Ada Byron's Blog - an Objectivist Website

Ada Byron's Blog on Objectivism and Liberalism : issue # 200907 Select issue (from 9/1/2001)

SUMMER 2010 ISSUES:

What we are For and Against
Man's requirements to survive and thrive
"This is John Galt Speaking" #1

Improved Financial Planning Tool

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT:

Interpretation Amendment

Section 1
Interpretation of the constitution shall begin with the purpose of government, that of securing the individual's rights to life, liberty and property (the means to the pursuit of happiness), and that these rights are not privileges granted by the government, but rights with which all individuals are born.

Section 2
These individual rights are not fully defined in this constitution, for it is impossible to list them all.

Section 3
The powers of the government are exhaustively defined in this constitution, and none are to be identified as "implied" or as new or modified powers because of a "compelling need" of the government. Of all interests, the interests of individuals must be deemed as the most compelling.

Section 4
All acts presented for passage into law before Congress shall be examined based on the presumption of liberty. Just as in a criminal trial the accused is presumed innocent and must be proven guilty, in the legislative process, the presumption must be that any proposed law is not needed until proof is presented. While no crime is in question in the latter process, nor punishment, any of the innumerable individual rights may be at stake. The proposed act, if enacted, may impinge on, constrain, limit, infringe on, abridge or deny individuals' rights to life, liberty and property.

Section 5
Such process to ensure the presumption of liberty must place the burden of proof on the government, to establish that the interest at stake is individual rights, and that any act proposed secures such rights without impairing the rights of others. Peter Namtvedt

Submit your amendment to the US Constitution or comments on any of ours. (our first one appeared in issue 200609) Send it to our email address:
Other proposed amendments.

OPINIONS & LETTERS:

HUMOR:

A fellow walks into the bank, introduces himself and says "I am here to talk about a loan."

"Great," says the banker, "How much are you willing to lend us?"
Art Cassian on CNBC, July 2, 2009

"This is John Galt Speaking" #1
Play

Continue listening to the next part.

What Obama Should Say To Iran

Guest editorial (with permission of ARI)

Tuesday, June 30, 2009
By: Debi Ghate
Copyright © 1995-2009 Ayn Rand © Institute (ARI).

Protests in Iran continue despite the theocracy's attempt to crush them. As Tehran launches its usual accusations of "American interference," could it be that America hasn't "interfered" enough?

Imagine what might happen—what potential benefit there could be to us and to Iran—if this speech were made by an American President.

"Good evening. I am here to address events of great significance to the American people. Over the past weeks, we have witnessed the murdering, beating and intimidation of Iranian protestors by a theocratic regime clenching its iron fist to retain power. I strongly condemn these unjust actions of the Iranian regime.

It is time for America to be unequivocal and to recognize its past errors. It is time for the United States to make it clear that it does not recognize the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran has not had a legitimate government worthy of our recognition for decades. The country has been ruled by a series of murdering clerics who seized power outside of any legitimate political means. They were not chosen through any representative process. They are dictators of the worst kind.

For decades, the Iranian regime has repeatedly declared itself an enemy of America, openly acting in violence against our citizens. We've known it since the clerics and their supporters took our embassy staff hostage in 1979. We've known it in the form of multiple Tehran-backed attacks on Americans since: 1983 in Beirut where we lost 241 people in a bombing; 1985 when TWA 847 was hijacked by Iranian-trained Hezbollah fighters and we lost a Navy diver; 1996 at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia where we lost 19; the list goes on. We've heard their message: "Death to America."

This is a regime that loudly calls for jihad on the West—for the violent imposition of sharia law—it calls for Islamic totalitarianism. It provides the intellectual leadership for the Islamist movement: training, financing, and otherwise encouraging a multitude of terrorist organizations—including those responsible for the September 11th attacks on our soil. America has not forgotten that this regime orchestrated and participated in three decades of deadly assaults upon its people and is ultimately responsible for them. We have nothing to say to the Iranian regime—except that we will no longer repeat our grave errors of the past. We know what you stand for, and what threat you pose.

