Trump Signals That He Wants to Restart the War on Drugs – News … – TheStranger.com

Are we hearing the last yelps of the dinosaurs of the war on drugs, or the roars of a racist ideology coming back from the verge of extinction? george pfromm

Richard Nixon and Ronald and Nancy Reagan would be watching this White House with a smug sense of satisfaction. Not because of President Donald Trump's coziness with Russia, or his cavalier attitude about sexual assault, but because of the Trump administration's views on drugs and criminal justice. It's hard not to imagine all these old white people in a chorus line together celebrating locking people up for using cannabis.

Trump has not spoken explicitly about cannabis policy since he took office in January, but he told a joint session of Congress last week that "drugs" are "poisoning our youth." His administration has shaken the confidence of the legal weed industry with statements suggesting punitive action toward recreational weed. White House press secretary Sean "Spicy" Spicer told reporters two weeks ago that the Trump administration saw medical marijuana as a "very, very different subject" than recreational marijuana. Subsequently, he said the Department of Justice would start a "greater enforcement" of existing federal cannabis laws. Asked for specifics, Spicer referred reporters to the Department of Justice.

The head of the Department of Justice, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, spent his first two weeks as the nation's top law-enforcement official expressing an interest in restarting the war on drugs. He has reportedly told some senators in private that he won't crack down on legal weed, but his on-the-record statements have been consistently threatening toward states with recreational cannabis. He told attorneys general from around the country last week that he found it "troubling" that from 2010 to 2015, federal drug prosecutions declined by 18 percent. He promised that "under my leadership at the Department of Justice, this trend will end." He also said last week that "experts are telling me that there's more violence around marijuana than one would think" and that he was "definitely not a fan of expanded use of marijuana."

Let's be clear here: "Greater enforcement" of federal drug policy and a resurgent war on drugs means locking people up for drug use, including weed use. While states like Washington have spent the last two decades slowly relaxing weed laws, the Trump administration's views on weed have not advanced passed the Reagan era. Current federal law has a 15-day mandatory minimum jail sentence for someone convicted of their second misdemeanor possession charge. Get convicted of having one gram of cannabis twice, and a federal judge is forced to send you to jail for at least 15 days.

The effects of such policies, which Sessions praises with a small smile and his Southern drawl, are well documented. From 1980 to 2008, the US prison population quadrupledit went from about 500,000 inmates to 2.3 million. Our country's incarceration rate is not only the highest in the world, it's a statistical anomaly. We imprison people at five times the world's average incarceration rate, and African Americans are jailed at nearly six times the rates of whites. A study in 2012 showed that black people in Washington State use less marijuana than white people and yet are arrested for marijuana at 2.9 times the rate of white people.

There are still 226,027 misdemeanor marijuana possession convictions and 10,765 felony cannabis convictions in the Washington State Patrol's database, according to records obtained by The Stranger.

Almost 30 years after Reagan left office, we are only just starting to dismantle the racist drug policy system's legacy. President Barack Obama's administration worked at the federal level to reduce drug chargeshence that drop in drug prosecutions that terrifies Sessionsand Washington State's passage of I-502 legalizing weed in Washington in 2012 certainly helped, eliminating future weed arrests in this state. But it did nothing to address the decades of harm caused by our state's cannabis laws of the past.

Some Washington State lawmakers are trying to change that, and they introduced a bill this year to make it easy for anyone with a misdemeanor marijuana possession conviction to clear their record of that crime. After all, misdemeanor possession is no longer against state law. Oregon passed a similar law two years ago, but Washington's version has an uphill fight in Olympia.

While the federal government appears emboldened by the idea of locking more people up for using cannabis, it's worth wondering: Are we hearing the last yelps of the dinosaurs of the war on drugs, or the roars of a racist ideology coming back from the verge of extinction?

***

Washington State governor Jay Inslee and Attorney General Bob Ferguson have put themselves on the national stage in their opposition to Trump's agenda. Their lawsuit against Trump's ban on immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries effectively knocked out the president's executive order after it prevailed in US District Court and Appeals Court.

Inslee and Ferguson are also fighting to preserve local laws when it comes to cannabis. They sent the Trump administration a letter in February making the case for our state's legal pot industry. Within hours of Spicer's threat of "greater enforcement" of federal cannabis laws, Ferguson issued a statement vowing to "use every tool at our disposal to ensure that the federal government does not undermine Washington's successful, unified system for regulating recreational and medical marijuana." That's a strong statement from an attorney with a 20 record against the Trump administration, but the only problem is, this time the law is not on Ferguson's side.

If Sessions or Trump wanted to start enforcing federal weed laws today, they could immediately start charging the cannabis industry's growers, retailers, budtenders, bankers, accountants, and casual smokers with federal crimes.

US representative Adam Smith, who represents parts of Seattle, Bellevue, and Tacoma, said that fact is worrying. "In the plain language of the law, if the federal government wants to come in and start busting marijuana shops, we are somewhat at their mercy," he said. "And that is very, very concerning."

Obama's Department of Justice issued the Cole Memo and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a guidance, both aimed at placating nerves in the legal weed industry. The Cole Memo, signed by US deputy attorney general James Cole, told states with legal weed that the federal government would adopt a hands-off approach to federal cannabis laws if states followed a few guiding principles, namely keeping weed out of the hands of kids and profits away from organized crime. The FinCEN guidance, issued by the Department of Treasury, told the banking industry that banks would not be prosecuted for money laundering if they opened accounts with cannabis businesses, as long as those businesses were compliant with the Cole Memo.

But those are guidance memos, not laws. They establish no legal precedent and can be rescinded at any time by the current administration.

Sam Mendez, the former executive director of the University of Washington's Cannabis Law and Policy Project, said it would only take a simple injunction, a legal order to cease activity sent from Sessions to Washington State, to shut down the I-502 industry.

"They could just shut it down by legal means. This is an industry and state regulatory system that at its fundamental level is based on an illegality," Mendez said. "So that's their legal mechanism right there."

There is one law protecting medical cannabis businesses from federal action. The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment to the federal budget bars the Department of Justice from spending any money investigating medical cannabis businesses, but a 2016 federal court ruling narrowed the protections of that amendment to strictly medical transactions. It's unclear whether it would apply to Washington's pot industry, where the medical and recreational systems have been combined into one.

"The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment doesn't offer much help to most 502-licensed businesses because few of those businesses are likely to be limiting their sales to medical purposes," said Alison Holcomb, the former ACLU attorney who wrote the text of the I-502 law. "As long as a business is selling cannabis to a person using it for nonmedical purposes, it is fair game for a DEA investigation."

Trump has the law behind him if he cracks down on legal pot, but there are still daunting challenges standing between Trump and a wholesale attack on our legal weed system. To start, weed has never been more popular in America than it is right now. A recent poll found that 71 percent of Americans think Trump should not go after states that have legalized cannabis, and 93 percent of Americans support medical cannabis laws.

Since Trump is already on the line to deliver an unpopular border wall and repeal an increasingly popular health-care law, most people don't see this as a fight he would want to pick.

"It's hard to predict what Trump does around politics and policies given how inexperienced he is, but we do know that he cares a lot about public image and public opinion. This is not going to be something that is going to look very good," Mendez said.

And weed's popularity has generated a huge industry around it. There are thousands of pot farms and pot retailers operating in the 28 states where weed has been either recreationally or medically legalized, and prosecuting that many individuals and firms would require an immense number of lawyers and law-enforcement personnel. The federal government relies heavily on local law enforcement to carry out drug-enforcement raids, but because cannabis is legal under state law, local cops can't be used to shut down the industry.

"Think of how many hundreds or even thousands of businesses are out there operating. If they were going to go after all of those businesses, that would take thousands of pages of paperwork," Mendez said.

It would be much easier for Sessions to investigate individual businesses that he believes have violated the parameters of the Cole Memo. Aaron Pickus, a spokesperson for the Washington CannaBusiness Association, said the trade group is advising its members to closely follow the state's laws.

"Right now, we are emphasizing how important it is to make sure you are following the rules as set by Washington State," Pickus said. "Make sure you are dotting all your i's and crossing all your t's and following best practices to make sure that minors aren't getting into your store."

Individual enforcement against certain businesses would be better than wholesale destruction of the industry, but the Department of Justice would still be picking a fight with some well-connected individuals. In this War on Drugs II, the dealers aren't marginalized people operating in the shadowsthey are mostly white, male, wealthy businesspeople. It's probably easier for Sessions to lock up a poor person who doesn't look like him than to lock up a bunch of rich guys with millions in their bank accounts. And Congress, never one to miss out on a wealthy constituency, recently created the nation's first Congressional Cannabis Caucus to stand up for common-sense weed laws.

Plus, if state leaders and industry leaders and weed's powerful allies in Congress can't team up to scare Sessions away from touching our legal pot, our state could push the button on the so-called "nuclear option." As we previously described in The Stranger, we could technically erase any mention of marijuana from our state's laws, effectively legalizing and deregulating pot, and giving Trump a huge nightmare when it comes to keeping drugs away from kids and cartels.

That's all to say, it's unclear what will happen. The path forward for Trump shutting down legal weed is as clear as Spicer's response to a follow-up question on what he meant about "greater enforcement" of cannabis laws. He said, and I quote: "No, no. I know. I know what II thinkthen that's what I said. But I think the Department of Justice is the lead on that."

Got that?

He added, "I believe that they are going to continue to enforce the laws on the books with respect to recreational marijuana."

***

If you ask Holcomb, who is often called the architect of I-502 because she wrote the successful initiative, why we need legal weed, she will point to one issue.

"The point of I-502 was to stop arresting people for using marijuana," Holcomb said. "And I-502 was the right vehicle at that time to move us in that direction, and depending on what happens now, we may have to move in an entirely new direction. But the North Star is the same North Star: Don't arrest people... because they use marijuana or grow it and want to share it with others."

