Politics & Culture Blog

Edward Snowden thinks he isn’t a hero. That’s sad.

Snowden released secrets about the U.S. government’s domestic spying to the public. He paid a high price for this deed, going from a six-figure job in Hawaii to unemployment and exile, not to mention walking away from the girlfriend who had followed him to Hawaii. And he did it because of his commitment to online freedom and privacy: “My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them.”

If heroism is commitment to one’s chosen values, surely Snowden qualifies. If the key is that the values be great ones, keeping government in its place is as great as they come, and ensuring that people can keep secrets from the government qualifies too. If the key is great virtue, one would have to know the facts better than I do to be sure his action was rational, but that isn’t the cause of Snowden’s doubts. He plainly thinks he made the right decision.

Snowden denies his own heroism “because what I’m doing is self-interested: I don’t want to live in a world where there’s no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity.” That means: He denies that he’s a hero because he acted for the protection of values that were tremendously important to him.

He might as well say, I’m not a hero because I’m a hero. A person who paid a high price to prevent something of no importance to him would have wasted that price. Heroes pursue real values—values that have meaning in their lives. The great heroes of American freedom fought for their own freedom, not just other people’s.

Sadly, Snowden seems to have bought into the principle of altruism—that only what one does for others, and not what one does for oneself, has moral value. To be heroic, he seems to think, his action would have had to be self-sacrificial. He would have had to pay a high price for nothing that he wants. He would have had to have given up the job, the wealth, and the romance he had earned—and done it for no purpose of his own, not even to create the kind of world he wants to live in. That would not have been heroic, but pitiable and, quite simply, stupid.

True heroes fight for real values—and a real world—they really want. They should be proud of that.

Other thoughts on heroism:

• William R Thomas, American Heroism
• Robert Bidinotto, The Hero with a Singular Face
• Roger Donway, The Genealogy of Heroism

June 11, 2012 -- A soon-to-be-released study on future activities in space suggests that private Moon bases could be a reality as early as 2020.

Recently, NASA accepted a proposal by Robert Bigelow, founder of Bigelow Aerospace, to report on private-company plans for the final frontier. NASA was interested in learning more about private capabilities and plans for a Moon base, launch services, and other hardware developments. Bigelow submitted the first part of his report last week, well ahead of schedule. And the second and final part will come out over the summer.

Since humans first ventured off the planet half a century ago there has been no shortage of enthusiasts promoting every imaginable enterprise in orbit or on other worlds. But government regulations made many private projects nearly impossible. Further, NASA built hardware and performed operations that might have been contracted out to private companies; by contrast, in the early years of aviation the Post Office, rather than building its own planes, simply paid private pilots and companies to carry air mail.

But a loosening of regulations and a new NASA policy of contracting out for services have changed the space sector landscape. Now many too-costly endeavors could soon be fiscally—as well as technologically—feasible.

Bigelow himself is one of a new breed of entrepreneurs revolutionizing space-based enterprise. He has committed half a billion dollars of his personal fortune to developing innovative inflatable habitat modules that he wants to put into orbit at costs well below the equivalent modules for the International Space Station. And he wants them to be the habitats for a future Moon base as well. Bigelow already has launched two one-third size prototypes into orbit. And NASA has contracted with him to have one of his modules tested at the ISS (in 2015).

Bigelow hopes to have his modules placed into orbit by SpaceX, the cutting-edge space company headed by PayPal co-creator Elon Musk. Musk’s company already has launched three spacecraft that have berthed with the ISS and returned safely to Earth. In the future his rockets and spacecraft could carry humans to ISS, Bigelow’s orbiting private station, and even to the Moon. For his part, Musk says the long-term goal is Mars.

Of course, when NASA contracts for services, the taxpayers still foot the bill, though they pay less than if NASA were performing these operations itself. Still, what Bigelow and other out-of-this-world entrepreneurs want is a private market in space in which they can make profits. As private providers bring down the cost of space activities, private operations should supersede those undertaken by NASA. The Bigelow report reinforces a paradigm shift: space is a place, not a government program. And it is a place like the American West, one where private individuals are the best pioneers.
-----
Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society. 

For further information: 

*Aaron Day, “Steve Davis, SpaceX, And The Power Of Human Achievement.” May 16, 2013. 

*Edward Hudgins, “SpaceX’s Entrepreneurial Triumph!” May 25, 2012.

*Edward Hudgins, editor, Space: The Free-Market Frontier. Cato Institute, 2002.

Apple Inc. is under attack by politicians for “avoiding” paying $44 billion in American corporate taxes.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich) complained about tax “gimmicks” and Apple’s “unfair behavior,” saying “loopholes in our tax laws and regulations allow many companies … to shift enormous amounts of income from this country to other countries.” Making the whining bipartisan, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) complained that Apple “is one of the largest corporate tax avoiders.”

