Ed Hudgins

MSK - I'm rereading Zoltan's book in preparation for writing review and it is an enjoyable read. The influence of The Fountainhead is all over the place. I think in his latest statements, which I've criticized, he's trying to be provocative. By the way, he just annouced formation of a Transhumanist Party and I'll be emailing him about this soon. I argue that he is making important points. Many parents are very poor parants. Religious indoctrination can have terrible effects. But by suggesting state action he will distract from his legitimate points and undermine his own case.

Don't Ban Religious Teaching, Teach Reason By Edward HudginsOctober 2, 2014 -- Recently Zoltan Istvan, author of the provocative book The Transhumanist Wager, called for “regulation that restricts religious indoctrination of children until they reach, let's say, 16 years of age.” He presents us with horrific visions of indoctrination: “Religious child soldiers carrying AK-47s. Bullying anti-gay Jesus kids. Infant genital mutilation. Teenage suicide bombers. Child Hindu brides.” He also argues that young children are extremely susceptible to the teachings of their parents. But this is obvious! The rational capacity develops in humans over time and young ones only survive to adulthood because they are guided by adults. Unfortunately, Istvan’s proposal for dealing with the irrationality to which humans are prone would, in fact, undermine his goal of creating a rational culture. Degrees of abuse In the first place, the Constitution does not grant government the power to restrict what religious doctrines parents teach their children; indeed, the First Amendment prohibits laws interfering with the free exercise of religion. It is true that “free exercise” does not allow parents to abuse children in certain ways—raping, starving, torturing them—whether in the name of religion or not. But filling a child’s head with tales of virgin births, multi-armed goddesses, or prophets flying to an invisible place called “heaven” on a winged horse is a long way from breaking a child’s bones with a baseball bat or strapping explosives to a child in order to blow up infidel children. Degrees of indoctrination Let’s grant that religious teaching could confuse children, hamper the development of their thinking skills, or even inflict psychological damage. Still, there are different degrees of teaching or “indoctrination.” It is reasonable for government to require parents to provide some level of general education for their children. And in America, Christians generally raise their children with reasonable, secularly defensible values in addition to the religious theology with which Istvan takes issue. Such parents generally want their children taught reading, writing, and math. They want them to learn history. And they want them to learn about the sciences that have created our current, advanced industrial society, though granted, too many have a bizarre aversion to accepting the truth of evolution, even though they accept the science concerning, for example, the heliocentric understanding of the solar system. Degrees of repression Further, Istvan’s suggestion would require the government to take on totalitarian powers. Would government agents be stationed at the doors of every church, synagogue, and mosque to check IDs and chase away anyone under sixteen? Would listening devices and 1984-style view screens be placed in every home and monitored 24/7 to make sure parents aren’t reading their children Bible stories? Would setting up a Christmas tree or nativity scene in one’s own home be considered “indoctrination?” Furthermore, what about Eastern religions, which are more ways of life than theologies? Would teaching one’s children mediation as such be a crime or would it be legal as long as one never stated “The Buddha taught…” as an historical fact? Philosopher-king fallacy In a country in which 85 percent of people profess religious belief, is it plausible that legislators would ever pass a ban on religious education of children? And where would the government find the army of snoops to monitor their fellows to make sure they’re not corrupting the youth? Finally, does Istvan imagine that he or someone of like mind would be made the anti-indoctrination czar, the philosopher-king? In recent years local child protective service officers have increasingly been arresting parents for alleged child abuse. Their crimes? Engaging in practices considered perfectly innocent in decades past, for example, letting a nine-year old play in a public park alone without a parent. (What has changed so radically since I was that age and played safely in my neighborhood with my friends?) But the kind of ban that Istvan suggests, combined with stupid government bureaucrats and busy-body neighbors, would multiply such abuses a thousand-fold. A vision of rational values One can understand Istvan’s frustration with the irrationality that plagues our world. But he also must appreciate that suggesting a ban on religious indoctrination of children ignores the dangers of an all-powerful government, dangers that Istvan otherwise seems to appreciate. Further, his recommendation comes off as so ill-conceived that it paints transhumanists as dangerously detached from reality and, thus, dangerous if they ever get political power in their hands. One doesn’t promote the virtue of rationality by countering irrationality with proposals that, given a moment’s thought, can easily be rejected. Those who want humans to live longer lives with enhanced capacities need to focus their creative efforts not only on the science and technology necessary to transform humans physically. They must also actively and intelligently promote a flourishing life as the goal for each individual, with reason as life’s guide and productive achievement as life’s purpose. And they must not employ the fear of government guns as motivation to abandon questionable or false beliefs. Rather, they should offer the shining vision of human life as it can be and should be as the compelling reason to strive for a better self and a better world. --- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: *Edward Hudgins, Transhumanism vs. a Conservative Death Ethos. August 20, 2012. *Edward Hudgins, “Book Review: Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think, by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler.” ISkeptic, April 24, 2013. *William Thomas, Transhumanism: How Does it Relate to Objectivism?

Jerry - That's the plan! To get them started I took them to an event where Buzz Aldrin--who has a chapter in my space book--was signing his new book on going to Mars and introduced my girls as the first twins who would visit either the Moon or the Red Planet! After they charmed Buzz they wouldn't turn to the camera for a photo op so I did a little cutting and pasting. By the way, in the his chapter in my book, Aldrin outlines his design for both a Moon-Earth and Mars-Earth "cycling" system which would have spaceships doing gravitational swings in a constant cycle between those bodies. Aldrin did his Ph.D. before he went into space on orbital rendezvous.

It's pleasant to imagine that if a shining Galt's Gulch is every created in our world, it will not be darkened by black clouds like Wolf. But it will be brighten by my Allegra and Sophia!

