Ed Hudgins

Techno-future, yes! This is the positive vision of the world as it can be and should be, a vision that should excite and inspire people on the one hand and, on the other, infuriate them because politicians are robbing them of that future. Freedom is always "about" something, about what we want to do and to have. And to have a prosperous, fantastic, non-fiction future save for politicians getting in the way can strongly motivate individuals to fight for freedom as well as its moral prerequisites.

The Fourth GOP Debate: Sounding a Small Techno-Future Note By Edward Hudgins November 11, 2015 -- The fourth GOP presidential primary debate is worth noting in part because Marco Rubio sounded a note on the topic of our techno-future, which should be a central theme for all the candidates. Sadly, the note did not grow into a symphony. Marco Rubio: minimum wage means minimum jobs Rubio observed that “If you raise the minimum wage, you're going to make people more expensive than a machine. And that means all this automation that's replacing jobs and people right now is only going to be accelerated.” Putting aside for the moment the ambiguous meaning of the word “replacing,” let’s note that it is best for businesses to decide how many humans versus machines to employ based on free-market prices rather than on prices distorted by governments. When governments drive up the cost to employ workers, fewer workers will be employed. The line for which Rubio got the most attention concerning jobs was, “I don't know why we have stigmatized vocational education. Welders make more money than philosophers. We need more welders and less philosophers.” Given that authoritarian, anti-reason leftist philosophers dominate academia, the fewer of them warping the minds of young people the better. But what is needed is philosophers who promote freedom and reason. Rubio and economic transformationRubio later picked up an aspect of our techno-future when he noted that “We are living through a massive economic transformation. . . . This economy is nothing like what it was like five years ago, not to mention 15 or 20 years ago. And it isn't just a different economy. It's changing faster than ever. . . . It took the telephone 75 years to reach 100 million users. It took Candy Crush one year to reach some 100 million users.... (Read further.)

I could have noted a lot of things if this weren't a short piece. I have a whole book in which I note a whole lot more and many speeches that do the same. And I've written a lot of pieces on immigration and related issues. See the links on the Atlas Society website or look up my pieces here in the Ed Hudgins corner.

The Civil War Within the GOP By Edward Hudgins In New Hampshire—the primo primary state!—the Republican Liberty Caucus’s annual conference is a battlefield in the civil war within the GOP. With over 700 activists attending, does this indicate that the liberty faction is winning in the battle for the soul of the party? GOP’s demographic decline First, the context. The GOP is in long-term demographic decline. In 2004, some 44% of Hispanic-American citizens voted for George W. Bush, while in 2012 only 27% went for Romney. Hispanic citizens, who accounted for 17% of the population when Romney ran, will represent at least 30% by 2050. Bush received 43% of 18-29 year-olds, compared to Romney’s 37%. But these voters tend to be socially liberal--for example, strongly supporting same-sex unions--and will become more allergic to the GOP. While 59% of white evangelicals supported Romney, this is little comfort to the GOP. Some 29% of citizens 50-64 years old fall into this category, while only 11% of young people do. Indeed, fully 35% of them have no religious affiliation. Tomorrow’s voters will be much more secular. Two factions or three? Against this reality, most commentators make out the conflicts within the GOP to be between establishment Republicans who are “pragmatic” and want to win future elections, and purer right wingers, who are unrealistic, often intolerant ideologues, scaring away voters. But in fact there are three factions, showing the battle to be much more complex. Establishment Republicans Establishment Republicans, while critical of the welfare state, generally want to reform it rather than repeal it. They advocate rolling back many economically burdensome regulations and simplifying if not radically reforming the tax code. But they do not question the fundamental premise that government is responsible for helping people with either direct aid or targeted policies. This is why they speak of “saving” Social Security, Medicare, and the like. Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and John Boehner best represent this faction. They tout their creds at getting things done rather than making utopian speeches. Nearly all establishment Republicans pay lip service to socially conservative policies—banning abortions and perhaps same-sex marriage, and certainly defunding Planned Parenthood. But these are not their priorities. This puts them in conflict with the second GOP faction. Extreme social conservatives Extreme social conservatives give priority to their values agenda that usually involves limiting freedom. For example, they would deny same-sex couples the liberty to marry, even though this freedom does not limit the liberty of social conservatives. They usually push a religious agenda demanding, for example, that symbols of their faith—a manger scene, the Ten Commandments—be displayed on government property. Their latest pinup girl is Kim Davis, the Kentucky government clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because it violated her religious convictions, never mind her oath to the Constitution. (Would these conservatives celebrate a pacifist Quaker who refused to issue gun licenses?) Establishment Republicans usually consider conservatives who give priority to social issues embarrassments who lose elections: Remember Todd Aiken and Richard Mourdock, who lost Senate races in Missouri and Indiana, respectively, because of their misinformed statements about abortion? Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum best represent this faction and, in these two cases, they actually favor government management of the economy in the name of “family values.” The liberty caucus This brings us to the faction found in the Republican Liberty Caucus. Libertarians and Constitutionalists—many also social conservatives—understand that America itself is in a civil war between makers who live by producing goods and services to trade with their fellows, and takers who use government to steal from productive individuals. In our corrupt, crony system, political power--not free markets or merit--determines who gets what. In the end, the system that punishes achievers will run out of victims and collapse. To prevent this, radical change is needed. Is there hope? So is there any way for the GOP civil war to end with a unified party? Possibly. Some establishment Republicans actually are social engineers on the right and wouldn’t do away with the welfare state even if they could. Others believe deep down that radical change would be best, but think that it is politically impossible. Yet it is impossible in part because they refuse to take a stand against the system. They see many libertarians as impractical utopians. And it is true that the system can’t be changed overnight. But it can be changed in the long run if these establishment Republicans put their political skills into educating the public, getting elected, and pulling together coalitions to make radical changes. Extreme social conservatives are morally wrong in their attempts to limit liberty, a practice they denounce when liberals try it on them. And, in any case, they must understand that if they give priority to the wrong battles—battles they’ll likely lose—government will continue to expand, overspend, strangle economic opportunity, and limit their autonomy to live by their values. We will all become even more dependent on the state for mortgages, medical care, retirement income, you name it. If you think the Common Core is bad, that it's making our children stupid, wait until the government goes after home schooling. To win future elections and to save the country, the GOP must unite behind a consistent freedom agenda. It must reach out especially to the young tech entrepreneurs who value achievement and prosperity, love their work, are socially liberal, and will sooner or later run afoul of government regulators. The GOP must become a modernist party, offering a positive vision of a future as it can be and should be, if only individuals can be free! ---- Hudgins is a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. Explore: Edward Hudgins, editor, The Republican Party’s Civil War: Will Freedom Win? 2014. Edward Hudgins, “The GOP 2015 Second Debate Rundown.” September 17, 2015. William Thomas, “Donald Trump: A Know-Nothing for the 21st Century.” August 31, 2015. Edward Hudgins, “Bernie Sanders, Socialism, and the GOP.” July 18, 2015.

