Ed Hudgins

MSK - That was a dup of the video. I wasn't sure that the first one went up right. Glad you enjoyed it. Cheers!

December 15, 2013 -- Author and speaker Barbara Branden died in Los Angeles on December 11, 2013, at the age of 84. In this video William R Thomas and Edward Hudgins discuss highlights of Barbara Branden's life as well as personal recollections about this fascinating woman.

Ba'al - Yes, I understand that people do really believe a lot of complete bunk; homeopathic medicine is a good example. In that sense they're "serious." But they're not serious in the sense of seriously seeking the truth. For whatever reason--laziness, religious dogma--they refuse to exercise their critical thinking capacity. Much misery results. Cheers!

Ba’al – The problem with folks who hold nutty, insane opinions like this guy is not that the opinions are wrong. It’s that they reject a rational approach for determining truth. For nearly a century and a half, thousands of individuals have devoted time and energy in the scientific process to understand the plethora of health problems that plague humanity and do discover ways to cure or deal with those problems. So many of my family and loved ones wouldn’t be alive today without those discoveries. And some died decades ago who, with access new discoveries that came too late, would have been alive today. So when someone as unserious as this guy starts spouting off, best thing to do is not waste your valuable time debating him because you don’t have a common standard—reason—by which to determine the truth. Stay healthy!

JTS - This sounds like anti-scientific nonsense. Antibiotis "kill" germs that sicken us. Chemotherapy, for example, "kills" cancer cells that are killing us. If you're suggesting that good diets and exercise along and banish all diseases or illnesses, you're into deep, deep, nut-ball territory.

Yes! A very sensible woman!

She found our little ones delightful. Then again, she always had a delight for life!

I see from Jim Peron, Joshua Zader and a number of others on Facebook the very sad news that Barbara Branden has passed away. She will be so much missed. More reflections to come...

Baal - The company can only continue to profit by convincing customers to purchase their services. Especially in the internet age, negative reviews will quickly doom 12andme. I rather like the Swiss approach to certifying medicines and medical devices. Competing independent labs, like competing Underwriters Lab, do the certification.

FDA Stopping the Genetics Revolution By Edward Hudgins December 11, 2013 — Entrepreneurs look to limitless possibilities while government regulators look to limit possibilities. That’s the stark contrast we see between 23andMe, a company that makes and markets genetic test marker kits, and the Food and Drug Administration, which has forced them to stop selling their potentially life-saving product. In your genes Since 2006, 23andMe has been selling $99 kits that allow individuals to send a saliva sample to company labs. 23andMe analyzes the sample to find out whether individuals are predisposed to several forms of cancers and other diseases, to determine possible responses to certain types of drug treatments, and to glean other information about individuals from their genetic material. The FDA was established to certify the safety, efficacy, and health claims of medicines and medical devices. And the FDA’s authority is broad. It covers not only what is considered a “device”—everything from heart valves to tongue depressors—but also how “efficacy” is defined. 23andMe does not claim that the results of their analyses are accurate 100 percent of the time. Few medical tests are. And to be sure, 23andMe has not jumped through all the time-consuming FDA hoops that might secure for their product the government seal of approval. But the key reasons that the FDA gives for being concerned are also key reasons why the FDA has outlived any usefulness it might ever have had. You’re too stupid In its “cease selling” letter to 23andMe, the FDA asserted that if an “assessment for breast or ovarian cancer reports a false positive, it could lead a patient to undergo prophylactic surgery … or other morbidity-inducing actions, while a false negative could result in a failure to recognize an actual risk that may exist.” Similarly, “assessments for drug responses carry the risks that patients relying on such tests may begin to self-manage their treatments through dose changes or even abandon certain therapies…” In other words, individuals are just too stupid and irresponsible to handle information about their own bodies and health. In point of fact, were 23andMe to make a positive finding for cancer risk, the individual would do like every single individual does now in such cases: go for a second opinion and more tests. In the case of a false negative, this is not a negative for having the ailment—which many FDA-approved tests can fail to find in the early stages. It's a failure to find the genetic propensity for the ailment. Vigilance is always advised. Similarly, a finding that suggests better treatments for some condition would certainly lead a patient to inquire further into the best way to ensure their health. It’s your life! And the FDA’s concern that individuals might “self-manage” treatment reveals an issue in its war on 23andMe that’s so fundamental that it’s missed my many. Your life is your life! Your body is your body! You have a right to “self-manage” yourself! The benefit of living in society with others is that through the production and voluntary exchange of goods with others you can better preserve and improve your own life. Politicians and government bureaucrats don’t own you. You are not a child to be abused by these negligent paternalists. To be fair, the FDA was started earlier in the last century in reaction to concerns about hucksters pushing phony snake oil “cures” to an uneducated and uninformed population. But if there ever was a problem, the communications and information revolution obviated it. Adults can and should be allowed to make their own decisions about their own lives. As to fraud, that's what we have law courts for. Life-extension revolution The other big issue that many are missing is that 23andMe and companies like them are the vanguard of a revolution in medical treatments and life extension similar to the revolution in communications and information made by companies like Apple and Microsoft. The latter revolution was made by entrepreneurs, operating in a free market with virtually no government regulation, producing undreamt-of goods and services. Genetic science offers the possibility of tailored therapies for individuals. It offers a future from which Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and so many other afflictions will have been banished. Some people might fear a dystopian “Brave New World” and, thus, want the FDA and, more generally, government oversight of this emerging revolution. That guarantees that the revolution will be smothered in the crib. By attacking 23andMe, the government has shown that it is a roadblock to progress in this field. Imagine if Apple had received a “cease and desist” letter for creating the iPhone. That's how medical advances are being treated today. Those who fear the future should get out of the way of those who embrace it. And this means getting the FDA out of the way of the entrepreneurs who will help give us all longer, healthier tomorrows. ------- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: *Edward Hudgins, “It’s Getting Better All the Time: Reviews of Abundance and Merchants of Despair.” April 24, 2013. *Edward Hudgins, “Government Medicine's Prejudice Against Innovation.” October 20, 2004. *William Thomas, “Transhumanism: How Does It Relate to Objectivism?”