Thanks to Holcomb's initiative, the state has spent the last five years doing exactly that: not arresting people for cannabis crimes. But bad laws take a long time to stop affecting people. Punitive Reagan-era laws still haunt people who were caught in the war on drugs dragnet, and I-502 was a proactive law, meaning it did not address any of the thousands of people who were previously charged with cannabis crimes. As for those 226,027 misdemeanor marijuana possession convictions mentioned earlier, the ones still in the Washington State Patrol's database, each one of those drug convictions continues to haunt the people carrying them, according to Mark Cooke, an attorney with the ACLU of Washington.

"Criminal conviction records allow others to discriminate against that individual in different contexts, including employment, housing, and education," Cooke said.

It may seem like in this modern, weed-friendly world, a misdemeanor possession charge doesn't mean much, but that is not the case. The types of background checks that many employers or landlords use lack specificity. Applications often ask if you have been convicted of any drug charges, according to Prachi Dave, another attorney for ACLU-WA.

"Frequently the question is 'Do you have any drug related activity convictions?' So a prior marijuana conviction could certainly fall into that category, which means a lot of people could be excluded from housing or employment," Dave said.

Someone carrying a misdemeanor possession charge can ask a court to clear their record, but there are a number of different reasons a judge could deny that request. Representative Joe Fitzgibbon, who represents West Seattle and Vashon Island in the state legislature, wants to change that. He introduced a bill in Olympia this year that would require courts to automatically expunge a person's misdemeanor marijuana conviction upon request.

"Currently, there are a bunch of caveats, but even if they meet all of the caveats, the judge can still say no," Fitzgibbon said. "The bill would make it much easier for someone with a misdemeanor marijuana possession to vacate their record."

Oregon passed a similar law in 2015, but Fitzgibbon's bill failed to make it out of committee in Olympia this year. He's introduced a version of this bill every year since 2012, when voters legalized adult possession of cannabis here. The current bill won't get another chance until next year.

Fitzgibbon said he will keep fighting for the law. "I think it's about fairness and about second chances. The voters of the state very clearly said that they didn't think possession of marijuana should be a crime," Fitzgibbon said.

Kevin Oliver, executive director of the Washington chapter of NORML, said his organization plans to step up its lobbying for the bill. "We have a lobbyist on the ground full time, our new PAC is raising money and we're going to start throwing it at these legislators, and I think that might make a difference," Oliver said.

If they act quickly, they might be able to clean up the beach before this second war on drugs sweeps in.

Continue reading here:

Trump Signals That He Wants to Restart the War on Drugs - News ... - TheStranger.com

‘Is this the new Filipino life?’ Manila rappers blast Duterte’s war on drugs – CNN

But on the night of his killing, his partner, Jennilyn Olares, hurried from their shared shack in the Pasay City neighborhood of Santo Nio.

Upon seeing his body she pushed aside police officers and curious onlookers and instinctively drew it to her chest.

The waiting gaggle of press photographers had their shot. The next morning the image of the grieving woman and her partner, seemingly shot by vigilantes, was splashed across the front pages of the nation's newspapers.

They called it the Philippines "Pieta" photo, a nod to Michelangelo's sculpture of the same name, in which Mary clasps the dying Jesus.

If not for the searing image, Siaron might have been forgotten. Olares moved away after their home -- which had perched on stilts precariously over a stinking, trash-filled canal -- was demolished.

But even without the notoriety of his death, his memory might have lived on in another way.

Members of a local rap group called One Pro Exclusive, whose cramped home studio is in a tenement in the neighborhood where Siaron once lived, have paid tribute to their slain friend with hip hop.

The song is called "Hustisya," the Tagalog word for justice.

"When I wrote the song ... I was thinking of my friend, who was just trying to earn a living as a pedicab driver, but became a victim of the war on drugs," says Justins Juanillas, the group's main rapper.

The group also hail from Santo Nio -- the same "barangay," or neighborhood -- as Siaron.

Just like in the early days of hip hop in the Bronx, rappers in the poor neighborhoods of Manila draw from their background -- its poverty, powerlessness and arbitrary injustices -- for inspiration.

And the deaths meted out in the name of the war on drugs, which critics say disproportionately targets the poor, are a target for the country's artists.

Juanillas, stage name Jay, is wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the word "Hustisya" and the hashtag #stopkilling.

The t-shirt uses the scales of justice as part of the typography, forming the "t" of the word. He says he decided to honor his friend in the most natural way for him as possible, through music.

"He's a close friend," the slight, wiry youth says from the group's makeshift studio, up a couple of narrow, rickety flights of stairs in a cramped neighborhood building.

The production desk is an old computer, and the tiny recording booth is lined with the amateur studio builder's best friend when it comes to soundproofing: egg cartons. When Jay steps inside the tiny, stifling room, no bigger than three or four square feet, sweat pours from his brows.

"Michael is good, he's not a pusher. He used drugs but he's not a pusher," he says, still referring to his friend in the present tense.

He died a pusher's death though, gunned down by an unknown assailant, a crude cardboard sign left by his side. It read: "drug pusher huwag tularan" "I am a drug pusher, don't imitate (me)."

It is an all-too common MO of the vigilantes who have added to the body count in Duterte's war on drugs. The killing remains unsolved.

Producer Stephen Bautista, who goes by the stage name Alek, says that Siaron was his friend's older brother.

"We weren't that close but I always (saw) him in the streets. It's really a common feeling when your friend is grieving for someone which is why I (produced) these songs."

As with the origins of hip hop in the west, the song goes some way to expressing the anger felt by poor youth.

They see their options as limited, and the outrage at what they see as unfair, discriminatory -- and often deadly -- policies visited upon their equally poverty-stricken peers.

The song, "Hustisya," which Jay wrote about Siaron, features lines like these:

Is this the new Filipino life?

I'm just a poor man, and I'm a man who lost someone

I'm still mourning, because what happened cuts deep

Is there still justice? No one can say

The lives were just part of a "quota"

Taken down because of links to drugs

They weren't given a chance to change

Killed, just like that, treated like animals

Duterte has mocked the "Pieta" image.

"Then you end up sprawled on the ground and you are portrayed in a broadsheet like Mother Mary cradling the dead cadaver of Jesus Christ. Well, that's very dramatic."

But for One Pro Exclusive, it's no joke.

"Hustisya" won't bring their friend back, and it's unlikely that their protest music will slow down Duterte's bloody campaign for even a second.

But, as has been seen time and again, the young and the poor turn to music to voice their anger at policies that ruin the lives of their friends and upend their communities.

Journalist Sara Fabunan contributed to this report.

More:

'Is this the new Filipino life?' Manila rappers blast Duterte's war on drugs - CNN

How the police and council are winning the war on drugs in Plymouth – Plymouth Herald

WATCH ABOVE: Police and council workers shut down a suspected drugs den in Devonport

Guns and drugs were found at the latest drug den uncovered in Plymouth - the latest in a string of grim houses and flats shut down by the police and council in recent months.

Plymouth City Council's Anti-Social Behaviour Team has been working with Devon and Cornwall Police as part of a crackdown aimed at ridding communities of their nightmare neighbours.

City chiefs have warned other drug users and anti-social tenants that nobody is safe as they continue to boot out the worst of Plymouth's households.

Councillor Dave Downie, the council's cabinet member for safer and stronger communities, issued the firing shot after a sex and drugs den in Grenville Road, St Judes, was shut down earlier this week.

Read next: These are the 12 most anti-social streets in Plymouth

He said: "We are pleased to have secured another successful closure order in the city this demonstrates that we are committed to tackling crime and anti-social behaviour and creating a safer Plymouth, working with our partners.

"Drug use and drug dealing, and the crime and anti-social behaviour associated with it, ruins people's lives and we will take tough action to address these issues.

"We will continue to work with Devon and Cornwall Police and landlords of all tenures to tackle this and we thank them for their continued support.

"We would also encourage any local residents suffering similar issues not to suffer in silence, but to report them, as we will take action you do not have to give your name."

You can report problems with anti-social behaviour anonymously by calling either Police 101 or our Anti-Social Behaviour Team on 01752 307047.

St Judes

Magistrates agreed to shut down this private flat described in court as a "shooting gallery" for drug addicts yesterday.

The three-month closure order was granted by Plymouth Magistrates after neighbourhood police and Plymouth City Council's Antisocial Behaviour Team put forward a host of evidence relating to the use of drugs, antisocial behaviour and weapons being kept at the property.

The councils ASB team, working with neighbourhood officers, initially applied to the court for a closure notice on February 20, and succeeded on gaining a full closure notice today on the ground floor flat of 172 Grenville Road in Prince Rock.

The court heard there had been months of antisocial behaviour at the property which made the lives of three young female Marjon students a misery.

The court heard the property was visited day and night by addicts who would hammer on doors and windows to gain access to the property. The court heard addicts would turn up to shoot-up heroin while prostitutes would use the flat for their own business.

The tenant Gary Steer did not contest the hearing at Plymouth Magistrates Court on Monday 6 March 2017.

Coxside

A city flat which was considered to be a magnet for drug users and antisocial behaviour will remain shut for now after a closure order is extended.

Plymouth City Council applied to District Judge Baker at Plymouth Magistrates Court on Tuesday to extend the closure order on 3E Teats Hill.

The original closure order was granted last November.

The application was heard in the tenant Stephen Edsel Ford's absence, who refused to come to court and was currently at Exeter prison on remand.

The Herald reported later how Edsel Ford faces a minimum three year jail term after pleading guilty to burgling a home in Lipson on December 31.

At that hearing magistrates were told Edsel Ford's flat was a magnet for troublemakers and drug users.

Greenbank

Late last year police and council chiefs shut down a drug house where late-night brawls erupted and dealers plied their trade all just yards from a children's playground and primary school.

Plymouth City Council's anti-social behaviour lawyer Tony Johnson told the bench at Plymouth Magistrates Court how council staff had worked with neighbourhood officers from Plymouth police and landlords Westward Housing Group to gather evidence about a whole host of incidents linked to 50 Hospital Road in Greenbank.

He explained how the occupant Stuart Clark lived in the property following the death of his parents who were the tenants.