OK! See it!

The Martian Movie Review By Edward Hudgins October 2, 2015 — The Martian, from director Ridley Scott, is an exciting film about an astronaut stranded on the Red Planet. It celebrates the heroism that comes from human reason. And it points to what it will take for humans in coming decades to make Mars a new home for humanity. With the film coming on the heels of NASA’s confirmation of liquid water on the Martian surface, that home could be closer than you think! “I’m not gonna die!” The Martian is based on a novel that author Andy Weir originally published himself online and offered as a free download. The author and the film take care to be as scientifically accurate as possible in the context of a fictional offering. The movie opens with the third crew to land on Mars rushing back to their landing craft ahead of a sudden sandstorm that threatens to destroy it and them. (In reality, Mars’s thin atmosphere would mean such a storm would annoy rather than kill. But then there’d be no story!) Unfortunately, astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is struck by debris from some destroyed communications equipment and blown away. Sensors indicate his suit’s seal has been breached, meaning his oxygen has escaped and he’s likely dead. The rest of the crew takes off without searching for his body to avoid being killed themselves. They begin their sad, year-long journey home after informing the world of the tragedy. But Watney is alive! The breach in his suit was sealed by blood and the debris lodged in his side. He gets back to the habitat the astronauts had used as their base. But his future still looks grim. He is out of contact with Earth and his shipmates. The next Mars mission is not scheduled to arrive for four years and will land 3,000 kilometers from where he is. He has nowhere nearly enough food rations to survive that long. But he declares, “I’m not gonna die,” and we see his mind at work in the video logs he makes of his efforts. Intelligence for survival “Let’s do the math!” he says as he figures out that he must grow three years’ worth of potatoes on a frozen planet where nothing grows and find some way to water and fertilize his crops. But he’s a botanist and he declares, “Mars will come to fear my botany power!” He converts part of the hab into a makeshift greenhouse. Human waste—what the crew left in its short visit and what he will produce in the years ahead--will be his fertilizer. The water will come from a jury-rigged setup that extracts it from other substances at hand in the hab. Watney contemplates how to get his tractor, which needs batteries recharged every 35 kilometers, to trek a hundred times that distance, how to carry enough supplies for that journey, how to contact Earth, and many other challenges. And he declares, “I’m gonna have to science the shit out of this!” Director Scott does not give us wishful thinking, mere muscles, unconvincing machismo, or deus-ex-machina miracles. He gives us intelligence as the key to survival. Will they succeed? Meanwhile, back at NASA, satellite photos show activity at the hab, meaning Watney is alive. Scientists on Earth observe him trekking out into the desert and guess, correctly, that he’s searching for a decades-old Pathfinder probe to try to revive its old radio system, which he does. Now they can communicate. But Watney’s farming efforts are cut short by an accident, and NASA’s plan to send an unmanned resupply ship does not go as planned. The one slim hope, which NASA opposes, is for his shipmates to swing around Earth rather than land as they’re supposed to and return to Mars to rescue him. Will they do so? Will they succeed? Optimism, intelligence, ingenuity Many elements of The Martian are familiar from other movies. Gravity (2013) gave us drifting in space, trying to return to a ship. Apollo 13 (1995) was a film version of real-life astronauts with a disabled spacecraft trying to get home safely from an aborted lunar mission. The Martian, like Apollo 13, gives us a vision of the heroic that comes from the same source that allows humans to travel to other worlds to begin with: the human mind. Some might think that a film about the how hostile Mars is to human life would discourage people from ever wanting to go there, much less live there. I disagree. Humans are explorers and achievers. In 1996 Robert Zubrin published The Case for Mars, outlining an innovative plan for getting to the Red Planet for a fraction of the cost of a NASA mission. He founded the Mars Society, which runs conferences and simulations of Mars missions in the arctic, in preparation for the real thing. Other groups such as Explore Mars have sprung up in recent years. Other innovative mission models have been proposed, including one from Moonwalker Buzz Aldrin. And Mars One proposes to send settlers to the Red Planet on one-way trips, to be permanent occupants. Private entrepreneur Elon Musk founded his rocket company SpaceX with the goal of establishing permanent settlements on the Red Planet. And NASA’s confirmation of water on the surface of Mars opens further possibilities for future colonies. The Martian is an uplifting film that does not minimize the challenges of life; indeed, Watney explains that he knew going in that space travel was dangerous and that he could be killed. But he says that once you acknowledge that you might die, you deal with the problem at hand and the next and the next. This is humanity at its best. Damon as Watney gives a fine performance. His character must keep up his optimism—without maudlin emotionalism or self-deceiving bravado. He must demonstrate intelligence and ingenuity. In all this we see the best of the human spirit! ---- Hudgins is a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. Explore: *Edward Hudgins, “The Spiritual Significance of Mars.” April 4, 2010. *Edward Hudgins, “From Apollo 11 to Martian Missions.” July 18, 2013. *William Thomas, “Review of Interstellar.” December 3, 2014. *Edward Hudgins, “Four Facts for Human Achievement Day.” July 20, 2015.

Here's another piece on scientists making the lame walk, published the day the Pope arrived in NY. How many of you saw the coast-to-coast 24/7 coverage of this science breakthrough? That's my point. Progress is in labs like these. http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/no-exoskeleton-no-brain-surgery-paralyzed-man-walks-again-using-brain-waves

