Here is what ARI President Yaron Brook had to say:

[T]he Institute has reached yet another important milestone for our Free Books to Teachers program.

Within a very few weeks, ARI will ship—to a high school somewhere in America—the one millionth free copy of an Ayn Rand novel to an educator for use in his classroom.

As I mentioned last year, with regard to the continued growth of the books program, this is not only a significant milestone in and of itself—but more important, it bodes extraordinarily well for the future success of all of our other educational and academic programs.

If you would like to request free novels for your class, please look here.

Laws such as these can be very harmful to businesses. Restaurants can lose many customers in order to accommodate just one of these individuals. There are many people who are allergic to animals and some who just don’t want animals around while they’re eating.

The main issue here, however, is individual rights. It’s unfortunate if someone is disabled, but what gives them the right to impose their problems on others? Nothing. Just like anyone else, it is their responsibility to deal with their own problems. Otherwise, they can rely on the charity of others.

Once again, the government is going beyond its sole purpose of protecting rights and, instead, violating them.

The author says it’s the Washington’s Rules of Engagement that are crippling our troops and pushing them to use this “unethical” behavior. He also explains how Bush is sacrificing our troops for the freedom of others, and is not really fighting our enemy (Iran). When the author brought up that Washington and Bush view this as a compassionate war, I was reminded of an essay by Rand.

The essay is called Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World. She focuses on how the idea of altruism is destroying our way of life. She mentions that both the liberals and conservatives fall victim to this train of thought. Bush was quoted saying, “sacrifice for the liberty of strangers”. How messed up is that! Our military was formed to protect this country and our way of life, NOT the country and way of life of others! Here is proof that the idea of altruism has found its way into the military, a place where it should not be.

Yes, our troops risk their lives, but they do it in defense of their values. And that is moral. To force them to sacrifice themselves for others is immoral. We need to understand the difference and protect our troops from this altruism so they can protect themselves and the American way of life.

“Universal Health Care: No Sick Joke
Small businesses—and large—have trouble attracting the best job candidates because of the high price of health care. Entrepreneurship demands nationalized medical insurance. Pro or con?” – businessweek.com

The two essays are very interesting, but it’s even more interesting to read the comments and see who supports each side. It seems that people are split on the issue, but more doctors agree with Onkar. They feel that the government is creating an unfair market. One even gave the example of cosmetic surgery where the prices are cheaper because of the lack of government regulations. This allows for the free market and competition to keep the pricing and quality in check.

With the current state of health care I don’t believe there is a quick fix. Also, socializing health care is not the answer. Just look at how bad the government handles education, Medicare, social security, and welfare. Do you want the government to handle your heath care too? Looking at their track record with other social programs, I don’t think it would be a good idea. The only thing that could help the current situation is limiting government interference, not creating more.

“On May 27, environmentalists will celebrate what would have been the 100th birthday of Rachel Carson, the founding mother of their movement.” – Read the full article here.

The editorial is called Rachel Carson’s Genocide and focuses on DDT and malaria in Africa. It also talks about how Carson used misinformation to get her movement started. If you do a search on Google you will find better articles on the information she used and how she manipulated it. It reminds me of how people are now doing the same thing on the global-warming issue (on both sides).

I am always embarrassed when Pittsburgh honors this woman; we even have a bridge named after her. How could the city be so proud of someone who is responsible for the death of millions of people?

Her movement is strong and can not be persuaded with reason, so I just hope we can keep them in check. Read the op-ed and let me know what you think about it.

“American Samoa would have been the only U.S. territory not subject to the federal minimum wage.” – CM

The article points out that there are two US companies that have packing plants there and that they would suffer if the wages were increased. But here is the kicker: the two companies mentioned are from California where Speaker Pelosi has ties.

“It’s not unreasonable to guess that Speaker Pelosi’s position has to do with the interests of her well-heeled constituents.” – CM

It’s just funny how these people can say they’re for the common good of the people and then you find out they are really for the “good” of themselves. I wouldn’t have a problem with it if they were up front about it. I just don’t like, or trust, people that are two faced.

The last few lines of the article say it all, so make sure you go read it. Lastly, I do not support the minimum wage; I feel that it demoralizes the hard working people that earn what they make. Why should some new unskilled worker get paid the same as someone that is skilled? Also, an employer will only pay you as much as you are worth to them, no more and no less. So it is not fair for the government to set a worker’s worth; not all workers produce equally. Some produce more and are worth more, whereas some produce less and are worth less. The government needs to stay out of business.

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 log on 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 clearly shows that’s false. It’s the consumers that are getting their way.

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!

After reading this article you will find more proof that the free-market is still working to 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 enough people request these businesses to go nonsmoking, the smart business owners will give it to them. 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?

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 that’s because I’ve trained myself to avoid it.

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 didn’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 the 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 rational businessman will say no.