The council had sought a closure notice, which was granted and had returned to court with a host of evidence, which included police bodycam footage taken during a drugs raid, to seek a three month closure order.

Mr Johnson noted evidence from police intelligence logs which suggested drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine were being used and sold from the property.

A Misuse of Drugs Act warrant was executed at the property by police and magistrates were shown footage which revealed needles, crack pipes, recently used foil, a home-made bong made to look like an asthma inhaler, an a number of Kinder egg plastic containers.

Devonport

Police and council chiefs shut down a Plymouth flat suspected to be linked to violence and drug use.

Neighbours had long complained about the property 86 Keat Street in Morice Town alleging it was home to considerable antisocial behaviour, violence, drug use and supply.

Officers interviewed locals who highlighted incidents of disorderly behaviour arising from the flat as well as several complaints in respect of drugs and noise over a prolonged period of time.

These were presented at a court hearing in May, when Plymouth City Council successfully applied for a closure order before city magistrates.

Devonport

A suspected drugs flat in Devonport was shut down as part of a double attack by the city's authorities.

Magistrates heard evidence and were shown photographs of 12b Duke Street, where anti-social behaviour and drug use was taking place blamed on Shane Beasley, who lived on the premises.

The property was subject to an eight-week closure order and Beasley was ordered to pay 100 court costs.

Devonport

The second of two properties in Devonport to be targeted at once after reports of criminal behaviour.

The orders were granted after brave neighbours and police gave evidence of criminal behaviour. The council then asked magistrates for the orders.

The magistrates' court heard that Mark Lewis, who lived at 14a Duke Street, had engaged in criminal behaviour and that the use of the premises had resulted in serious nuisance being caused to members of the public, much of which was attributable to groups of people attending the property, shouting, swearing and taking drugs.

The property is subject to a three month closure order and Lewis was ordered to pay 200 court costs.

Stoke

A flat where the body of a young man was found in a suspected drug-related death was 'shut down' last year.

The address 12 Valletort Flats in Valletort Place, Stonehouse was subject of a "temporary closure order" secured by by Plymouth City Council, meaning that only the tenant is allowed inside.

The property was the focus of a number of antisocial behaviour issues which plagued the block of flats. When police were called to the property on June 8, when the body of a 25-year-old man was found, officers discovered hundreds of needles in drawers and across the flat's rooms.

Prosecutors representing Safer Plymouth Partnership, made up of police and council, told magistrates there was a clear indication of drug use linked to antisocial behaviour connected to the premises. .

The deceased man was formally identified as David Sutton.

Read the original here:

How the police and council are winning the war on drugs in Plymouth - Plymouth Herald

Casino industry to Congress: Uphold gambling disorders – ABC News

The casino industry asked Congress on Tuesday to retain gambling disorders as a serious public health matter in any changes it makes to President Obama's signature health care law.

Industry representatives in a letter urged congressional leaders and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price to recognize gambling disorders as an issue that merits inclusion in any replacement to the Affordable Care Act.

The letter came a day after House Republicans released their long-awaited plan to unravel the law.

"Today, gambling disorders are recognized under the ACA's essential health benefits," the representatives wrote. "We believe this recognition, which did not exist prior to the passage of ACA, is critical not only to enable adequate funding for research, but also to ensure necessary resources and treatment facilities are available."

The letter was signed by the leaders of the American Gaming Association the U.S. casino industry's main lobbying group National Indian Gaming Association, National Council on Problem Gambling and Association of Gaming Equipment Manufactures.

The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, established 10 categories of essential health benefits, which include mental health and substance use disorder services. The American Psychiatric Association's in 2013 updated its key reference book for mental health professionals, replacing as an addiction what was previously called pathological gambling as an impulse-control disorder.

Problem gambling now takes its place among substance-related and addictive disorders.

The plan released by House Republicans would scale back the government's role in helping people afford coverage and could leave more Americans uninsured.

The plan would repeal the statute's unpopular fines on people who don't carry health insurance. It would replace income-based subsidies provided to help millions of Americans pay premiums with age-based tax credits that may be skimpier for people with low incomes. Those payments would phase out for higher-earning people.

U.S. Rep. Dina Titus, a Democrat whose district includes the Las Vegas Strip, strongly criticized the Republicans' proposed plan.

"I oppose the Republicans' disastrous health care plan and will fight any effort to roll back or eliminate coverage for behavioral health, mental health, preventive care, women's health, and other programs that insurance companies must now cover thanks to the ACA," she said.

Follow Regina Garcia Cano on Twitter at https://twitter.com/reginagarciakNO / More of her work can be found at https://www.apnews.com/search/ReginaGarciaCano .

Here is the original post:

Casino industry to Congress: Uphold gambling disorders - ABC News

IRGC hears from companies hoping to conduct new gambling study – Radio Iowa

Brian Ohorilko

State regulators heard pitches from six companies Tuesday to do a market survey of the gambling industry and a review of proposals for a casino in Cedar Rapids.

Iowa Racing and Gaming administrator, Brian Ohorilko says they will review the plans and likely select a firm at next months meeting.

He says they could select one or more of the companies as they have selected more than one company in the past to get a read on the market. There are three casino proposals for Cedar Rapids and Ohorilko says they are in the process of setting up times to hear presentations on each one.

I think those will be announced in April,Ohorilko says, there still some dates and locations being worked out with respect to meetings dates for the next fiscal year. But I anticipate that the decision will be made in April as to what the process will look like, with the final decision coming late fall.

The Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission voted 4-1 to deny a gambling license for a Cedar Rapids casino back in 2014 in part because of concerns about the impact on existing casinos. Ohorilko isnt sure if a new gambling market study will impact any decision on the latest attempt to bring a casino to the city.

Its hard to say, its up to each of the individual commission members. There are a number of criteria that play into whether or not a decision to approve or deny a gambling license should occur, he says. The studies have become commonplace as the IRGC is faced with the decision on adding new casinos to the mix.

Those market studies have played a more significant impact the past few instances where applications have been considered, Ohorilko says, but it truly is up to the individual commission members to determine what weight they would play. Not only on that factor but other factors. The commission approved a casino for Greene County in June of 2014 after denying the license to Cedar Rapids. Studies at the time showed the Greene County casino would have the least impact on the other casinos.

The firms include several which have done previous studies of Iowas gambling industry. All have headquarters out of state, except for one from Cedar Rapids.

See more here:

IRGC hears from companies hoping to conduct new gambling study - Radio Iowa

NRL’s message on gambling remains confused and hardly surprising – The Guardian

Wests Tigers centre Tim Simona is at the centre of a current NRL investigation into gambling. Photograph: Cameron Spencer/Getty Images

Since the NRL integrity unit revealed it was investigating allegations the Wests Tigers Tim Simona bet on a game in which he was playing in 2016 NRL CEO Todd Greenberg has been forced to defend the codes commercial links to gambling more times than he would have liked. Despite all the practice he has been getting, he has been far from convincing.

The NRL, Greenberg has emphasised, has a campaign against in-house gambling and corruption a campaign, dont you know, that includes accepting$60m sponsorship from Sportsbet(not including a percentage of turnover) and allowing advertising of the online bookmakers branding, odds and betting options on NRL broadcasts, websites and social media.

Its a strange kind of campaign against something that embraces that something so wholeheartedly.

That roaring, stamping, defecating elephant in the room aside, Greenberg has previously warned that players caught betting on games or match-fixing face life bans from the sport, and it has been revealed that late last yearthe NRL prohibited bookmakers from offering bets on Under-20s matches, and that integrity unit boss Nick Weeks visited all 16 NRL clubs and urged players to delete betting apps on their phones in order to distance themselves from temptation.

More recently the NRL has prohibited a number of exotic betting options as they are ripe for exploitation, including head-to-head player bets, most runs, most metres, most tackles, and the number of 40-20s kicked in matches.

The NRL likes to think that such actions show how serious they are about stamping out corruption and protecting the integrity of their code, but dont they also emphasise how slippery and multi-headed a threat gambling is to sport, and how demented it was for the NRL like the AFL, ARU, Cricket Australia and Football Federation Australia to have invited the gambling industry into its bed? Its like asking Freddy Krueger in to see your etchings one night and thinking youll be safe as long as you put corks on the ends of the glinting blades attached to his bespoke right glove.

Ah, but its all about striking a balance, Greenberg says, between the sports integrity and catering to all those punters who, were meant to believe, without the NRLs partnership with Sportsbet, would struggle to place a wager on rugby league.

And having a punt, were constantly reminded particularly by those with most to gain from the stereotype; those like James Packer, the TAB and Tattersalls is as Australian a pastime as shooing flies, taking sickies, crushing tinnies and driving a mob of wild brumbies down a flaming precipice; standard activities for most Australians. People, particularly in this country, they love to have a bet, Greenberg told ABC News 24 recently. And were not going to get away from that. So whether or not we have branding, people are still going to be looking to have a wager on the game.

Thats true enough, but why should the NRL have anything to do with it, apart from the money that is? Greenberg overlooks the fact that the NRL is not simply catering to a particular want, it is actively promoting it which, the gambling industry no doubt hopes, willcreate further want.

Yes, the situation has improved since recent times when NRL viewers had to regularly endure Channel Nine commentators crossing mid-call to bookmaker Tom Waterhouse. But sport is still wallowing in the mud. By partnering with gambling bodies, by stringing up gambling bunting around sporting broadcasts which, it seems to me, fans all but unanimously loathe our leading sporting codes are not only putting themselves in a compromising position the next time one of their players has a bet and the result of a game is called into question (and there will always be a next time), theyre also glamourising and normalising a potentially damaging pastime.

Gambling ads famously conclude with the throw-away warning bet responsibly a warning that, if turned into a meme, would look like a cheeky, knowing wink but gambling, like smoking and drug taking, can be difficult to do in moderation for many people and it will continue to cause damage to individuals, families and communities, never mind damage the integrity of sport and our relationship with it.