Pope Francis vs. the Cure of Reason By Edward Hudgins September 25, 2015 -- A young girl was recently interviewed on TV about her encounter with Pope Francis on his visit to the United States. She cried with joy as she described how he touched her on the forehead and offered a blessing. Now, she said, she might get the miracle she’s prayed for. Maybe someday she’ll be able to walk. Who could not be moved by a crippled child who wants to be cured? But what is really wrenching is the fact that this child and so many others look to faith rather than science and reason. Medical breakthroughs On the same day the Pope was touching the little girl, a news story was circulating about a breakthrough in prosthetics. A brain implant has restored to a man with a robotic hand his sense of touch. Another story in recent months documented technology that allows individuals to control their artificial limbs with their thoughts. Some even express fears that bionic legs in the future could be so good that they will be preferred to the natural ones we’re born with. The sightless have sought divine intersession to cure blindness since before the time of Jesus. A few days before the Pope toured D.C., a breakthrough was announced that involves applying a light-sensitive protein found in algae to the back of the retinas of eyes to, in effect, replace the rods and cones destroyed by certain diseases. The technique has been successful in mice and human tests are now coming. This restorative treatment has welcome competition. Last month saw a man receive the first bionic eye implant. And let’s not forget that deafness is in the process of being vanquished thanks to cochlear implants. Free markets needed Free markets, of course, if allowed to operate, will make what are now pricey, experimental medical technologies affordable for most, just as markets have allowed entrepreneurs to create and bring down the prices of computers, smartphones, tablets, Wifi, and all the hardware and software of the information revolution. Handicapped individuals, like the girl who was so happy the Pope touched her, might have bright futures indeed. But they need to recognize that it is not faith that will make them whole. It is reason. Human reason needed It is the power of the human mind, especially in science and engineering, that has brought about the benefits of our modern world. Yet where are the parades, the speeches before Congress, and the celebrations that recognize the sources of such benefits and encourage reason and achievement as foundational values in our culture? Why do so many seek hope in faith and otherworldly miracles when real achievements—“miracles” of the human mind—are all around us? Why do so few understand that training minds and encouraging entrepreneurship is the best way to ensure a healthy, prosperous future? With all the enthusiasm we see for the Pope, where is the enthusiasm for the actual creators and achievers in our world? Ironically, the Pope, in his economic ignorance, denounces the free market system that could cure that little girl. And he promotes draconian economic restrictions to fight hypothesized global warming, restrictions that would ensure that the poor he says he cares so much about will be with us always. The Pope—and all of us—indeed should empathize with that little girl. But he should be touting reason as the cure. This Jesuit Pope needs to read his Thomas Aquinas! Those who are enthusiastic about the Pope’s visit because he inspires hope for a better world had better look to the real source of all our blessings: the human mind. Explore Edward Hudgins, “How Anti-Individualist Fallacies Prevent Us from Curing Death.” April 22, 2015. Edward Hudgins, “Pope Francis: Beware of Earth Day Thinking.” April 22, 2014. Edward Hudgins, “Francis I: Pope of the Poor.” March 21, 2013.

GOP 2015 Second Debate Rundown By Edward Hudgins The second GOP presidential debates (held September 16, 2015) were grueling affairs: four candidates for nearly two hours and eleven others nattering on for over three hours more. The TV audience was torn between coffee to stay awake through it all or gin to ease the pain. But here are some highlights that deserve attention.
 The GOP debate's food-fight formatCNN opted for a food-fight format. Ask candidates what they thought about what other candidates said about them and let the reality TV begin. Unfortunately, this approach made it tough for candidates to highlight their priorities based on a unified vision and underlying principles. Of course, most don’t have priorities based on a unified vision and underlying principles. This format meant lots of mini-debates. It also meant that some candidates in the main event were sidelined for long periods of time; after the intros, Huckabee didn’t get a word in for 45 minutes. But the back and forth did bring out some real differences that might have been lost in the normal, press-conference “everybody repeat your one-minute talking point on X” approach. Trump’s temperamentDonald Trump again was the debate’s big draw. The first question was to Carly Fiorina concerning Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s remark that because of The Donald’s temperament he is a loose cannon and that it’s dangerous for him to control our atomic cannons. (Are you following all this?) Fiorina said that’s for the voters to decide. Trump bizarrely responded first by saying he didn’t know why Kentucky Senator Rand Paul was even included in the debate. What? Paul responded that Trump’s tendency to attack people because they’re short, tall, fat, or ugly indicates a problem. Trump responded that he had not attacked Paul’s appearance (he had attacked Fiorina’s) but said there was plenty of subject material there, presumably worthy of attack. A source of Trump’s support is he’s perceived as a no-nonsense guy who doesn’t mince words. That’s fine for describing ISIS killers—a refreshing change from President Obama, who saves his vicious attacks for Republicans. But the problem is not just that Trump comes off as a buffoon. When former Florida Governor Jeb Bush criticized Trump for giving money to Hillary Clinton, Trump responded that as a businessman he had to get along with all politicians. And Trump trumpets his alleged ability to get along with world leaders. But if how he gets along with other Republicans is any indication, he will neither be effective in working with members of Congress nor be able to charm other heads of state. Political outsiders vs. experienceNone of the other candidates picked up explicitly on the “elephant in the room” implications of Trump’s remark that businessmen have to get along with all politicians. That is exactly the fundamental problem with the current system: crony politicians run a mafia-like “wealth redistribution” and protection racket. Is Trump really a political outsider or part of this corrupt political system? Or is this the only way someone like Trump can do business? The popularity of Trump, Ben Carson, and Fiorina is attributed to their outsider status; and one of Fiorina’s central themes has been “challenging the status quo.” Thus the candidates who do or have held office had to resort to one of two strategies. Governor Chris Christie had to argue that as a Republican in New Jersey he’s always an outsider. Or they had to argue, has Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker did to Trump, “We don't need an apprentice in the White House.” With Walker, Ohio Governor John Kasich and Jeb Bush made virtues of their “We did it in our state” creds. We have yet to see whether this will work with GOP voters angry that Republicans continue to get rolled-over by Obama. Kim Davis and the rule of lawOn same-sex marriage and the refusal of Kentucky state official Kim Davis to issue wedding licenses to gays as mandated by the Supreme Court, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum at the pre-debate embarrassed themselves by arguing that she had a right to do so because of her religious beliefs. Worse, Huckabee said, “The courts can't make a law. They can interpret one. They can review one. They can't implement it. They can't force it.” Court rulings might be bad—the ones concerning Obamacare in particular—but Court rulings are the law until the Constitution is amended. In the pre-debate, former New York Governor George Pataki was right about the matter, declaring that he would have fired Davis. War and peaceForeign policy and especially how to deal with ISIS and Iran were important topics. Three approaches emerged among the candidates. First was the “proceed with caution” approach championed by Rand Paul. Second was the “peace through strength” approach. The argument goes that Obama is a weakling clown who sucks up to enemies and gets no respect. That’s why the Russians moved into Ukraine and why Iran stuck us with a terrible treaty that will allow them to get nukes. Show some steel and we might not have to use force. Fiorina gave a detailed account of how to build up the military. This was the safe position because it meant not having to take up the third approach, the almost single issue of South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham: send in lots of troops. ImmigrationImmigration was also a hot topic, and pretty much everyone wanted to build a wall to keep out Mexicans. But Trump came under justified criticism, especially from Christie, that his plan to pick up and deport 12 million illegal immigrants was just not doable and not a serious suggestion. MarijuanaPaul stood out especially by coming out in support of Colorado’s decriminalization of marijuana. He pointed out that while middle-class voters who take a toke—Jeb Bush confessed that he had!—can usually avoid prison time, poor minorities find themselves more often jailed. This makes their hard lives even harder. Paul was responding to Christie’s declaration that he would ignore Colorado’s law the first day he was in office as President because federal law should trump state law. Fiorina offered a moving and sensible comment when she said, “My husband Frank and I buried a child to drug addiction. So, we must invest more in the treatment of drugs. I agree with Senator Paul. I agree with states' rights. But we are misleading young people when we tell them that marijuana is just like having a beer. It's not.” Opening potential of othersMost of the candidates did offer the usual rhetoric about economic liberty, and some even let shine through some deeper truths. Concerning whether to eliminate tax breaks for hedge fund managers, Huckabee actually responded, “I think we ought to get rid of all the taxes on people who produce. Why should we penalize productivity?” When asked what woman she would place on a $10 bill, Fiorina sounded a universalist note. She said she’d keep the bill as it is because “we ought to recognize that women are not a special-interest group. Women are the majority of this nation. We are half the potential of this nation, and this nation will be better off when every woman has the opportunity to live the life she chooses.” And in sharp contrast to the sloppy or stupid words of some, like Trump, who asserted that as President “they” would create jobs, Fiorina said, “The highest calling of leadership is to unlock potential in others. Problems have festered in Washington for too long. And the potential of this nation is being crushed.” Hear-hear! Explore: Edward Hudgins, The Republican Party’s Civil War: Will Freedom Win? 2014. William Thomas, “Donald Trump: A Know-Nothing for the 21st Century.” August 31, 2015. Edward Hudgins, “GOP Undercard Debate: Fiorina vs. Santorum.” August 7, 2015. Edward Hudgins, “What Carly Fiorina Brings to the GOP Agenda.” May 6, 2015.

