Conservative Libertarian Outpost

Venezuelan Dictator Vows To Bring Down U.S. Government…The Venezuelan government is sole owner of Citgo gasoline company…

Venezuelan Dictator, Hugo Chavez, has vowed to bring down the U.S. government…Chavez, president of Venezuela, told a TV audience, “Enough of imperialist aggression, we must tell the world, down with the U.S. empire. We have to bury imperialism this century.”The guest on his television program, which was beamed across Venezuela

, was Cindy Sheehan, the antiwar activist…Chavez recently had as his guest Harry Belafonte, who called President Bush “the greatest terrorist in the world.”Chavez is pushing a socialist revolution and has a close alliance with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro…

Regardless of your feelings about the war in Iraq, the issue here is that we have a socialist dictator vowing to bring down the government of the U.S.

And he is using our money to achieve his goal!!

The Venezuelan government, run by dictator Chavez, is the sole owner of Citgo  gas company, sales of products at Citgo stations send money back to Chavez to help him in his ‘vow’ to bring down our government… Take Action…Please, make the decision that you will not be shopping at a Citgo station…Why should U.S. citizens who love freedom be financing a dictator who has vowed to take down our government??

Please forward this to your friends and family. Most of them don’t know that Citgo is owned by the Venezuelan government…YOU CAN VERIFY THIS ON THE CITGO WEB PAGE:
CITGO.com, About CITGO

Additional: The company is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.To JOIN the BOYCOTT CITGO Blog Roll click HERE !! 

I am a Free Market supporter to the max. I choose to use my free market earnings some place other than Citgo.

50 years of expediential matrimony, is the death knell sounding for the foremost political union of our time? In his new book, The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party, New York Post columnist Ryan Sager contends that the ”fusion“ of moral traditionalists and libertarians, long the bulwark of the Republican Party, is on the brink of ruin.Following a courtship based on utilitarian aims—libertarianism’s smaller-government guards against the moral corruption feared by traditionalists—the marriage of convenience affected the Republican sweep of government. Basking in their newfound power, says Sager, Republicans exchanged the principle of small government for a promise of benevolent government, endangering their unifying conviction and threatening to produce a party foreign to both conservatism and liberty.

Sager’s thesis is compelling, but we would offer a slightly different take. (Many evangelicals are, after all, libertarians.) The primary fissure in the Republican Party is not between libertarians and evangelicals, but between libertarians and conservatives. The former compares apples and oranges—a philosophy of government versus a religious worldview—while the latter frames the issue more precisely. Whereas libertarians seek to minimize government to the greatest extent possible in every situation, conservatives are constitutionalists: They want government to be strong where to Constitution so dictates, and nonexistent where the Constitution is silent.

Will Republicans continue to hide behind the faccade of marital bliss? Or will they confront the elephant in the room and recommit to limited government? Unchecked, the marital feud—whoever you consider the participants to be—promises to end in annulment, leaving true Republicanism, the lone child of the union, to suffer most.

Source: 15 September 2006    |    PatriotPost.US    |    Patriot Vol. 06 No. 37

In my years of reading the Patriot Post this is the first time that I have to greatly differ from what they had to say.

First; Libertarians are not at all for smaller government at all cost. They are the ones that have tried for so long, and worked so hard for full, and strong enforcement of the Constitution. ( I am not calling the current CLP a part of Libertarianism here.) All of it, and not just the parts that this, or that group happen to like. Who was it that has always sought to protect the small from the tyranny of the majority? Sure as heck wasn’t the conservatives of the Republican Party. Who was it that brought us the Brady Bill, that masterpiece of killing the Constitution? It wasn’t the Libertarians. Who got us into a war that targeted oppression..? OK, it was Liberty minded people from across the board.

Islam means submission, Libertarianism means Freedom. Figure it out folks, most Americans have a solid streak of Libertarianism in them.

