Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Self Interest, Business Ethics, Ayn Rand, Egoism, Individualism

Are self interest and morality opposed to one another?  Many individuals attempt to make other individuals believe that this is so.  I don’t think that the two are opposed.

Are ethics concerned with self interest when considered from a business standpoint?  Is egoism bad?

Stephen Hicks, Ph.D has cast his mind to the above questions, and more, in an essay he has penned titled Ayn Rand and Contemporary Business Ethics.

The essay is 26 pages long, and in a pdf format, but provides excellent reading for the thinking individual.  You can download it here.

Below follow a few choice excerpts.  Though I think the entire essay should be posted and spread far and wide.

My purpose in this essay is to defend the egoism that the business world depends upon. Business is about production and trade. Production is a consequence of individuals taking responsibility for their lives and exercising rational judgment about their needs and how to fulfill them. Trade is a consequence of productive individuals. willingness to interact cooperatively to mutual benefit. These principles, responsibility, rationality, cooperation, are core principles in any healthy moral system, and form the core principles of the business world.

And this.

Of course not all individuals in the business world act responsibly, rationally, and cooperatively. Such problem cases are, however, aberrations.  Business exists and flourishes to the extent individuals in the business world are productive and cooperative, so the major part of business ethics should be about what principles enable individuals to function productively and cooperatively.  But because of the problems that can be created by irresponsible, irrational, and uncooperative individuals, part of business ethics deals with how productive individuals should solve the problems caused by the irresponsible.

And this.

Individualism is built into the nature of human life.

More, and very important to note.

Groups don’t do things; the individuals in the group do.

Another important point.

In summary, the case for individualism is that only individuals think, only individuals know, only individuals act, and only individuals can consume the product of their actions. In other words, human life is individual.  Individuals are both the producers of value and the consumers of value.  Individuals are both the means of value seeking and the end of that value seeking. Others may assist or interfere in the process, but they cannot live your life for you.

As I mentioned, this is an excellent essay and should be disseminated far and wide.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/13 at 08:19 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Lights, Action, Camera - You're Under Arrest

Via The Agitator, we are alerted to a story concerning a young man by the name of Brian D. Kelly, a young man with an interest in film making.  Unfortunately, Mr. Kelly has had a run in with the law.

Brian D. Kelly didn’t think he was doing anything illegal when he used his videocamera to record a Carlisle police officer during a traffic stop. Making movies is one of his hobbies, he said, and the stop was just another interesting event to film.

Now he’s worried about going to prison or being burdened with a criminal record.

Kelly, 18, of Carlisle, was arrested on a felony wiretapping charge, with a penalty of up to 7 years in state prison.

Think about both the injustice of this, and the two faced attitude cops have regarding being filmed.

Cops love to be filmed, well as long as the filming is being done by a teevee show such as COPS, or the cancelled teevee show Armed & Famous.

Are the cops pressing charges in Mr. Kelly’s case because they do not have editing rights to Mr. Kelly’s filming?  And just why is there a law prohibiting the filming of cops as they perform their duties?  Are the cops concerned about being filmed by passerbys due to past actions such as the beating of Robert Davis in New Orleans, which was recorded on film by a simple “citizen” with no directing credentials?

And what about the attitude taken by the First Assistant District Attorney involved in Mr. Kelly’s case, who spouts off with the following comment.

First Assistant District Attorney Jaime Keating said case law is in flux as to whether police can expect not to be recorded while performing their duties.

“The law isn’t solid,” Keating said. “But people who do things like this do so at their own peril."

Yeah, “To Protect and To Serve,” is the standard police motto, which you see plastered on many a cop car, but not on film, unless you’re associated with a big time teevee network or Hollywood, otherwise you may be in peril.

The complete story regarding Brian D. Kelly can be read here.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/13 at 05:30 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Move Over, Tortoises

Many individuals, myself included, have thought, or been led to believe, that a tortoise’s lifespan is one of the longest in the animal kingdom.  A tortoise indeed can live a long time, but it apparently may have competition.