Thought you all would like information on the huge amount of underground water on Mars. Ready for a swim? Ice sheet bigger than Texas, California found on MarsAnd maybe you'd be interested in Buzz Aldrin's latest plans to go there: Buzz Aldrin developing a 'master plan' to colonize Mars within 25 years

Is a $70,000 Base Salary Unjust and Corrupting? By Edward Hudgins August 6, 2015 -- Dan Price, the CEO of credit card processing company Gravity Payments, recently set a minimum salary of $70,000 for everyone at his company. He saw himself, as did many others, as a benevolent, ideal boss who cared about his employees. But when some employees quit because of this action, it revealed that whether Price meant to be or not, he was a corrupter of justice. Equalizing wages at Gravity PaymentsPrice, like many liberals today, sees income inequality in-and-of-itself as a moral evil. He has said, “I want to fight for the idea that if someone is intelligent, hard-working and does a good job, then they are entitled to live a middle-class lifestyle.” Price over the next few years will almost double the starting salaries of entry-level employees to $70,000 and, in solidarity, cut his own million dollar salary to that level. How could he afford to do this? His business is successful for sure, but in order to pay primo wages for entry level jobs, he had to flatten his whole wage structure. Workers who had been at his company for years or who were contributing the most economic value to the company did not get their wages doubled if they received raises at all. There would simply not have been enough money to do this. In any case, to raise everyone’s wages correspondingly would have perpetuated income inequality. Gravity's producers shrugPrice’s action was a real-life version of an action depicted in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. In that novel, the owners of the Twentieth Century Motor Company decided to run their car factory on the Marxist doctrine “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” In that factory the best and the brightest were penalized for their productive virtues with more work and lower wages in order to meet the needs of those who were not as productive. The best people left, production declined, needs multiplied as everyone tried to be the neediest, customers fled, and the factory collapsed. Sure enough, Price has found some of his best workers leaving as well. His company is still hanging on, though, with some financial challenges ahead. But the reasons for employees leaving highlight important ethical truths. Injustice of entitlementThe employees who left felt they were treated unfairly because they had worked the longest and contributed the most but were not being rewarded for their abilities. This is the dark side of the thoughtless obsession with equality of wealth or condition. Equality in this context is fundamentally unjust. It’s a rejection of the basic principle of justice that individuals should earn what they get. And this is the dark side of the notion of “entitlement” to a certain salary or condition. It requires productive individuals to cover the costs of those who are granted unearned benefits. In the case of Price, it is his business, so if he can convince some of his employees to foot the bill for others, he, as the business owner, is entitled to do so. His workers may choose to stay or go, and his customers can bear the inevitable rise in his prices and decline in the quality of his product, or they can shop elsewhere. But in the political realm we are not allowed to choose whether to foot the billions dollar bills that pay for welfare entitlements. The government simply taxes us and transfers the money to those who are said to “need it.” Price is perpetuating a pernicious morality. Some argue that those who start at $70,000 will feel the need to earn their keep and work hard. But the entitlement mentality has produced generations of individuals who whine for handouts, degenerates who have lost the moral understanding that they are first and foremost responsible for themselves. The looters in the Baltimore riots were the ultimate manifestation of that morality. They “need it” so they steal it. Price and other liberals fail to understand that there is nothing morally wrong with inequality of condition as such. What is important is whether someone acquired wealth legitimately by producing goods and services to sell to voluntary customers. In this country cronyism is the real problem. Big banks, auto manufacturers, money-losing PC eco-companies, and others all profit through political pull rather than by serving the needs to customers. The problem is not rich individuals. It is individuals who grow rich by stealing from others with the aid of their political hacks and cronies. Praise for achievementsIt’s good business practice for companies to reward employees in order to keep them happy and productive. And most of us want higher salaries. I know I do! But each entrepreneur must judge what works for the bottom line of their company in the long run, and an unjust system will not work. Worse, it perpetuates envy in the stunted souls of those who demand the unearned, and it creates unearned guilt in those individuals who deserve praise rather than censure for their productive achievements. ---- Hudgins is a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. Explore: The Individualist's Guide to Progressive Change *Edward Hudgins, ObamaCare's War on Personal Responsibility. April 9, 2012.