“Republicans are already staking their election chances less on their achievements than on the damage Democrats might do if they take over, so perhaps the GOP answer will be to do nothing and say a prayer. But Republicans could still help their prospects, and motivate their own supporters, if they use the next month to advance sound policies that highlight differences between the two parties… House leaders tell us there is zero chance of [immigration reform] passing before November. Leave it to Republicans to fan national concern about the issue for a year and then say, well, never mind. On the policy merits, this may be for the best because anything that passed in the current environment would only throw more police at the border or further harass employers. But if Republicans lose the House, their demagoguery on immigration will be one reason… [T]he GOP’s legislative record in the House is actually better than the media advertise. Many good ideas have died in the graveyard of the Senate, thanks to Democratic Leader Harry Reid’s use of the filibuster and the eagerness of too many GOP Senators (Maine’s Olympia Snowe, George Voinovich of Ohio) to run away from Mr. Bush on key issues. Republicans can’t undo all that damage in a month, but they can at least give voters some better reason to re-elect them in November.” —The Wall Street Journal

I have to wonder about the politicians in this great land of ours. Why is it that they are blind to the true issues that face our nation? I am only one that shares the same concerns. I see it in letters to the editor. I see it on the news, and yes, I see it on the blogs constantly. Let’s do a partial list, and others can add to it as they see fit. This is in no particular order, as all are of equal importance;

• Get a handle on the borders. This is a security issue, not a racial one.
• Do something meaningful about illegal immigration. This is economics 101 not even touching on the security aspects.
• Restore the many rights that have been taken from citizens, period.
• End sexism in law enforcement including the defacto preference for women in domestic violence, child support, and in social services investigations.
• Stop protecting those that use the power of government to prevent the practice of religion.
• Do something to repair Social Security. I favor a split between mandatory infusion into a government program (such as presently exist) and the ability to invest in other programs.
• Require mandatory training in schools, public or private, for what might be called “life safety.” Firearms safety, driving safely, and yes, safe sex (age appropriate), also things that some parents seem just to ignorant to teach their children. Like not to leave toddlers unattended near buckets of bleach water for example.
• Pass laws that make felony pedophilia at minimum a life sentence, with the death penalty not just an option, but the standard that is prescribed for by law.

So their it is folks. Fire at will 🙂

http://www.aynrand.org/Khatami’s Harvard Visit Is a Disgrace

Sept. 7, 2006

Irvine, CA–This Sunday, on the eve of the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11, Iran’s former president, Mohammed Khatami, will speak before Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and give a talk titled “Ethics of Tolerance in the Age of Violence.” This is outrageous.
 
Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism. Khatami’s government jailed Iranian students who spoke out against the theocratic regime, and his intelligence service murdered leaders of an Iranian opposition party. For him to lecture Americans on ethics and non-violence is as obscene as a child molester instructing his victims on the importance of respecting individual rights.
 
Harvard defended Khatami’s visit, claiming we must have an “open dialogue” with Iran and allow for a “free exchange of ideas.” But there can be no “free exchange of ideas” between a killer and those he seeks to kill–or between a brutal dictatorship and the free nation it seeks to annihilate.
 
Let’s stop appeasing Iran and make it clear that those who threaten the United States will not receive an “open dialogue,” but swift destruction

The Ayn Rand Institute, 2121 Alton Pkwy, Ste 250, Irvine, CA 92606 

The Terrorists’ Motivation: Islam
Their attempt to practice religion consistently explains the terrorists’ actions.

By: Edwin A. Locke and Alex Epstein

It is now five years since September 11, 2001–and since that horrific day we have witnessed numerous additional attacks by Islamic terrorists against the West. In the face of a seemingly never-ending supply of suicidal killers, many still do not understand the motivation of the terrorists. Commentators are eager to offer a bevy of pseudo-explanations–poverty, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc.–while ignoring the motivation the terrorists themselves openly proclaim: Islam.

The near silence about the true role of Islam in motivating Islamic terrorists has two main causes: multiculturalism and religion. Multiculturalism asserts that all cultures are equal and therefore none may criticize another; intellectuals and politicians are therefore reluctant to declare the obvious superiority of Western culture to Islamic culture. And the strong commitment to religion of many Americans, especially conservatives, makes them reluctant to indict a religion as the cause of a massive evil. But if we are to identify the fundamental cause of the terrorists’ actions, we must understand at least two fundamental premises of the religion they kill for.

First, Islam, like all religions, rejects reason as a means of gaining knowledge and guiding action; it holds that all important truths are grasped by faith in supernatural beings and sacred texts. The Koran explicitly states that knowledge comes from revelation, not thinking. (Christianity in pure form entails a similar rejection of reason, but it has been heavily diluted and secularized since the Renaissance.) Islam advocates the subordination of every sphere of life to religious dogma, including the legal system, politics, economics, and family life; the word “Islam” means literally: submission. The individual is not supposed to think independently but to selflessly subordinate himself to the dictates of his religion and its theocratic representatives. We have seen this before in the West–it was called the Dark Ages.