But in fact it's the politicians who deserve condemnation, not Apple.

First, as Apple CEO Tim Cook pointed out in Congressional testimony, his company paid all the corporate taxes it legally owed—estimated to be around $6 billion. It broke no law.

Second, anyone with a proper sense of self-worth seeks to pay no more taxes than they legally owe. If that’s “tax avoidance,” everyone does it and should do it. What kind idiot would Cook be if he said to his shareholders “Gee guys, let’s fork over tens of billions more to the feds above and beyond what we’re required to do”?

Third, if Apple had shoveled more of its cash into the federal government’s insatiable maw, this would have meant some combination of higher prices for Apple consumers, less Apple investment in developing cool new products, lower prices for Apple stock (check your portfolio!), and less profits for the individuals who earned it. Note: none of those “earning it” are members of Congress.

Fourth, the huge, arcane, incomprehensible tax code is a political document. Every deduction is there because Congress put it into law, whether it’s for oil companies purchasing drilling equipment or Green consumers purchasing Chevy Volts. Yes, it’s a mess. But…

Fifth, the reason the tax code is a mess is that political power is the coin of the realm. Few companies can stay “above politics” and survive. They always must watch for competitors who try to use the tax code or regulations to screw them. So every interest group—every business—tries to influence Congress to get benefits or at least protections worked into the law—and the politicians oblige. The result is a tangled, corrupt, crony-capitalist mess. 

Conclusion: Apple was not trying to screw anyone, just trying to use every legal means to keep from being looted.

Neither Apple nor any enterprise or individual needs to justify why they should keep their own money. The government must justify why it should take it away since the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our lives, liberty and—yes!—property. Most government activities nowadays are by no rational standard authorized by the Constitution. Most tax money is spent by political elites who arrogantly presume to run our lives. 

So let’s praise Apple both for being one of the world’s most productive companies and for keeping its tax bill low. And let’s condemn politicians who try to cripple the productive while demanding that the productive turn over more of the fruits of their productive efforts to politicians to be wasted.
---------
Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society.

For further information:

*Video: “The IRS Scandal and Tea Party Protests.” May 23, 2013.

*Video: “IRS Denied Non-profit Status To Free State Project.” May 20, 2013.

*Edward Hudgins, “The IRS and the Cult of Arbitrary Power." May 14, 2013.

*Aaron Day, “Voting With Your Wallet Against the IRS.” May 14, 2013.

*Edward Hudgins, “Steve Jobs vs. the Anti-Capitalists.”  October 5, 2011.

The Internal Revenue Service has targeted “Tea Party,” conservative-leaning, and even Jewish non-profits for special harassment. There is even an indication that the IRS might have targeted reporters perceived as hostile to President Obama.

Why are we surprised? This is the essence of the philosophy and politics of statist elites that are at war with the essence of America.

War over liberty

Our Founders held two basic principles: First, the purpose of government is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of individuals. Second, government is the greatest potential danger to liberty that exists, and it thus must be constrained by a constitution of limited and enumerated powers, checks and balances, federalism, and a Bill of Rights.

Today, the Founders' ideals are opposed by statist elites with a multi-headed monster of motivations. Some want to “do good” by spending other peoples’ money and by directing other peoples’ lives. Some are ignorant control freaks who think they’re smarter than everyone else and who get their kicks from wielding power. Others are driven by envy, an immoral urge to punish the successful and the prosperous for the “sin” of being successful and prosperous.

Unlimited arbitrary power

In the way of the statist elites stands the Constitution. Over time they’ve chipped away at its limits on power, pushing the envelope as far as possible at any given time. Now the scope of federal power is virtually unlimited. Health care, schools, cars, guns, toilets, diets, gardens—can you think of anything over which the feds don’t wield power?

The targets of Obama’s power are those he demonizes as the “rich.” Not his crony capitalist buddies to whom he gives bailouts and subsidies, but those who don’t volunteer to foot more of the bill for his profligate spending. And it gets personal.

For example, when Chrysler went bankrupt the administration developed a bailout scheme to protect its union allies. Under normal bankruptcy law, investors holding certain bonds would receive more compensation than the administration favored. Some of institutional investors wanted to protect the wealth of their clients—e.g. large pension funds—and refused to voluntarily give up their legal rights and acquiesce in Obama’s scheme. So White House operatives personally threatened certain non-compliant investors that the government would use its power to destroy them if they didn’t go along with the Obama bailout.

So why is anyone surprised that the IRS now has targeted perceived political opponents of the administration? Wielding arbitrary power is the philosophy and spirit of our times. This is just the logical next step.