Bernie Sanders, Socialism, and the GOP By Edward Hudgins July 19, 2015 -- It’s more than ironic that as socialist economies, led by Greece, collapse, Democrats in America are infatuated by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the presidential candidate who caucuses with the Democrats but is an avowed socialist. The starry eyes for this supreme statist reflect an ignorance about our own collapsing regime to say nothing of moral failings that Republicans—and everyone else—should take seriously. Bernie Sanders: The anti-HillaryLet’s start with the positive reason that Sanders is attracting large, enthusiastic crowds while would-be president Hillary Clinton has trouble filling venues. Sanders does not hide his socialist convictions. Hillary has backed many of the same policies. But she hems and haws about her basic principles, posing as a pragmatic progressive simply looking out for the middle class. Her campaign is managed and faked, from supposed “random” meetings with ordinary voters to her rare press interviews given only to sycophant pseudo-journalists. She is disingenuous, whether about Benghazi, erased emails, or Pacific trade. She just hopes voters will not care. Attraction of authenticityTo understand Sanders’ appeal, consider that young voters in 2008 were enthusiastic about Barack Obama, seeing him as an idealist who would transcend politics as usual. While they still voted for him in 2012, they were disillusioned at his failures, many seeing him as just another politician. Young people were the most enthusiastic supporters of libertarian Republican Rep. Ron Paul during the 2012 Republican presidential primary. Paul was an idealist and straight talker who didn’t spin his beliefs for the crowd de jour. And while Donald Trump doesn’t offer anything like a set of principles found in Paul or Sanders, part of his popularity is that he says what he thinks. Young people are far more cynical about politics and the world than their elders, but they clearly thirst for authenticity and ideals, which is what Sanders seems to offer. Socialism pollsBut there is more to Sander’s popularity than a bad taste for Hillary. A Pew survey found that 50% of Americans had a positive reaction to the word “capitalism” while 40% reacted negatively. But only 46% of young people under 29 years old had warm and fuzzys for the word while 47% found it cold and hard. By contrast, 60% of the population responded negatively to the word “socialism” and only 31% positively. But that word only harshed the buzz of 43% of young people, while a full 49% got good vibrations. Worse, the word “progressive,” a preferred label for many who promote socialist policies, garnered a 67% positive response. Ouch! Voters don’t simply pull the lever for labels. Indeed, the growth of independent voters, which includes 50% of those under 29, shows that both “Democrat” and “Republican” mean less and less. So what else is behind this benign view of socialism? Democratic to dictatorialFundamentally, the current political battles reflect conflicting visions: government as protector of our individual liberty, leaving us free to live our lives as we will; or government as the benevolent parent that helps us helpless people directly. Many Sanders supporters rightly see Hillary as the Queen of Corruption. She and her foundation with ex-prez hubby Bill suck in cash from big bailed-out bankers, politically-connected companies, and foreign governments, while denouncing Wall Street and posing as the enemies of privilege. Most of Sanders’ support comes from donations of $250 or less. Sanders’ socialism, which purports to put “the people” in charge, seems to many the alternative. But Sanders’ supporters fail to understand that the crony corruption they loathe is a manifestation of our current system in which government helps people directly. For the democratic form of socialism, political power is the coin of the realm. As government redistributes wealth, the punished producers either produce less wealth or play the political game, seeking special favors and handouts. The only way socialism can overcome the resulting war of all against all is to become anti-democratic and dictatorial. A strongman promises to “transcend politics,” to use his pen and his phone to govern arbitrarily without regard to law. Bernie Sanders or Barack Obama become Il Duce. The only alternative to cronyism and Big Brother: a system in which individuals live their own lives and pursue their own dreams, producing goods and services to trade with their fellows based on mutual consent, with government confined to protecting rights. Will Republicans be able to overcome their own complicity in cronyism—and sometimes in Big Brother—and articulate this ideal? If they can’t or won’t, Sanders might lose but the only open question will be which future dystopia Americans will suffer in.
 --- Hudgins is a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. Explore: *Edward Hudgins, “After the Elections: The GOP Civil War.” November 13, 2014. *Edward Hudgins, editor, The Republican Party Civil War: Will Freedom Win? 2014. *Edward Hudgins, “Obama's Grab-Bag Socialism.” April 4, 2009.

Four Facts for Human Achievement Day By Edward Hudgins July 20, 2015 -- July 20 is the anniversary of one of humanity’s greatest accomplishments, the first lunar landing. We should not only give a shout out to the thousands of people who made it possible for Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to walk the surface of another world. We should each celebrate this date as Human Achievement Day, to acknowledge all achievements, especially our own. Here are four facts on which you should reflect. Fact one: Achievements are what human life is all about. Unlike other animals, we humans need to create the means for our physical survival as well as our spiritual well-being. We need to figure out how to acquire food, build shelters, cure illnesses, build cities, travel to the Moon, and create everything that deserves the label “civilization.” Take a moment to look around you. Everything that is supportive of your life and your flourishing is an achievement of human beings. Fact two: Achievements are the pursuit of your own individual goals and dreams. Our achievements are many and varied, whether nurturing a child to maturity or a business to profitability; whether writing a song, poem, business plan, or dissertation; whether laying the bricks to a building or designing the building or arranging for its financing. Your achievements as an individual not only allow you to survive, put food on the table, and enjoy the amenities of life: They also give you spiritual fuel. They are manifestations of the fact that you are capable of meeting the challenges of life and are worthy of the happiness that achievement brings you. Take a moment to reflect on your own achievements and take pride in them. Perhaps reaffirm the current and future goals you wish to achieve. Fact three: Achievements come first and foremost from your own individual virtues; indeed, your greatest achievement is the creation of your own moral character. To achieve your goals you must exercise rationality to understand the world around you. You must exercise independent judgment, using your own mind and not relying simply on the opinions of others to guide your thinking and action. You must exercise integrity, never acting against your own judgment just because others disagree with you. You must practice honesty, first and foremost with yourself, and never pretend that the real world is something other than what it is. Your evasion of reality will not change it. Take a moment to reflect on the virtues that have allowed you to achieve the things you value. Where you find yourself wanting, plan the steps to reform your own moral character. Fact four: Achievements require a supportive culture that you must help create. Culture permeates everything, and you’re often as unaware of it as you are of the air you breathe. A culture is constituted in the values, priorities, assumptions, and expectations that influence you through family and friends, institutions, media, entertainment, politics, and much more. Culture for better or worse molds the moral character and goals of many. America’s culture used to celebrate achievement. Today it encourages infantile whining and excuse making. It marks as a “virtue” the degree to which moral weaklings take offense at real or imagined slights. It blames individual failure through individual irresponsibility on the success of those who take responsibility for their own lives. Take a moment whenever you see an achievement to praise it to your fellows. And point out to those who spew resentment against achievement that it is beneath their dignity and potential as human beings. Endless potential The Moon landing inspired millions in the past. And even with the anti-achievement sickness in our culture there is much that still inspires. The communications and information revolution is just the start. Entrepreneurial achievers are pioneering private space ventures, 3-D printing, robotics, nanotechnology, bio-tech, genetics, and life-extension technology, which promise exponential expansion in the future. The potential for human achievement is endless, but only if we truly value achievement and appreciate that the achievements we create in our modern world are manifestations of the moral virtues we each create in our character. And thus we should celebrate Human Achievement Day!
 ------ Hudgins is a senior scholar and director of advocacy for The Atlas Society. Explore: Edward Hudgins, Apollo 11 on Human Achievement Day. July 20, 2005. Edward Hudgins, How anti-individualist fallacies prevent us from curing death. April 22, 2015. Edward Hudgins, “Book Review: Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think, by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler.” ISkeptic, April 24, 2013. Charles Murray, Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. 2003.