A 50-ton bowhead whale caught off the Alaskan coast last month had a weapon fragment embedded in its neck that showed it survived a similar hunt — more than a century ago.

Embedded deep under its blubber was a 3 1/2-inch arrow-shaped projectile that has given researchers insight into the whale’s age, estimated between 115 and 130 years old.

Just an interesting item to note on a Wednesday morning.

19th-century weapon found in whale

Posted by John Venlet on 06/13 at 05:12 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Serendipity Via a "Resolute Atheist"

About an hour ago, I got a call from a good friend, Ster.  It was not a call I necessarily enjoyed receiving.  You see he called to inform me that he received word he is going to die in three to eighteen months.  Pancreatic cancer.  Damn.

What could I say to Ster in response to his news?  Sorry to hear that.  Shit, Ster, you and the wife just had that beautiful baby girl.  Damn it, Ster, how are you going to handle this?  All of which I said, amongst other things, as we spoke on the phone.

Because this news kinda threw me off what I’m supposed to be working on at the moment, I started clicking around, not in a real interested sort of way, but just kind of stumbling around to see if any thing recently written caught my eye.  Well, something did.

I clicked by Wendy McElroy’s and read this.

A hat tip to David K. for forwarding this inspiring profile of a man who refuses to be a victim of circumstances and, so, instead celebrates them. Even a resolute atheist (like me) can admire such a man of courage.

The inspiring profile she linked to led to a piece in the LA Times on David Scholer, who is a prof at the Fuller Theological Seminary.  The piece is titled ‘Rejoice always’: a lesson in dying and, as Wendy stated, Scholer can be admired for his courage in the face of his current travails.

I hope that Ster can resolutely tap his courage to face the spector which currently is attacking him.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/12 at 10:20 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

War, Economics, Altruism, Volunteers, and Grief

The horrors of war are well known to most individuals.  The U.S.’ current military operations are no exception to this known horror. But just why, exactly, beyond the loss individual families have had to bear when one of their sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, or lovers, has been killed, is the general public so upset about these deaths?

At The Becker-Posner Blog, Gary Becker and Richard Posner are considering this, from an economic standpoint.  Richard Posner’s input to this discussion is titled Ex Ante Compensation for Military Death and his post, and the comments which follow, make for interesting reading.  From Posner’s post.

The public is upset by the casualties that our soldiers are suffering in the Iraq war, and it might seem that their upset would cause no puzzlement even to an economist. But there is an economic puzzle. It is this. Ours is an all-volunteer military. No one is forced to join. Everyone who does join realizes that he may find himself in a combat zone. This is an expected cost of military employment and in a competitive labor market will be reflected in the wage. That is, the wage rate in a competitive labor market will compensate a worker for any risks that the particular employment can be expected to create--a proposition that goes back to Adam Smith. If the risk materializes, the employee has no cause to complain, provided it was the risk that he understood the job involved or should have understood it involved when he signed up for it, because he was compensated in advance. Yet that is not how the public views our military casualties. That is the economic puzzle which I address.

Gary Becker’s input to this discussion is titled Comment on Military Pay, and is also worth your time in reading.  From Becker’s post.

Although the pay required to attract volunteers rose after casualties began to appear in large numbers in Iraq, it did not rise by a large amount. Yet even small increases in the probability of losing one’s life are valued highly when young persons are asked to take on the risks found in different civilian occupations. When directly applied to military risks, these estimates suggest that if the Iraq war increased the chances of dying to a typical new member of the American military force by one percent per year of service, this would require about a $3000 increase in pay for each year of service for each person in the military. The amount would be considerably higher for those who knew they would be posted into military action in Iraq, and would be higher in general if one percent is lower than the true risk.

The comments associated with Becker’s post also are an interesting read.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/12 at 07:02 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday, June 11, 2007

Free Speech at Risk

What do the words and terms “family values,” “marriage,” and “natural family” have in common?  Well, if you reside in the State of California, which, unfortunately, falls under the cognizance of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, utilizing the words and terms mentioned above in a flier, or in talking with an acquaintance, could possibly end up having you convicted of a “hate speech” crime because the homosexual community may find these words and terms offensive.

