A recent Impromptus tells two interesting tales of political religion:

In his article for the forthcoming NR on the Jo-burg jamboree, Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute tells a story about Julian Simon, the late and great economist.

He was at some environmental forum, and he said, “How many people here believe that the earth is increasingly polluted and that our natural resources are being exhausted?” Naturally, every hand shot up. He said, “Is there any evidence that could dissuade you?” Nothing. Again: “Is there any evidence I could give you — anything at all — that would lead you to reconsider these assumptions?” Not a stir. Simon then said, “Well, excuse me, I’m not dressed for church.”

I love that story, for what it says about the fixity of these beliefs, immune to evidence, reason, or anything else.

It reminds me of an experience that I’ve had with left-liberals about taxation. Now, you and I know that, in history, if you’ve cut tax rates, you’ve increased revenue to the government. But left-liberals, of course, don’t accept that.

So I’ve played a little game with them. “Suppose,” I say, “that you were presented with irrefutable evidence that if you cut tax rates, revenue to the government would increase.” They always balk, and I say, “No, really. I know you think this is nonsense. But just humor me. If you knew for sure that cutting tax rates would increase revenue to the government — for social programs, whatever — would you do it?” And they say — many of them — no.

Beautiful. I take this as proof positive that what they’re really interested in is punishment: taxation as punishment, for wealth-creation, innovation, enterprise, luck, and so on. They favor higher tax rates for moral reasons, if you will. They favor those tax rates as sanctions, not for the money they might bring in.

And it’s funny how many, when pressed, will admit it.

Wow. It would indeed be funny if it weren’t so awful.

Next time I run into a liberal speaking about politics, I’m going to play this game with them. I wonder what sort of justification they might offer for their punish-the-productive views.

Share This Post

…They voted Kelly Clarkson to be the American Idol. (Sure, I liked Justin too, as well as Tamyra — but Kelly was the only contestant who was consistently fabulous.)

Share This Post

The raw, unedited audiotapes of my lectures to the 2002 Summer Seminar of The Objectivist Center are now available from TOC Live! I’m proud to say that I heard rave reviews of my lectures from more people than I could count. (I was even told that my “Objectivism 101″ course was the best introduction to Objectivism ever heard.)

Objectivism 101
Price: $81.00 (six tapes)

Ayn Rand’s novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged offer a unique and inspiring moral vision, but translating those ideals into daily life can be a challenge. Through a mixture of lecture and discussion, Diana Hsieh will survey the basic principles of Objectivism, from metaphysics to aesthetics. She will focus on both the theory and practice of the philosophy, contrasting it with common religious and cultural views. Ideas discussed in these six sessions will include reason as the only means to knowledge, the integration of mind and body, the choice to think or not, emotions as automatic value judgments, life as the standard of value, the major virtues, the trader principle, capitalism, and much more.

White Lies, Black Lies
Price: $13.50 (one tape)

Honesty is widely regarded as one of the most important virtues in our culture, yet people routinely lie in order to be polite, conceal their misdeeds, protect their privacy, and manipulate others. In this lecture, Diana Hsieh examines the complex issue of when, if ever, it is moral for a person to lie. She will examine the motivations for lying, the traditional Objectivist arguments for truthfulness, other good arguments for truthfulness found in philosophical literature, as well as strategies Objectivists can employ to develop a deeply-engrained commitment to truthfulness.

These tapes won’t be available for long, so buy them sooner rather than later!

Share This Post

Yeah, yeah, I know that I’ve been gone from the blogging scene for far too long. I’ve been busy trying to realistically map out my projects for the next year in MS Project, preparing for the start of graduate school (in philosophy at CU Boulder), and so on. Later today, I’m flying out to Vegas for the weekend for Front Sight’s Ambassador Program.

Today, I’ve been trying to catch up with my overdue book reviews. Here are three — with more to come (hopefully) next week.

Time Management for Unmanageable People by Ann McGee-Cooper

Looking at the trees, Time Management for Unmanageable People was a jargon-laden, philosophically confused waste of time. But the forest wasn’t so bad. The basic premise, that time management advice is too often useless and even harmful when applied to creatively disorganized people, seems sound. The book primarily functions as an alternative guide to time management for the creatively disorganized, discussing both why traditional techniques fail and suggesting some alternative methods. Unfortunately, both the theory and practice of the book tended to be shallow at best. So the primary virtue of this book certainly lies in its basic approach to the subject of time management: individual people need to find methods of time management that suit their unique strengths and help them overcome their weaknesses.

A History of Freedom by J. Rufus Fears

I bought the 18 tape / 36 lecture set A History of Freedom expecting a survey of the critical ideas and moments in the history of freedom. I was more than disappointed in a number of ways. First, Fears routinely focuses on the significant political institutions and leaders in history, while ignoring the critical ideas that shaped those institutions and leaders. (So, for example, there is no discussion of either the Enlightenment or Judaism.) Although I disagree with that approach to history, it was tolerable. Second, and much more seriously, Fears’ understanding of freedom was nothing short of a bizarre conglomeration of contradictory ideas. Everything from freedom to do as one pleases, collective self-determination, positive rights to goods, and Christian freedom from this earthly life were included in his conception of freedom. (It’s as if anything ever called freedom counted as freedom for Fears.) But the strangeness did not end there. He treated Adam Smith as some sort of totalitarian, Marxism as scientific, and FDR as a great hero of freedom. Additionally, unlike Alan Kors’ tapes on the Enlightenment, Fears provided few references or facts to back up his claims, which I’m sure were often wrong. Oh, and one last dig: Fears speaks like a cross between a southern James T. Kirk and Troy McClure from The Simpsons. In short, these lectures were a waste of time and money.

Share This Post

According to this news story Quebec is primed to pass legislation mandating when and where doctors must work. Quebec, unlike other provinces, is unwilling to pay the monetary incentives needed to fill the less desirable time slots. So instead, they are proposing $5,000 fines if doctors refuse to work where they are told.

The most mind boggling bit was this:

Health Minister Francois Legault said doctors can’t always be allowed to choose when and where they want to work.

“By counting on the good faith of doctors, we always managed until now to fill all the emergency-room shifts in necessary spots,” Legault told the legislature.

“That’s not possible anymore. So a new approach is needed.”

Well my Canadian friends, slavery isn’t exactly a new approach.

Share This Post