Ed Hudgins

At communist centenary, many Americans still believe in collectivism By Edward Hudgins November 7, 2017 November 7 marks a century since the founding of one of the most murderous tyrannies in human history. Russia's communist empire was an appalling failure in every way, yet we often see the hammer and sickle, the symbol of the Soviet Union, carried on college campuses and at protests around the country. Communism still holds sway among a significant part of the U.S. population. In 1917, Russia was ruled by a powerful tsar. But in the preceding decades, reformers had been chipping away at the feudal system, which was all Russia had ever known. More democratic and free-market ideas were taking hold. Most of the peasant masses, however, were still impoverished, and millions of Russian men were being used as cannon fodder in World War I. The process of change accelerated in March 1917, when reformers forced the tsar to cede power. Elections were planned for a democratic assembly, the Duma. The Bolsheviks, however, had been agitating and organizing an alternative to the democratic reformers. Led by Vladimir Lenin, this group of communists staged a coup on Nov. 7, 1917. What followed was not an open society with economic opportunity and democratic institutions, much less a workers' paradise. Far from it. The communists could not sustain an economy. The regime engineered a catastrophic famine deliberately to starve to death millions of small farmers, who, the communists feared, could resist the regime's confiscation of their land. Millions more innocent people were murdered by firing squads or worked to death in the Gulag slave labor camps. The Soviet Union was the first modern totalitarian regime. Private life and private enterprise were forbidden. Everything was political. Spies were everywhere, watching for any deviation from dogma in thought or deed. From its inception to its 1991 demise, the Soviet regime murdered 50 million individuals, according to the best estimates. Other communist regimes established, abetted, or inspired by the Soviet Union – in China, Cambodia, North Korea – brought the body count as high as 150 million. In the United States today, the media rightly deplore and ostracize bigoted brutes who march under the swastika. When Antifa thugs parade under the hammer and sickle and do violence to peaceful demonstrators, however, they are commonly given a chorus of approval or at least tolerance among the nation's elites, who profess to disagree with their tactics while honoring their intentions: achievement of "social justice," which translates to socialism under ironhanded rule by elites. Three insights help explain this morally sick phenomenon. First, communism is a collectivist ideology. It puts the group – in this case, the so-called proletariat of downtrodden workers – ahead of the individual, and it characterizes all social life as a war between rich and poor. The individual is routinely sacrificed for the good of society, often fatally. Whereas, historically, Americans defended free association among individuals – family, friends, social organizations, and other components of civil society – today, many reject the nation's founding principle of free association and individual liberty and actively work to undermine all groups not created by the state. Second, communism contains a strong element of envy. Instead of wanting to allow everyone to proper, communism and its little brother, socialism, works to pull down those who already prosper. "Take from the one percent!" they shout. Or the 10 percent. Or the 20 percent. Never mind that allowing people to retain their wealth creates greater wealth that benefits everybody, resulting in the most prosperous society the world has ever known. Instead, a large class of privileged ingrates enjoys the riches created by others even as their ugly, angry, tear-it-down envy, combined with collectivist dogma, drives their denunciations of the creators of the system, their guilt-tripping against productive individuals, and their condemnation of entire ethnic groups for their "shameful" history of productive virtues. These malcontents share the motives of the Marxists, who, a century ago, sought to destroy not only feudal oligarchs, but also entrepreneurial wealth-creators. A third insight is that a long-term communist strategy is in full operation in this country. Italian communist Antonio Gramsci in the early twentieth century explained the importance of taking over a nation's culture to prepare the ground for political revolution. In the 1960s, the German red Rudi Dutschke called this the "long march through the institutions." Individuals who accept collectivist principles gradually become the politicians, entertainers, teachers, educators, lawyers, media moguls, and journalists who mold the culture and spread their values throughout society, strengthening their efforts by suppressing freedom of speech whenever they have the power to do so. Within a few generations, a country is ripe for a collectivist revolution. Today, the United States is not in danger of becoming another Soviet Union. Yet cultural elites are steadily spreading the premise that we all owe allegiance first and foremost to one another, not to those whom we value and who enhance our flourishing, such as family and friends. This ultimately puts government at the head of everything, with claims that its activities represent some "general will" about the good of society. There is no private life. Everything is political. On the one hundredth anniversary of the establishment of the Soviet tyranny, it is crucial that those of us who still live by American values – individual liberty, self-reliance, voluntary assistance to others, and limited government – understand the significance of some of our countrymen not abhorring the hammer and sickle as they do the swastika. We must devise our own "long march through the institutions" to preserve the values that make America great by allowing each individual to achieve his own greatness. Edward Hudgins is research director for The Heartland Institute. In the last years of the Soviet regime, he helped organize and run free-market reform conferences behind the Iron Curtain. For further reading: Edward Hudgins, "Eastern Europe 20 Years Later," December 24, 2009. Edward Hudgins, "The Berlin Wall Then and Now," November 5, 2009 Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/11/at_communist_centenary_many_americans_still_believe_in_collectivism.html#ixzz4xnlAIpiF