You think I’m kidding?  I’m not.

In the case of Good News Employee Association vs. Hicks, said court ruled that

Public employers are permitted to curtail employee speech as long as their “‘legitmate administrative interests’ outweigh the employee’s interest in freedom of speech.

The case actually had its origins some time ago, though this is the first I’ve heard about it.  The Washington Times is reporting on this story, today, in a piece titled Suit to decide workplace ‘hate speech.’ From the Times piece.

The dispute began in January 2003, when the two Oakland employees created a subgroup at their workplace called the “Good News Employee Association.” It was partly in response to a group of homosexual employees having formed their own group 10 months before and being given access to the city e-mail system. One e-mail, dated Oct. 11, 2002, invited city employees to participate in “National Coming-Out Day.”
When several employees asked whether such a posting was legitimate city business, they got an e-mail from City Council member Danny Wan, reminding them that a “celebration of the gay/lesbian culture and movement” was part of the city’s role to “celebrate diversity.”
In response, the Good News employees posted an introductory flier on the employee bulletin board Jan. 3.
It said: “Preserve Our Workplace With Integrity: Good News Employee Association is a forum for people of faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day.” It said it opposed “all views which seek to redefine the natural family and marriage,” which it defined as “a union of a man and a woman, according to California state law."

Well, I want to celebrate individuals’ right to free speech, which is part and parcel of “celebrate diversity,” and this case is not a cause for celebration, though it does almost make me cackle with manical laughter.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/11 at 04:58 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

"Poisoned Love Affair," Indeed

Interesting piece on line at the New Statesman written by Robert Service.  Service’s piece was written more as a critique of a review which somewhat criticized his book Comrades!: A History of World Communism, which I must state I have not had the pleasure of reading, but none-the-less, it makes for an interesting read.  A couple of short excerpts.

Communism, like nuclear fuel, has a long afterlife. In country after country across Europe - from Russia to Albania - it has been discredited for its record in power.

And more importantly, this.

The point is that repression was not some aberrant phenomenon under communist rule around the world. It was ideologically condoned in advance; it proved also to be a practical necessity for the consolidation of communist states. Communists from the 1920s through to the 1940s were frank about this: they eulogised dictatorship. Subsequently, they avoided debate on the matter or else contended that they would break with the models provided by historical communist states. They never explained how they would introduce communism except by massive force. The ghosts of the victims of all those bloody purges cry out for us to reject the printed apologias for the communist past.

Service’s piece is titled Party politics.

Linked via Arts & Letters Daily.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/11 at 07:55 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Complicity for a Price

The amount of data that can be garnered from individuals’ internet activities, via large internet players like Google and Yahoo, is technologically amazing.

Here in America, we may feel somewhat insulated from the state’s prying eyes when they desire to see into individuals’ private internet activities, but that insulated feeling is probably unjustified.  In China, users of the internet, in all likelihood, do not feel this insulation, as Chinese individuals are subjected to the state’s prying eyes in their homes, while eating noodles on the street, while performing their jobs, in all aspects of their daily lives from birth to death.

Just what part do Google and Yahoo play in the repression of the Chinese and in the protection of individuals’ privacy?

Privacy International gives Google the worst possible privacy protection rating, and Yahoo is currently being sued by journalist Shi Tao, who has been jailed by the Chinese with the complicity of data received from Yahoo concerning Tao’s private internet activities.

While Google has successfully fought the state in U.S. courts, over the state’s desire to delve into data Google compiles while individuals surf the net, in China Google is more apt to rollover to accept the state’s belly rub if Chinese authorities desire to peer where they have no business peering, as Yahoo did in the case of Shi Tao.

What justification does Yahoo give for supplying the Chinese government with data utilized to imprison Tao?

However, Yahoo! added that companies operating in China must comply with Chinese law or risk having their employees face civil or criminal penalties.