Atlas Shrugged: Now Non-Fiction By Edward Hudgins September 12, 2014 — Atlas Shrugged Part III, the concluding installment of the film trilogy of Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel, is now in theaters. Its producers are on the mark to promote the film as “Now non-fiction.” A reason for the resurgence of interest in Atlas Shrugged over the past decade is that its plot of a collapsing America parallels the sad situation in the country today. As important, the novel reveals the moral causes behind our world’s crisis. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand paints a picture of two types of business people. There are creators who grow rich because they run efficient, productive enterprises or invent and manufacture revolutionary products. They thrive in a system in which individuals trade goods and services with one another based on mutual consent. In today’s world these are the real capitalists, such as the new tech entrepreneurs like the late Steve Jobs or like Elon Musk, creator of private rockets and the Tesla cars. And there are the “crony capitalists,” those who use the government to secure special taxpayer handouts or regulations that cripple their competitors. They battle in a system in which raw political power determines who survives or parishes. In today’s world they are found in “green” companies like the energy firm Solyndra that cannot make products that actually works, in Wall Street banks that make reckless investments, and in auto companies like GM that build cars that are too costly to sell without massive subsidies. They are the corruption in our system. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand shows the creators demonized as “selfish” because they love their work and grow rich through their own honest efforts. President Obama’s whole ideology is based on whipping up envy against the “one percent” and even belittling their achievements with “You didn’t build that. Someone else made it happen.” By contrast, the cronies pose as friends of the downtrodden, even as they destroy the morality of enterprise necessary for anyone who wishes to improve their lot in life. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand shows the results of this anti-individualist dogma and the policies that follow from it: businesses, banks, and cities collapsing into bankruptcy and ruin. In today’s world, can you say “Detroit?” In Atlas Shrugged, Rand also shows the creators who refuse to sanction their own destroyers, who refuse to be sacrificial victims, who refuse to suffer as they hold up the world for those who condemn them taking the only moral action they can. They go on strike. They shrug. One outstanding entrepreneur after another quietly disappears, leaving the looters to fight over what few crumbs are left. In today’s world, we more and more see Atlases shrugging. We see investors sitting on perhaps $1 trillion in capital that they refuse to put into productive enterprises that are vulnerable to Obama’s jihad against the “wealthy.” We see businesses moving from high tax states with heavy-handed regulations to more friendly jurisdictions, for example, a flood of firms moving from California to Arizona and Nevada. We see American enterprises setting up legal residency in other countries to avoid the rising American tax burden, as Burger King recently did by becoming a Canadian company. Obama and the Democrats are desperate to stop this “tax inversion” because they are running out of victims. And we see medical doctors taking early retirement or going on a cash-only basis to avoid being under the weight of Obamacare. And in Atlas Shrugged, Rand shows that the path to a free, prosperous society and to personal happiness is a philosophy of rational self-interest. Individuals must assert their right to their own lives and to the liberty to pursue values, careers, family and friends that fulfill them. They must take pride in their achievements, whether nurturing a child to maturity or a business to profitability; whether writing a song, poem, or business plan; whether designing a building, laying its bricks, or arranging for its financing. They must never be guilt-tripped into servitude. Only then can we live in a world as it can be and should be. --- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: David Kelley, editor, Atlas Shrugged: The Novel, the Films, and the Philosophy. September 2014.

MSK - Thanks Michael for your thoughts! Yes, the stupidity of Republicans combined with the stupidity of Democrats is an advertisement for limited government. By the way, Virginia Democrat Governor Terry McAuliffe is a corrupt crony capitalist as well and under investigation for is work with a "green" car company. We really need to emphaisize that as long as the government has the power to give out favors, we'll have people like McDonnell and McAuliffe.

Illinois Establishment GOP Sinks In Sleaze By Edward Hudgins September 2, 2014 -- Illinois is well-known for corrupt Democratic governors and government. Sadly, establishment Republicans are joining in the sleazy moral morass. To qualify to be on state-wide ballots, Democratic and Republican Party candidates in Illinois need only several hundred petition signatures while third party candidates need 20,000. The Libertarian Party collected 42,986, more than enough. But the GOP in the state decided not only to challenge nearly 24,000 signatures. Its operatives also sent out armed private agents to go to the homes of LP folks who had signed petitions or collected signatures, telling them they had done so illegally and intimidating them into signing forms recanting their support. The reason for this shocking stupidity is as clear as it is unnecessary. This year the Republicans have a good chance of defeating Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, a Democrat. In recent decades Illinois has led the nation in political corruption. The last two governors, George Ryan and Rob Blagojevich, both Democrats, have gone to jail. Two other Democratic governors, Otto Kerner in the 1960s and Daniel Walker in the 1970s, also did stints in prison after their stints in the state house. Current Governor Quinn is also under investigation for corruption. So the Republican nominee Bruce Rauner could certainly run to restore honestly and integrity to the state. But Republicans are always concerned that Libertarians will siphon off some of their votes. So the GOP decided to counter Democratic corruption with their own form of criminality. It is a felony to engage in the kind of intimidation the Republicans have used. Naturally, Governor Quinn, posing as a crime fighter full of moxie, has promised to bring the perps to justice. This incident, of course, signals voters “Here’s how we plan to govern,” e.g., with little regard for the law. But more fundamentally, this incident is another battle in the civil war for the soul of the GOP. It highlights a fundamental failing of establishment Republicans. They should seek the votes of LP members and libertarian-leaning Republicans by supporting liberty. Instead, they simply promise to be more honest and efficient managers of the collapsing welfare state, and Illinois Republicans now will have trouble making the “honesty” argument with straight faces. Yes, Republicans must learn to make compelling, positive cases for personal autonomy that will appeal to voters other than hardcore libertarians. That takes political skill. But the GOP’s Illinois antics simply prove to uber-lovers of liberty as well as all other voters that the Republicans are just another collection of crooked statists. Maybe in Illinois the stink of corruption on the Democrats will still overwhelm the rotten smell of the Republicans who have soiled themselves as well. But in the long-run, the Republicans must earn votes by fighting to restore liberty and by restraining abusive government or they and, sadly, this once-free country, will end up in the dustbin of history. EXPLORE:*Edward Hudgins, The Republican Party Civil War: Will Freedom Win? February 2014.*Edward Hudgins, “Michigan, Georgia pols show the fork in the GOP's road.” August 12, 2014.*Edward Hudgins, “Rand Paul Revolution in Silicon Valley.” July 25, 2014.