Second, as with any religion that seeks converts, a derivative tenet of Islam is that it should be imposed by force (you cannot convince someone of the non-rational). The Koran is replete with calls to take up arms in its name: “fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them . . . those who reject our signs we shall soon cast into the fire . . . those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads . . . as to the deviators, they are the fuel of hell.”

These ideas easily lead to fanaticism and terrorism. In fact, what is often referred to as the “fanaticism” of many Muslims is explicitly endorsed by their religion. Consider the following characteristics of religious fanatics. The fanatic demands unquestioning obedience to religious dogma–so does Islam. The fanatic cannot be reasoned with, because he rejects reason–so does Islam. The fanatic eagerly embraces any call to impose his dogma by force on those who will not adopt it voluntarily–so does Islam.

The terrorists are not “un-Islamic” bandits who have “hijacked a great religion”; they are consistent and serious followers of their religion.

It is true that many Muslims who live in the West (like most Christians) reject religious fanaticism and are law-abiding and even loyal citizens, but this is because they have accepted some Western values, including respect for reason, a belief in individual rights, and the need for a separation between church and state. It is only to the extent that they depart from their religion–and from a society that imposes it–that they achieve prosperity, freedom, and peace.

In the last year, there has been more and more of a call for a “War of Ideas”–an intellectual campaign to win the “hearts and minds” of the Arab world that will discourage and discredit Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, the centerpiece of this campaign so far has been to appeal to Muslims with claims that Islam is perfectly consistent with Western ideals, and inconsistent with terrorism. America has,with little success, groveled to so-called moderate Muslim leaders to strongly repudiate terrorism. (Those leaders have focused little energy on damning Islamic fanaticism, and much on the alleged sins of the U.S. government.) Such a campaign cannot work, since insofar as these “moderates” accept Islam, they cannot convincingly oppose violence in its name. A true “War of Ideas” would be one in which we proclaim loudly and with moral certainty the secular values we stand for: reason, rights, freedom, material prosperity, and personal happiness on this earth.

Edwin A. Locke, a professor emeritus of management at the University of Maryland at College Park, is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute  (ARI) in Irvine, Calif. Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at ARI. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand–best-selling author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead” and originator of the philosophy she called “Objectivism.”

Both the above articles are from the Ayn Rand Institute

Many are the times that I have heard otherwise intelligent people ask why Islamist’s so hate others. The answers are in the very foundations in being a Muslim. We hear about Sunni and Shiite’s constantly. As if those two sects represent completely the followers of Mohamed. There are others though, and those groups appear to be the rotten apples that spoil the whole. Yet, if one looks deeper it is in fact, the whole of Islam that is at war with the rest of the world. Robert Spencer of http://jihadwatch.org/ has probably performed the most extensive investigation of modern Islam to date.

We, the rest of the entire world, are in a war of culture, and complete social domination with Islam. Read the Surya’s, listen to what the Imams say when speaking to their own. It is as simple as reading the United States Constitution. They mean what they say, and no university degree is needed to understand them.