As anti-gambling crusader Tim Costello told the Monthly magazine in 2011, While gambling is a part of life, theres a vice dimension that drops, compromises and changes what should be family and childrens passions. To literally hand it over to gambling organisations is a profound shift in what sport has previously been about.

In the debate about gambling sponsorship or sport there are, as has been pointed out, parallels with the tobacco industrys former sponsorship of sport. It took a long battle, and legislation, to end that troubling association. It may take a similar battle to end the one between sport and their gambling sponsors.

Unless, of course, our leading sporting bodies one day decide for themselves that the costs outweigh the benefits. I wouldnt advise betting on that but if you do, as always, bet responsibly.

Continue reading here:

NRL's message on gambling remains confused and hardly surprising - The Guardian

Michigan lawmakers sizing up online gambling | Michigan Radio – Michigan Radio

On Wednesday, a state Senate committee takes up a package of bills to legalize online gambling in Michigan.

Online gambling is currently only legal in two states, Nevada and New Jersey. But several states are considering legalizing it. Supporters say legalizing online gambling could generate more tax revenue, though the difference seen in Nevada and New Jersey has been slight.

Not everyone is willing to roll the dice on online gambling.

Essentially youre putting a virtual slot machine in every childs hand in the smartphone, says Bill Jackson, who represents a coalition of religious groups and major casino owners fighting gambling expansion online. Casino magnates Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn are part of the coalition, largely out of concerns online gambling could hurt their bricks and mortar casino palaces.

Lobbyist Bill Jackson delivers a long list of potential issues, from conflicts with existing gaming compacts with Native American tribes to maybe needing to amend Michigans state constitution.

This legislation is rife with problems on a legal front and is not ready to become law, says Jackson.

There could be federal hurdles too.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions says he plans to revisit an Obama administration rule change that opened the door to online gambling. If Sessions scraps the 2011 Justice Department legal opinion, legal online gambling may go bust.

Continue reading here:

Michigan lawmakers sizing up online gambling | Michigan Radio - Michigan Radio

Minnesota’s first residential gambling treatment center remains only … – Duluth News Tribune

There have been lessons learned in how best to help those in need, but otherwise, only incremental gains have been made in responding to what many term the "silent addiction,'' according to today's team at the Vanguard program.

In terms of access to care for compulsive gambling, the country today is where it was in the early 1970s with treating chemical dependency, according to Mike Schiks, executive director and CEO of Project Turnabout, which also offers alcohol and drug recovery.

The Vanguard Center for Gambling Recovery in Granite Falls, an independent program within Project Turnabout, remains the only residential treatment program for compulsive gamblers in the state, and one of only a handful in the country, he said.

Most of those who arrive for care discover insurance companies do not cover their treatment costs, unlike the case for chemical dependency. Vanguard "stretches'' the funds made available by the state of Minnesota from unclaimed lottery prizes and its own fundraising efforts to make possible much of the care it offers, according to Schiks and Mark Sannerud, communications director for Project Turnabout.

Many other things remain the same as 25 years ago too. Only 1 to 10 percent of those who need help for compulsive gambling will obtain it, according to Sheryl Anderson, coordinator for Vanguard.

Their lives may be in a mess, but they put off getting help in the belief that it can all be solved with one big win.

"Just maybe I can get myself out of this,'' said Sherry Parker, director of residential services, of the thought pattern.

There's another, equally disturbing pattern with this disease: "It is pretty standard that people that have a gambling problem are seeking help for lots of other things way before they ever seek help for gambling specifically,'' Anderson said.

Anxiety; thoughts and attempts at suicide; financial, marital and family stress; and criminal behavior are among the issues that many will report as their problems. And yet, unless the question is directly asked, few will disclose that compulsive gambling is at the root of their troubles. "So much shame and stigma is associated with it,'' Anderson said.

The secret about this addiction that remains the most difficult to expose yet today is the toll that compulsive gambling takes on families and communities, according to Sannerud. Arrests of formerly law-abiding citizens. Divorces and broken families. Suicide attempts, ER visits. Bankruptcies.

Schiks believes more should be done to identify and steer those with gambling problems to the help they need. Every county has a designated professional whose job it is to assess people who may need chemical dependency treatment. Far harder to find are those trained to recognize problem gamblers.

"Most physicians, most social workers, most psychologists, most chaplains, get almost zero training in this area,'' Schiks said.

And in many ways, Minnesota is far ahead of other states. Some of those coming to Vanguard are from states where "zero" help is offered for this addiction, he said.

The Vanguard residential facility on the Project Turnabout campus in Granite Falls can care for 20 people at a time. There are usually 12 to 18 receiving treatment in any given week, Anderson said. Most patients remain for 30 days. Outpatient treatment and participation in Gamblers Anonymous or other programs is critical for recovery.

Obtaining continued care can be a challenge for those with this addiction, Schiks said. While virtually every small community has an Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous group, Gamblers Anonymous groups are far fewer.

Men and women seem equally vulnerable to compulsive gambling. At Vanguard, it's been roughly a 53 percent to 47 percent split in terms of men and women receiving care, respectively.

Statistically, men are more likely to start gambling earlier in life, but they progress to the problem stage at a slower pace, Anderson said.

Women tend to start at a later age, but make up for the lost time quickly, she said. More so than men, they tend to gravitate toward video gaming machines, where the onset of compulsive gambling appears to have a faster progression.

Opportunities for gambling are never more than a smartphone away. The venues in Minnesota for gambling, whether it's sports betting, charitable gambling, or Indian casinos, have expanded greatly since Vanguard opened its doors.

Last year in the U.S., more than $9 billion was wagered during the "March Madness'' NCAA college basketball tournament, according to the NorthStar Gambling Alliance.

Schiks is quick to point out that there are many in the state's gaming industry who recognize the need to help compulsive gamblers. There is a certain portion of the population vulnerable to the addiction, while the majority of people can treat gaming as recreation without the adverse consequences, he explained.

"This isn't about good guys and bad guys. This is about certain folks desperately in need of help and they deserve it,'' he said.

Schiks said Vanguard's mission today remains exactly what it was 25 years ago: Giving those with the courage to walk through its doors hope to carry with them as they walk out.

Vanguard has met many challenges in its 25 years, including the need to rebuild after a tornado tore apart its then newly built facilities in 2000.

Schiks said the Project Turnabout board of directors remains committed to providing care for compulsive gamblers even though in many ways, the financial and societal challenges remain as daunting today as 25 years ago.

"At the bottom of it all is people are worth it,'' he said. "This population is worth it.''

Read more from the original source:

Minnesota's first residential gambling treatment center remains only ... - Duluth News Tribune

The Mother Situation: Award-Winning Short Film About the Dangers of Euthanasia Wins at Film Festival – LifeNews.com

After all the recent films promoting euthanasia, it is interesting how The Mother Situation won first prize in the Tropfest film festival in Australia. Tropfest is the worlds largest short film festival.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Link to The Mother Situation. Warning: This film contains swearing.

Director, Matt Day, insists that he supports euthanasia and that this is not an anti-euthanasia film, yet The Mother Situation is a comic film that casts doubt on the effectiveness of safeguards concerning euthanasia.

Film is a powerful cultural medium.

Recently a euthanasia advocate changed her mind after watching The Euthanasia Deception documentary with her grandson. The Euthanasia Deception documentary is produced by The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition (EPC) and DunnMedia.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

EPC is committed to producing films for social change at: http://www.vulnerablefilms.com.

LifeNews.com Note: Alex Schadenberg is the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and you can read his blog here.

See more here:

The Mother Situation: Award-Winning Short Film About the Dangers of Euthanasia Wins at Film Festival - LifeNews.com

More Dog Food Recalled For Possible Contamination With … – CBS Los Angeles

March 6, 2017 5:51 PM

Courtesy: FDA

LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) A dog food recall has been expanded due to possible contamination with a drug that is used for euthanasia.

Last month Illinois-based Evangers Dog & Cat Food Company recalled cans of Hunk of Beef Au Jus for possible interaction with the drug pentobarbital, an anti-seizure drug that can be fatal in large doses. Now the company has voluntarily recalled two more types of food as an abundance of caution, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

Following is the list of 12 oz. cans of dog foods that are being voluntarily recalled.

The numbers listed after the name of the product are the second half of the barcode, which can be found on the back of the product label:

Symptoms of exposure to pentobarbital are drowsiness, dizziness, excitement, loss of balance and nausea, the FDA statement said.

Customers can return the recalled products wherever they were bought for a full refund. Anyone with questions can call Evangers between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday at 1.847.537.0102.

See the rest here:

More Dog Food Recalled For Possible Contamination With ... - CBS Los Angeles

Trumpcare: Euthanasia to cure a cold – Sacramento Bee


Sacramento Bee
Trumpcare: Euthanasia to cure a cold
Sacramento Bee
But the Republican authors of Trumpcare seem to want to cure a cold with euthanasia. Their plan to gut the requirement that individuals carry insurance will almost certainly trigger a death spiral in which healthy people will opt out, causing premiums ...
Legislative - Energy and Commerce CommitteeEnergy and Commerce Committee

all 2,287 news articles »

See the original post here:

Trumpcare: Euthanasia to cure a cold - Sacramento Bee

Minnesota rep introduces bill to ban gas chambers for pet … – Fox 9 – KMSP-TV

(KMSP) - Representative Jon Applebaum of Minnetonka recently introduced a bill that would prohibit the use of gas chambers as a method of euthanizing pets at animal shelters in Minnesota. Currently, 27 other states either fully or partially ban the practice.

Rep. Applebaum said he finds the practice repulsive, and said that he looks forward to working with the Humane Society and animal welfare organizations to bring an end to the practice.

According to the Humane Society, an animals death must be free of pain, stress and fear in order to qualify as euthanasia

The organization believes gas chambers do not meet that standard because pain, stress and fear are experienced when animals are placed in unfamiliar, confined gas chamber spaces.

It also argues that many gas chambers are old and may not be well-calibrated, leading to situations where an animals vital organs begin to shut down while still conscious.