Switzerland Votes For Freedom To Earn By Edward Hudgins November 27, 2013 -- This week in a national referendum, 65 percent of Swiss voters rejected a measure that would have limited CEO salaries to twelve times the pay of junior employees. In doing so, they showed the world once again why Switzerland remains one of the most prosperous and innovative countries in the world! Switzerland has one of the world’s freest economies. It consistently ranks in the top ten in both the Index of Economic Freedom and the Economic Freedom of the World Report. In recent years it has been ranked number one on the Global Competitiveness Index. By all international measures Switzerland is near the top of countries in per capita income, and poverty there is not a big problem. So why is there such concern about top earners in such a prosperous country? And are these concerns valid? Earning it The most important question concerning any individual’s wealth is, how did they acquire it? If they produced goods and services to sell to voluntary customers on the basis of mutual benefit, then from the janitor to the company president, they earned it. It’s theirs. And they are entitled to whatever they can earn in this manner. It is a moral affront for individuals to assert a right to someone else’s wealth, wealth they did not earn, or to demand that government guns should bar the earner from receiving whatever compensation they can acquire through their honest efforts. Fortunately, when challenged, the people of Switzerland took the moral position. Bailouts But there was a context to the Swiss vote that highlights a growing problem in all countries. Sometimes executives are given huge salaries and bonuses even though their companies are being propped up or bailed out by taxpayers. In such cases, taxpayers understandably do not count the money that is involuntarily transferred from their pockets to the pockets of such executives as “earned.” In 2008 the Swiss government bailed out UBS, the country’s largest bank. Thus, executive compensation became a public matter. But how does one determine compensation for executives in such cases? How much is “too much?” In the free market there are cases of companies that lose money and then lose even more by rewarding executives of such failing concerns with hefty salaries or bonuses. But in such cases compensation is a matter for the owners and investors of the company. If one owns stock or bonds in such a company and one is outraged by high salaries, one can divest one’s self and dump the company. And, in fact, earlier this year Swiss voters gave company shareholders a binding vote on executive pay and blocked what might be considered excessive severance packages. One could argue that such a state mandate on corporate governance violates free market principles. But companies that get in bed with government and receive taxpayer funds invite these sorts of measures. Still free But the Swiss voters proved themselves sensible and took the moral high ground by declining to allow government to directly cap what executives might honestly earn. And this is no small achievement. Leftists in Western Europe, America, and the developed world are obsessed with what they conceive of as “equality” or “fairness.” In practice this means empowering governments to redistributed wealth from those who earned it to those who didn’t. Worse, the motivation of such statists is not to raise up the poor but, rather to tear down the prosperous. Their motivation is sheer envy. Winston Churchill was right to say that "socialism is the equal sharing of misery." Switzerland has been the target of political attacks and pressure by other European countries and the United States because it is still so free. Those who resent having their wealth seized by rapacious statists often resort to Swiss banks or even Swiss citizenship. A solid majority of the Swiss understand their unique position in the world as an island of liberty where individuals can prosper, as the Swiss voters have shown again in the recent referendum! ----- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: *Edward Hudgins, “Switzerland Attacked!” May 15, 2009. *Edward Hudgins, “France Needs Victims.” August 9, 2012.