The Terrorists’ Motivation: Islam Their attempt to practice religion consistently explains the terrorists’ actions. By: Edwin A. Locke and Alex Epstein It is now five years since September 11, 2001–and since that horrific day we have witnessed numerous additional attacks by Islamic terrorists against the West. In the face of a seemingly never-ending supply of suicidal killers, many still do not understand the motivation of the terrorists. Commentators are eager to offer a bevy of pseudo-explanations–poverty, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc.–while ignoring the motivation the terrorists themselves openly proclaim: Islam. The near silence about the true role of Islam in motivating Islamic terrorists has two main causes: multiculturalism and religion. Multiculturalism asserts that all cultures are equal and therefore none may criticize another; intellectuals and politicians are therefore reluctant to declare the obvious superiority of Western culture to Islamic culture. And the strong commitment to religion of many Americans, especially conservatives, makes them reluctant to indict a religion as the cause of a massive evil. But if we are to identify the fundamental cause of the terrorists’ actions, we must understand at least two fundamental premises of the religion they kill for. First, Islam, like all religions, rejects reason as a means of gaining knowledge and guiding action; it holds that all important truths are grasped by faith in supernatural beings and sacred texts. The Koran explicitly states that knowledge comes from revelation, not thinking. (Christianity in pure form entails a similar rejection of reason, but it has been heavily diluted and secularized since the Renaissance.) Islam advocates the subordination of every sphere of life to religious dogma, including the legal system, politics, economics, and family life; the word “Islam” means literally: submission. The individual is not supposed to think independently but to selflessly subordinate himself to the dictates of his religion and its theocratic representatives. We have seen this before in the West–it was called the Dark Ages. Second, as with any religion that seeks converts, a derivative tenet of Islam is that it should be imposed by force (you cannot convince someone of the non-rational). The Koran is replete with calls to take up arms in its name: “fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them . . . those who reject our signs we shall soon cast into the fire . . . those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads . . . as to the deviators, they are the fuel of hell.” These ideas easily lead to fanaticism and terrorism. In fact, what is often referred to as the “fanaticism” of many Muslims is explicitly endorsed by their religion. Consider the following characteristics of religious fanatics. The fanatic demands unquestioning obedience to religious dogma–so does Islam. The fanatic cannot be reasoned with, because he rejects reason–so does Islam. The fanatic eagerly embraces any call to impose his dogma by force on those who will not adopt it voluntarily–so does Islam. The terrorists are not “un-Islamic” bandits who have “hijacked a great religion”; they are consistent and serious followers of their religion. It is true that many Muslims who live in the West (like most Christians) reject religious fanaticism and are law-abiding and even loyal citizens, but this is because they have accepted some Western values, including respect for reason, a belief in individual rights, and the need for a separation between church and state. It is only to the extent that they depart from their religion–and from a society that imposes it–that they achieve prosperity, freedom, and peace. In the last year, there has been more and more of a call for a “War of Ideas”–an intellectual campaign to win the “hearts and minds” of the Arab world that will discourage and discredit Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, the centerpiece of this campaign so far has been to appeal to Muslims with claims that Islam is perfectly consistent with Western ideals, and inconsistent with terrorism. America has,with little success, groveled to so-called moderate Muslim leaders to strongly repudiate terrorism. (Those leaders have focused little energy on damning Islamic fanaticism, and much on the alleged sins of the U.S. government.) Such a campaign cannot work, since insofar as these “moderates” accept Islam, they cannot convincingly oppose violence in its name. A true “War of Ideas” would be one in which we proclaim loudly and with moral certainty the secular values we stand for: reason, rights, freedom, material prosperity, and personal happiness on this earth. Edwin A. Locke, a professor emeritus of management at the University of Maryland at College Park, is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute  (ARI) in Irvine, Calif. Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at ARI. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand–best-selling author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead” and originator of the philosophy she called “Objectivism.”

Where then have the great thinkers and doers gone? Action, not emotion spelled out on blogs or letters to the editor get results. I submit that the only people that are actually doing something about this menace to our way of life are those in the military, and those that truly support them. One thing taken from Arab culture that I can honestly say that I can support is the concept of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” But that was/is also a trait of Celts in general and was passed down in oral traditions.

Stolen from the Patriot Post

“Americans need a little more patience and Iraqis a little less. That’s the judgment of Gen. John Abizaid… ‘Our problem is to give up some control. The Iraqi problem is to take control,’ says Abizaid, who as head of Central Command has overall responsibility for U.S. forces here. He says Americans shouldn’t think of the transition as a straight line—’as they stand up, we stand down’ —but as a process of gradual stabilization.” —David Ignatius

“Somehow, despite contrary facts that are palpably clear in the historic record, [American and European leaders] have managed to convince themselves and the world that the most terrible wars of the 20th century occurred because nations didn’t do enough talking to resolve their differences [when in] fact, they occurred because shortsighted, peace-minded leaders allow[ed] good intentions and wishful thinking to take the place of an accurate assessment of the identity and intentions of their adversaries.” —Alan Keyes

I read these things and have to wonder.  What, I ask, has happened to America, to it’s people? This nation has forsaken the very things upon which it was founded. What happened to Sua Sponte in your face action by Americans when they know quite well that something is just plain wrong.