The Davy Crockett "Republic" speech from "The Alamo" movie. John Wayne said it so well! 'Republic'. I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose. Some words give you a feeling. 'Republic' is one of those words that makes me tight in the throat - the same tightness a man gets when his baby takes his first step or his first baby shaves and makes his first sound like a man. Some words can give you a feeling that make your heart warm. 'Republic' is one of those words.

I argue, of course, that belief in a creator is not necessary to justify individual rights. Our theist Founders like Jefferson understood "creator" in a very different way than many Christians today. But the point here is not to get bogged down in religious debates. Indeed, the Founders created the United States as a secular nation--current conservative Christian contentions to the contrary--because they had witnessed centuries of repression, torture, and wars that killed millions in the name of religion. We should fight the Obamas of the world based on the Founders' understanding of the purpose of government as the protection of individual liberty rather than the direction of our individual lives.

What America Will We Give to the Future? By Edward Hudgins June 30, 2015 -- Will future generations look back on our current July 4th festivities and lament that we didn’t grasp that the republic was gone? Or will they celebrate that we were energized to restore the republic? Liberty that empowers Our country was established in 1776 on the premise that we all are endowed “with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Constitution created a government of limited and enumerated powers, checks and balances, and federalism to protect individual liberty not only from threats foreign and domestic but also from the greatest threat to liberty of all: government itself. The result: America went from a rural backwater to the richest and most innovative country the world had ever known. This was because individuals were free to pursue their own dreams and to make their own lives through their own productive efforts. Political liberty was spiritually liberating, opening minds to the fact that they could flourish, that material poverty and personal impotence need not be their lot. Millions of immigrants came to these shores seeking that liberty. They both partook of and contributed to the culture of self-ownership, empowerment, and personal responsibility. Even up until a few decades ago, most supporters of the welfare state still held that individuals should generally run their own lives, that property rights and free markets should be protected by government. They simply believed—mistakenly—that government would need to step in to provide a safety net for unfortunates who might fall through the economic cracks or to rein in businesses that get too big and threaten competition. Powerful elites Today, the elites who dominate the Democrat Party, media, and academia believe government should be all-powerful and that they, the elite, should direct our lives. While some give lip service to empowerment, they in fact believe that most individuals are incapable of running their own lives. This is not idle rhetoric. It is a description of what motivates these elites. And it points to the dark place they are leading us. As the scope and power of government grows, every aspect of our lives and our every choice become a matter of political conflict—what we eat, how we educate our children, what we can plant in our gardens, and when our children can run a lemonade stand. Political power and pull rather than productive achievement become the coin of the realm, determining who gets what. The result is the ugly, crony system of today. Power to the individual But there is pushback because the American spirit is still alive. Today it is not only Tea Party activists who are skeptical about government. Political independents and many young people have seen the promises that government can radically improve our lives coming to naught. Within the GOP there is now a civil war. Libertarian and limited government Republicans, who want to roll back government, are exerting their influence. They are challenging establishment Republicans, who want to keep the welfare state, just tweaking it to make it more efficient, and extreme social conservatives who give priority to actually limiting personal liberty. In recent decades we’ve see the rise of new entrepreneurs who created the information and communications revolution and are now sparking revolutions in other areas as well—robotics, nanotechnology, genetics, 3-D printing and manufacturing, life extension, and much more. These individualists understand the power of human reason to change the world for the better. They love and take pride in their work. And they want to be free to pursue their own dreams and to make their own lives through their own productive efforts. They manifest the best of the American spirit. They represent hope. They offer a political opportunity for those who want to restore the republic that is necessary if these entrepreneurs are to continue to achieve in the future. A powerful vision In the past, the liberty in America offered millions the opportunity to win for themselves prosperous and fulfilling lives. The country offered a powerful vision of hope for all of a world as it can be and should be. Today, we still have the opportunity to reclaim for ourselves that liberty, which will secure the thanks of future generations, if only we seize the moral high ground and fight for the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness set down in the Declaration. ------ Hudgins is a senior scholar and director of advocacy at The Atlas Society. Explore: *William Thomas and Edward Hudgins, “The Volcker Rule and the Two Americas.” December 18, 2013. *David Mayer, “Completing the American Revolution.” June 23, 2010. *Edward Hudgins, “Let's Declare the Fourth of July a Tax-Free Day!” July 4, 2007. *Edward Hudgins, “What Unites America? Unity in Individualism!” June 30, 2004. *William Thomas, “What Are Rights?” *Edward Hudgins, “What Is An American?” July 3, 1998.

Thanks MSK, Brant! I originally majored in physics and astronomy so I find these discussions very interesting. Since space-time breaks down at the singularity we project when we run the Big Bang (not Bank!) backwards--similar to the breakdown occurring in black holes, we can't really say what happens. Hawking speculates that maybe asking what came before hte Big Bang is like asking what is north of the North Pole on the surface of our sphere? The question doesn't make sense. But none of these uncertainties should deter us from acting to expand our knowledge, our capacities, and our lives!

In a Woody Allen movie we see his character as a child refusing to do his homework or something of the sort because the universe is expanding and will be winding down in billions of years. He mother protests that “Brooklyn is not expanding!” Woody was making fun of this sort of childishness. Arguments about whether the universe is doomed to heat death, whether there is a context for the Second Law of Thermodynamics or whatever is of interest in advanced physics discussions. (I attended a lecture some years ago by Freeman Dyson on the prospects for sentient life continuing based on a Big Crunch, a slowing to a near halt expansion, and acceleration.) What is important is our prospects now and in the near future and, if the technologies can be developed, extending our capacities and our lives to the greatest extent that we can. How long? I don’t know. Neither does anyone else. But to not try is to guarantee failure. Ayn Rand liked to say that an era has a leitmotif. But the age of Enlightenment has been replaced by the age of envy. I would say that the optimism and idealism of the past has been replaced by the pessimism and cynicism. So in addition to the technological, life-enhancing breakthroughs that come out of the Google/Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, we have the possibility for a restoration of the hope and promise both of today and tomorrow, for a world as it can be and should be!