There are--or were--old-fashion liberals who, as I suggest, advocate a social safety net and tweaking of the market system through anti-trust and such, but who generally believe in private property and private decisions on economic matters--wages, prices. The left-liberals I target don't accept the fundamentals of a free society. You can debate what the right label is for the different groups. Michael - Do I need to shave my mustache lest I be mistaken for Sean Penn?

Also includes MoveOn.org and the truly stupid Rep. Shela Jackson Lee:

Happy Birthday Carl Sagan!

Cuccinelli’s Loss and the Libertarian Solution By Edward Hudgins November 5, 2013 — The finger-pointing in the GOP over Republican Ken Cuccinelli’s narrow loss to Democrat Terry McAuliffe in the Virginia governor’s race shows that the party still refuses to come to grips with internal contradictions that continue to lead to epic fail at the ballot box. Social conservative Cuccinelli’s defeat for Virginia governor shows the need for the GOP to return to a consistent pro-liberty philosophy. McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chair and Clinton operative, squeaked to victory with 47.7 percent of the votes to Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli’s 45.3 percent. Libertarian Robert Sarvis earned 6.5 percent. Many Republicans blame the Libertarian for pulling votes away from Cuccinelli. But “libertarian” with a small “l” is not a problem; rather, it is the solution. Cuccinelli lost it Let’s begin with the obvious: the election was a loss for Cuccinelli rather than a positive win for McAuliffe. A Washington Post survey in the week before the election found that some 64 percent who planned to support the Democrat said they were voting against Cuccinelli rather than for McAuliffe. Both candidates went into the race wearing some sleaze. McAuliffe had shady, crony capitalist business dealings, including his chairmanship of the scandal-ridden GreenTech car company. Cuccinelli was caught up in irregularities surrounding campaign contributions from Star Science. Cuccinelli no doubt lost the votes of many federal workers in Northern Virginia because of the government shutdown; exit polls showed 49 percent of voters blaming the GOP compared to 43 percent blaming Obama. But what cut McAuliffe’s substantial lead and almost cost him the election was the Obamacare fiasco, which Cuccinelli strongly opposed. And yes, there were state issues that divided Cuccinelli and McAuliffe such as whether the government should spend more on highways using increased taxes. Social conservative poison But the negatives that Cuccinelli could not overcome were his extreme declarations in support of his social conservative agenda. He wanted to change the law in a way that would eliminate abortion and, perhaps, open a road to banning certain forms of birth control. He wanted to keep Virginia’s anti-sodomy law, which had been ruled unconstitutional, arguing that it was needed to protect children from molesters. It wasn’t, but it could allow the government to persecute gays. Needless to say, Cuccinelli wanted government to continue to bar marriage between same-sex couples. So in the months before the election the Democrats simply ran ads publicizing Cuccinelli’s social agenda and watched him founder in the polls. The results: Election day exit polls found women favored McAuliffe 51 percent against 42 percent for Cuccinelli, with 67 percent of single women supporting the Democrat but only 25 percent voting for the Republican. Calling all Libertarians Trailing in the weeks before the election, the Cuccinelli camp appealed to backers of Sarvis, the Libertarian, to switch to the Republican candidate. The argument was that McAuliffe would be far worse on tax-and-spending policies and much else compared to Cuccinelli. With McAuliffe now heading for Richmond, we’ll probably see that this argument was true. Oh, and the state will likely go all-in on Obamacare. Exit polls suggest that Cuccinelli would have lost without Sarvis in the race. But in any case, Cuccinelli should have thought of this during the years he was currying favor with social conservatives. He should have pictured himself running for governor and imagining how he’d have to downplay his attempts to limit personal liberty in order to reach libertarians, mainstream women, independents, and many others. Establishment Republicans, those who want to preserve the welfare state but just make it work a little better, will declare that the lesson of Cuccinelli’s loss is that the GOP should nominate moderates. Really? Like Mitt Romney? Establishment Republicans are part of the problem as well, and that problem is that neither faction offers a consistent pro-liberty message and makes that message the top priority. A future of freedom The GOP needs to follow a third path, essentially that of Goldwater and Reagan, the libertarian, pro-liberty path. Social conservative Republicans need to get their priorities straight. They will certainly fail in the short-run to realize their social agenda. But they will succeed in alienating voters, thus helping to usher in Obama-style statism on steroids that will continue to restrict their personal autonomy. Wait until the statists go after home schooling! And establishment Republicans must realize that they are, at best, simply slowing the country’s decline while muddying the distinction between themselves and self-styled “moderate” Democrats. While the Libertarian Party provides an alternative for pro-liberty Americans disgusted with both Republicans and Democrats, it doesn’t win state-wide or national elections. But if social conservative and establishment Republicans understand just how perilous the country’s situation is, if they make the restoration of liberty Job One, and if they unite with libertarians and lovers of liberty of all stripes, they can save freedom for themselves and their posterity. ------ Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: *Edward Hudgins, “GOP Should Invite Social Conservative Extremists to Leave.” April 5, 2013. *Edward Hudgins, “Republicans Help Virginia Evolve to Democrats.” June 12, 2013.