Is it just “political correctness?” Is it some desire to be accepted by other nations and peoples? Is it plain old fashioned cowardliness disguised as being more civilized, like a set of the emperors new clothes? Is it some sort of new morality that all of us must kow tao too in order to feel as though we are civilized and better than those that would stand proud and defend our beliefs?

This American will place his faith in a Winchester well before I would any diplomat. That, based upon “misfire” rates, if nothing else.

Freedom vs. Unlimited Majority Rule 

The concept of freedom rests on a government limited to the protection of individual rights, while the concept of democracy rests on a government run by unlimited majority rule; we need to stop confusing these two opposite ideas. 

By Peter Schwartz 

America’s foreign policy has led to a bizarre contradiction. President Bush claims to be pursuing freedom in the world, so that Americans will be safer. Yet this campaign’s results–a more zealous proponent of terrorism in the Palestinian Authority, and the prospect of theocracy in Iraq–are posing even greater threats to us. 

The cause of this failure is Mr. Bush’s hopeless view that tyranny is reversed by the holding of elections–a view stemming from the widespread confusion between freedom and democracy. 

Ask a typical American if there should be limits on what government may do, and he would answer: yes. He understands that each of us has rights which no law–regardless of how much public support it happens to attract–is entitled to breach. An advocate of democracy, however, would answer: no. 

The essence of democracy is unlimited majority rule. It is the notion that the government should not be constrained, as long as its behavior is sanctioned by majority vote. It is the notion that the function of government is to implement the “will of the people.” It is the notion we are espousing when we tell the Iraqis, the Palestinians and the Afghanis that the legitimacy of their new governments rests essentially on their being democratically approved.  

And it is the notion that was repudiated by the founding of the United States. 

America’s defining characteristic is freedom. Freedom exists when there are limitations on government, limitations imposed by the principle of individual rights. America was established as a republic, under which government is restricted to protecting our inalienable rights; this should not be called “democracy.” Thus, you are free to criticize your neighbors, your society, your government–no matter how many people wish to pass a law censoring you. But if “popular will” is the standard, then the individual has no rights–only temporary privileges, granted or withdrawn according to the mass sentiment of the moment. The Founders understood that the tyranny of the majority could be just as evil as the tyranny of an absolute monarch. 

Yes, we have the ability to vote, but that is not the yardstick by which freedom is measured. After all, even dictatorships hold official elections. It is only the context of liberty–in which individual rights may not be voted out of existence–that justifies, and gives meaning to, the ballot box. In a genuinely free country, voting pertains only to the particular means of safeguarding individual rights. There is no moral “right” to vote to destroy rights. 

Unfortunately, like Mr. Bush, most Americans use the antithetical concepts of “freedom” and “democracy” interchangeably. Sometimes our government upholds the primacy of individual rights and regards one’s life, liberty and property as inviolable. Many other times it negates rights by upholding the primacy of the majority’s wishes–from confiscating an individual’s property because the majority wants it for “public use,” to preventing a terminally ill individual from gaining assistance in ending his life because a majority finds suicide unpalatable. 

Today, our foreign policy upholds this latter position. We declare that our overriding goal in the Mideast is that people vote–regardless of whether they care about freedom. But then, if a Shiite, pro-Iranian majority imposes its theology on Iraq–or if Palestinian suicide-bombers execute their popular mandate by blowing up schoolchildren–on what basis can we object, since democracy is being faithfully served? As a spokesman for Hamas, following its electoral victory, correctly noted: “I thank the United States that they have given us this weapon of democracy. . . . It’s not possible for the U.S. . . . to turn its back on an elected democracy.” The Palestinians abhor freedom–but have adopted democratic voting.  

The Iraqis may reject freedom, in which case military force alone–as dismally inadequate as our efforts in that realm have been so far–will have to ensure our safety against any threats from them.  But if we are going to try to replace tyranny with freedom there, we must at least demonstrate what freedom is. We should have been spreading the ideas and institutions of a free society, before allowing elections even to be considered. For example, we should have written the new constitution, as we did in post-WWII Japan. Instead, we deferred to the “will of the people”–people who do not understand individual rights–and endorsed a despotic constitution, which rejects intellectual freedom in favor of enforced obedience to the Koran, and which rejects economic freedom and private property in favor of “collective ownership.” The consequence: looming neo-tyranny in Iraq. 

