On last Sunday’s show Brandon and I talked to one of our new listeners. I don’t know his real name but he goes by “GhostDogAlpha†on TalkShoe.com. He seemed to be very informed on Objectivism, but we couldn’t tell if he was just a libertarian that supported Ayn Rand. We hope to talk to him again and maybe we will find out.
The show started off with Eli, a Mormon listener, informing us that George Bush announced a national day of prayer. We talked about how this might not be the best use of power and how it might go against the separation of church and state. We then talked about what atheists do in the courtroom since they really can’t swear on the Bible. Lastly, we had a quick discussion about how the roads and police would be funded in a free capitalist society. Thanks to our listeners that called in! This was an exciting show.
To listen to this show and past ones just go to the TalkShoe.com page or search for “Talk Objectivism†in iTunes.
On the podcast recorded May 20th, Brandon informs us that Leonard Peikoff answered our question about the Virginia Tech Shooting.
Q: During the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech College, there was a professor, a holocaust survivor, who blocked a door against the shooter so that his students could escape safely. And although he died in the process, the students did escape. Is this an act of altruism that Objectivism classifies as immoral?
A: No. As you present it, it was a heroic act in defense of the professor’s values. – Click here to read the full answer.
I would like to thank Brandon for sending the email. Also, after reading what Peikoff had to say, it seems that we came to the same conclusion. It’s nice to know that the show is working and we are all learning from each other.
We also talked about some of the many comments from our new listeners and readers. One of the ones we talked about was immigration. I was watching the news and saw that there is new immigration legislation so I thought I would bring it up on the show. We were just talking about this last week so that means that talkObjectivism.com is on the leading edge of political discussion.
I posted the following on my personal blog, MrBaconpants.com. I am posting it here, too, because I would like to see what this crowd thinks about the issue. The issue deals with copyrights and what companies should do to protect them.
I think I am one of the few people that did not jump on the iTunes band wagon. The main reason was, I didn’t like the fact that the music you buy on iTunes can only be played on an iPod and you have to logon to iTunes to play it on another computer. That can be tricky if you plan on playing your music on a machine that doesn’t have network access.
I understand what they were trying to make the major labels happy by over protecting there music. But it limited the consumer and the people that were going to steal away are unaffected. That’s why I went to eMusic to get my music. They allow you to download unprotected mp3’s that you can play on just about anything. The only drawback is that most major labels would not support them because they are afraid of losing control of the music if it had no copyright protection. This may soon change.
Apple has heard the cries of people like me and they are now trying to push the major labels in allowing them to sale unprotected tracks. In this article on CNN you can find out how Jobs is using the popularity of the iPod and iTunes to pressure the Labels in to giving in. And it’s working! One label has already agreed to allow Apple to start selling unprotected tracks.
This is why a free-market is great. You have the consumers demanding change and a business backing them up. Because it’s in the business’s best interest to make us happy even if that means standing up to a giant. Consumers have the power to change the market and we need to understand that. — MrBaconpants.com
After I posted this article I found out that Amazon is also fighting for the consumers and will be offering DRM-free music, too. The main reason I am posting this is because it shows you how in a free-market even the rich record labels have to give in. Opponents to capitalism say that in a free-market the rich and powerful companies will rule over us, but this is clearly shown as false. It’s the consumers that are getting their way.
On last night’s podcast we talked about immigration and tried to figure on the objective approach. Like most problems we talk about on the show it seems the government always creates more problems then it solves. Since we live an age of big government, I don’t think its going to stop anytime soon.
At the end of the show I asked the question, “What does someone have to do to enter this country?†Since I really don’t have time to read though all the immigration laws, I luckily found the short answer below on Findlaw.com.
Q: What documents do I need in order to apply for an immigrant visa?
A: You will generally need a passport; three photographs; a birth certificate; marriage, divorce, or death certificates; and proof of financial support. You will also need to pass a medical examination. READ MORE
Sounds easy enough. So why are there so many people coming illegally? Well, it turns out that our government is limiting who can enter the country. So not only do you need all that paperwork you also need to “qualify†(whatever that means) to get to enter. I am sure that it’s a little more complicated then that, but I am not an expert on immigration.
Well, during the show we talked about the “pros†of immigration. We found that unrestricted immigration promoted capitalism. The more people you have, the more people you can employ, because more people are buying products, which is creating more wealth, and the wealth is then paid to the employed. By allowing immigration you are creating more opportunities to create wealth which raises the standard of living for everyone. I am not the only one that feels this way just read this article. The only “cons†we could come up with were government created ones, like welfare abuse and other tax-funded programs.
Open, unrestricted immigration (with appropriate medical and criminal screenings as done on Ellis Island in the late 19th Century) poses no threat to the U.S. Rather, open immigration is the means for renewing the American sense of life and injecting “new blood” into the nation. READ MORE
Listen to the podcast at TalkShoe.com to hear the whole discussion on immigration. Brandon and I are getting better with staying on topic, so I hope this one is easier to listen, too. If you would like to join the show just go to TalkShoe.com and create an account. It’s that easy. The more interactive (live) listeners we have, the better the show will be.
