paid their air fares, hotel and restaurant bills and golf fees.
But one night 10 years ago, an increasingly frustrated and heavy-drinking Mr. Jaquith discovered crack cocaine. Suddenly, Mr. Jaquith, who had earned millions advising corporate tycoons on deals, found himself begging dealers with names like "Cuffie" for drugs. At one point, he wound up homeless. "Part of me wondered if he was dead," his daughter Pamela recalled.
Can we really find, in every American city or town, ex-millionare crackheads? And if so, why did it take the New York Times so long to find one?
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 1:50 PM | link
| donate |
Rights and Reason: Political Debate Looms Over Obesity
Siobhan Mcdonough of the AP reports on the anti-obesity lawyers.
[W]ith obesity a growing health problem, lawmakers, lawyers and activists are lining up the way they do for most issues: on two sides.
The left's view is that the food industry and advertisers are big bullies that practically force-feed people with gimmicks and high-calorie treats. They say Ronald McDonald is the cousin of Joe Camel.
The right's argument has been dubbed: You're fat, your fault. They say people can make their own choices about food and exercise.
These two paragraphs outline why I think the chances are better for Objectivists to influence the Republican Party over the Democratic Party. In this case, the left sees individuals bereft of free will. The right sees otherwise. The left will claim that its view is scientific and rational. The right will claim common sense.
That’s not to say either side is consistent. The right certainly does not display common sense on questions like abortion (whereas the left does defend abortion, but I have a nagging suspicion that it does so the grounds that abortion is the only individual right that is gender specific.)
Yet when you think about obstacles to overcome, I do think, outside of Roy Moore and his ilk, that many on the right recognize at least vaguely that there is link between freedom and free will. The right has its economic conservatives. There are no such parallel creatures on the left.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 10:47 AM | link
| donate |
Rights and Reason: In God I Trust
Alabama Judge Roy Moore explains his position in the Ten Commandments case in today's Wall Street Journal:
[W]e must acknowledge God in the public sector because the state constitution explicitly requires us to do so. The Alabama Constitution specifically invokes "the favor and guidance of Almighty God" as the basis for our laws and justice system. As the chief justice of the state's supreme court I am entrusted with the sacred duty to uphold the state's constitution. I have taken an oath before God and man to do such, and I will not waver from that commitment.
By telling the state of Alabama that it may not acknowledge God, Judge Thompson effectively dismantled the justice system of the state. Judge Thompson never declared the Alabama Constitution unconstitutional, but the essence of his ruling was to prohibit judicial officers from obeying the very constitution they are sworn to uphold. In so doing, Judge Thompson and all who supported his order, violated the rule of law.
[***]
The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize that I am not Congress, and no law has been passed. Nevertheless, Judge Thompson's order states that the acknowledgment of God crosses the line between the permissible and the impermissible and that to acknowledge God is to violate the Constitution.
Not only does Judge Thompson put himself above the law, but above God, as well. I say enough is enough. We must "dare defend our rights" as Alabama's state motto declares. No judge or man can dictate what we believe or in whom we believe. The Ninth and 10th Amendments are not a part of the Constitution simply to make the Bill of Rights a round number. The Ninth Amendment secured our right as a people. The 10th guaranteed our right as a sovereign state. Those are the rules of law.
Judge Moore speaks of individual rights in the same breath that he trashes them. Moore has an unquestioned right to place his monument to the Ten Commandments on private property. He does not have a right to place his monument on public property.
The basis for belief in the Ten Commandments is that they are an edict given to man by God, and that man must obey them or suffer God’s displeasure. Judge Moore specifically wants to use the statehouse to show what he believes is the link between the Ten Commandments and the constitution.
Thousands of people enter the Judicial Building each year. In addition to attorneys, parties, judges, and employees, every fourth grader in the state is brought on a tour of the building as part of a field trip to the state capital. No one who enters the building through the main entrance can miss the monument.
Yet there is no rational basis for belief in the Ten Commandments. They are not a refection of reasoned thought on the nature of man and his requirements of survival—such an analysis would reject intrinsic, other-worldly commandments out of hand. The Ten Commandments are an article of faith. The Founders were wise enough to recognize that while the freedom of individuals to their faith must be protected, the faithful do not have the right to use the power of government to establish their religion as the law of the land. In the public ream, reason must rule over all. The government and its agents have no place memorializing faith-based doctrine on public land.
Judge Moore has a right to his beliefs. He does not have the right to use the statehouse to transmit those beliefs to others.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 9:51 AM | link
| donate |
Sunday, August 24, 2003 :::
Proper Mission of Government: U.S. Troops Use Confiscated Iraqi AK-47s
An American soldier stands at the side of an Iraqi highway, puts his AK-47 on fully automatic and pulls the trigger.
Within seconds the assault rifle has blasted out 30 rounds. Puffs of dust dance in the air as the bullets smack into the scrubland dirt. Test fire complete.
U.S. troops in Iraq may not have found weapons of mass destruction, but they're certainly getting their hands on the country's stock of Kalashnikovs--and, they say, they need them.
The soldiers based around Baqouba are from an armor battalion, which means they have tanks, Humvees and armored personnel carriers. But they are short on rifles.
A four-man tank crew is issued two M4 assault rifles and four 9mm pistols, relying mostly on the tank's firepower for protection.
But now they are engaged in guerrilla warfare, patrolling narrow roads and goat trails where tanks are less effective. Troops often find themselves dismounting to patrol in smaller vehicles, making rifles essential.
"We just do not have enough rifles to equip all of our soldiers. So in certain circumstances we allow soldiers to have an AK-47. They have to demonstrate some proficiency with the weapon ... demonstrate an ability to use it," said Lt. Col. Mark Young, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division.
So we just do not have enough rifles to equip all of our soldiers? Why not? Why is an armored regiment running infantry patrols? Why are our fighting men not already provided with a rifle they prefer for the mission they have been given? Why does the United Sates of America have to rely on captured weapons to put down its enemies?
I am disgusted. Any American casualty that results from one of our fighting men not having a proper rifle is an appalling and useless sacrifice. A nation that sends its men to fight for it without providing these men every necessary tool and every practical advantage has lost its moral compass.
Somebody once told me that defenders never get the support they need from those they protect. I hear stories like this one and I begin to wonder if that person was right.
::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 9:15 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.