We need to stop confusing democracy with freedom. Morally supporting freedom is always in our interests. But supporting unlimited majority rule is always destructive–to us, and to all who value the rights of the individual. 

Peter Schwartz is a Distinguished Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute (http://www.aynrand.org/) in Irvine, California. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand–author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. 

[b]I received that in an email/newsletter. Seems like a windy way of repeating what Franklin said about “Two wolves and a lamb deciding on dinner.” Could this be a root part of the contemporary problem here in the United States? Have we unknowingly slipped from a  representative republic into the morass of unfettered democracy?[/b] 

My own feelings are that the politicians ( with but a notable handful of rebels) have taken the nation to it’s very knees.  

There has been, in my opinion, a veritable silent revolution going on for decades, if not longer. Rampant feminism (political not ethical) has twisted the entire concept of life and liberty. The authoritarians within our society have issued blanket pronunciations that require one and all to conform to their ideas of so-called freedom. Those chicken littles that so love the earth more than their own children have strangled innovation to the point of causing serious gaps in national security. The resultant collective guilt of the populace has resulted in a lack of national pride that turns us against our own with subdued viciousness. 

I believe that the sole purpose of any government is to ensure the rights of the individual and that all legitimate uses of government power derives from that  basic sense of purposiveness. Hence the necessity of law, military forces and so on. 

I believe in opportunity for all through ones own resourcefulness, not by government fiat. I believe that in free markets the source of wealth can be found. 

I believe that the Constitution of these United States is the expression of the Declaration of Independence and that the concepts within have never changed, or left. Only the twisted interpetations of certain lawyers and politicians with the express purpose of personal gain. That the rights granted within the Constitution are inalieanable rights, that is God given, and cannot be subrogated by any man, or group of men.

So much for so-called “Living Constitutions” and the Declaration of Independence!

Americans do not have to kiss butt to anyone, or anything.

Stereotyping Defended

by Ninos Malek

[Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006]
Subscribe at email services, tell others, or Digg this story.

Most people feel that stereotyping is wrong and unfair.

Why should one person be affected by the actions or qualities of the rest of his or her demographic? Of course, people are individuals with their own moral values (or lack of), intelligence, and talents. Stereotyping is, however, a method that people use, consciously or subconsciously, as an efficient way of economizing on information costs.

For example, if somebody offered you $1 million to solve a complex mathematical problem and, furthermore, you could choose anybody on a university campus to help you, I doubt you would choose the Paris Hilton–type sorority girl or the Abercrombie and Fitch–wearing fraternity boy. Now consider the young man wearing glasses and a pocket protector in his short-sleeve, button-down shirt: would you not think that he is a better bet?

If you were a soccer coach and had to draft a player for your team and the only information you had was that Player A is from Brazil and Player B is from the United States, who would you choose?

Finally, assume that you are walking down the street and you have only two choices — either walk on the left side of the street or the right side of the street. Before you choose, you notice that on the left side there are ten tattooed, muscular men with shaved heads walking and talking together, while on the right side you see ten “clean-cut” men wearing dress shirts and ties carrying Bibles. Now, what would you do?

If you chose the “nerdy” student with the pocket protector in the first scenario, the Brazilian player in the second scenario, and the right side of the street in the third scenario, are you being immoral or “prejudiced”? In fact, what does the word “prejudice” really mean? One of the definitions that is normally overlooked is “a preconceived preference or idea.” In other words, prejudice simply means pre-judging.

Of course you may not be correct in your judgment, and your later judgments will be affected by the success or failure of the accuracy of your forecasts. But the alternative is to use a completely random basis on which to make pre-judgments, which is very silly and probably impossible.

In his article “Non Politically Correct Thinking”, my former professor and economist Dr. Walter Williams argued

“… that going to the word’s Latin root, to pre-judge simply means: making decisions on the basis of incomplete information. Here’s an example. Suppose leaving your workplace you see a full-grown tiger standing outside the door. Most people would endeavor to leave the area in great dispatch. That prediction isn’t all that interesting but the question is why. Is your decision to run based on any detailed information about that particular tiger or is it based on tiger folklore and how you’ve seen other tigers behaving? It’s probably the latter. You simply pre-judge that tiger; you stereotype him. If you didn’t pre-judge and stereotype that tiger, you’d endeavor to obtain more information, like petting him on the head and doing other friendly things to determine whether he’s dangerous. Most people quickly calculate that the likely cost of an additional unit of information about the tiger exceeded any benefit and wouldn’t bother to seek additional information. In other words, all they need to know is he’s a tiger.”