Thanks Michael, et al! I'm excited about the new challenge, especially at this time. We're in a political volatile times. So while we need philosophical clarity, we also have the opportunity to actually promote some real change. Trump pulling out of the Paris Accord was one such change. His appointments at OMB, EPA, the FCC and elsewhere are important. And we have some real opportunities at the state level. I hope to get back to writing in the future, probably some policy papers and, I hope, short pieces as well. I'll keep you informed. Cheers! Ed

As some of you already might know, I have accepted the job of new research director at the Heartland Institute! Heartland is based in Arlington Heights, Illinois, outside of Chicago, though I'll still be working in the Washington,D.C. area. Heartland is an “action tank” as well as a “think tank,” discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems. It is a national leader in the fight for climate realism against alarmist dogma; founder Joe Bast & two other Heartlanders were at the White House for Pres. Trump's announcement about pulling out of the Paris Accords, while I did a TV show on the subject. It is a leader for control by parents control of their children’s education against “Common Core” government control freaks. But Heartland specializes in taking the battle for free markets to the states, providing studies for policymakers and activists, witnesses for state legislative committees, and analysis that helps friends of freedom in the various states learn from their respective experiences. I will be building out Heartland’s research efforts, producing intellectual and policy ammunition for its traditional audiences and for new audiences—Millennials, minorities, well-intentioned civic leaders who want the best for their communities. I'm with Heartland plotting a long march through the institutions! Any of you who are ground troops in the battle, feel free to offer me your thoughts on how we can help! My new work email is ehudgins@heartland.org

I remember that one! But I'll come clean, here's the focus of my real interest in robots:

I suggest that neither you nor I know the truth about dry vs wet tech vis a vis human life. I suspect that the folks who are investing billions of their own $$$s into human-brain interface work know better than we do, though they could be wrong. As I've also pointed out, the costs of sequencing a human genome has dropped from $100 million in 2001 to $10 million in 2007 to just over $1,000 today. That an innovations like the CRISPR cas9 gene editing tool suggests that manipulating our DNA will play a major roles in the kinds of creatures with evolve to in the future. Also, see Diamandis's quote in my piece.

I might as well post this here for future discussions. THE HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT ALLIANCE Exponential technologies in information, nanotech, biotech, robotics, and AI promise a future of unimaginable prosperity with longer, healthier, even transhuman lives for all. But these changes are producing radical economic, social, and moral challenges, with reactionary pushback from left and right and with calls for government controls. Worse, our increasingly nihilist culture is eroding the value and joy of productive achievement. But the good news is that otherwise cynical young people do love technology. Further, entrepreneurs creating this tech are individualists who love their work and want to prosper, but who need to understand better the need for free markets if they are to achieve their goals. A Human Achievement Alliance can meet these challenges. This initiative exploits the synergy between the values of Millennials, a new breed of entrepreneurial achievers, and friends of freedom. It offers an optimistic, exciting, empowering vision of the world as it can be and should be. In operation, it seeks: ●Celebrate and promote through our institutions and through a Human Achievement Day, the value of achievement and Enlightenment virtues of reason and entrepreneurship from which achievements emerge. ●Raise public awareness of the potential of exponential technology and the necessity of economic liberty in coalitions, media, political circles, and the wider culture. ●Develop cutting-edge thinking on deep issues concerning exponential technologies: Should we reject the “precautionary principle’ for a “proactionary” principle?” Why are robots and AI do not threaten jobs? Will human-machine mergers pose ethical problems? Could we actually live 500 years? ●Promote free-market public policies that remove barriers to exponential tech. “We are all achievers, whether nurturing a child to maturity or business to profitability, writing a song, poem, business plan or dissertation, laying the bricks to a building or designing it.” To help ensure this bright future, and for further information, contact Edward Hudgins at edward@edwardhudgins.com.