The American Veterinary Medical Association guidelines state that euthanasia by intravenous injection remains the preferred method for euthanasia of dogs, cats and other small companion animals, and that gas chambers are not recommended for routine euthanasia of dogs and cats in shelters and animal control operations.

The bill, HF 2054, already has bipartisan support and awaits action by the House Agriculture Policy Committee.'

READ THIS NEXT -Minnesota group rescues newborn puppies abandoned in Louisiana

Read more:

Minnesota rep introduces bill to ban gas chambers for pet ... - Fox 9 - KMSP-TV

16,000 Voices Show Kiwis Say No to Euthanasia | Scoop News – Scoop.co.nz (press release)

16,000 Voices Launches Today Showing Kiwis Say No to Euthanasia

Today marks the launch of the campaign 16,000 Voices Kiwis say no to euthanasia. The campaign gives voice to a sampling of the 16,000 people who wrote in to the Health Select Committee expressing their opposition to euthanasia.

Most of the New Zealand public is unaware of just how overwhelming the opposition has been to the introduction of euthanasia legislation, says Dr Jane Silloway Smith, Director of Every Life Research Unit, whose analysis of submissions made to the Committee forms the basis of the information provided in 16,000Voices.

For nearly seven months, the Health Select Committee has been hearing stories from hundreds of Kiwis, and 3 out of 4 of them have been saying no to euthanasia, says Dr. Smith. But hardly anyone outside of the Committee is aware of what theyve said.

If the Committee reports accurately on what theyve been reading and hearing, were unlikely to see an endorsement for euthanasia legislation, which may come as a shock to many. Thats why 16,000 Voices is so important to let us hear why Kiwis are saying no to euthanasia in their own words.

The 16,000 Voices campaign encompasses a website with videos and written submissions, alongside a Facebook page and You Tube channel.

ENDS

Scoop Media

Continue reading here:

16,000 Voices Show Kiwis Say No to Euthanasia | Scoop News - Scoop.co.nz (press release)

Legislature boosts penalties for prostitution-related crimes – Deseret News

Adobe Stock photo

The Utah Legislature approved a bill Tuesday to toughen penalties for prostitution-related crimes. The House passed SB230 with a 71-1 vote, sending it to Gov. Gary Herbert's desk for his consideration.

SALT LAKE CITY The Utah Legislature approved a bill Tuesday to toughen penalties for prostitution-related crimes.

The House passed SB230 with a 71-1 vote, sending it to Gov. Gary Herbert's desk for his consideration.

The bill would give "teeth" to Utah's ability to prosecute prostitution, said House sponsor Rep. Mike Winder, R-West Valley City.

"We have a real problem," he said. "This is not a real victimless crime."

Winder said 75 percent of women who engage in prostitution work for a "pimp."

The bill would better equip law enforcement, he said, because it would expand the reasons why an individual could be found guilty of prostitution.

Under current law, a person can only be convicted if he or she engages in a sexual act for money. But SB230 would include if a person "offers or agrees" to engage in sexual activity for money.

"With the teeth, we can go after the pimps, the Johns and those involved in this," Winder said.

The bill would also change patronizing a prostitute from a class B misdemeanor to a class A misdemeanor, with a third conviction for that crime becoming a third-degree felony.

Aiding or facilitating an act of prostitution would also be enhanced to a class A misdemeanor, with all subsequent convictions becoming third-degree felonies.

Go here to see the original:

Legislature boosts penalties for prostitution-related crimes - Deseret News

Welch State Police Detachment welcomes new commanders – Bluefield Daily Telegraph

WELCH McDowell County has seen some changes at the West Virginia State Police Welch Detachment.

In the wake of the transfer of former detachment Commander Sgt. Chris Kane to the West Virginia Turnpike, Sgt. R.A. Daniel is now the commander, and Sgt. R.T. Stinson, who was recently transferred to Welch, is the assistant commander.

Daniel, a Raleigh County native, spent 13 years at the Beckley Detachment before his transfer to McDowell County a year and a half ago.

I live in Beckley, but I have ties to McDowell County, he said.

Daniel said he did not attend the State Police Academy when he was a young man, as most troopers do.

When I got out of high school I ended up working for about nine years in the coal mines, he said, then after that worked in corrections at the state penitentiary in Moundsville.

That corrections job prompted his interest in law enforcement.

At age 35, I started over as a trooper, he said, adding that he was able to keep up with young guys in the physical training part of the academy. I always kept in good shape,

But he wasnt even the oldest one at the academy.

Another student was 42, he said. But he had been a trooper in Utah.

Daniel, who is 6 feet, 7 inches tall, said many people may not realize that troopers have to stay in good physical condition.

We have a physical fitness test each year, he said, explaining that troopers have a practical and realistic reason to stay in shape as well they have to be prepared for anything on their jobs.

A trooper often works alone and he has to be able to protect himself. For the most part, it (being in good shape) is imperative, especially when you dont have partners.

Daniel said that some people also think troopers have an attitude.

But its just he way we carry ourselves to survive, he said. If its you and four people, its you and four people.

The job can be dangerous, and they often deal with people who are unpredictable.

If they are doing something wrong, a normal person under normal conditions will usually stop, he said. But if they continue bad behavior and activity (after being told to stop) they are already blowing off warnings.

Thats especially true of crimes related to drug use, he added.

When you have someone who is an addict, they ordinarily may not commit a crime or resist arrest, he said. But the chemical imbalance and addiction changes their behavior.

That being said, Danieldoes not excuse their crimes, adding that a lot of judges may not view some drug-related crimes as violent, but they are.

Breaking into your house is a violent crime, he said, adding that it is not a victimless crime. We pay for it as the public every day.

McDowell County does present some challenges, he said, including the logistics of getting from one place to another.

It may take you 45 minutes to get to some areas, he said. Then another call could come in on the opposite end of the county.

Because of the terrain, radio systems can fail and create problems as well, he added.

The detachment also has little backup now because the county is down on the number of deputies from the Sheriffs Office, he said.

If they are available to assist us, thats great, he said. But we take the calls. Regardless, we have to handle calls as they come in anyway. Weve always provided 24-hour service here at the Welch Detachment.

Daniel said there is also a popular myth that all troopers do is write tickets and take people to jail.

We have plenty of paperwork to do, he said.Its difficult dealing with difficult people, but keeping up with the paperwork has its challenges as well.

Not only do troopers have to be ready at all times to deal with criminals, domestic situations, paperwork and any other calls that come in, they often work on their own time without pay.

We will get the job done regardless, he said.

Daniel said he has to drive quite a distance every day to get to work, but he doesnt mind.

I am very well satisfied with working down here, he said.

For Stinson, coming to McDowell County was a stark change of pace.

Ive worked on the West Virginia Turnpike for 17 years in South Charleston, he said, adding he has been in the county for two weeks.

Its definitely a different environment from what I am used to, he said. The economic situation here is different. It (what he may face on the job) could be anything, not just traffic.

The Mercer County native said he had wanted to go into law enforcement since he was a kid.

We (his brother and sister) would ride our bikes and play cops and robbers, he said. I was the cop and I would always catch them.

Stinson said he is the first in his generation from the family to become a police officer.

Its just something I always wanted to do. I wanted to help people.

So after high school, he enrolled at Bluefield State College and earned a degree in criminal justice, then on to the State Police Academy.

Stinson said he is looking forward to being in the county and working with his fellow troopers and the community.

Besides Daniel and Stinson, the detachment has nine troopers to cover a large county 24 hours a day.

Stinson said that presents some challenges, but the job will get done.

Contact Charles Boothe at cboothe@bdtonline.com

View post:

Welch State Police Detachment welcomes new commanders - Bluefield Daily Telegraph

Who Is Ayn Rand? – The Objective Standard – The Objective Standard

This essay is part of a compilation ebook, Objectivism, available at Amazon.com.

Ayn Rand (19051982) was an American novelist and philosopher, and the creator of Objectivism, which she called a philosophy for living on earth.

Rands most widely read novels are The Fountainhead, a story about an independent and uncompromising architect; and Atlas Shrugged, a story about the role of the mind in human life and about what happens to the world when the thinkers and producers mysteriously disappear. Her most popular nonfiction books are The Virtue of Selfishness, a series of essays about the foundations and principles of the morality of self-interest; and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, a series of essays about what capitalism is and why it is the only moral social system.

Rand was born in Russia, where she attended grade school and university; studied history, philosophy, and screenwriting; and witnessed the Bolshevik Revolution and the birth of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In 1925, she left the burgeoning communist state, telling Soviet authorities she was going for a brief visit with relatives in America, and never returned.

She soon made her way to Hollywood, where she worked as a screenwriter, married actor Frank OConnor, and wrote her first novel, We The Living. She then moved to New York City, where she wrote Anthem (a novelette), The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, numerous articles and essays, and several nonfiction books in which she defined and elaborated the principles of Objectivism.

Rands staunch advocacy of reason (as against faith and whim), self-interest (as against self-sacrifice), individualism and individual rights (as against collectivism and group rights), and capitalism (as against all forms of statism) make her both the most controversial and most important philosopher of the 20th century.

Describing Objectivism, Rand wrote: My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

For a good biography of Rand, see Jeffery Brittings Ayn Rand or Scott McConnells 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand. For a brief presentation of the principles of Objectivism, see What is Objectivism? For the application of these principles to cultural and political issues of the day, subscribe to The Objective Standard, the preeminent source for commentary from an Objectivist perspective.

Sign up to receive our free weekly newsletter.

Continue reading here:

Who Is Ayn Rand? - The Objective Standard - The Objective Standard

Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand’s Morality of Egoism – The Objective … – The Objective Standard

From The Objective Standard, Vol. 7, No. 2.

This essay is part of a compilation ebook, Objectivism, available at Amazon.com.

Authors note: This is an expanded version of a talk Ive delivered on various college campuses over the past several years.

Because of its seemingly prophetic nature with respect to current events, Ayn Rands 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged is receiving more attention and selling at greater volume today than it did when it was first published fifty-five years ago. Thats a good thing, because the ideas set forth in Atlas are crucial to personal happiness, social harmony, and political freedom.