Transhumanism vs. a Conservative Death Ethos By Edward Hudgins August 20, 2014 -- Zoltan Istvan, author of the provocative novel The Transhumanist Wager (I’ll review it soon), recently suggested in Wired that individuals be required to secure a government license before having a child. I disagree with Istvan. So does Wesley Smith, who pens the Human Exceptionalism column forNational Review. But Smith disagrees because Istvan rejects the morality of individual self-sacrifice. Istvan’s rejection is, in fact, a good reason for anyone who loves life to consider the bright future that the Transhumanist enterprise can offer. Transhumanists seek to develop and apply technologies to greatly enhance human physical and mental capacities. Centers like Singularity University, founded by futurist Ray Kurzweil and space entrepreneur Peter Diamandis, are facilitating major advances toward this goal. Too many people? Istvan and many other Transhumanists argue that in a few decades technology and breakthroughs in biology and genetics will literally allow humans to live forever. But with thousands of children starving to death in our world every day, Istvan believes the situation will be even worse with a growing, undying population. This is one reason why he “cautiously endorse the idea of licensing parents” and that “applicants who are deemed unworthy—perhaps because they are homeless, or have drug problems, or are violent criminals, or have no resources to raise a child properly and keep it from going hungry—would not be allowed until they could demonstrate they were suitable parents.” But for two centuries technology has dispelled the myth of resource depletion and allowed billions of human to live long and prosper. Continued abject poverty and starvation is mostly due to a lack of free markets and property rights. Self-refuting But Istvan himself recognizes objections that, I would argue, require us to reject his proposal. He says “Telling a person when and how many children they can have violates just about every core value we possess in a free society.” Precisely! Individual have a right to their own lives and deserve the liberty to pursue their own happiness as long as they accord equal liberty to others. Further, Istvan rightly asks, “who wants the government handling human breeding when it can't do basic things like balance its own budgets and stay out of wars?” His suggestion that a United Nations agency handle the matter is laughable. Further, Istvan’s description of irresponsible parents describes the behavior of most politicians, only they ruin entire countries, not just their own children. Do you really want to hand these dangerous authoritarians power to control the most intimate aspects of our lives? Dying for love? But while Istvan is wrong, his conservative critics are even worse. Wesley Smith objects to Istvan’s entire enterprise because “Transhumanism is selfish, all about me-me, I-I. It’s [sic] goal is immortality for those currently alive, and the right to radically remake themselves and their progeny in their own image.” Yes, exactly! The essence of morality is “I.” Ethics exists to allow individuals to pursue their own happiness, flourishing, and fulfillment in life. To achieve these goals, we must use reason to guide our lives. We must pursue productive achievements. And we should accord to others the equal right to pursue their own happiness. And what of our progeny? Smith offers the words of Leon Kass: “In perpetuation, we send forth not just the seed of our bodies, but also the bearer of our hopes… If our children are to flower, we need to sow them well and nurture them, cultivate them in rich and wholesome soil, clothe them in fine and decent opinions and mores, and direct them toward the highest light.” Okay, fine. But here’s the zinger. “If they are truly to flower, we must go to seed; we must wither and give ground.” What? If parents love their children they must die? My parents are 82 years old. I love them and want them to be around as long as possible. Damned selfish of me? And I’m an older father of very young fraternal twin girls. I want to live to see them graduate college, grow in careers, perhaps make me a grandfather, and much more. The future is now Transhumanists today strive to be such achievers. Through their efforts our progeny could live in a world without Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, clinical depression, dementia, diabetes, and cancer, a world in which lives are not only longer—perhaps never-ending—but healthier. Smith reveals a fundamental moral error when he declares that “we owe duties to our posterity and not just ourselves.” But Transhumanists do offer incalculable goods for future generations. Economist Walter Williams once quipped, “What have tomorrow's Americans done for today's Americans?” This witticism gets to the fact that each of us must pursue our own values and happiness in order to create the greatest meaning in our own lives. Out of love we help our children as best we can but they, too, will need to find their own meaning. There are still many serious discussions to have concerning the Transhumanist enterprise. For example, does that enterprise take away from current human exceptionalism and dignity? I say “No.” But for love of self as well as love of our children and of what the future offers, we should embrace the Transhumanist goals. --- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: *Edward Hudgins, “Book Review: Abundance: The Future Is Better Than You Think, by Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler.” ISkeptic, April 24, 2013. *William Thomas, Transhumanism: How Does it Relate to Objectivism?

Michael M. - I intentionally kept my description clinical because I wanted to get people to look at this serious matter without their thinking clouded by emotions generated by ideology. I find some Objectivists and libertarians to be overly rationalistic, meaning they ignore the complexity of human behavior. Remember that Rand herself might not have appreciate that Frank O'Connor in old age was suffering if not from early dementia then some form of neurological decay. But I'm glad in my reply to you I was able to revert the my usual Ed-Hudgins self!

Michael M. – I’m happy to assure you that I would never write anything that conflicts with my own truth for the sake of the Atlas Society or anyone else. You might note that Alexander Cohen, my TAS colleague who I refer at the start of my piece, has posted in the comments to my piece on the TAS website that he disagrees with me. Wow, open Objectivism, and without some of the nastiness--though not from you!--on this very thread! I’ll add that I strive first and foremost to understand objective reality, not to distort reality in order to fit it into my philosophical presuppositions. Human behavior is very complex. Clinical depression, unfortunately, figures in the behavior of many people. No thoughtful or honest person can deny this. Sure, Scientologist or fundamentalist Christian might say that individuals are possessed by thetans or Satan, but they are dishonest kooks. To recognize the reality of such depression is not to say that other factors do not complicate behavior or how individuals deal with such depression. For example, narcissists will dig themselves into a deeper hole. But it is crucial to understand the nature and full context of someone’s situation in order to deal with it. I’ve seen variations among people I’m close to and have done my best to help them out. I do not believe that observing that sometimes individuals are not always in complete control of their own mindset and attitudes negates the fundamentals of Objectivism. But my goal is to first and foremost be in agreement with objective reality. Others can ultimately decide how to label my beliefs. Whether I’m a “true” Objectivist or not os not my fundamental concern. Was Ayn Rand clinically depressed? I don’t know. Both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden have described Ayn’s depression after the publication of Atlas and the disgraceful response of many critics. I recall others with firsthand knowledge madding similar observations. So unless there’s compelling evidence that Ayn was kicking back with a smile on her face, glowing with the pride in her achievement during those years, I’ll assume the Brandens are correct. I discussed with Barbara on several occasions the fact that Rand didn’t seem to be able to live according Roark’s attitudes toward his enemies: “But I don’t think of you.” Barbara answered something to the effect that Rand was human, e.g., that what one considers the appropriate emotional response might not simply well up automatically from one’s soul. Was Rand clinically depressed? Or was she simply experiencing a huge letdown because she so misjudged the rationality of people and how they would react to Atlas? Or a little of both? Whatever the case might be, I don’t believe it negates her philosophy. But it does suggest that a more realistic understanding of human nature is necessary. Nathaniel Branden has said many times that his work in psychology was meant, in part, to give individuals the technology to get from where they actually were—not a Galt or Dagny—to where they wanted to be and should be. Too bad that because of the Rand-Branden break Rand was not able to incorporate his later work into the philosophy.