FYI: You'll see more about this in the future: THE HUMAN ACHIEVEMENT ALLIANCE Exponential technologies in information, nanotech, biotech, robotics, and AI promise a future of unimaginable prosperity with longer, healthier, even transhuman lives for all. But these changes are producing radical economic, social, and moral challenges, with reactionary pushback from left and right and with calls for government controls. Worse, our increasingly nihilist culture is eroding the value and joy of productive achievement. But the good news is that otherwise cynical young people do love technology. Further, entrepreneurs creating this tech are individualists who love their work and want to prosper, but who need to understand better the need for free markets if they are to achieve their goals. A Human Achievement Alliance can meet these challenges. This initiative exploits the synergy between the values of Millennials, a new breed of entrepreneurial achievers, and friends of freedom. It offers an optimistic, exciting, empowering vision of the world as it can be and should be. In operation, it seeks: ●Celebrate and promote through our institutions and through a Human Achievement Day, the value of achievement and Enlightenment virtues of reason and entrepreneurship from which achievements emerge. ●Raise public awareness of the potential of exponential technology and the necessity of economic liberty in coalitions, media, political circles, and the wider culture. ●Develop cutting-edge thinking on deep issues concerning exponential technologies: Should we reject the “precautionary principle’ for a “proactionary” principle?” Why are robots and AI do not threaten jobs? Will human-machine mergers pose ethical problems? Could we actually live 500 years? ●Promote free-market public policies that remove barriers to exponential tech. “We are all achievers, whether nurturing a child to maturity or business to profitability, writing a song, poem, business plan or dissertation, laying the bricks to a building or designing it.” To help ensure this bright future, and for further information, contact Edward Hudgins at edward@edwardhudgins.com.

JTS - Quite correct! Work on telemeres is what could extend life and keep us healthy. Baal - Genetics is the key factor though environment and lifestyle do contribute to longevity. But biohacking and other technologies that could radically extend life could be reaching that exponential takeoff point. In 2001 it cost $100 million to sequence a human genome. In 2007 it cost $10 million, Now it costs just over $1,000. As they say, we older guys need to aim to life long enough that we can life forever!

Elon Musk and Merging With Machines By Edward Hudgins Elon Musk seems to be on board with the argument that, as a news headline sums up, “Humans must merge with machines or become irrelevant in AI age.” The Paypal co-founder, SpaceX and Tesla Motors innovator has, in the past, expressed concern about deep AI. He even had a cameo in Transcendence, a Johnny Depp film that was a cautionary tale about humans becoming machines. Has Musk changed his views? What should we think? Human-machine symbiosis Musk said in a speech this week at the opening of Tesla in Dubai warned governments to "Make sure researchers don't get carried away --- scientists get so engrossed in their work they don't realize what they are doing. But he also said that "Over time I think we will probably see a closer merger of biological intelligence and digital intelligence." In techno-speak he told listeners that "Some high bandwidth interface to the brain will be something that helps achieve a symbiosis between human and machine intelligence." Imagine calculating a rocket trajectory by just thinking about it since your brain and the Artificial Intelligence with which it links are one! This is, of course, the vision that is the goal of Ray Kurzweil and Peter Diamandis, co-founders of Singularity University. It is the Transhumanist vision of philosopher Max More. It is a vision of exponential technologies that could even help us live forever. AI doubts? But in the past, Musk has expressed doubts about AI. In July 2015, he signed onto "Autonomous Weapons: an Open Letter from AI & Robotics Researchers," which warned that such devices could “select and engage targets without human intervention.” Yes, out-of-control killer robots! But it concluded that “We believe that AI has great potential to benefit humanity in many ways … Starting a military AI arms race is a bad idea…” The letter was also signed by Diamandis, one of the foremost AI proponents. So it’s fair to say that Musk was simply offering reasonable caution. In Werner Herzog’s documentary Lo and Behold: Reveries of a Connected World, Musk explained that "I think that the biggest risk is not that the AI will develop a will of its own but rather that it will follow the will of people that establish its utility function." He offered, "If you were a hedge fund or private equity fund and you said, 'Well, all I want my AI to do is maximize the value of my portfolio,' then the AI could decide … to short consumer stocks, go long defense stocks, and start a war." We wonder if the AI would appreciate that in the long-run, cities in ruins from war would harm the portfolio? In any case, Musk again seems to offer reasonable caution rather than blanket denunciations. But in his Dubai remarks, he still seemed reticent. Should he and we be worried? Why move ahead with AI? Exponential technologies already have revolutionized communications and information and are doing the same to our biology. In the short-term, human-AI interfaces, genetic engineering, and nanotech all promise to enhance our human capacities, to make us smarter, quicker of mind, healthier, and long-lived. In the long-term Diamandis contends that “Enabled with [brain-computer interfaces] and AI, humans will become massively connected with each other and billions of AIs (computers) via the cloud, analogous to the first multicellular lifeforms 1.5 billion years ago. Such a massive interconnection will lead to the emergence of a new global consciousness, and a new organism I call the Meta-Intelligence.” What does this mean? If we are truly Transhuman, will we be soulless Star Trek Borgs rather than Datas seeking a better human soul? There has been much deep thinking about such question but I don’t know and neither does anyone else. In the 1937 Ayn Rand short novel Anthem, we see an impoverished dystopia governed by a totalitarian elites. We read that “It took fifty years to secure the approval of all the Councils for the Candle, and to decide on the number needed.” Proactionary! Many elites today are in the throes of the “precautionary principle.” It holds that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm … the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those proposing the action or policy. Under this “don’t do anything for the first time” illogic, humans would never have used fire, much less candles. By contrast, Max More offers the “proactionary principle.” It holds that we should assess risks according to available science, not popular perception, account for both risks the costs of opportunities foregone, and protect people’s freedom to experiment, innovate, and progress. Diamandis, More and, let's hope, Musk are the same path to a future we can’t predict but which we know can be beyond our most optimistic dreams. And you should be on that path too! Explore: Edward Hudgins, Public Opposition to Biotech Endangers Your Life and Health. July 28, 2016. Edward Hudgins, The Robots of Labor Day. September 2, 2015. Edward Hudgins, Google, Entrepreneurs, and Living 500 Years. March 12, 2015.