Daunce - As a fan I abandoned the Redskins after the embarrassing loss to Denver. But I'm inching back after the overtime victory over San Diego. Hail Redskins! Et al - We're influenced by our upbringing. It is extremely important. But not determined by it. I suspect that most people on this discussion board were not raised by Objectivist parents yet, somehow, discovered and now guide heir lives by that philosophy.

When An Anti-Semite Discovers He's A Jew By Edward Hudgins November 4, 2013 -- Until recently, Csanad Szegedi was a founder and star spokesman of Hungary’s anti-Semitic far-right nationalist party. But then he discovered that his mother’s parents were Jewish Holocaust survivors and that much of his family had been murdered by Nazis at Auschwitz. The information was dug up by political opponents who were also anti-Semites. The reactions of most of Szegedi’s friends and associates were sadly predictable, making clear, as if clarity on this matter were ever lacking, the nature of bigotry based on race or ethnicity. Friends disassociated with him. One party member advised, “The best thing would be to shoot you now, then you would be reborn as a pure Hungarian.” Such is the obsession of his party with ethnic identity. Needless to say, Szegedi had to reevaluate his life and his own identity. And he did right, in part. He acknowledged the damage he had done. “My hate speech about Jews and Roma [Gypsies] affected children who had done nothing wrong. They might have been very talented, they might have been able to make something of themselves, but I helped to block their path.” In these remarks Szegedi was rejecting discrimination based on accidents of birth, and acknowledging that each person is an individual who should pursue their own dreams, and that they should be judged as individuals. But Szegedi also has decided to embrace fully his Jewishness, attending synagogue, learning Hebrew, studying the Talmud, and keeping the 613 Jewish religious rules. One can appreciate Szegedi’s desire to understand the religion and traditions of his family. One can appreciate why he might find aspects of that culture agreeable and take them up; the exodus of the Jews from bondage in Egypt probably never actually happened, but celebrating it at Passover can be a reminder of the value of liberty for all, not just for Jews. But it is doubtful that Szegedi thought critically about the 613 Jewish rules and said, “Each and every one of these makes perfect sense!” He admits, for example, the difficulty he has in keeping kosher, especially because Hungarian cuisine frequently features pork. One might think that Szegedi’s total embrace of a conservative and traditional form of Judaism is his way of bending over backwards to make amends for his past malicious misdeeds. But it seems that Szegedi, while rejecting one form of racism, is wedded to the racist conception of human identity. Having Jewish roots apparently defines him which, in this case, he sees manifested in adherence to arbitrary rules. And in doing this he is perpetuating the root of the evil he is otherwise fighting against. In describing his past ideology, Szegedi explained, “First we would talk about ‘Gypsy crime.’ Then anti-Semitism. Then we started to hate Romanians and Slovakians. ... You end up hating the entire world. I hated all people because they didn’t fit one or other of my criteria.” Szegedi does not want Hungarians, in their racial or ethnic identity, to classify non-members as enemies. And live and let live is a great ideal. But he must appreciate that one reason why Europe for centuries tore itself apart in ethnic and racial strife is because of the nature of group identity, of tribal thinking, of a form of nationalism that ties one’s sense of self-worth to adherence to one's origins rather than to what one makes of one’s self. Szegedi has come a long way in his personal journey away from anti-Semitism and toward toleration. But he will never overcome tribalism by better embracing his own tribe. ----- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar for The Atlas Society. For further information: William Thomas, “Nationalism: Will It Help a Country Thrive?” William Thomas, “Objectivist View of Multiculturalism.”