Here is a short list of articles that I am going to read over the weekend. You should read them, too, and let me know what you think about them. Just leave a comment on this post with your thoughts.
1.) Smoking to affect movie ratings system (CNN)
2.) The Shame of Higher Education (CAPMAG)
3.) The Public Trough Is Bigger Than Ever (RCP)
4.) Health Care Is a Business–or Should Be (CAPMAG)
5.) Revenue Collections Hit Record in April (YAHOO)
6.) Worry About the Right Things (CAPMAG)
7.) The Great Global Warming Swindle Questions Answered (Reasic)
If find an article you think I should read, just use the contact forum on this site to email it to me. Thanks!
I was browsing Capitalism Magazine and found two articles that sparked my interest. The first one is about the phony science behind the secondhand smoke claims. The second is about the hyped up science behind Global Warming. What is most interesting is how both issues tie into each other.
Both stories show you how people are trying to use the government to force there choices and beliefs on to other people. What is most troubling about this is how they are committing fraud and getting away with it.
In Objectivism this is immoral and is considered a use of force. The people that manipulated the reports and finds should be prosecuted. Lucky for them, their views and findings are the popular opinion so I don’t think that is happening anytime soon.
Reason requires freedom, self-confidence and self-esteem. It requires the right to think and act on the guidance of one’s thinking - the right to live by one’s own independent judgment. Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries. - p.25 For the New Intellectual, Ayn Rand
Read these articles (Smoking and Warming) and tell me what you think. If you don’t agree let it be known and let us try to persuade you. This is an important issue and it needs more public attention.
On last night’s podcast recorded at TalkShoe.com, Brandon and I talk about Environmentalism. We also mention global-warming, but we did not discuss if it exists or not. We just talk about how industry and individuals could prevent it, without needing more government control. (NOTE: I personally don’t think global-warming is a big deal and I have yet so see proof to makes me think differently.)
We also talked about how it seems there are people out there that put nature before man. They would rather see a person suffer just so a tree or an animal live unaffected by man. What these people don’t understand is that man is a part of nature and we have a right to live, too.
I also mentioned that the Environmentalism movement should focus on education and persuading the population to think more “Greenâ€. A way they could do that is by asking the government to give tax brakes to those who use alternative fuels, or asking stores to give a 10% discount to anyone that uses reusable bags. If there was something I, too, could get out of thinking “Green†then I would be more likely to do it. And I know I am not the only person who thinks that way.
We talked about a lot more but you will have to listen to it yourself. If you would like to be part of the show just go to TalkShoe.com and create an account. Then on Sundays at 8pm, login and join it on the show LIVE!
Looks like the smoking ban in Pittsburgh is off again, which is a win for freedom. If you read this article in the Post Gazette you will see that the ban is off because of two smart business owners. They took their complains to the state courts. And they agreed that it was unfair.
After reading this article you will find more proof that the free-market is trying to still fix this problem on its own.
“Pat Joyce, owner of the 17th Street Cafe on the South Side, said … Our primary focus is dinner. I would say 90 to 95 percent of our guests had asked us to go nonsmoking.”
See, if you request it, a smart business owner will give it to you, if you get enough people backing you. But if 95 percent of their customers want smoking then you better bet that they will want to keep it that way, and that’s fine. With businesses listening to the demand, you now have a choice between a business that does and one that doesn’t ban smoking. Everyone likes choices, so why would we want the government to take them away?
In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, they have passed a smoking ban in all public places and privately owned businesses. This is proof that government is going beyond it’s purpose. The government is telling business owners how to run their business. If that seems ok to you, then you are NOT someone who values your freedom.
I would also like to let everyone know that I am NOT a smoker. I just value people’s right to choose. If you want to smoke and increase your risk of lung cancer, that is fine by me. Also, if you are a business owner and would like to let people smoke on your property, that is fine, too, because you have the right to do whatever you want as long as you don’t violate the rights of others.
This brings me to another point. People say that smoking doesn’t just hurt the people smoking; the secondhand smoke hurts the people around them. Well, that may be true, but there is simple solution to this problem. Don’t hang around people that smoke and don’t go to bars and restaurants that allow it. NO ONE is forcing you to smoke and breathe smoky air. I’m a non-smoker and I can’t remember the last time that I was bothered by a smoker. I guess it’s because I’ve trained myself to avoid it.
Also, if everyone would just look around, they would see that capitalism (the free-market) was starting to take care of the situation for us. The businesses (bars and pubs) in the area were starting to offer smoke-free nights and rooms that were smoke-free. So if you don’t want to be around secondhand smoke, you had a choice. But I guess that wasn’t enough for the freedom haters, so they lobbied the local government to pass this ban.
So what you smoke-free nuts should have done was, before crying to big government, try doing something yourself. Ask your favorite bar and restaurant to try having a smoke-free night. If you get enough people behind you, no business will say no.