Federal revenues under Reagan rose from $600 billion in 1981 to $910 billion in 1988 with tax cuts. The problem is that Federal spending continued to grow as well. I'm glad he cut taxes in order to let people keep more of their own money. One of my criticisms of Reagan is that he didn't use the veto pen enough.

Was Ayn Rand Wrong on Reagan? By Edward Hudgins February 06, 2017 Hardcore anti-Communist Ayn Rand was, to the surprise of many who did not live through those days, not a fan of hardcore anti-Communist Ronald Reagan. But Rand died in 1982, only a year into Reagan’s presidency. So on the occasion of his birthday, let’s ask why Rand didn’t like Reagan and whether, if she had lived, she would have reevaluated her opinion of the Gipper. Fear of the Religious Right Rand found strong fault principally with Reagan’s alliance with the emerging Religious Right. She said that “the appalling disgrace of his administration was his connection with the so-called ‘Moral Majority’ and sundry other TV religionists, who are struggling, apparently with his approval, to take us back to the Middle Ages via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics.” Most notably, Rand rejected Reagan’s opposition to legal abortion. But what really happened to all those campaign promises? In retrospect, Reagan mostly offered rhetoric and did little to make the Religious Right agenda his political priority. His energies went into two goals. First, he wanted to roll back the Soviet bloc, and thus the threat of nuclear war, rather than resigning himself, as his predecessors had, to containing its expansion. And second, he wanted to roll back the power and scope of the federal government. The Evil Empire Rand would certainly have approved of his labeling the Soviet Union as an “Evil Empire.” He saw the Cold War not simply in geopolitical terms but, rather, in moral terms. In 1987, Reagan famously stood before the barrier in Berlin meant to keep the people from Communist East Germany from escaping to West Germany, and demanded of the Soviet leader, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” But remember, this was five years after Rand died. She didn’t have this context when she made her evaluations of Reagan. His pronouncements and those of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher defined the conflict in moral terms. The words of those leaders gave courage to those in Russia and other countries under the boot of Communism from the knowledge that they had allies who understood the essence of the conflict, who would not acquiesce in evil, and who supported their aspirations for liberty. Preventing nuclear war Reagan also saw as his highest goal the protection of the United States from a nuclear attack… (Continue reading here.)