Ah, the “law,” the beast that devours freedom.  So, because Chinese law decrees that internet companies like Yahoo and Google must crawl in bed and play nicey nice in order to do business, i.e. inform on individuals’ private internet activities at the behest of the state, will these companies do the same in the United States when the state finally gets around to imposing the same type of information sharing laws as a requirement to do business?

Yahoo can condemn the Chinese government all they want regarding the repression of Chinese freedom of speech on the internet, but when it comes to making a buck, whether in China or the U.S., what will the price of complicity be?

Yahoo Weighs in on Free Speech in China

Posted by John Venlet on 06/11 at 05:41 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

No Kidding, Paris Hilton

It’s a sad commentary on our times when Paris Hilton’s self inflicted legal travails so consume the media it’s the lead story on every network, and the public laps it up like it’s the nectar of the gods.

Well, Paris Hilton finally said something that actually makes sense.

Get over it, says Paris Hilton

Posted by John Venlet on 06/11 at 05:25 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Over Stems and Seeds

Today, many police raids do not begin with a knock on the door, but rather with a door busting invasion of body armour suited coppers wielding machine guns, stun grenades, and whatever other high priced military grade weapons police departments can get their hands on courtesy of the Department of Homeland Insecurity.

The city of Grand Rapids, Michigan is not immune to this trend of police smash and grab raids in the name of so called “war on drugs,” and here’s a case where a couple who experienced such a raid first hand are fighting back, and oh so slowly beating back the unthinking goons who busted in their doors for stems and seeds.

Police swept through the Jansmas’ home in August 2003 and found marijuana—mostly stems and seeds, plastic baggies and a small scale.

The Jansmas were charged with hindering and opposing a police officer, drug possession and maintaining a drug house. Police later seized the home.

Just why did the cops target the Jansma’s home for a raid?

Police were led to the home after a group of teens were found smoking marijuana outside Alger Elementary School. The teens said they purchased the marijuana from one of the Jansmas’ sons.

So on the word of a “group of teens” smoking a bit of herb outside an elementary school, stupid in and of itself, the Jansma’s have their door kicked in, the Missus’ wrist and arm broken, and their home confiscated because their son sold a spliff to some teenagers who don’t have the sense to be discrete.

Of course the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan police department, and the city’s attorneys, “believe” their strong arm actions are justified, as so succinctly stated here.

Lawyers, representing the city in the couple’s 2005 civil rights lawsuit, say Jelte and Janine Jansma got what’s coming to people who bring drugs into neighborhoods.

The Jansmas have fought back against these over zealous tactics, and are slowly regaining a semblance of normality to their lives.  All charges have been dropped, they have regained their home from the state, and they have filed a $1 million dollar civil suit against Grand Rapids’ police department.

But all this occurred over a joint sold by the Jansma’s son, and stems and seeds.  Ridiculous.

Couple’s battle rages on vs. Grand Rapids

Posted by John Venlet on 06/11 at 04:33 AM
(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Goin' Fishin'

The fishing report is outstanding, barring any further big rains anyway, so I’m headed North, to wander deep into the Mason Tract, fly rod in hand, to night fish the South Branch of the Au Sable river.  Throwing nothing but dry flies.

I’ll also be doing the same to my little crick outside of Luzerne, Michigan, which will remain nameless, as this blue ribbon water provides me with the solitude its more famous compatriots cannot.  Though night fishing does keep the less stoic away.

See ya Sunday, or possibly Monday, Tuesday at the latest.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/07 at 11:27 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

PC Mission Nose Scrub

Remember when the display of pin-up girls on airplane noses was consider innocuous, and was a matter of some pride for the pilots and crew who flew the planes in harm’s way?  Well, RAF pilots will no longer be able to display such nose art.

In killer heels and little else, they have a definite deadly charm.

But the risque images of women that have decorated warplanes since the First World War have been scrubbed out.

The Ministry of Defence has decreed they could offend the RAF’s female personnel.