But we do have much to say to the brave Iranians voicing their opposition to the Supreme leader, making it clear his regime does not represent them.

To those among you standing up in the face of threats; to those among you saying "We will continue to speak even if you, Supreme leader, claim that Allah forbids it"; to those among you deciding that it is time for freedom in Iran—we say: you have our encouragement, and our sanction.

To those among you protesting against more than the electoral results, who are wholesale rejecting the oppressive nature of theocratic rule—we offer you our moral and financial support. And if necessary, we will offer you military support to the best of our ability. You see, we share your goal of ending the Iranian theocracy and of eliminating the threat it poses to our own nation. We have had the moral right to end it for decades; you not only have that right, you have the moral fortitude.

To those few in Iran desperately seeking liberty: rejecting theocratic rule is critical, but what are you fighting for? Seize this opportunity to fight for a nation founded on principles that protect individual rights. As America once fought for its independence, so can you. Life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness: these are your inalienable rights. The time is now to fight to create a free nation upholding these principles.

It will not be easy. Our thoughts are with you as you face imminent danger and uncertainty. It will take courage and conviction. But to you, the true friend of freedom, we say: we are with you as you take your first important step towards real revolution. You have rejected the iron fist that smashes you down through religious rule. You have spoken. Stand firm, and we will stand with you."

Unfortunately we will not hear this speech. Only a President acting on a foreign policy that properly defends the rights of its own citizens—a foreign policy of principled self-interest—would take this bold stand.

Debi Ghate is Vice-President of Academic Programs at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

For more articles by Debi Ghate, and her bio, click here.

Stock Market Stuck

We may have seen the best intermediate top in the DOW at 8800 in June. We were right back in March about the bottom for the S&P500 at 666.

So what lies ahead?

The market looks like it will move sideways in a DOW range of 8000 to 8600. Make careful trades in here, maybe with covered calls. Earnings reports in late July into August will be somewhat disappointing. Ditto for mid-September into October. This forecast is good through mid-October 2009.

At that time get ready to pile on, going LONG with margin trades.

What we are For and what we are Against

We at AdaByron.net espouse a philosophy that stands firmly opposed to collectivist and religious nonsense, but rather a philosophy that recognizes the world around us as fully real, that affirms that man's consciousness can know what that world is through the use of reason. Unless you are asleep or seriously drugged, the world you see around you is what we affirm as existing. Moreover, all existing things have a specific identity and entails specific causalities. Furthermore, we hold that man is unique among animals in requiring the use of reason to survive, rather than relying on automatic acts to acquire food and fend off enemies.

For the full article, go to For and Against

LINKS:

Ayn Rand Institute
Capitalism Magazine

Financing Government Without Taxation, by James Rolph Edwards, Professor of Economics, Montana State University-Northern

From Reason to Freedom
Weekly free-thinking magazine promoting thinking for oneself, thus helping to create a free, benevolent society:
Some of my postings:
Words and Referents
Bank Socialism
Saints in the Lobby
Troubling clauses
The Burden of gov't

RTBA Coalition

Proud member of the
Read the Bills Act Coalition

What we are For and what we are Against

We at AdaByron.net espouse a philosophy that stands firmly opposed to collectivist and religious nonsense, but rather a philosophy that recognizes the world around us as fully real, that affirms that man's consciousness can know what that world is through the use of reason. Unless you are asleep or seriously drugged, the world you see around you is what we affirm as existing. Moreover, all existing things have a specific identity and entails specific causalities. Furthermore, we hold that man is unique among animals in requiring the use of reason to survive, rather than relying on automatic acts to acquire food and fend off enemies.

In order for man to be able to use reason to survive and flourish he must be free. It must be recognized that every man has property in his body and the product of his mind and effort, that he has unlimited individual rights within the bounds of everyone else having the same rights. He must be allowed to do whatever he finds productive or conducive to his survival and happiness, using what he owns, as long as he does no physical harm to other men, including fraud (an indirect form of harm). No one has the right to initiate force or fraud. However, retaliatory force is an individual human right.