Atlas Shrugged is first and foremost a brilliant suspense story about a man who said he would stop the motor of the world and did. But the book is much more than a great novel. Integrated into the story is a revolutionary philosophya philosophy not for pie-in-the-sky debates or academic word games or preparing for an afterlife, but for understanding reality, achieving values, and living on earth.

Rands philosophy, which she named Objectivism, includes a view of the nature of reality, of mans means of knowledge, of mans nature and means of survival, of a proper morality, of a proper social system, and of the nature and value of art. It is a comprehensive philosophy, which, after writing Atlas Shrugged, Rand elaborated in several nonfiction books. But it all came together initially in Atlas, in which Rand dramatized her philosophyalong with the ideas that oppose it.

While writing Atlas, Rand made a journal entry in which she said, My most important job is the formulation of a rational morality of and for man, of and for his life, of and for this earth.1 She proceeded to formulate just such a morality, and to show what it means in practice.

Tonight, were going to focus on the morality presented in Atlas Shrugged, but I want to do so without spoiling the novel for those of you who havent yet read it. And since it is impossible to say much of substance about Atlas without giving away key elements of its plot and the mystery of the novel, Im going to limit my discussion of the book to a brief indication of its plotwithout giving away anything pivotalafter which Ill discuss Rands morality of egoism directly.

Atlas Shrugged is a story about a future world in which the entire globe, with the exception of America, has fallen under the rule of various Peoples States or dictatorships. America, the only country that is not yet fully socialized, is sliding rapidly in that direction, as it increasingly accepts the ideas that lead to dictatorship, ideas such as self-sacrifice is noble, self-interest is evil, and greedy producers and businessmen have a moral obligation to serve the greater good of society.

Given this cultural climate, the economy becomes increasingly regulated by the government, and the country slides further and further into economic chaos: Factories shut down, trains stop running, businesses close their doors, people starvejust what you would expect if the U.S. government started acting like the government of the USSR.

But then, something strange starts happening. Americas top producersvarious scientists, inventors, businessmen, and artistsstart to disappear. One by one, they simply vanish. And no one knows where theyve gone or why.

Consequently, the supply of goods and servicesfrom scientific discoveries to copper to wheat to automobiles to oil to medicine to entertainmentreduces to a trickle and eventually comes to a halt. Life as Americans once knew it ceases to exist. The country is in ruins.

Where did the producers go and why? Were they killed? Were they kidnapped? Do they return? How is this resolved?

Read the book. Youll be riveted.

As I said, I dont want to give away the story, but I will mention its theme. The theme of Atlas Shrugged is the role of the mind in mans existence. The novel dramatizes the fact that the reasoning mind is the basic source of the values on which human life depends. And this is not only the theme of Atlas; it is also the essence of Rands philosophy of Objectivism: Reasonthe faculty that operates by means of observation, concepts, and logicis the source of all knowledge, values, and prosperity.

In this same vein, the theme of my talk tonight is the role of the mindspecifically your mindin understanding, evaluating, and embracing a moral code.

Suppose you are offered two moral codes from which to chooseand whichever one you choose, you have to live by it for the rest of your life. The first code tells you that your life is supremely importantthat it is properly the single most important thing in the world to you. This code says that you should live a wonderful, joy-filled life, and it provides an abundance of guidance about how to do so: how to make your life great; how to choose your goals, organize your values, and prioritize the things that are important to you; how to succeed in school, in friendships, and in romance; how to choose a career that youll love and how to succeed in it. And so on. In short, this first moral code provides you guidance for achieving a lifetime of happiness and prosperity.

The second moral code offers an entirely different kind of guidance. It tells you not that you should live a wonderful life, not that you should pursue and achieve your goals and valuesbut, rather, that your life is unimportant, that you should sacrifice your values, that you should give them up for the sake of others, that you should abandon the pursuit of personal happiness and accept the kind of life that results from doing so. Thats it. Thats the guidance provided by the second code.

All else being equal, which moral code would you chooseand why?

I suspect that, on serious reflection, you would choose the first code. I further suspect that your reasoning would be something on the order of: Were talking about my life here. If its true that embracing the first code will make my life wonderful, and embracing the second will make it miserable, then this is a no-brainer.

I think thats good reasoning. Lets see if it holds up under scrutiny as we flesh out the respective natures and implications of these two codes.

The first code is Rands morality of rational egoism, which lies at the heart of Atlas Shrugged and is the centerpiece of Objectivism. The second code is the traditional ethics of altruismwhich is the cause of all the trouble in Atlas Shrugged and is the ethics on which we all were raised. In order to be clear about what Rands egoism is, I want to compare and contrast it with altruism. This will serve to highlight the value of Rands ideas and help to dispel potential misconceptions about her views. It will also show how destructive altruism is and why we desperately need to replace it with rational egoismboth personally and culturally. (I will be using the terms egoism and rational egoism interchangeably for reasons that will become clear as we proceed.)

Let me stress that I cannot present the whole of Rands morality in one eveningthat would be impossible. What Im going to do is just indicate its essence, by discussing a few of its key principles. My aim is to show you that there is something enormously important heresomething important to your life and happinessand to inspire you to look further into the subject on your own.

To begin, observe that each of you brought a morality with you tonight. It is right there in your headwhether you are conscious of it or not. Each of you has a set of ideas about what is good and bad, right and wrongabout what you should and shouldnt do. And you refer to these ideas, implicitly or explicitly, when making choices and taking actions in your daily life. Should I study for the test, or cheat on it, or not worry about it? What career should I chooseand how should I choose it? Is environmentalism a good movement or a bad one? What should I do this weekend? How should I spend my time? Whom should I befriend? Whom can I trust? Is homosexuality wrong? Does a fetus have rights? What is the proper way to deal with terrorists?

The answers one gives to such questions depend on ones morality. This is what a morality is: a set of ideas and principles to guide ones choices, evaluations, and actions.

Because as human beings we have to make choicesbecause we have free willa morality of some kind is unavoidable to us. Morality is truly inescapable. Our only choice in this regard is whether we acquire our morality through conscious deliberationor by default, through social osmosis.

If we acquire our morality by default, we will most likely accept the dominant morality in the culture today: altruismthe idea that being moral consists in being selfless. Dont be selfish!Put others first!It is more blessed to give than to receive.Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.Volunteer to serve in your community.Sacrifice for the greater good. And so on.

This is the morality that surrounded all of us growing upand that still surrounds us today. It is the morality taught in church, synagogue, and schooloffered in books, movies, and on TVand encouraged by most parents.

Interestingly, however, although our culture is steeped in this morality, the actual meaning of altruism, in the minds of most people, is quite vague. Is a doctor acting altruistically when he cares for his patients? Or is he seeking to gain from doing so? Are parents being altruistic when they pay for their childrens education? Or is it in their best interest to do so? Are American soldiers acting altruistically when they defend our freedom? Or is defending our freedom in their self-interest? Are you acting altruistically when you throw a birthday party for your best friend? Or do you do so because he or she is a great value to youand thus, something is in it for you?

What exactly is the difference between self-less action and self-interested action? What is the difference between altruism and egoism?

To understand how each differs from the other, we need to understand the basic theory of each code and what each calls for in practice. To begin clarifying this issue, let us turn first to altruism.

Altruism is the morality that holds self-sacrificial service as the standard of moral value and as the sole justification for ones existence. Here, in the words of altruistic philosopher W. G. Maclagan, is the basic principle: According to altruism, the moral importance of being alive lies in its constituting the condition of our ability to serve ends that are not reducible to our personal satisfactions.2 This means that the moral importance of your life corresponds to your acts of selflessnessacts that do not satisfy your personal needs. Insofar as you do not act selflessly, your life has no moral significance. Quoting Maclagan again, altruism holds that we have a duty to relieve the stress and promote the happiness of our fellows. . . . [We] should discount altogether [our] own pleasure or happiness as such when . . . deciding what course of action to pursue. . . . [Our] own happiness is, as such, a matter of no moral concern to [us] whatsoever.3

Ayn Rand was not exaggerating when she said, The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue, and value.4 That is the theoretical meaning of altruism. And the altruistic philosophers know itand state it forthrightly. (Well hear from more of them a little later.)

Now, what does altruism mean in practice? Suppose a person accepts altruism as true and strives to practice it consistently. What will become of his life?

A widely-used college philosophy text gives us a good indication. As I read this passage, bear in mind that this is not someone speaking for or against altruism. This is just a textbook writers depiction of what altruism means in practice.

A pure altruist doesnt consider her own welfare at all but only that of others. If she had a choice between an action that would produce a great benefit for herself (such as enabling her to go to college) and an action that would produce no benefit for herself but a small benefit for someone else (such as enabling him to go to a concert this evening), she should do the second. She should be selfless, considering herself not at all: she should face death rather than subject another person to a minor discomfort. She is committed to serving others only and to pass up any benefits to herself.5

That illustrates the practical meaning of altruismand indicates why no one practices it consistently.

Observe, however, that whether practiced consistently or inconsistently, the basic principle of altruism remains the same: The only moral justification of your existence is self-sacrificial service to others. That some people subscribe to altruism but fail to uphold it consistently does not make their moral code different in kind from that of a person who practices it consistently; the difference is only one of degree. The consistent altruist is acting with a bizarre form of integritythe kind of integrity that leads to his suffering and death. The inconsistent altruist is acting with plain-old hypocrisyalbeit a necessary hypocrisy given his moral code.

And not only is the altruists morality the same in kind; the consequences of accepting it are the same in kind, too. To the extent that a person acts selflessly, he thereby thwarts his life and happiness. He might not die because of it, but he certainly will not live fully; he will not make the most of his life; he will not achieve the kind of happiness that is possible to him.

Have you accepted the principle of altruism? If so, how is it affecting your life?