Cato's HumanProgress.org Quantifies Good News By Edward Hudgins October 31, 2013 -- The Cato Institute has launched a new website, HumanProgress.org, which quantifies the good news that, overall, things are getting better all the time. The project, directed by Marian Tupy, pulls together in one location data sets organized into eighteen categories, among them food, health, housing, education, energy, environment, and violence. Want to look at the rise over past decades of caloric intake or the decrease in infant mortality worldwide or in particular countries? Want to look at the relationships between such factors? Want to compare how much food $1,000 would purchase for an Egyptian in 1970 versus 2010? This website, with its powerful search functions, will allow you to do so. Users of this website will need to make their own judgments concerning the relative importance of the various factors to human progress. For example, is it progress if a country sees a decrease in forest cover but also a decrease in levels of malnutrition? Fortunately, the data also show that once economic development reaches a certain level, there is improvement in most factors across the board. Among the data sets integrated into the website are those from the Economic Freedom of the World reports, which have been produced for two decades under the leadership of the Fraser Institute in Canada and published in the United States by Cato. (Full disclosure: I worked on the initial development of that report, and laid the foundations for the similar index produced by the Heritage Foundation.) Those reports measure the degree of economic liberty in all the countries for which there is data over time. The reports have become a valuable tool for showing the relationship between free markets and economic prosperity. HumanProgress.org now makes easier to look at the relationships between free markets and many measures of human progress. The data sets one can explore on the website show that by virtually any measure the world is a better place today than at any time in human history. But it also reveals where the problems are and suggests how they might be dealt with. Getting good, accurate data is always a challenge and this website will be improved and refined over time, just as have been the Economic Freedom reports. So this website should become an ever more indispensable tool for anyone interested in human well-being and the betterment of humanity worldwide. --- Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. For further information: *Edward Hudgins, “It’s Getting Better All the Time: Double Book Review.” April 24, 2013 *Walter Donway, “U.S. Economic Freedom: Retreat Becomes Rout.” September 18, 2012

JTS - "Racism," of course, is now a word stripped of its original meaning, that is, someone who believes another race is inferior and should be discriminated against, on an individual basis if not by government. And no decent person wants to be thought a racist. So a liberal-leftist simply throws the word at anyone with whom they disagree as one would throw a rock at a pursuer, hoping it will slow them down or stop them. Of course, the liberal-leftist believes that blacks especially cannot make it in a free system on their own and thus, need special help in perpetuity. Hmmm, sounds racist!

Actually, as I mention, many of the supporters preferred straight-out government control of all health care in the United States. But I have some hope that magnitude of this mess will turn off enough Independents and even mush-for-brains young people who are being asked to foot the bill to understand that giving the gang of politicians who made said mess would be suicidal.

Ah, intrinsicism! I guess I'd better stop calling my daughters "bright eyes." Who knows what that term means outside of the cave where we're chained up.