Acquiring information is costly. Moreover, we assume that rational people economize. As beings who want to get the “biggest bang for their buck,” people will apply this rational behavior to information as well. Assuming that I am that person who, when he sees a tiger running at him, gets scared and tries to run to safety, am I being unfair or prejudiced? If I hear there is a murderer in my neighborhood, am I prejudiced if I start looking around the neighborhood for a suspicious looking male rather than a female?

This topic of course has implications when it comes to social policy. After 9/11, the Transportation Security Administration agents at airports, to show that they were impartial, would pull aside old ladies and little children to make sure that they were not carrying dangerous items that could lead to terrorism.

I can recall that one time when I was traveling, a TSA agent pulled aside a young blonde girl for additional screening rather than checking the adult men that were going on that flight. Did it make me feel safer to know that politics and not security was foremost on the mind of the screeners? Not particularly.

Providing security requires the use of scarce means. In a world of imperfect knowledge, economizing on information is a tool that should not have to be defended.

In another important area, government’s interventionist policies in the labor market can make the bad kind of discrimination we normally think about more prevalent. For example, European Union countries have very strict laws on firing people compared to the United States. Because of this, it is more costly for a firm to hire somebody.

Now, if I am an employer and I know that I am stuck with a worker once I hire him, don’t you think I will be more likely to economize on information (i.e., discriminate) before I hire him? Conversely, in a free-market, I will be more likely to take a risk on somebody and give him a chance (and not indulge my initial “prejudices”) because I know if he ends up being a poor selection, I can easily fire him. Those who advocate “fair labor laws” had better be careful what they ask for.

The poster: $10

Economics affects our everyday lives. Economics can be viewed as the study of individual human actors making choices. Of course, people should not be rude to others based on looks, race, or gender. I also know that there are a lot of ignorant, mean-spirited people who assume things about others that are completely baseless. But in the market economy, they also pay a price for being wrong.

Let us remember that we live in a world of scarcity, that economizing on information can be efficient, and that sometimes the reason stereotypes exist is because, well, they’re true.

By the way, I am half-Hispanic and half-Middle Eastern. I am not your “stereotypical” WASP — but I’m sure you didn’t think that while reading my article … right?

---

Ninos Malek is a graduate student in the Economics Department at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. Send him mail. Comment on the blog.I think that this makes a pretty good case for some stereotyping/profiling.

Ayn Rand Institute Press Release
http://www.aynrand.org/
Stem Cell Breakthrough Won’t Satisfy Religious Conservatives
August 24, 2006
 
Irvine, CA–“The researchers at Advanced Cell Technology should be congratulated for their scientific breakthrough,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. “But their new method of creating stem cell lines will not stop religious opposition to scientific progress.”

In developing a method of extracting embryonic stem cells without destroying the embryo, the team was, in part, trying to address the concerns of those opposed to the destruction of embryos. As the team leader said: “There is no rational reason left to oppose this research.”

“But there has never been a rational reason to oppose embryonic stem cell research,” said Dr. Brook. “The opposition comes mainly from religious conservatives and is–by their own declaration–based on faith, not on reason. It is based on the irrational belief that a mere clump of cells is a full-fledged human being.”

“There is no rational reason to morally oppose this research, and its potential to produce treatments for such diseases as diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s is ample reason to morally support it.

“It is a mistake to try to appease religious conservatives on this issue. What they are opposed to, fundamentally, is science as such.”

My comments follow, the above came through bold-ed;

I happen to disagree. As a former member of Libertarians for Life I happen to believe that life begins at conception, and that destroying said life is akin to murder. Yes, I am well aware that most of our medical knowledge having to do with hypothermia comes from Nazi experimentation. Ethically, I am a Kantian, not Utilitarian. The ends do not justify the means.

Further, the author severely discounts, or ignores that those very same stem cells can be harvested from umbilical cord blood without killing any life form that could become a human being. Other stem cells taken from adults have actually led to more breakthroughs than embryonic cell studies have in any case.

I truly expect better argumentation from a top of the line Libertarian think tank, not to even mention an Objectivist one.