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.

The Iraq War vs. The American Revolution

For President Bush to compare the Iraq war to the American Revolution, and, by implication, himself to George Washington, is morally obscene. The American Revolution was fought to establish the first and only country in history explicitly based on the principle of the recognition and protection of individual rights. The Iraq war is being fought, neither to protect the rights of Americans, nor to establish a new, free country that protects the rights of its citizens, but rather, to establish the so-called “right” of a philosophically bankrupt population to vote in any form of government they choose. In the context of the Middle East, this will almost certainly result in a new Islamic dictatorship, and ultimately, a much more threatening enemy than Saddam Hussein.

The Draft (published in USA Today)

There is one detail that is being ignored in Representative Rangel’s proposal to reinstate the draft: the free will choices of the Americans whose lives he literally assumes that he has the right to dispose of.

Whatever happened to America’s founding principal that every American citizen has inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Does there even exist in this country anymore a political party that will acknowledge the principle of individual rights, much less defend it?

Left vs. Right vs. Capitalism

[The following letter was sent in response to a writer who expressed confusion as to why the Democrats, who “are the ones who stand up for the little guy” would, in a recent Supreme Court decision, vote away the little guy’s rights to keep their own homes whenever a private company can allegedly demonstrate that seizing their land for its own use would better serve “the public interest.”]

The essence of the political left is not that they “stand up for the little guy.” Modern liberalism is built on the philosophic foundation of altruism, the moral principle that the individual should sacrifice his values to others, and collectivism, the social and political principle that the group, not the individual, is the standard of value. In other words, the left believes in a moral and political imperative to sacrifice of the rights of the individual to the interests of any group, whether ethnic, national, sexual, or, in this case, economic.

The antidote to the political left is not the modern political right per se—as most modern conservatives are also exponents of altruism and collectivism—but rather, the doctrines of rational egoism and individualism, as espoused by novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand, and their political corollary, the original American doctrine of individual rights, including property rights.

Corrupt Capitalism or Socialism?

Only New York Times “experts” could describe the nationalization of private industries currently taking place in Russia as examples of “corrupt capitalism,” rather than as examples of socialism. As defined by novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand, “capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” Socialism, its antipode, is “a theory or system of social organization which advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, etc. in the community as a whole.”

Private Business vs. Public Monopoly (published in Newsday)

Imagine if Microsoft created substandard products and was able to force all working Americans to pay for them, whether they used them or not, and to force its unsubsidized competitors to only offer products that were essentially similar. Would that be anti-competitive?

Of course, this is not a description of Microsoft—a company that has achieved dominance by offering superior products in a free market—but of our public school system. How ironic, then, and yet how proper, that Joel Klein, the vicious and economically ignorant man who tried to destroy America’s greatest company, should now be appointed head dictator of a true monopoly [“The New Chancellor: Meet the New Boss,” News, July 30].