Pardon me for not laying down and dying just yet!

If I were writing a technical piece rather than a movie review I'd point out limits to the Turing Test. In the movie they actually going beyond the Turing Test with the Mary in a black and white room thought experiment. Deeper than what the Turing Test can tell us is whether an entity has volition and self-awareness, which as implications for experiencing "qualia." And as I'm sure you know, the concept of volition is one that is not simple to formulate for humans. I can give the Objectivist definition but that still leaves a lot of issues open.

Ex Machina movie review By Edward Hudgins May 12, 2015 -- How will we know if an artificial intelligence actually attains a human level of consciousness? As work in robotics and merging man and machine accelerates, we can expect more movies on this theme. Some, like Transcendence, will be dystopian warnings of potential dangers. Others, like Ex Machina, elicit serious thought about what it is to be human. Combining a good story and good acting, Ex Machina should interest technophiles and humanists alike. The Turing TestThe film opens on Caleb Smith (Domhnall Gleeson) , a 27 year old programmer at uber-search-engine company Blue Book, who wins a lottery to spend a week at the isolated mountain home of the company’s reclusive genius creator, Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac). But the hard-drinking, eccentric Nathan tells Caleb that they’re not only going to hang out and get drunk. He has created an android AI named Ava (Alicia Vikander) with a mostly woman-like, but part robot-like, appearance. The woman part is quite attractive. Nathan wants Caleb to spend the week administering the Turing Test to determine whether the AI shows intelligent behavior indistinguishable from that of a human. Normally this test is administered so the tester cannot see whether he’s dealing with a human and or machine. The test consists of exchanges of questions and answers, and is usually done in some written form. Since Caleb already knows Ava is an AI, he really needs to be convinced in his daily sessions with her, reviewed each evening with Nathan, that Nathan has created, in essence, a sentient, self-conscious human. It’s a high bar. Android sexual attractionAva is kept locked in a room where her behavior can be monitored 24/7. Caleb talks to her through a glass, and at first he asks standard questions any good techie would ask to determine if she is human or machine. But soon Ava is showing a clear attraction to Caleb. The feeling is mutual. In another session Ava is turning the tables. She wants to know about Caleb and be his friend. But during one of the temporary power outages that seems to plague Nathan’s house, when the monitoring devices are off, Ava tells Caleb that Nathan is not his friend and not to trust him. When the power comes back on, Ava reverts to chatting about getting to know Caleb. In another session, when Ava reveals she’s never allowed out of the room, Caleb asks where she would choose to go if she could leave. She says to a busy traffic intersection. To people watch! Curiosity about humanity! Ava then asks Caleb to close his eyes and she puts on a dress and wig to cover her robot parts. She looks fully human. She says she’d wear this if they went on a date. Nathan later explains that he gave Ava gender since no human is without one. That is part of human consciousness. Nathan also explains that he did not program her specifically to like Caleb. And he explains that she is fully sexually functional. A human form of awarenessIn another session Caleb tells Ava what she certainly suspects, that he is testing her. To communicate what he’s looking for, he offers the “Mary in a Black and White Room” thought experiment. Mary has always lived in a room with no colors. All views of the outside world are through black and white monitors. But she understands everything about the physics of color and about how the human eyes and brain process color. But does she really “know” or “understand” color—the “qualia”—until she walks outside and actually sees the blue sky? Is Ava’s imitation of the human level of consciousness or awareness analogous to Mary’s consciousness or awareness of color when in the black and white room, purely theoretical? Is Ava simply a machine, a non-conscious automaton running a program by which she mimics human emotions and traits? Ava is concerned with what will happen if she does not pass the Turing test. Nathan later tells Caleb that he thinks the AI after Ava will be the one he’s aiming for. And what will happen to Ava? The program will be downloaded and the memories erased. Caleb understands that this means Ava’s death. Who’s testing whom?During a blackout, this one of Nathan in a drunken stupor, Caleb borrows Nathan’s passcard to access closed rooms, and he discovers some disturbing truths about what proceeded Ava and led to her creation. In the next session, during a power outage, Ava and Caleb plan an escape from the facility. They plan to get Nathan drunk, change the lock codes on the doors, and get out at the next power outage. But has Nathan caught on? On the day Caleb is scheduled to leave he tells Nathan that Ava has passed the Turing Test. But Nathan asks whether Caleb thinks Ava is just pretending to like Caleb in order to escape. If so, this would show human intelligence and would mean that Ava indeed has passed the test. But who is testing and manipulating whom and to what end? The story takes a dramatic, shocking turn as the audience finds out who sees through whose lies and deceptions. Does Mary ever escape from the black and white room? Is Ava really conscious like a human? What it means to be humanIn this fascinating film, writer/director Alex Garland explores what it is to be human in terms of basic drives and desires. There is the desire to know, understand, and experience. There is the desire to love and be loved. There is the desire to be free to choose. And there is the love of life. But to be human is also to be aware that others might block one from pursuing human goals, that others can be cruel, and they can lie and deceive. There is the recognition that one might need to use the same behavior in order to be human. If thinkers like Singularity theorist Ray Kurzweil are right, AIs might be passing the Turing Test within a few decades. But even if they don’t, humans will more and more rely on technologies that could enhance our minds and capacities and extend our lives. As we do so, it will be even more important that we keep in mind what it is to be human and what is best about being human. Ex Machina will not only provide you with an entertaining evening at the movies It will also help you use that very human capacity, the imagination, to prepare your mind to meet these challenges. ---- Hudgins is a senior scholar and Director of Advocacy at The Atlas Society. Explore: Edward Hudgins, How Anti-Individualist Fallacies Prevent Us From Curing Death. April 22, 2015. Edward Hudgins, Google, Entrepreneurs, and Living 500 Years. March 12, 2015 Edward Hudgins, Book Review: Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think. April 24, 2013. William Thomas, Transhumanism: How Does it Relate to Objectivism?