Only one right is alienated by man living in society: the right to the use of force. Man must delegate the use of retaliatory force to the government. The government's purpose is to defend individual rights, to provide police, courts and national defense. A man may use retaliatory force in defense of his life and property when the police are not present and able to help him. In order that society can function rationally, all men must delegate their right and power to identify the person who does harm, apprehend him, stop the harmful act, assess the evidence and determine guilt or innocence, and, if necessary, render the criminal harmless, if the police cannot respond in time, i.e., in an emergency.

Based on this, we advocate:

Investing in yourself, your human capital, also store up earnings in safe investments for your future when you become less productive
Spending your earnings first of all on yourself and the close ones in your life, those whom you value; generosity to others, whom you do not know, is less important
Laissez faire capitalism, under the same law against force and fraud
Open borders (provided the immigrant or visitor has no criminal record)
The right to do with our property and lives anything our survival and happiness requires as long as it does not physically harm any one else
Liability for damages if our acts do physically harm someone else
The right to retain the full reward of our work, the use of our brains and effort
All capitalistic acts between consenting adults
A monetary system based on assets, preferably gold
A government that serves one purpose: defending individual rights
An objective legal system:
1. Which establishes laws rather than deciding any issues on an ad hoc basis
2. Whose laws are enacted by the established legislative body of the nation, according to clear rules.
3. Whose legislative process is based on the presumption of liberty rather than the presumption of constitutionality (a process is required that ensures that the proposed act will improve the safeguarding of individual rights without impairing anyone else's rights, rather than presuming that the legislative body may enact any law it wills, placing the burden of proof on the affected parties).
4. Whose laws are clearly defined, unambiguous, universal, impartial and predictive, making clear what conduct is forbidden and why
5. Whose laws are contextual (there are situations where killing is permitted), straightforward and as simple as possible
6. Which publishes its laws — the legal system makes written rules and makes them known to everyone
7. Whose laws are tied to reality by individual rights (the reality of "the conditions required by man's nature for his proper survival."
8. Whose laws are prospective rather than retroactive
9. Whose laws are understandable and are not conducive to subjective and arbitrary interpretation
10. Whose laws are consistent and never contradictory
11. Whose laws require conduct that is within the capability of the affected party
12. Whose laws area stable enough that people can orient their conduct accordingly
13. Whose laws require a congruence between rules as announced and their actual administration
14. Whose laws are applied equally to all persons and whose reciprocal obligations of the government are recognized and honored (where police and courts fully comply with their aspect of the rules).

We reject and condemn

Taxes
Government intervention of any kind, in economics, education, scientific research, the arts, what you do with your body or property as long as you do not physically harm or defraud others
Anti-trust legislation and all other laws that entail subjectivity in application
Entangling alliances and treaties with other countries
Tariffs and restrictions on trade
Permitting or establishing monopolies
Subsidies for favored people or industries
All regulation (see laws against physical harm and fraud, above)
Fiat money, made of paper, based on debt

Aristotle defined the five reasons why gold is the best possible money in the 4th century B.C. To wit, it is durable, divisible, convenient, consistent, and has value in and of itself. Aristotle failed to mention a sixth reason: it cannot be created out of thin air.

Doug Casey

And von Mises would add yet another reason: among all goods it is the most marketable.

Does this philosophy amount to common sense? To a large extent it does, but it does so without the contradictions that are common in "common sense." It does so by accepting that people must act according to self-interest in order to live. But it does not accept it in the sense that "might makes right" and that you should do whatever seems to be in your interest regardless of what happens to other people. It does so by accepting the concept that we are human and therefore cannot live up to a code of values that requires sacrifice, but need to live by a code that fulfils the requirements for life as a human.

Some selfless "saint" may be a model of behavior to some people and give them something to "reach for." However the problem is that no human being can reach it, without ending their lives prematurely. That model requires that you sacrifice yourself for whoever comes before you that needs something more than you do.

So you end up moaning, while accepting altruism, that "I'm only human."

The problem with that is that the saint's morality was not designed for humans living on earth. Altruism is the ultimate anti-morality. Rational self-interest is the morality of life.