The 25th Anniversary of the Soviet Union’s Collapse By Edward Hudgins December 26, 2016 marks a quarter century since the Supreme Soviet officially dissolved the collapsing wreck known as the Soviet Union. It was one of the worst tyrannies ever inflicted on humans by other humans who had lost their humanity. This communist regime left in its wake tens of millions of dead and hundreds of millions who suffered privation, repression, torture chambers, and Gulags. I traveled there in the regime’s last years as part of Heritage Foundation delegations training those who, with perestroika, were seeking a way to economic growth as well as an open society. The economy in those last years was grim, even compared to what I’d seen there a decade earlier. Instead of stores with a limited selection of poor-quality products for which you had to wait in three different lines to purchases, there were no lines because the shelves were empty. Twenty-five years later Russia still struggles with the legacy of corruption, violence and murder that was inherent in the communist system. What are the lessons on which we should reflect? First, ideas have consequences. The Soviet state did not result simply from a popular uprising against the Czarist authoritarian tyranny. It replaced that tyranny with a totalitarian state, in which every aspect of one’s social, personal and inner life was directed by ruling elites. This tyranny was based on a collectivist philosophy which holds that every individual should be sacrificed to a “collective good.” Never mind that free markets demonstrably are the best way to allow individuals to rise from poverty to prosperity. The communists sought to control, through brainwashing and bullets, the lives of all individuals—with themselves as the ruling red masters. The battle then with communists had to be fought with ideas, and not just in scholarly circles but also in our culture and social institutions, just as the battle against control freak political elites today and, worse, Islamist must be fought. Second, existential evils like he Soviet Union endure in part because of enabling, morally-degenerate dupes. During most of the Soviet Union’s existence, it had apologists in the freer world. Many in Hollywood in the 1930s presented and praised a lying image of a Red Paradise even as Stalin was condemning millions to death by starvation or firing squad. Today we see the same sort of dupes who hate the free West and America more than they fear the Islamists who are making the world a hellhole for Westerners and other Muslims as well. Third, evil ideologies like communism must be countered with a compelling, positive, value-based vision. Example helps. The comparison between East and West Berlin or North and South Korea couldn’t be clearer. Similarly, thousands have risked their lives to escape Communist Cuba, voting with their rafts and rickety boats, oblivious to the degenerate dupes in America who shill for the Castro thugs. But examples are not enough. After all, Communists then and many Islamist murderers today have been lived in the West and seen the opportunities open societies offer if one values life and is dedicated to prosperity through productive individual achievement. Communists, Nazis and Islamists reject those Enlightenment values. Thus, now as then, we must foster the best within us as human beings so that a compelling vision of liberty and prosperity will have compelling impact. As we mark the 25th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s demise, let’s not forget the victims of communism. Let’s not forget that even though systems based on mistaken or malicious ideas like the Soviet Union will eventually collapse on their own, they can inflict decades of horror on the world and be followed by something as bad without the right ideas and values. But for this moment, let’s just celebrate that 25 years ago, a terrible tyranny was swept into the dustbin of history!

Can You Love God and Ayn Rand? By Jennifer Anju Grossman Ayn Rand’s most adamant axiom forms the foundation of her Objectivist philosophy: “Contradictions do not exist.” But what about the contradiction between her philosophy and religion—one grounded in reason, the other in faith? Put another way: Can you love “Atlas Shrugged” and the Bible? Rand and Objectivist scholars say no, yet many of her followers disagree, and they should still be welcomed with open arms. During the 2012 campaign, then-vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan told Fox News that he “really enjoyed” Rand’s novels” and admired the writer’s ability to highlight the pitfalls of socialism. But the current House speaker, a practicing Roman Catholic, described Objectivism as “something that I completely disagree with. It’s an atheistic philosophy.” It’s a shame that Rand’s secularism prompts some to reject the rest of Objectivism, which she described as a philosophy based on “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”… (Continue reading here.)

Good points. Too many people are habituated to say "There ought to be a law." Asking questions a different way does often get different results.

I fear that the description“meddling with nature and crosses a line we should not cross” as "we'll get the state to keep you from crossing." Also, the report shows 42% have heard "not at all" about gene editing while 48% have heard only a little. And 61% have heard "not at all" about brain chips while 32% have heard a little. And 77% have heard "not at all" about synthetic blood while 19% have heard a little.