Have you ever done something for the sake of othersat the expense of what you really thought was best for your own life? For instance: Have you ever accepted an invitation to dine with someone whose company you do not enjoybecause you didnt want to hurt his or her feelings? Have you ever skipped an eventsuch as a ski trip or a weekend at the beach with your friendsin order to spend time with family members youd really rather not see? Have you ever remained in a relationship that you know is not in your best interestbecause you think that he or she couldnt handle the breakup?

Conversely, have you ever felt guilty for not sacrificing for others? Have you ever felt ashamed for doing something that was in your own best interest? For instance, have you felt guilty for not giving change to a beggar on a street corner? Or guilty for pursuing a degree in business or art or something you loverather than doing something allegedly noble, such as joining the Peace Corps?

These are just some of the consequences of accepting the morality of altruism.

Altruism is not good for your life: If you practice it consistently, it leads to death. Thats what Jesus did. If you accept it and practice it inconsistently, it retards your life and leads to guilt. This is what most altruists do.

Rational egoism, as the name suggests, and as we will see, is good for your life. It says that you should pursue your life-serving values and should not sacrifice yourself for the sake of others. Practiced consistently, it leads to a life of happiness. Practiced inconsistentlywell, why be inconsistent here? Why not live a life of happiness? Why sacrifice at all? What reason is there to do so? (We will address the profound lack of an answer to this question later.)

At this point, we can begin to see why Rand called altruism The Morality of Death. To fully grasp why it is the morality of death, however, we must understand that the essence of altruism is not serving others but self-sacrifice. So I want to reiterate this point with emphasis.

Altruism does not call merely for serving others; it calls for self-sacrificially serving others. Otherwise, Michael Dell would have to be considered more altruistic than Mother Teresa. Why? Because Michael Dell serves millions more people than Mother Teresa ever did.

There is a difference, of course, in the way he serves people. Whereas Mother Teresa served people by exchanging her time and effort for nothing, Michael Dell serves people by trading with themby exchanging value for value to mutual advantagean exchange in which both sides gain.

Trading value for value is not the same thing as giving up values for nothing. There is a black-and-white difference between pursuing values and giving them upbetween achieving values and relinquishing thembetween exchanging a lesser value for a greater oneand vice versa.

In an effort to make their creed seem more palatable, pushers of altruism will try to blur this distinction in your mind. It is important not to let them get away with it. Dont be duped!

Altruists claim, for instance, that parents sacrifice when they pay for their children to attend college. But this is ridiculous: Presumably, parents value their childrens education more than they value the money they spend on it. If so, then the sacrifice would be for them to forgo their childrens education and spend the money on a lesser valuesuch as a Ferrari.

Altruists also claim that romantic love requires sacrifices. But this is ridiculous, too: Honey, Id really rather be with another woman, but here I am sacrificially spending my time with you. Or: Id really rather have spent this money on a new set of golf clubs, but instead I sacrificially bought you this necklace for your birthday. Or: Its our anniversaryso Im fixing you your favorite dish for a candlelit dinnereven though Id rather be playing poker with the guys.

Is that love? Only if love is sacrificial.

Altruists also claim that American soldiers sacrifice by serving in the military. Not so. Our non-drafted soldiers serve for a number of self-interested reasons. Here are three: (1) They serve for the same reason that the Founding Fathers formed this countrybecause they value liberty, because they realize that liberty is a requirement of human life, which is the reason why Patrick Henry ended his famous speech with Give me Liberty or give me Death! His was not an ode to sacrifice; it was an ode to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (2) Our soldiers serve in exchange for payment and educationwhich are clearly in their self-interest. (3) They serve because they are fascinated by military science and want to make a career of itanother selfish motive.

Do some of these soldiers die in battle? Unfortunately, yes. Theirs is a dangerous job. But American soldiers dont willfully give up their lives: They dont walk out on the battlefield and say, Shoot me! Nor do they strap bombs to their bodies and detonate themselves in enemy camps. On the contrary, they do everything they can to beat the enemy, win the war, and remain aliveeven when the Bush and Obama administrations tie their hands with altruistic restrictions on how they can fight.

The point is that a sacrifice is not any choice or action that precludes some other choice or action. A sacrifice is not any old exchange. A sacrifice is, as Rand put it, the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a non-value.6

Whether or not one is committing a sacrifice depends on what is more important and what is less important to ones life. To make this determination, of course, one must know the relative importance of ones values in regard to ones life. But if one does establish this hierarchy, one can proceed non-sacrificiallyand consistently so.

For example, if you know that your education is more important to your life than is, say, a night on the town with your friends, then if you stay home in order to study for a crucial examrather than going out with your buddiesthat is not a sacrifice. The sacrifice would be to hit the town and botch the exam.

Life requires that we regularly forgo lesser values for the sake of greater ones. But these are gains, not sacrifices. A sacrifice consists in giving up something that is more important for the sake of something that is less important; thus, it results in a net loss.

Altruism, the morality of self-sacrifice, is the morality of personal lossand it does not countenance personal gain. This is not a caricature of altruism; it is the essence of the morality. As arch-altruist Peter Singer (the famed utilitarian philosopher at Princeton University) explains, to the extent that [people] are motivated by the prospect of obtaining a reward or avoiding a punishment, they are not acting altruistically. . . .7 Arch-altruist Thomas Nagel (a philosophy professor at New York University) concurs: Altruism entails a willingness to act in consideration of the interests of other persons, without the need of ulterior motivesulterior motives meaning, of course, personal gains.8

To understand the difference between egoistic action and altruistic action, we must grasp the difference between a trade and a sacrificebetween a gain and a lossand we must not allow altruists to blur this distinction in our mind. Egoism, as we will see, calls for personal gains. Altruism, as we have seen, calls for personal losses.

Now, despite its destructive nature, altruism is accepted to some extent by almost everyone today. Of course, no one upholds it consistentlyat least not for long. Rather, most people accept it as trueand then cheat on it.

All the major religionsChristianity, Judaism, Islamadvocate altruism; their holy books demand it. All so-called secular humanist philosophiesutilitarianism, postmodernism, egalitarianismcall for altruism as well. (Note that secular humanists do not call themselves secular egoists or secular individualists.)

Alter is Latin for other; altruism means other-ism; it holds that you should sacrifice for others. From the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim points of view, the significant others are God and the poor; in the Old Testament, for instance, God says: I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land (Deuteronomy 15:11). From the utilitarian point of view, the other is everyone in general; the utilitarian principle is the greatest good for the greatest number. From the postmodern and egalitarian points of view, the other is anyone with less wealth or opportunity than you have; in other words, the better off you are, the more you should sacrifice for othersthe worse off you are, the more others should sacrifice for you.

Sacrifice. Sacrifice. Sacrifice. Everyone believes it is the moral thing to do. And no philosopher has been willing to challenge this idea.

Except Ayn Rand:

[T]here is one worda single wordwhich can blast the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstandthe word: Why? Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good? There is no earthly reason for itand, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given.9

On examination, this is true. No reason has ever been given as to why people should sacrifice for others. Of course, alleged reasons have been given, but not legitimate ones. So lets consider the alleged reasonsof which there are approximately sixeach of which involves a logical fallacy.

1. You should sacrifice because God (or some other voice from another dimension) says so. This is not a reasoncertainly not an earthly one. At best, it is an appeal to authoritythat is, to the authorities who claim to speak for God. Just because a preacher or a book makes a claim does not mean the claim is true. The Bible claims, among other things, that a bush spoke. More fundamentally, this non-reason is an arbitrary claim because there is no evidence for the existence of a god. But even those who believe in a god can recognize the fallacy of appealing to an authority.

2. You should sacrifice because thats the general consensus. This is not a reason but an appeal to the masses. Matters of truth and morality are not determined by consensus. That slavery should be legal used to be the general consensus in America, and is still the consensus in parts of Africa. That did not and does not make it so. Nor does consensus legitimize the notion that you or anyone else should sacrifice or be sacrificed.

3. You should sacrifice because other people need the benefit of your sacrifice. This is an appeal to pity. Even if other people did need the benefit of your sacrifice, it would not follow that this is a reason to sacrifice. More importantly, however, the notion that people need the benefit of your sacrifice is false. What people need is to produce values and to trade them with others who produce values. And to do so, they and others must be free to produce and trade according to their own judgment. This, not human sacrifice, is what human life requires. (Ill touch on the relationship between freedom and egoism a little later.)

4. You should sacrifice because if you dont, you will be beaten, or fined, or thrown in jail, or in some other way physically assaulted. The threat of force is not a reason; it is the opposite of a reason. If the force wielders could offer a reason why you should sacrifice, then they would not have to use force; they could use persuasion instead of coercion.

5. You should sacrifice because, well, when you grow up or wise up youll see that you should. This is not a reason, but a personal attack and an insult. It says, in effect, If you dont see the virtue of sacrifice, then youre childish or stupidas if demanding a reason in support of a moral conviction could indicate a lack of maturity or intelligence.

6. You should sacrifice because only a miscreant or a scoundrel would challenge this established fact. This kind of claim assumes that you regard others opinions of you as more important than your own judgment of truth. It is also an example of what Ayn Rand called The Argument from Intimidation: the attempt to substitute psychological pressure for rational argument. Like the personal attack, it is an attempt to avoid having to present a rational case for a position for which no rational case can be made.

Thats it. Such are the reasons offered in support of the claim that you should sacrifice. Dont take my word for it; ask around. Ask your philosophy professors. Ask a priest or rabbi. You will find that all the reasons offered are variants of theseeach of which, so far from being a reason, is a textbook logical fallacy. (Most even have fancy Latin names.)

Ayn Rand demanded reasons for her convictions. So should we.

She set out to discover a rational moralityone based on observable facts and logic. Rather than starting with the question Which of the existing codes of value should I accept?she began with the question, What are values and why does man need them? This question pointed her away from the established viewsand toward the facts of reality.

Looking at reality, Rand observed that a value is that which one acts to gain or keep. You can see the truth of this in your own life: You act to gain and keep money; you value it. You act to gain and keep good grades; you value them. You act to choose and develop a fulfilling career. You seek to meet the right guy or girl and build a wonderful relationship. And so on.