What Motivates Obamacare Supporters? By Edward Hudgins October 25, 2013 -- Public policy issues should be discussed first and foremost in terms of their merits. The problem with discussing Obamacare is that most of its proponents seem immune from rational exchange. So we must ask, “What motivates them to support such a manifest public policy mess?” Alleged ideals Recall the rhetoric offered by President Obama in support of his plan. Obamacare would cover the supposed 49 million Americans with no health insurance. (Most of these individuals actually had access to health services or could purchase insurance if they wanted it.) Obamacare would bring down health care costs. It would give individuals access to a wider array of services. And, Obama famously, loudly, and often argued that if you liked your current health care plan, you would be able to keep it. So Obamacare mandated that all individuals, under penalty of stiff fines, purchase health insurance. Obamacare mandated that insurance companies beef up their coverage and that they could not charge different rates depending on the health of patients. Government-established exchanges would allow individuals who could not get insurance through their employers or as individuals to find policies to suit their needs. And the government would make sure everyone could afford it—by robbing the rich and healthy to subsidize everyone else. Definition of disaster As Obamacare is kicking in, individuals across the country are being kicked off of their current plans. In some cases employers simply can’t afford today's premium payments—payments that are being jacked up by federal mandates. So businesses are dropping coverage for employees or spouses, or making full-time workers part-time so they won’t have to offer insurance. If Obamacare supporters admit the fundamental flaws in that failed program, they’d have to admit of the paternalist welfare state. In other cases the insurance companies themselves are booting people out of the system; 300,000 were just dropped in Florida, and CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield will likely cancel coverage for 76,000 customers in Virginia, Maryland, Washington, D.C area. Millions will likely lose insurance. Why are they being kickout off? Mostly, say insurance companies, because these individual plans no longer match the new Obamacare requirements—they don't cover a sufficiently bountiful range of benefits, for example. Premiums for those still on insurance or seeking policies through Obamacare exchanges define “sticker shock.” In many cases the costs have doubled! And healthy young people, many of whom bought into the touchy-feely, turn-off-your-brain Obama rhetoric, are shocked at what they are expected to pay—the result of having to subsidize their less-healthy elders. The HealthCare.gov site is a national joke, the definition of a disaster, worse than even the harshest critics imagined. Few folks are signing up through the Obamacare exchanges. And doctors are disappearing from the market, retiring or running “cash only” practices to avoid the Obamacare regulatory mess. Fatal flaws So how can anyone with a straight face continue to sing the virtues of this fiasco? First, Obamacare policymakers and apparatchiks place their own political power ahead of any actual results of a program; many supporters felt Obamacare didn’t go far enough, and favored a single-payer program run completely by the government. Subsidies to poorer individuals to allow them to purchase their own insurance—I’m not necessarily advocating this—and tax-exempt medical savings accounts might deal with much of the supposed problem. But this would leave those with a lust for power with too little to control. Better monumental failures like Obamacare than too much liberty for individuals. Second, for Obamacare supporters to admit all of the flaws in the program would mean acknowledging the fundamental flaws in the paternalist vision of a welfare state with political elites like themselves showering largess on a population of individuals incapable of caring for themselves. All of the evidence of Obamacare’s failures to facilitate health will do little to sway its supporters because they are morally sick. They are afflicted with “must-control-it-all-itis!” For further information: Video: How Obamacare Betrays Young People October 1, 2013. Obamacare: RX for Crisis David Hogberg, March 7, 2013. Obamacare’s War on Personal Responsibility Edward Hudgins, April 9, 2012. Understanding Obamacare Compilation of related content by The Atlas Society.

Okay, given the Redskins' pathetic performance against Denver, I wouldn't be surprised if both Native Americans and Washingtonian no longer want their names associated with the team!

Gee, I didn't think this post would be all that controversial on OL! The millions of people cheering the "Redskins" don't see the word as a slur and those supposedly insulted don't see it as a slur. That just leaves the question of why anyone wants us to see it as a slur. The word is intrinsically a slur, out of all context? It's a slur in some Platonic-Kantian other realm? Or liberals just need to be morally indignant about something. By the way daunce lynam, turn up the volume on your speakers and using the little icon at the bottom left on the youtube video so you can hear my sonorous voice!

What the Redskins Name Says About the Liberal BrainEven if you're not a Redskins fan you'll find this interesting!