Since I cite David Kelley's piece in my recent blog post, I'm cross-posting it here. For the actual thread, go to the Ed Hudgins corner. http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2014/08/15/suicide-and-reasons-live

Suicide and Reasons to Live By Edward Hudgins August 15, 2014 -- The death of entertainer Robin Williams has again brought to public discussion the serious matter of suicide. My colleague Alexander Cohen has penned a reflection that is both personal and philosophical. He asserts, correctly, that if life is a value that we must choose and embrace, death in some cases might be a valid option as well. But it is worth our trouble to reflect some more on the nature and obligations surrounding this option. Human life is not a matter of mere survival. Rather, one lives to pursue rational values, to be happy, to flourish. An individual with a painful ailment who finds it impossible to enjoy anything in life—to read, to watch a movie on TV, to listen to music, to have a conversation with loved ones—might have valid reason for deciding that their life offers too little to continue. Clinical depression But more suicides are brought on by clinical depression than by a terrible existential situation. The excruciating pain of depression is real. But the cause is something biological and chemical. The individual cannot think straight about their situation not because they choose to be irrational or have failed to take enough courses in logic and not because they are simply lazy and choose not to exercise the will power to focus their minds. Emotions that are extremely difficult to control blind their reason. Thus, while the desire to escape the pain of depression is valid, and suicide would be a quick way out, in such cases suicide is not necessarily a rational decision. Illusion of worthlessness Depressed individuals when they are back from the brink describe the general feeling of hopelessness dragging them down—Winston Churchill described his depression as his “black dog.” They also describe a feeling of worthlessness. One might understand an individual who has committed some horrible crime coming the full moral realization of what they did and believing that they deserve to die. But clinically depressed distorts and individual’s apprehension of reality in this most crucial aspect of life: their sense of self-worth. One can take some comfort when a person in horrible pain passes away; I’ve felt that way when loved ones suffering from cancer finally succumbed. And in the case of someone like Robin Williams who struggled for years with depression, albeit in his case worsened by alcohol and drug abuse, we can at least say they are now free, they suffer no more. But clearly the best outcome is for clinically depressed individuals to receive treatment, at best with the aid and support of loved ones who value those individuals, so they can go on to live and to flourish. Pharmaceuticals currently help millions. And we can hope that in the future, genetic research will allow for the elimination of the inborn propensity some individuals have toward depression . Tragedy for others Speaking of loved ones, we can also ask about the obligation of depressed individuals to go on living for the sake of those who love and value them. There was no generic moral obligation for Robin Williams to continue to suffer because the millions who loved his work would miss him. But consider the situation of a father with a wife and young children who, because of clinical depression, commits suicide. That father took on a moral and a legal commitment to care for those children. He would be inflicting terrible, long-lasting pain not only on the children but on the wife whom he loved and valued. Again, in such a case we might take cold comfort in the fact that such a father no longer suffers the pain of clinical depression. But his suicide can only be described as a tragedy, an inflicting on his family of undeserved pain because of a painful biological condition that drives such a father, beyond reason, to suicide. Individuals don’t have a moral obligation to live for the sake of others. But the foundation and source of the need for morality is to guide us as we seek to live flourishing lives. Let us hope that Robin Williams’s death will raise awareness of the need for individuals who suffer from clinical depression to strive, with the help of loved ones, to overcome their condition just as they would strive to overcome any other illness. That is how life for them will continue to offer values and, indeed, will be the highest value. ---- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: David Kelley, “Choosing Life.”

Gaza, Hamas, Israel, Corpses, and Context By Edward Hudgins July 23, 2014 — Television newscasts over the past week have featured videos of corpses, including the bodies of children, piled in hospitals and morgues in Gaza, surrounded by grieving family and friends. The natural and angry human reaction to such scenes is, “What monsters did this?” But the rational response should also be, “What is the full context of this suffering and death?” There are World War II photos that show German women and children killed in Allied bombings. Taken out of all context, these gruesome pictures could elicit anger without revealing the monstrous regime that itself inflicted death on so many and made that war necessary. While Israeli bombs and bullets were the immediate cause of the carnage in Gaza, the need to resort to war was caused by Hamas, a fact not communicated well if at all by the American media. Gaza was occupied by Israel in the aftermath of one of the many attempts by Israel’s Arab neighbors and terrorist groups to kill the Jews or drive them into the sea. But after Israel unilaterally pulled out its military and settlements—the military had to forcibly remove many Jewish settlers who refused to leave—the people of Gaza in 2005 elected as its government Hamas, a group of thugs who made the destruction of Israel Job One. Hamas did not build schools to train its children in the enterprises of peace. Rather, it trained military units for attacks on Israel and trained its children as suicide bombers; indeed, it celebrates and honors those who kill themselves in the process of killing Jewish children. It did not build businesses and promote prosperity. Rather, it built tunnels to infiltrate Israel, and smuggled into Gaza rockets and mortars to fire at its neighbor. It intentionally places its weapons in or near civilian housing, schools, and hospitals, using its own children as human shields, so that counterattacks that produce corpses will elicit sympathy among those in the West naïve or blind enough to ignore the full context of the conflict. And any Palestinian who suggests making trade, not war, with Israel is killed by Hamas. In light of the anti-Semitism that drove the original Jewish settlers from Europe to Palestine, that produced the Holocaust, and that today is seen again in the streets of Europe and cesspools of American academia and leftist circles, Israel has no choice but to fight when it is attacked. The blood in Gaza is on the hands of Hamas. And it is Hamas that has always maintained that it is at war with Israel and that it will never cease to be so. To merely utter the truism that Israel should avoid inflicting unnecessary civilian casualties ignores that fact that ridding Israel of its Jewish civilian population is the aim of Hamas. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu pinpointed the nature of the conflict: “If Israel were to put down its arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs were to put down their arms there would be no more war.” Golda Meir put it well some four decades ago: “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.” Such forgiveness, in fact, should not be granted. But Meir was right about the warped values of the enemies of Israel and, more broadly, of the civilized world. Osama bin Laden echoed his fellow Islamists when he said, “We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the difference between us two.” Yes, it is. And a favorite saying among Jews is “L’Chaim,” “To life!” That is the nature of the conflict in Gaza. It is life versus death. To the extent that their hate has not extinguished their humanity, Gaza Palestinians are anguished by the carnage that is the consequence of Hamas’s goal of destroying Israel. Israelis take no joy in killing. If Palestinians take no joy in dying, they must overthrow Hamas and choose the side of life. --- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: Edward Hudgins, “Israeli Independence and Libertarian Blindness.” May 6, 2014. Edward Hudgins, “Egypt Revolts Against Islamists and Obama.” July 3, 2013. William R Thomas, “Free World Order.” November 9, 2011.