Public Opposition to Biotech Endangers Your Life and Health By Edward Hudgins July 28, 2016 - Do you want to be smarter, healthier, and live longer? Remarkably, a new Pew survey found that most Americans answer “No!” if it requires using certain new technologies. This is a wakeup call for scientists, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, transhumanists, and all of us who value our lives: we must fight for our lives on the battlefield of values. Worries about human enhancement We all understand how information technology has transformed our world with PCs, smartphones, the Internet, and Google. Nanotech, robotics, artificial intelligence, and, especially, genetic engineering are poised to unleash the next wave of wealth creation and improvements of the human condition. But a new Pew survey entitled U.S. Public Wary of Biomedical Technologies to “Enhance” Human Abilities found that “Majorities of U.S. adults say they would be ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ worried about gene editing (68%), brain chips (69%) and synthetic blood (63%),” technologies that in years to come could make us healthier, smarter, and stronger. While some say they “would be both enthusiastic and worried … overall, concern outpaces excitement.” Further, “More say they would not want enhancements of their brains and their blood (66% and 63%, respectively) than say they would want them (32% and 35%).” Simply a reflection of individuals making decisions about their own lives, as is their right? Not quite. Their concerns about technology are already causing cultural and political pushback from left and right that could derail the advances sought by those of us who want better lives. The Pew data reveals two ideological sources of opposition to new technologies. Religion and meddling with nature The survey found that 64% of Americans with a high religious commitment say “gene editing giving babies a much reduced disease risk” is “meddling with nature and crosses a line we should not cross.” Are you stunned that anyone could prefer to expose their own babies to debilitating or killer diseases when a prevention is possible? And 65% with such a commitment have a similar opinion of “brain chip implants for much improved cognitive abilities.” Better to remain ignorant when a way to more knowledge is possible? Obsession with inequality of abilities When asked if “gene editing giving babies a much reduced disease risk” is an appropriate use of technology, 54% answered “Yes” if it results in people “always equally healthy as the average person.” But only 42% approved if it results in people “far healthier than any human known to date.” Similarly, 47% approved of synthetic blood if it results in physical improvements in individuals “equal to their own peak ability,” while only 28% approved if it results in improvements “far above that of any human known to date.” Here we see the ugly side of egalitarianism. Better for everyone to be less healthy than for some to be healthier than others. A disappearing digital divide We saw this inequality concern in the 1990s when desktop PCs and the Internet were taking off. Some projected a “digital divide.”... (Continue reading here.)

Thanks for the warning! I'm looking forward to it!

Are Pre-School Grad Celebrations Going Too Far? By Edward Hudgins A mere five years after holding my newborn fraternal twin girls in my arms, I’ve just watched them graduate pre-school. When I was young, we marked the transition out of high school, college, and that was it. Has our culture—and I—gone too far with celebrations? Motivations for celebrations When I was a kid, celebrations of birthdays and other personal milestones were modest. Family, a few friends, a few gifts, fun. But now I see parents of kids who haven’t reached kindergarten renting out kiddie-playland gyms and inviting dozens of children and families for big parties. I see elaborate Bar Mitzvah bashes and sweet-sixteen shindigs. Celebrations for graduations at almost every academic level are added to the calendar. I hear complaints that parents are going overboard, being too commercial or materialistic. Are such celebrations good or bad? It depends. If the goal of parents is to show off to other parents, the answer is “Bad!” Or if parents somehow equate monetary expenditures with loving their children, again, their values are mixed up to say the least. If, on the other hand, the parents just want to see their children delighted, well, I cannot think of a more delightful thing than that! In the case of my girlies’ pre-school graduation, my motivation was more multifaceted. I wanted to celebrate their achievement and to instill in them the value of achieving. Child-rearing: raising human beings In Atlas Shrugged the heroine Dagny Taggart encounters a young woman and her husband who have retreated from the world with their two young sons. The boys “had the open, joyous, friendly confidence of kittens” and a “non-boastful sense of their own value.” They had “the eager curiosity that would venture anywhere.” The woman explains that she seeks “to bring up my sons as human beings. I would not surrender them to the educational systems devised to stunt a child’s brain, to convince him that reason is impotent, that existence is an irrational chaos with which he’s unable to deal, and thus reduce him to a state of chronic fear.” My wife Talia and I put our daughters in a small co-op school. That meant we and the other parents were not only investing our money but also our time and effort into our kids’ education. Parents would help in classrooms and assist with fundraising and other school activities. My wife especially came to know the other parents as well as the children who had become our daughters’ friends. And we parents, from America, India, Japan, Korea, Jordan, Colombia, and all over the world, were united in the goal of seeing that our children learn. Education for the love of learning Over the past two years, we have watched our daughters’ love for learning... (Continue reading here.)

