Aggression vs. Pacifism vs. Self Defense

By conflating Japan’s right to self-defense with pacifism (“The Limits of ‘Self-Defense’,” October 1) the New York Post creates a false alternative (aggression vs. pacifism) while obliterating the concept of a proper military policy.

Just as it is the essence of a statist country’s military policy to use its military to initiate war, it is the essence of a free country’s military policy to use its military to defend itself against the aggression, or the objective threat of aggression, from such countries. As Ayn Rand once wrote, “All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.”

As such, the retaliatory use of physical force is the moral opposite of both aggression (the initiation of physical force) and pacifism (the renunciation of physical force). Does Japan, then, have the right to amend its constitution so as to be able re-form its military, as the Post suggests? Yes, but only as a means to the end which the Post disavows: its own self-defense.

Bush’s Foreign Policy Betrayals

Bush’s presidency has consisted of one anti-American betrayal after another. After declaring that “you are either with us or with the terrorists,” he invited the fundamental source and sponsor of Islamic terrorism, Iran, to join us as a partner in his so-called “war on terror,” while simultaneously turning a blind eye to its nuclear ambitions. After declaring an opposition to “nation-building,” he has ceaselessly worked to create a brand-new terrorist state in Palestine. After waging two wars, he has openly championed the goal of sacrificing our soldiers as opposed to crushing the enemy, with the result that both wars have become un-winnable and our enemies have become emboldened. After ignoring the open commitment of Saudi Arabia to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, he has proposed to shower them with hi-tech weaponry. And now, after allowing “axis-of-evil” member North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons, he wishes to send the New York Philharmonic to serenade it’s mass-murdering dictator.

Between the capitalism-haters on the left and the religion-lovers on the right, it seems as if there is no party left to champion and defend America.

Shackling Businessmen/Taxing Customers

The $27 million in restaurant fines that the Health Department expects to collect this year is essentially a transfer of wealth from the patrons of those establishments to the city government. This to support a regulatory agency that gives passing inspections to rat-infested restaurants while fining clean restaurants $200 to $2000 for such “crimes” as cooking a whole turkey.

Dismantling all of New York’s unnecessary and incompetent regulatory agencies, beginning with the Health Department, would remove the shackles off of businessmen while putting hundreds of millions of dollars back into the pockets of their customers.

Education and Western Civilization (published in New York Post)

[Note: This letter refers to a report that the UK is rewriting its history books to omit references to the holocaust, for the sake of not offending Muslim students.]

England’s decision to teach lies rather than facts, for the sake of not offending anti-Western Muslim racists, may mark a turning point in history.

Western civilization is the civilization where reason replaces faith. It is through the application of reason to human problems that knowledge, science, industry, freedom, prosperity and health come to replace ignorance, superstition, manual labor, enslavement, poverty, sickness and death.

The existence of these values depend on Western civilization; similarly, the existence of Western civilization depends on its intellectual substance being transmitted to the young through the process of education. Far from being guaranteed, Western civilization and its values can and will be destroyed to the extent that this process is brought to a halt. The end of the road of such a process would be a return to the dark ages.

Energy Reduction = Wealth Reduction (published in New York Post)

In “Global-Warming Hysteria,” Philip Stott states “The real crisis for 4 billion people in the world remain poverty, dirty water and the lack of a modern energy supply. By contrast, global warming represents an ecochondria of the pampered rich.”

This is true as far as it goes, but it does not go nearly far enough. As economist George Reisman states in his essay “The Toxicity of Environmentalism,” “Energy use, the productivity of labor, and the standard of living are inseparably connected, with the two last entirely dependent on the first.” In other words, reducing energy use and creating wealth (as well as eliminating poverty) are mutually exclusive aims.

 Taken in historical context, the campaign against “global warming” is part of a larger and more fundamental Environmentalist campaign to throttle energy use altogether, a campaign that has effectively eliminated nuclear power and has now set its sights on fossil fuels. As such, it is a campaign to stop, and then turn back, economic progress, and thus stop, and then turn back, the continuous increase in the health, wealth, and well-being of humanity as a whole. It is a tragedy in the making for the twenty-first century, driven by an anti-human ideology that has the potential to make the death and impoverishment caused by Communism seem quaint in comparison.

Is Regulating Services A Service? (published in New York Post)

Mayor Bloomberg says that New Yorkers pay more taxes because they get more services; this is just another way of saying that New Yorkers pay more taxes because New York’s government spends more of their money. He also says that he doesn’t “know anybody that’s urging us to reduce the services.” Oh really? May I be the first then? We could make a start by not only reducing, but by eliminating, all of the economically destructive “services” provided by the meddling licensing and regulatory agency bureaucrats who use their arbitrary powers to prohibit peaceful economic activity. That would radically reduce taxes, while simultaneously lowering the costs and increasing the quantity and quality of the real services that the public actually wants and is willing to pay for voluntarily.