There must’ve been a complaint, or two, uttered one would think, but that is not the case.

Officials admitted they had no record of any complaints from the 5,400 women in the RAF.

It’s a pity that PCism has come this far.

PC brigade ban pin-ups on RAF jets - in case they offend women and Muslims

Via The Dougout.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/07 at 04:44 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Update on "Freedom of Speech, Denied"

Last September, in a post I titled Freedom of Speech, Denied, I noted that Karen Fletcher, whom I described as a writer of “revolting rot,” was being prosecuted for writing about the sexual and physical abuse of children.  Note, once again, that Ms. Fletcher was simply writing about this, not DOING this.

There has not been alot of news about this case available since September 2006.  In fact, the most recent news item I can find on the case was published May 10, 2007 by the Pittsburgh City Paper.

The piece does provide a bit of additional detail, and it does note that Ms. Fletcher is being represented by Lawrence Walters, whom the paper describes as “a nationally known First Amendment lawyer.”

I’ve not heard of Mr. Walters, but, I’ve not had the need of a First Amendment attorney, yet.

The piece also relates that the prosecuting attorney, one Mary Beth Buchanan, is also going after a company called Extreme Associates for obscenity.  That case was dismissed by one judge, only to have Mary Beth continue to hound the company for obscenity through the use of the appellate courts.

To make a long story short, Ms. Fletcher’s travails are currently continuing due to Mary Beth Buchanan’s attitude, which goes something like this.

The fact that the stories were ficticious is irrelevant, Buchanan said last fall.

I stand, firmly, with what I stated last September when I first posted on this subject.

What is at issue, here, is the denial of freedom of speech, plain and simple.  The speech being protected may be disturbing, it may be down right disgusting, and may appeal to the lowest form of humankind which can walk upright and supposedly think, but it is still the denial of freedom of speech.

The Pittsburgh City Paper titles the story Dirty Words.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/06 at 01:41 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Credit Ratings For Sale

Do you know your credit score?  Did you know that if your credit score is high enough, say above 750, you just might be able to make some money from that fact?

Only a low credit score stood between Alipio Estruch and a mortgage to buy a $449,000 Spanish-style house in Weston, Fla., a few miles west of Fort Lauderdale.

Instead of spending several years repairing his credit rating, which he said was marred by two forgotten cell phone bills and identity theft, the 37-year-old real estate agent paid $1,800 to an Internet-based company to bump up his score almost overnight.

The article continues further in.

Instantcreditbuilders.com, or ICB, helped Estruch boost his score by arranging for him to be added as an authorized user on several credit cards of people with stellar credit who were paid to allow this coattailing. Parents also use this practice when they add their children to their credit cards to help them build solid credit.

This bit of information of course has many lenders up in arms, whining for legislation, natch, and let’s not neglect to mention that the major credit bureaus are also a bit perturbed.

If you want to sell your excellent credit rating for profit, though, you had better hurry.  Fair Issac is re-tooling their software, as are the three major credit bureaus, to combat this loophole.

‘Piggybacking’ roils credit industry

Posted by John Venlet on 06/06 at 12:39 PM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Good Question with Good Answer

Writing at Townhall.com, John Stossel titles a piece Why Is Profit a Dirty Word?

From the piece.

When did profit become a dirty word?”

I wish the oil executives would face the media. They could say something like:

“What are you complaining about? What do you think we do with our profits? Buy fancy cars and homes? Well, we do, actually, but nearly all the money goes to looking for more oil and following environmental rules that you want us to follow. You should want us to make more profit. Anyway, we make less profit per gallon than your beloved government takes in taxes.”

But Big Oil never shouts back at the reporters. I guess I can’t blame them, given the hostility of the economically ignorant media.

The “economically ignorant media.” Good answer, and I might add that the economically ignorant media passes their ignorance on, in buckets full, to the economically ignorant public.

Posted by John Venlet on 06/06 at 12:27 PM
(2) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 4 of 5 pages « First  <  2 3 4 5 >