What Carly Fiorina Brings to the GOP Agenda by Edward Hudgins May 5, 2015 -- Carly Fiorina is the latest longshot to join the Republican presidential primary field. But whatever her prospects may be, she brings two important issues to the campaign that ought to be at the top the GOP agenda. First, if you understand that the free market is rapidly being replaced by a crony system that rewards political pull, yet is blamed for the corruption wrought by cronyism, know that Fiorina is targeting cronyism as a centerpiece of her campaign. And second, if you’re working for a prosperous techno-future, know that her focus on the importance of entrepreneurial innovators could help frame a much-needed appeal to the Silicon Valley types who, in the long run, will otherwise be destroyed by the crony system. Fiorina as the anti-Hillary Fiorina portrays herself as the anti-Hillary Clinton, the woman from business rather than politics. She worked in jobs like secretary while pursuing advanced college degrees in business management. She worked her way into the top ranks at AT&T and Lucent before becoming CEO of Hewlett-Packard, one of the country’s biggest tech companies. After her departure from Silicon Valley—more on that in a moment—she ran unsuccessfully for a California Senate seat in 2010. Since then she’s busied herself with a foundation she personally funds to promote social and charitable causes. Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton, by contrast, worked her way up through politics. She rose as an adjunct to her husband, Arkansas governor and later U.S. president Bill. She pushed Hillarycare, which failed. She was elected Senator from New York 2000, and became President Obama’s first secretary of state as a consolation prize when he beat her in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. She’s busied herself with the foundation she and Bill formed, sucking up money from big donors and foreign governments seeking influence through the political duo. Carly has been aggressive in challenging Hillary. When Clinton touted her globetrotting at State, Fiorina replied that “Unlike Mrs. Clinton, I know flying is an activity, not an accomplishment,” and Fiorina has challenged her to name her achievements. Part of Hillary’s standard pitch is, “Aren’t you ready for a woman president?” That won’t work against Fiorina who, in any case, declares that “It is time to declare the end of identity politics.” Fiorina opposing cronyism But as a major contrast with Hillary—and many politicians in both major parties—the centerpiece of Fiorina’s campaign is her opposition the current crony system. In a crony system, individuals and interest groups use political connections to secure special government privileges, regulations that cripple their competitors, or loans, handouts, and bailouts from taxpayers. Hillary Clinton is the crony politician poster child. One report recently found that 181 companies that donated to her foundation lobbied the State Department while she was there. By contrast, in a true free market, entrepreneurs and enterprises prosper by offering goods and services to voluntary customers without government help. Fiorina decries cronyism, even saying that Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a far left favorite, is right about the corrupt nature of the system, though wrong about the solution; like all lefties Warren wants even more government control of the economy. This, of course, would attract lobbyists and interest groups the way a dung heap attracts flies! Fiorina declares: “Our government is rigged in favor of powerful interests,” and she denounces the toxic union of big business with big government. But rather than simply attacking the former, she goes after the latter. Flaunting her non-politician creds, she argues: “Our founders never intended us to have a professional political class. They believed that citizens and leaders needed to step forward.” Her ask is, “If you believe that it's time for citizens to stand up to the political class and say enough, then join us.” Fiorina at Hewlett-Packard Fiorina argues that as a top business executive she understands what is needed for economies to grow, in particular, the sort of entrepreneurship that dominates the tech sector. She’s right, of course, but her tenure at HP was controversial and could be a political disadvantage outside of the GOP. In 2005 she was fired from HP by the board. Her business decision to purchase Compaq, the PC maker, was seen by many as a bad move, leaving the company worse off with lower earnings and profits, which upset shareholders. Fiorina counters that HP’s revenues doubled and that the company grew from the 28th largest to the 11th largest in America from 1999 when she arrived to her departure. By the way, Hillary Clinton was fired during her career, when she was a staffer on the Watergate committee investigating the erased tapes and unethical conduct of President Nixon. Clinton was fired for unethical conduct. Hmmm, and now she erases emails! Be that as it may, Fiorina was seen by many in Silicon Valley as the anti-Steve Jobs, a polarizing rather than an inspiring CEO. Indeed, one can imagine that, if Jobs had chosen to run for public office, whatever his policy positions, he would have been universally acknowledged as a top value creator who revolutionized the economy. Democratic opponents will come at Fiorina the way they came at Mitt Romney, arguing that she cut thousands of jobs at her company and sent many overseas. She counters that she took the tough decisions to take her company through the dot.com bust that shrunk or even sunk many firms. That much may well be true, but “At least HP survived” doesn’t make an inspiring bumper sticker. The Silicon Valley political opportunity However one judges Fiorina’s HP years, all of us who understand that prosperity depends on both exponential technical innovation and free markets should appreciate the opportunity that her campaign offers us to frame the discussion about the country’s direction. The country is in a civil war between makers and takers. It is the producers, those exemplified by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, against the expropriators, those exemplified by the cronies inside and outside of government. The former value human achievement. They understand the power of the human mind to change the world for the better. They are individuals pursuing their own visions. And they love and take pride in their work. The latter resent the achievers, damn them for growing prosperous through their own efforts, and punish them with confiscatory taxes, and demand that they apologize for their virtues. Fiorina comes close to defining this battle with her celebration of entrepreneurship and opposition to cronyism. But she hasn’t framed the issues clearly enough. Those of us who see the positive contributions she’s making to the GOP primaries can push her to be even clearer. (Rand Paul, also running for the GOP presidential nomination, notably has already reached out to Silicon Valley!) More importantly, we can challenge all Republican candidates—and Democratic ones as well—to take a stand either with the achievers and individual liberty or with the destroyers and government chains. And we should understand that this is the value basis by which to reach out to achievers who often see themselves as standing on the Democratic side of the political divide. The presidential campaign ahead Fiorina takes many positions that will not endear her to socially liberal young entrepreneurs. Fiorina opposes abortion, though she focuses on restrictions in the third trimester. She opposes same sex marriage but favors some form of civil unions and points out that at HP she provided benefits for same-sex couples. Will she continue to give priority in her campaign to restoring liberty or to a liberty-limiting social agenda? Libertarians will not find her perfect. But the Fiorina campaign is an opportunity to define and frame issues, to make it clear that cronyism and punishing achievement will simply lead to an impoverished, dystopian future. Meanwhile, individual liberty and the human achievement ethos can lead to a fantastic non-fiction future.Explore: Edward Hudgins, ”Google, Entrepreneurs, and Living 500 Years.” March 12, 2015.David Kelley. “Hank Rearden and his Dependents (Makers vs. Takers).”Atlas Shrugged Themes: Producers vs. Looters.

Good links, thanks! I originally had the mom slaps son story in the piece but cut it for length. I'm getting dumped on by some for not calling everyone in Baltimore facilitators and by others for being too hard on the thugs. So I must be doing something right!