The First Moon Landing 45 Years On By Edward Hudgins July 18, 2014 – On July 20, 1969 Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first human beings to land and walk on the Moon. Armstrong is no longer with us to mark the anniversary of this incredible achievement. But Buzz has been active in keeping the dream of human space exploration alive. Forty-five years after making those famous footprints on the lunar surface, Aldrin’s #Apollo45 Facebook and social media celebration features videos of prominent folks answering the question “Where were you when men landed on the Moon?” Most of the comments exude the excitement that this achievement inspired. And some also express sadness at the fact that only twelve humans have ever kicked up the dust on Earth’s satellite and that no one has gone on to build lunar bases and settlements. In his latest book Mission to Mars: My Vision for Space Exploration, Aldrin and co-author Leonard David suggest that a next great human achievement should be the human exploration of the Red Planet. Aldrin offers his own perspective on the best way to get there. But two facts are crucial to keep in mind when contemplating such missions. First, it is best for the private sector to lead the way. For example, SpaceX founder Elon Musk, whose company has already launched private cargo rockets to the International Space Station, has said his goal is to die on Mars—but not on landing! And the private Mars One project wants to send settlers to Mars not to explore and then return but, rather, to stay there permanently. And second, space exploration represents humanity at its best. It’s an amazing achievement of human reason. So let’s celebrate the 45th anniversary of that one giant leap for mankind and let the spirit of that mission inspire even greater achievements in the future. ----- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: *Edward Hudgins, “Neil Armstrong: American Hero.” August 27, 2012. *Edward Hudgins, When We Walked on the Moon, July 17, 2009. *Edward Hudgins, “Apollo 11 on Human Achievement Day.” July 20, 2005. *Edward Hudgins, “The Spiritual Significance of Mars.” August 12, 2003.

Brant – The initial expectations of Rand and her circle concerning the impact of Atlas certainly were too high; the world didn’t transform in six months. But that speaks to a lack of appreciation about how societies and cultures change. Your remarks on “the complicated human dynamic” and “inertia” are to that point. Long-term change involves fundamental principles but it is complex and has always been one of my interests for practical reasons as well as academic interest. In creating her community of like-minded individuals, Rand did what we all do through family, friends, voluntary associations, and internet groups like OL. But one challenge is to be reality-oriented, to not ignore those complexities of human nature in order to construct some Platonic fantasy world. You might place me to be on the conservative end of the Objectivism spectrum (glad you think I have gravitas!), but I like to consider myself on the realist end. But since Objectivism is reality-oriented, this should not be an “end” but, rather, the whole spectrum! I accept the core insights of Objectivism, but I neither blind myself to the challenges that the real world poses to making that world as it can be and should be, nor do I sink into impotent carping and complaining.

Brant - Clarification noted. Back to the battle!

Brant - You say that new entrepreneurs will "never get 'the politics of John Galt'" I suggest there are two options: 1) Declare on a discussion thread where few will likely read your words the situation is hopeless. 2) Get out there and engage with new entrepreneurs. Meet with them. Listen to them. Discover what their thinking is, where they are right and what their mistakes are. Build on the beliefs and values about which they are right. Recognize that "they" are not a monolithic group. Identify the one's whose political thinking is more freedom-oriented or who might change their minds. Have the good ones speak at your conferences. Reason with them. Advocate. Make your case. And understand that at any time in history you could that this or that "group" will never change, and then watch as some do. I'm busy with option number two and leave those here pursuing with option number one to wallow in futility. Let the black clouds gather over your heads. But beware of the light that might break through! And remember: “Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma—which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition.” -- Steve Jobs

Michael – Thanks for your kind words. And I actually don’t quibble with your quibbles. In a longer piece I might have made similar points. But it is interested that the Archduke at least toyed with the idea of how a federated Austria-Hungary might work. (For those interested in the period, read Barbara Tuckman’s “The Guns of August.”) And echoing a point I made on SOLO, I note that Edmund Burke and conservatives supported class, religion, and other traditional institutions in part as barriers to the sort of abuses attendant to the French Revolution. Such conservatives were not for all-powerful monarchies; they most of all feared all-powerful mob rule. The American Constitution, with separation of powers and checks and balances, was a manifestation of classical liberal ideas combined with sound conservative insights. On your point about the best people coming to America, I agree but with some explanation. I wrote in What Is an American? that my grandfather, a poor, landless peasant from rural Italy in the early 20th century, manifested the values and spirit that so many immigrants brought to this country: 1) He wanted the best life for himself and his family; 2) he took action toward his goal rather than just sitting on his butt and complaining; 3) he had to use his wits and his mind—even without much formal education—to figure out how to get to America and to make enough money to bring the family over (a goal he met in 1930); and 4) he realized that going to America involved risks of failure compared to staying put, but that staying put almost guaranteed a life of hopeless poverty. These were the values of so many who left Europe and contributed to the American culture as well as the economy. This is also why I see hope in the new entrepreneurs in this country who are “individual visionaries who are transforming the world,” who ”strive because they love their work” who “hold Enlightenment values—though in many cases their politics still need to catch up.” In recent talks, I say they have the values of a Howard Roark but still need the politics of a John Galt. Ray Kurzweil, of “singularity” fame, tells how reading Tom Swift books as a youngest showed him that “the right idea had the power to overcome a seemingly overwhelming challenge” and that in all cases “we can find that idea.” He described the experience of holding an actual da Vinci manuscript as almost like touching “the work of God himself. This, then, was the religion that I was raised with: veneration for human capacity and the power of ideas.” Such values are crucial to the restoration of freedom in this country. Further, outreach to these folks has an added potential benefit. Millennials are very cynical about politics and most other American institutions; 50% are political independents compared to only 37 % of baby boomers. But 74% of first-year college millennials rate begin financially very well off as a top life goal, compared to only 45% of boomers at that age. And millennials love new technology. In other words, they want to be the next Zuckerberg. So it is through the new entrepreneurs and such young people that we might have a path to John Galt!