Why Don’t Voters Care About Candidates’ Sins? By Edward Hudgins June 9, 2016 -- A recent poll found that 71% of Democrats think Hillary Clinton should still run for president even if she’s indicted. And Donald Trump hurls crude playground insults, which we discourage in our eight year olds, at the appearance or ethnicity of opponents, yet his supporters never flag in their enthusiasm. Why do these voters seem unconcerned about the serious moral failings of these seriously statist candidates? And what can be done in the future to stop the moral and political decline of the country? The worst possible candidates This year the major political parties nominated the most corrupt and thuggish candidates we can imagine. Hillary’s unfavorable rating is 37%. She epitomizes the term “sleazy politician.” Her foundation raked in huge donations from foreign governments when she was secretary of state. She raked in millions in speaking fees from corporate donors and kept those speeches secret as she assured voters she would not bow to corporate influence. Her excuses about hiding her emails fooled no one, and her lies surrounding the Benghazi deaths were a disgrace. Yes, Bernie Sanders supporters were put off, but the majority of Democratic voters and political insider Super-delegates were just fine with her. Trump’s unfavorable rating is 53%. Throughout the primaries, commentators kept predicting that his latest slur about the face or menstrual cycle of female opponents or his smearing of entire ethnic groups would drive disgusted voters to anyone but him. But his support grew. Know your audience In the case of Trump, we failed to understand just how disgusted voters are with all politicians. Uber-Christian Ted Cruz, an iconoclast himself, thought that evangelicals would flock to him rather than to the thrice married Trump who has bragged about his affairs and who defends Planned Parenthood. Cruz was wrong. Free-market oriented candidates thought Republican voters would disavow Trump for his anti-free trade policies and his promises to vigorously use government power rather than limit it. They were wrong. These failures certainly demonstrate the importance of “Know your audience.” Do you want to persuade someone of something, like why they should vote for you or your candidate? You need to tune in to their priorities, values, assumptions and expectations. Not yours. Theirs. Trump tuned-in to their anger. None of the other candidates effectively tuned-in to their positive hopes... (Continue reading here.)

As you know, I've been hammering on the exponential tech theme for a while! That's why I mention the appeal to transhumanists in my piece. And that's why the moral revolution to promote the value of human achievement in our culture is so urgent.

I think the House can only vote for candidates that have carried at least one state. If that's the case, Johnson would have o bag New Mexico to be in the running. But I need to check details.

On Viewing Forbidden Planet on Its 60th Anniversary By Edward Hudgins June 2, 2016 -- Science fiction reflects our hopes and fears for the future and, at its best, it offers an elixir of inspiration. On viewing the 1956 film Forbidden Planet on its 60th anniversary, you can see in its intelligent story, special effects, design, sounds, and message why this classic that has stood the test of time. Monsters and dystopias of ‘50s science fiction Science fiction films in the 1950s often offered giant bugs, mutant monsters, and cheesy effects. Some featured visits to Earth by space aliens that were malicious (War of the Worlds), indifferent (It Came from Outer Space), or serious in their warnings that the Earth must abandon its warlike ways or be destroyed (The Day the Earth Stood Still). Unlike those films or the many dystopian sagas that followed, Forbidden Planet is set in a peaceful 23nd century, during which “mankind began the conquest and colonization of deep space.” Forbidden Planet: Tempest on another world The story is roughly modeled on Shakespeare’s The Tempest, which centers on a ship that is wrecked on an isolated island inhabited by the wizard Prospero and his beautiful daughter Miranda. Forbidden Planet opens on spaceship, United Planets Cruiser C-57D commanded by Captain J.J. Adams (Leslie Nielsen). It has been on a year-long voyage to discover the fate of settlers who had traveled two decades before to the isolated planet Altair 4. They have not been heard from since. The ship lands. Adams and his officers meet Dr. Edward Morbius (Walter Pidgeon as a sci-fi Prospero) in his house that seems designed by an interstellar Frank Lloyd Wright. (I wanted that house!) Morbius explains that all the other settlers save his wife were killed within a year of their arrival by some invisible planetary force (Caliban?) that tore them limb from limb. Mrs. Morbius died of natural causes but not before giving birth to Altaira (Anne Francis as a mini-shirted Miranda), now a beautiful young woman. Adams must jerry-rig a system to communicate with far-off Earth for orders concerning this unexpected situation. But soon he finds equipment sabotaged. Has the planetary force returned? “Prepare your minds” Morbius then reveals the mystery he has tried to solve for 20 years. The planet was inhabited by the Krell, a race that was a million years ahead of humans. But on the eve of some crowning technological achievement, one the Krell hoped would free them “from any dependence on physical instrumentality,” ... (Continue reading here.)