Looking at reality, Rand also saw that only living organisms take self-generated, goal-directed action. Trees, tigers, and people take actions toward goals. Rocks, rivers, and hammers do not. Trees, for example, extend their roots into the ground and their branches and leaves toward the sky; they value nutrients and sunlight. Tigers hunt antelope, and nap under trees; they value food and shade. And people act to gain their values, such as nutrition, education, a career, romance, and so on.

Further, Rand saw that the ultimate reason living organisms take such actions is to further their life. She discovered that an organisms life is its ultimate goal and standard of valueand that mans life is the standard of moral value: the standard by which one judges what is good and what is evil. Mans lifemeaning: that which is required to sustain and further the life of a human beingconstitutes the standard of moral value.

Now, the validation of the principle that life is the standard of value has a number of aspects, and we dont have time to consider all of them tonight. For our purposes here, I want to focus briefly on just a few.

By pursuing the question Why does man need values?Ayn Rand kept her thinking fact-oriented. If man needs values, then the reason he needs them will go a long way toward establishing which values are legitimate and which are not. If man doesnt need values, well, then, he doesnt need themand there is no point in pursuing the issue at all. What Rand discovered is that man does need valuesand the reason he needs them is in order to live. Life, she discovered, is the ultimate goal of our actions; life is the final end toward which all our other values are properly the means.

Granted, because we have free will we can take antilife actionsand, as we have seen, altruism senselessly calls for us to do just that. But the point is that we dont need to take antilife actions, unless we want to diein which case, we dont really need to take any action at all. We dont need to do anything in order to die; if thats what we want, we can simply stop acting altogether and we will soon wither away.

If we want to live, however, we must pursue life-serving valuesand we must do so by choice.

Free will enables us to choose our values. This is what gives rise to the field of morality. Morality is the realm of chosen values. But whatever our choices, these facts remain: The only reason we can pursue values is because we are alive, and the only reason we need to pursue values is in order to live.

This two-pronged principle of Rands philosophy is essential to understanding how the Objectivist morality is grounded in the immutable facts of reality: (1) Only life makes values possiblesince nonliving things cannot pursue values; and (2) only life makes values necessarysince only living things need to pursue values.

Observing reality, we can see that this is true: A rock doesnt have values. It cant act to gain or keep things; it just stays stillunless some outside force, such as a wave or a hammer, hits and moves it. And it doesnt need to gain or keep things, because its continued existence is unconditional. A rock can change formsfor instance, it can be crushed and turned to sand, or melted and turned to liquidbut it cannot go out of existence. The continued existence of a living organism, however, is conditionaland this is what gives rise to the possibility and need of values. A tree must achieve certain endsor else it will die. Its chemical elements will remain, but its life will go out of existence. A tiger must achieve certain ends, too, or it will meet the same fate. And a personif he is to remain alivemust achieve certain ends as well.

The Objectivist ethicsrecognizing all of thisholds human life as the standard of moral value. It holds that acting in accordance with the requirements of human life is moral, and acting in contradiction to those requirements is immoral. It is a fact-based, black-and-white ethics.

Now, combining the principle that human life is the standard of moral value with the observable fact that people are individualseach with his own body, his own mind, his own lifewe reach another principle of the Objectivist ethics: Each individuals own life is his own ultimate value. This means that each individual is morally an end in himselfnot a means to the ends of others. Accordingly, he has no moral duty to sacrifice himself for the sake of others. Nor does he have a moral right to sacrifice others for his own sake. On principle, neither self-sacrifice nor the sacrifice of others is moral, because, on principle, human sacrifice as such is immoral.

Human life does not require people to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others; nor does it require people to sacrifice others for their own sake. Human life simply does not require human sacrifice; people can live without giving up their minds, their values, their lives; people can live without killing, beating, robbing, or defrauding one another.

Moreover, human sacrifice cannot promote human life and happiness; it can lead only to suffering and death. If people want to live and be happy they must neither sacrifice themselves nor sacrifice others; rather, they must pursue life-serving values and respect the rights of others to do the same. And, given the role of morality in human life, in order to do so, they must accept the morality that advocates doing so.

In a sentence, the Objectivist ethics holds that human sacrifice is immoraland that each person should pursue his own life-serving values and respect the rights of others to do the same. This is the basic principle of rational egoism. And the reason it sounds so good is because it is good; it is right; it is true. This principle is derived from the observable facts of reality and the demonstrable requirements of human life. Where else could valid moral principles come from? And what other purpose could they serve?

We can now see why Ayn Rand said, The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live. Morality, properly conceived, is not a hindrance to a life of happiness; rather, it is the means to such a life.

So let us turn to the question of how to enjoy yourself and live. If that is the right thing to do, then whataccording to the Objectivist ethicsis the means to that end?

First and foremost, in order to live and achieve happiness, we have to use reason. Hence the technically redundant word rational in rational egoism. Reason is our means of understanding the world, ourselves, and our needs. It is the faculty that operates by means of perceptual observation and conceptual abstractionby means of our five senses and our ability to think logically, to make causal connections, and to form principles.

It is by means of reason that we identify what things are, what properties they have, and how we can use them for our life-serving purposes. For example, it is by the use of reason that we learn about plants, soil, the principles of agriculture, and how to produce food. It is by means of reason that we learn about wool, silk, and how to make looms and produce clothing. It is by means of reason that we learn the principles of chemistry and biology and how to produce medicine and perform surgery; the principles of engineering and how to build homes and skyscrapers; the principles of aerodynamics and how to make and fly jumbo jets; the principles of physics and how to produce and control nuclear energy. And so on.

On a more personal level, it is by means of reason that we are able to develop fulfilling careers, to engage in rewarding hobbies, and to establish and maintain good friendships. And it is by means of reason that we are able to achieve success in romance.

Since this last is perhaps less obvious than the others, lets focus on it for a minute.

To establish and maintain a good romantic relationship, you have to take into account all the relevant facts pertaining to that goal. To begin with, you have to know what kind of relationship will actually be good for your life; you were not born with this knowledge, nor do you gain it automatically. To acquire it, you have to observe reality and think logically. Further, you have to find someone who suits your needs and lives up to your standards. To do so, you have to judge peoples characters and qualities accuratelywhich requires reason. Once found, you have to treat the person justlyas he or she deserves to be treated. To do this, you have to understand and apply the principle of justice (which we will discuss shortly). Your means of understanding and applying it is reason.

To succeed in romance, you have to discover and act in accordance with a lot of facts and principles. You must think and act rationally. If you choose a lover irrationally, or treat your lover irrationally, then your love life will be doomed. Im sure you all know of people who approach relationships irrationallyand what the results are.

More:

Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand's Morality of Egoism - The Objective ... - The Objective Standard

A vision of a grim future – Bluefield Daily Telegraph

Although Americas political system seems unable to stimulate robust, sustained economic growth, it at least is stimulating consumption of a small but important segment of literature. Dystopian novels are selling briskly Aldous Huxleys Brave New World (1932), Sinclair Lewis It Cant Happen Here (1935), George Orwells Animal Farm (1945) and 1984 (1949), Ray Bradburys Fahrenheit 451 (1953) and Margaret Atwoods The Handmaids Tale (1985), all warning about nasty regimes displacing democracy.

There is, however, a more recent and pertinent presentation of a grim future. Last year, in her 13th novel, The Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047, Lionel Shriver imagined America slouching into dystopia merely by continuing current practices.

Shriver, who is fascinated by the susceptibility of complex systems to catastrophic collapses, begins her story after the 2029 economic crash and the Great Renunciation, whereby the nation, like a dissolute Atlas, shrugged off its national debt, saying to creditors: Its nothing personal. The world is not amused, and Americans subsequent downward social mobility is not pretty.

Florence Darkly, a millennial, is a single mother but such mothers now outnumber married ones. Newspapers have almost disappeared, so print journalism had given way to a rabble of amateurs hawking unverified stories and always to an ideological purpose. Mexico has paid for an electronic border fence to keep out American refugees. Her Americans are living, on average, to 92, the economy is powered by the whims of the retired, and, desperate to qualify for entitlements, these days everyone couldnt wait to be old. People who have never been told no are apoplectic if they cant retire at 52. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are ubiquitous, so shaking hands is imprudent.

Soldiers in combat fatigues, wielding metal detectors, search houses for gold illegally still in private hands. The government monitors every movement and the IRS, renamed the Bureau for Social Contribution Assistance, siphons up everything, on the you-didnt-build-that principle: Morally, your money does belong to everybody. The creation of capital requires the whole apparatus of the state to protect property rights, including intellectual property.

Social order collapses when hyperinflation follows the promiscuous printing of money after the Renunciation. This punishes those who had a conscientious, caretaking relationship to the future. Government salaries and Medicare reimbursements are linked to an inflation algorithm that didnt require further action from Congress. Even if a Snickers bar eventually cost $5 billion, they were safe.

In a Reason magazine interview, Shriver says, I think it is in the nature of government to infinitely expand until it eats its young. In her novel, she writes:

The state starts moving money around. A little fairnesshere, little more fairnessthere. ... Eventually social democracies all arrive at the same tipping point: where half the country depends on the other half. ... Government becomes a pricey, clumsy, inefficient mechanism for transferring wealth from people who do something to people who dont, and from the young to the old which is the wrong direction. All that effort, and youve only managed a new unfairness.

Laughing mordantly as the apocalypse approaches, Shriver has a gimlet eye for the foibles of todays secure (or so it thinks) upper middle class, from Washingtons Cleveland Park to Brooklyn.

The (only) good news from Shrivers squint into the future is that when Americans are put through a wringer, they emerge tougher, with less talk about ADHD, gluten intolerance and emotional support animals.

Speaking to Reason, Shriver said: I think that the bullet we dodged in 2008 is still whizzing around the planet and is going to hit us in the head. If so, this story has already been written.

George Will writes for theWashington Post Writers Group. Email him atgeorgewill@washpost.com.

Go here to see the original:

A vision of a grim future - Bluefield Daily Telegraph