The Single Bullet That Killed 16 Million By Edward Hudgins June 27, 2014 – A century ago, on June 28, 1914, Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip shot and killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the emperorship of Austria-Hungary, along with his wife, on their visit to Sarajevo. In retaliation, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Serbia’s ally Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary’s ally Germany declared war both on Russia and Russia’s ally France. France’s ally Britain declared war on Germany and Austria-Hungary. By the time it was all over, Italy, the Ottoman Empire, Japan, and the USA were notably involved. World War I led to 16 million military and civilian deaths, plus nearly 20 million wounded. And the misery and horror of that war resulted in another casualty: confidence in the Enlightenment enterprise and human progress. Enlightenment Europe In the late seventeenth century Isaac Newton’s discovery of the laws of universal gravitation dramatically demonstrated the power of the human mind. Understanding of the world and the universe—what we call modern science—became a central Enlightenment goal. At the same time, the struggle for Parliamentary supremacy in England led John Locke to pen his powerful treatise on individual liberty. Creating governments limited to protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness also became a central Enlightenment goal, which culminated in the creation of United States. Enlightenment values were not limited to Britain or America. They were universal and created a European-wide culture of individualism, freedom, and reason. Collectivist anti-Enlightenment But Enlightenment thinkers and activists not only had to fight entrenched oligarchs and rigid religious dogma. Starting with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a school of thought—if thought it could be called—arose that opposed individualism with the good of “society,” or the group, and rejected reason in favor of emotion and instinct. The French Revolution starting in 1789 saw Enlightenment ideas losing ground to reactionary and collectivist forces. The result was the Terror and the guillotine, dictatorship and a new monarchy, and the carnage of the Napoleonic wars--the first great modern global conflict, which ended in 1815 at Waterloo. In the century that followed Europe suffered only short regional conflicts, most relating to the unification of Italy and of Germany. The Industrial Revolution was creating prosperity. Governments were granting citizens rights to political participation and were recognizing their civil liberties. By the early twentieth century, continued progress seemed inevitable. Pernicious nationalism But the pernicious collectivist ideology combined with a major European cultural defect: nationalism. This form of collectivism meant more than just an appreciation for the aesthetic achievements—art, music, literature—of the individuals in one’s ethnic group. It meant putting one’s group or one’s country, right or wrong, ahead of universal values and principles. Kill for King or Kaiser! There’s an irony in the fact that poor Franz Ferdinand wanted to recreate Austria-Hungary as a federation in which the minority groups—that were always either dominated by Viennese elites or at one another’s throats—would have autonomy similar to that enjoyed by the American states. If only Princip had waited a while. Unfortunately, the volatile combination of nationalism, an interlocking treaty system, and the Britain-Germany imperial rivalry only required a spark like the Sarajevo assassination to set off a global conflagration. Collectivism vs. collectivism After World War I, individualism and “selfishness” got much of the blame for the conflict. And science was no longer associated only with progress. It had created machine guns, tanks, and poison gas, and made possible a fearful slaughter. Idealists created the League of Nations to prevent such wars in the future. But they tried to cure the problem of nationalism with more nationalism, simply accentuating the problem. Indeed, Hitler used the principle of self-determination of peoples as an excuse to unify all Germans into one Reich by force. His form of collectivism also entailed enslaving and wiping out “inferior” races. The catastrophe of World War II was followed by a Cold War, which saw the Soviet Union asserting another form of collectivism, pitting one economic “class” against another. Western Europe opposed the brutal Soviet kill-the-rich socialism with a kinder, gentler, loot-the-rich democratic socialism. The Soviet Union with its communist empire collapsed in 1991, and Western European democratic socialism is going through a similar disintegration in slow motion. Still recovering from the Great War Today, Enlightenment values are making a comeback. The communications and information revolutions, and the application of new technologies in medicine, transportation, and other fields, again demonstrate the power of the human mind and the benefits it confers. Furthermore, many of the new entrepreneurs understand that it is they as individual visionaries who are transforming the world. And while their achievements benefit everyone, they strive because they love their work and they love to achieve. They pursue happiness. They hold Enlightenment values—though in many cases their politics still need to catch up. The world is still digging out from the consequences of that single bullet a century ago, which led to the deaths of millions. Putting our country and the world back on the path to liberty and prosperity will require a recommitment to the Enlightenment values that created all the best in the modern world. --- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: Edward Hudgins, “D-Day and Enlightenment Values.” June 6, 2014. *Marsha Enright, “Education for a New Enlightenment.” Winter 2010. *David Mayer, “Completing the American Revolution.” Spring, 2009. *David Kelley, “The Fourth Revolution.” Spring 2009.

Cantor’s Defeat and the GOP Establishment’s Dilemma By Edward Hudgins June 11, 2014 -- Establishment Republicans are in shock over the Virginia primary loss by GOP House majority leader Eric Cantor at the hands of Dave Brat, an economics professor and Tea Party-backed political novice. Many conservatives chalked up Cantor’s defeat to his support for immigration reform, which they interpret as “amnesty and citizenship for lawbreakers.” And Brat made remarks ciritical of immigration reform. But a survey released by the liberal Public Policy Polling found some 70 percent of voters in Cantor’s district favor reform that includes securing the border, barring businesses from hiring illegals, but also allowing undocumented aliens a way to legally remain in the U.S. Establishment Republicans must understand the deeper causes for Cantor’s defeat and learn lessons that will better ensure general election victories. And those who back candidates like Brat must understand what errors they must avoid in order to avoid election defeats. Such an understanding begins with a recognition that the GOP is in a three-way civil war. The corrupt Republican establishment The first GOP faction, establishment Republicans, includes Cantor, House Speaker John Boehner, and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell. They want to keep the welfare state but tweak it to make it work a little better, perhaps with some free-market reforms. And they would also argue that it’s one thing to talk about abolishing the welfare state, as do many Tea Partiers, but it’s quite another matter to actually pass legislation to pare the state down. The problem is that these establishment Republicans present no long-term coherent vision or guiding principles for changing a corrupt paternalist and crony-capitalist regime, a system that is rightly seen by many voters as rotten to the core but propped up by Republicans and Democrats alike. Such voters see Cantor and others like him as flip-flopping pragmatists who are not even pragmatic since they’ve been unable to counter the growth of government under President Obama. Such disillusioned voters took their frustration out on Cantor. Scary social conservatives A second GOP faction, extreme social conservatives, includes Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum. They give priority to an agenda that limits civil liberties and is often even squishy on economic liberty, with government wielding power to support “family values.” Establishment Republicans rightly worry that candidates from this faction will lose elections the way Todd Aiken and Richard Mourdock did in running for U.S. Senate from Missouri and Indiana, respectively, in 2012. Both candidates tripped over their foolish statements about abortion, scaring away the growing number of socially-liberal voters. Democrat Party leaders love such easy-target Republicans! How, establishment Republicans will ask, can the GOP do anything to stop the growth of government if they can’t win the Senate? Real libertarian radicals The third GOP faction actually wants to roll back the power of government and begin to dismantle the welfare state. But such economic conservatives come in two flavors. Some are more libertarian, favoring both economic and personal liberty, e.g., the freedom to form same-sex marriages.Others are more socially conservative. But unlike their more extreme comrades, their priority is to fight the policies of Obama and his ilk, which are sinking the economy, reducing living standards, and destroying personal autonomy. Brat’s formula Winning candidate Dave Brat might offer a winning paradigm. Brat the economics professor campaigned on the economy, on the problem of the skyrocketing federal debt, and on government direction and regulation. Brat has written about Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, and even about moral foundations based in Ayn Rand. While not an Objectivist, he has been influenced by Atlas Shrugged. He is also a strong supporter of the Tenth Amendment, which states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Wow, a politician who takes the Constitution seriously! And this is an appeal to a principle that voters can appreciate. It is not the usual pandering and the usual mealy-mouthed promising that treats voters like spoiled children who the candidates will offer to spoil even more in return for votes. Brat has a Master of Divinity in Theology and is no doubt socially conservative. But pushing a religion-based agenda so far has not been his campaign priority. He seems to appreciate that no one’s personal values are safe if the government continues to grow and to control every aspect of our lives. Will Brat continue to avoid the errors made by so many social conservatives? That has yet to be seen, but he does seem to have a winning paradigm. Dedicated to liberty In light of Cantor’s defeat, Establishment Republicans must understand that they are part of the problem, at best slowing the nation’s decline with their support of the current corrupt regime. They should remember that George W. Bush contributed to this regime with expansions of the welfare and regulatory state. They should remember the defeats of their standard-bearers McCain and Romney. And thus they should seek out and support principled candidates like Dave Brat. Yes, passing—and repealing!—laws takes political skill. Compromises and deals will need to be made. But only if establishment Republicans abandon the establishment and if social conservatives give priority to limiting government, only if all GOP factions dedicate themselves to the principles of liberty can the party triumph and the country be saved. ----- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: *Edward Hudgins, editor, The Republican Party’s Civil War: Will Freedom Win? February 2014. *Edward Hudgins, “Family Values Still Threaten GOP.” May 30, 2014. *Edward Hudgins, “McConnell Should Unleash Our Inner John Galt.” June 10, 2014.