Can the Libertarian Party Actually Make a Difference? By Edward Hudgins May 31, 2016 -- The Democratic and Republican Parties are in disarray and poised to nominate their most unpopular presidential candidates in decades. The Libertarian Party could become a true political force, but only if it transforms itself from a debating society seeking protest votes to a party that builds coalitions seeking to actually elect candidates. The Republican Party is dead The context, of course, is the collapse of the GOP. It has always been an uneasy coalition of factions. Still, it had been a vehicle, albeit an imperfect one, for limited government policies. Establishment Republicans merely wanted to tweak the welfare state. Extreme social conservatives often gave priority to limiting liberty, for example, banning same-sex marriages. And libertarians and constitutionalists have actually wanted to roll back the welfare state and limit federal power. The civil war within the GOP left it impotent to stop President Obama’s government-growth agenda. Add to that his attacks on America’s achievement culture and you can see how, in disgust, voters turned to Donald Trump. Even though Trump is hardly a social conservative or limited-government advocate, and thus not really a Republican Reagan that would recognize, he is a self-styled strong man who promises to “Make America great again.” Whether or not Trump wins in November, the GOP of the past is gone. Enter the Libertarian Party. Failures and opportunities for Libertarians Libertarian ideas have gained political currency in recent decades. But since its founding in 1971, the LP has not been able to boast much success. Its members too often have spent their time arguing over who represents the “true” libertarian position. And they’ve never built local party organizations like Democrats and Republicans have done. While some of its presidential candidates, notably the late Harry Browne, have been articulate spokesmen for liberty, still, in four and a half decades only a dozen local candidates have succeeded at the polls under the party’s banner. This year the LP nominated as its presidential candidate its 2012 standard-bearer, former New Mexico GOP governor Gary Johnson. Former Massachusetts GOP governor Bill Weld received the LP VP nod.... (Continue reading here.)

Which Culture Can Make 120 Years Old the Prime of Life? By Edward Hudgins March 18, 2014 -- Emma Morano, age 116, is the last person alive born in the nineteenth century. New cutting-edge technologies could mean that more than a few people born at the end of the twentieth century will be in the prime of life when they reach that age. But this future will require a culture of reason that is currently dying out in our world. Is the secret to a long life raw eggs or genetics? Signorina Morano was born in Italy on Nov 29, 1899. On the recent passing of Susannah Mushatt Jones, who was born a few months before her, Morano inherited the title of world’s oldest person. She still has a ways to go to best the longevity record of the confirmed oldest person who ever lived, Jeanne Calment (1875-1997) who made it to 122. Every oldster offers their secret to long life. Morano attributes her feat to remaining single, adding that she likes to eat raw eggs. But the reason living things die, no matter what their diet, is genetic. Cellular senescence, the fancy word for aging, means the cells of almost every organism are programmed to break down at some point. Almost, because at least one organism, the hydra, a tiny fresh-water animal, seems not to age. Defying death Researches are trying to discover what makes the hydra tick so that they find ways to reprogram human cells so we will stop aging. As fantastic as this sounds, it is just one part of a techno-revolution that could allow us to live decades or even centuries longer while retaining our health and mental faculties. Indeed, the week the Morano story ran, both the Washington Post and New York Times featured stories about scientists who approach aging not as an unavoidable part of our nature but as a disease that can be cured. Since 2001, the cost of sequencing a human genome has dropped from $100 million to just over $1,000. This is spurring an explosion in bio-hacking to figure out how to eliminate ailments like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. We also see nanotechnology dealing with failing kidneys. New high-tech devices deal with blindness and other such disabilities. An achievement culture and longevity But this bright future could be fading. Here’s why. The source of all human achievement is the human mind, our power to understand our world and thus to control it for our own benefit; Ayn Rand called machines “the frozen form of a living intelligence.” But America ... (Continue reading here.)

To be fair, I also had a quote where she said she didn't have detailed knowledge of some of the history.