To Wolf DeVoon and perhaps a few others, I recently produced a book, The Republican Party’s Civil War: Will Freedom Win? It was referenced in my family values piece and recently offered as a free Kindle download, advertised on another thread. I believe you can see it free on some Kindle loan plan. In the book, I document the decline of the religious right as a portion of the voting population and the growth in importance of other groups not sympathetic in to the GOP. I review the pros and cons of the Libertarian Party. I make a direct appeal to social conservatives. And I offer tips on how to seize the moral high ground. I won’t simply re-post my book here but rely on those who want to speak from knowledge rather out of their butts to review my data and discussion.

D-Day and Enlightenment Values By Edward Hudgins June 6, 2014 – My late Uncle “Boots” Van Pelt was almost killed 70 years ago. He went ashore on Omaha Beach with the 29th Infantry Division on D-Day. After the initial troop landings, he was found and thought dead, but he roused as they were putting him into a body bag. He got to Paris with the American forces and was later wounded at the Battle of the Bulge. On the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Normandy, we reflect on the heroism of those who fought to liberate Europe. But we should also consider why the conflagration of World War II occurred and why Europe found itself in need of liberation to begin with. Rise of Enlightenment We need to start with history. Europe’s civilization at its best flourished because of the ideas and values manifest in its culture and institutions. Its philosophical culmination was the Enlightenment. Enlightenment philosophy acknowledged the power of human reason to understand the world and to transform it in order to make life on earth for human beings better. It recognized that individuals are ends in themselves, with their own happiness as their legitimate goal. And it accepted that individuals have the right to live their lives as they will, dealing with others based on mutual consent, with the implication that the purpose of government is to secure those rights. This philosophy, which transcended national borders, helped transform Europe, but only imperfectly and incompletely; that philosophy was best manifest in Europe’s stellar child, the United States. Casus belli At the beginning of the twentieth century, the European countries and peoples were still very nationalistic and tribal, not simply celebrating their own cultures but denigrating others. The interlocking treaty system that European nation-states set up almost ensured the outbreak of a major war. The appalling 20 million battlefield deaths of World War I did not give leaders, citizens, and subjects of European governments the wisdom to prevent another war. The defeated Germans, for example, resented the crippling reparations with which they were burdened. They were incensed by the requirement of the victors that they sign a “War Guilt” clause acknowledging that they were solely responsible for World War I. While they were a principal cause of the war, the victors and the treaty system deserved censure as well. Hitler is the single individual who deserves the most blame for World War II, though we should never forget the role Stalin and the expansionist Japanese government played as well. But more fundamentally, fascism and communism both arose because of an eclipse of the Enlightenment principles. Fascism and communism held the group—the “race” and the “proletariat” respectively—as superior to the individual. They rejected reason as a guide to life in favor of a mindless, emotional obedience to authority. And they accepted force as the way for individuals and nations to deal with one another. Add to that a value malaise in France, England, and elsewhere and the stage was set for war and repression. A new heroism World War II resulted in over 60 million dead. And at least in its wake, the countries of Western Europe have overcome many historical animosities and avoided launching a World War III. With the help of America, Europe avoided coming under the yoke of the surviving collectivist tyranny, the Soviet Union, which finally collapsed under its own contradictions. But Europe and the West today have not recovered the Enlightenment principles that they need to flourish. The welfare state and Euro-socialism are forms of collectivism that, though ostensibly kinder and gentler, are today going through their own version of the collapse that occurred in the East Bloc 25 years ago. The soldiers like my Uncle Boots who landed in Normandy 70 years ago to help liberate Europe were true heroes. Today we need a new heroism, the courage to stand up for the Enlightenment principles that are necessary to make sure that the horrors of tyranny and world war never plague the planet again. ---- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: *William R Thomas, “Crimea – Russian Nationalist Imperialism.” March 19, 2014. *William Thomas, “War: And Objectivist View.” *Edward Hudgins, “The Need for a New Individualism.” January 2005. *David Kelley, “The Party of Modernity.” November 2003.

Family Values Still Threaten GOPBy Edward Hudgins May 30, 2014 — In another skirmish in the GOP’s civil war, Ken Blackwell recently linked mass killings with same-sex unions. This is why, in spite of the prospects for a Republican takeover of the Senate in 2014, the party is still in a death spiral. Blackwell is a prominent Republican: a former Ohio secretary of state and now a senior fellow at the Family Research Council. On May 27, reacting to the recent shootings in Isla Vista, California by a young mentally unbalanced nut, Blackwell placed part of the blame for the killings on “the crumbling of the moral foundation of the country” and on “the attack on natural marriage and the family.” He made the even more outrageous assertion that “Throughout history, in order for totalitarianism, Marxism or a welfare state to occur two things have to happen—the marginalization of the church and the destruction of the family.” First, Blackwell’s history is bad. Churches and religions have as often backed and even spearheaded political repression as opposed it. And the preservation of family and tradition has often been used as an excuse for repression. Second, the purpose of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of individuals, not to dictate to them how they should live their lives. People should be free to enjoy their liberty and use their property, whether or not Blackwell or anyone else approves of their choices. If two gay individuals want to enter into the particular contractual relationship referred to as “marriage,” this does not limit the freedom of anybody else and is not anyone else’s political business. Third, Blackwell is correct that the moral foundation of the country is crumbing. But the problem is not same-sex marriage or the erosion of the family as such. Rather, it is the erosion of individualism. Individualism is the understanding that individuals should pursue their own happiness and flourishing, guided by their reason, to produce the means of their own survival, prosperity, and spiritual well-being, dealing with their fellows based on mutual consent. This country’s liberty, which is rooted in this philosophy, has allowed millions of realize the “American Dream”—individual flourishing. This country’s individualist culture has nurtured and encouraged the entrepreneurship that has made America the richest country in the world. But the welfare state, which Blackwell and most social conservatives denounce, has had a major role in destroying this philosophy, the morality of personal responsibility, and individual liberty. Blackwell’s Christian traditionalism echoes too many social conservatives who, by giving priority to a social agenda that limits liberty, actually empower the welfare statists whom they denounce. For example, these intolerant polemics distract the political debate from the clash between individualism and collectivism, between producers and expropriators, between liberty-lovers and control freaks. They drive away from the Republican Party young people who are socially liberal, accepting of same-sex unions, and who want nothing to do with what they see as a bigoted GOP. The more social conservatives push their liberty-limiting conception of “family values” as a political priority, the more they will not only see their own agenda fail but, in the process, will cripple the pro-freedom faction within the GOP, leaving the country open for an ever-more expansive, repressive, and family-destroying welfare state. --- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: Edward Hudgins, The Republican Party’s Civil War: Will Freedom Win? February 2014. Edward Hudgins, “Questions for Conservatives about Gay Marriage and Sock Drawers,” July1, 2011. William R Thomas, “Myth: Ayn Rand was a Conservative,” 2012.

Climate Kerfuffle on Cosmos By Edward Hudgins May 23, 2014 -- I’m a big fan of the Cosmos reboot series, just as I was of the Carl Sagan original. But the host Neil deGrasse Tyson recently stumbled very unscientifically when discussing climate change. In the recent Episode 11, entitled “The Immortals,” Tyson muses about a better human future. One highlight: “The last internal combustion engine is placed in a museum as the effects of climate change reverse and diminish.” He adds that, in this better future, “The polar ice caps are restored to the way they were in the nineteenth century.” Climates always change The problem starts with the words “climate change” itself. Until recent years, the concern of Al Gore and the environmental establishment was “global warming.” Their scenario, whether mistaken or not, was that human activities were producing extreme climatic warming that would cause very serious damage to human well-being. Tough government action could slow or even stop that warming. But the Earth’s climate has been changing on its own since the Earth has had an atmosphere, with extreme swings over periods of millennia and even millions of years. The notion of stopping the climate from changing at all is, frankly, ludicrous. There is not even rudimentary thinking about how to stop the climate in its tracks, even if it were considered desirable. Why does Tyson love the cold? Further, Tyson’s suggestion that having the ice caps—and presumably the climate—in their nineteenth century state would be optimal for human life and well-being is as arbitrary an assumption as one will find. Why? The early part of that century was part of the “Little Ice Age.” Many considered it too cold. And into the 1980s, the concern of many scientists was that another ice age could plague the planet. If we want to freeze the climate—no pun intended—into some ideal state, why not aim for the warming period in the early Middle Ages, when wine grapes were grown in usually too-chilly England and Greenland was actually green enough to grow crops? Commanding the tides King Cnut of England, during that period, is said to have taken his courtiers to the shore and commanded the tide not to come in. It did come in, of course, allowing King Cnut to make his point that there are limits to the power of secular rulers in the face of nature. It might well be possible for humans to do seemingly superhuman things in the future, for example, giving the planet Mars a breathable atmosphere. But there are forces of nature that humans will likely never control. Tyson must know, as many scientists have pointed out, that solar activity has a major effect on the Earth’s climate. Perhaps some super-evolved creatures in the future will be able to engineer whole stars. But while such creatures might arise from us, they will not be human. And Tyson is not speaking about some distant science fiction future. He speaks of the “scientific consensus that we’re destabilizing our climate” and says “Our civilization seems to be in the grip of denial, a kind of paralysis. There’s a disconnect between what we know and what we do.” Meaning that we should all follow the Al Gore action plan of abandoning our fossil fuels, the basis of our civilization and prosperity, in the name of a hopeless effort to create a climate future that might not even be desirable. Tyson rightly tries to project a human future of limitless possibilities. But he could better advance that future by bringing critical thinking rather than fuzzy assumptions to the global warming/climate change issue. ---- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: *Edward Hudgins, “Cosmos Reboot and Sagan’s Legacy.” March 10, 2014. *Edward Hudgins, “Cosmos: A Voyage Across The Final Frontier.” July/August 2007. *William R Thomas, “Why Ecology Requires Economics.” April 2005.

I thought I'd post here thoughts of Will Thomas, my colleague who sets up the Atlas Summit, on inviting Harriman: ------ William Thomas • Several people (Jerry Biggers, @Irfan Khawaja, @Mitch) have asked why TAS would feature David Harriman on the Atlas Summit program. David Harriman has long been a significant Objectivist intellectual and speaker. His book, The Logical Leap, is by far the most notable piece of work on induction from an Objectivist perspective yet published. Read my review and David Ross's sidebar at http://www.atlassociety.org/tn... to see both praise and criticism of that book. The Atlas Society stands against the in-group-out-group fighting and even cultish behavior that have sometimes shown their face in the Objectivist movement. We are pleased to work with any talented Objectivist intellectual who deals with us honestly and rationally. We would be happy to have many other intellectuals that have long worked with the Ayn Rand Institute contribute to our events and other programs. There is certainly a history here. See my sidebar to my review, called "The New Open Objectivism," for some of it: http://www.atlassociety.org/tn.... At the Atlas Summit the faculty are accessible and any attendee is welcome to engage them in conversation. I urge anyone who has questions for David Harriman to come to the Atlas Summit and ask him. I would also emphasize that he will appear on a panel discussing the state of "The Objectivist Movement Today." Justice is always relevant in our dealings with others. Justice does not consist in solely, or even mostly, making denunciations and requiring penances. David Harriman deserves praise for being willing to openly take steps to heal the breach in the Objectivist movement. I can think of other Objectivist intellectuals who have not had the courage to do that. And, for those planning to attend the Atlas Summit, I note that none of the three posters I mentioned appear to have registered for the Atlas Summit as yet. It's clear that at least some of them had no intention of considering attending at all.