Revolution of restraint

Those appalled by the IRS’s behavior should be appalled at the political regime that has been replacing that of the Founders. They should be appalled at the immoral arrogance of politicians who presume to be our rulers, even in the guise of benefactors.

The revolution to restore liberty must restore constitutional limits to government and spread the love of our own lives and personal autonomy to all of our hearts and minds.

For further reading:

*Edward Hudgins, “Obama’s Grab-Bag Socialism.” April 4, 2009.

*David Mayer, “Completing the American Revolution.” Spring 2009.

*William Thomas, “What Is The Objectivist View Of Law And Government (Politics)?”

Young America’s Foundation, the parent organization of Young Americans for Freedom, has released a new survey of young Americans. Apparently they’re for freedom. A large majority don’t want the federal government taking “an active role” in their daily lives, and a smaller majority don’t want it taking “an active role” in the lives of Americans in general—aside, of course, from its “essential functions.”

The problem is, what are the “essential functions” of government? The Objectivist answer can be summarized in familiar words: “to secure these rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (I’ll explain more in a webinar Monday night.)

The YAF survey, however, has a broader idea of government’s essential functions. It lists as examples “a capable military, food inspection, air, rail and road safety.” I’ll grant a capable military, but food inspection? If the government must inspect food, then the government can decide what kinds of foods people can sell, buy and eat, and maybe even what labels they may and may not put on it. Then if you want to try a cutting-edge food (or an old-fashioned one most people have moved away from), or if you want to avoid a new technology you don’t trust, you may not be able to.

And how about air safety? It’s not clear that that means groping at the airports—but it’s also not clear it doesn’t mean that, and the federal government thinks it does.

That ambiguity is emblematic. Food inspection and air safety are only offered as examples, which are supposed to indicate the nature of an open-ended list of government functions. Who knows what other regulations might be included on that list. Don’t forget: Advocates of regulations generally consider their programs important. Without a principled view of the function of government, how can you say any law isn’t “essential”? You may want fewer regulations in total, which would mean moving in the direction of freedom, but will you be able to specify any regulations to eliminate? Yet you can't reduce total regulations without eliminating some specific ones.

The survey shows an interest in moving in the direction of freedom, and that's good news. But a survey that asks whether government should go beyond an open-ended list of “essential” government functions doesn't tell us enough. If you want to know what percentage of young Americans really want a free society, you’ll need a better survey than this—a survey based on a clear understanding of how a free society would be governed.

Want to improve your understanding? Attend my webinar!

The George W. Bush Presidential Library is ready to open and the former president is giving interviews doubling down on the mantra that guided his administration: compassionate conservatism. 

So it is time to decisively and deeply bury the decayed remnant of the Bush years in an impenetrable political tomb with a stake through its heart. 

Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater both wished to limit government and defend individual liberty. Unlike them, Dubya sought to use the federal government as a tool to create a better society in accordance with his vision. 

Bush simply accepted that that the welfare state was here to stay, explaining recently that “entitlement was already in place” and “we were modernizing an antiquated system.” 

He explained that “The best way … to understand what I meant by ‘compassionate conservative’ is to look at the programs we implemented and look at the results.” Okay, let's do that! 

Bush increased the federal budget during his eight years by over 100 percent adjusting for inflation, more than any of his recent predecessors, including Lyndon Johnson. Bush also pushed up discretionary spending by nearly 100 percent as well. So blame him for setting the pace for Obama’s even-greater spending spree. 

The Bush prescription drug mandate not only added to the national debt but also set the groundwork and momentum for Obamacare. 

The Bush “No Child Left Behind” program to mandate federal education standards on local schools has been fraught with problems, such as “teaching to the test.” Education has not improved because of this costly and intrusive program; in fact, over the past three decades, as federal spending on education has grown, education results have stagnated. 

Today Bush argues that he wants to “defend principles and help implement policy based upon those principles.” But “compassionate conservatism” has nothing to do with principles. It’s an arbitrary hash of subjective “feel-good” big-government policies that push America further down the road to Western-European-style welfare state collapse. 

The Republican Party is engaged in a civil war concerning which ideas should guide it in the future. The statist policies of Bush and other establishment Republicans—John McCain, Mitt Romney—are to blame for tarnishing the GOP brand, resulting in recent election losses. If the Republicans want to return from the political dead, they’d better bury the Bush legacy for good.
-------
Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar for The Atlas Society.

For further reading:

*Edward Hudgins, “GOP Should Invite Social Conservative Extremists To Leave.” April 4, 2013.

*Edward Hudgins, “Obama Offers More of the Same Failed Education Ideas.” February 15, 2013.

*Robert Bidinotto, “Up From Conservatism.” March, 2007.

What a sorry spectacle! People in the world’s most developed countries turn off their brains and thus are guilt-tripped by environmentalists into turning off their lights for Earth Hour on Saturday. They visit upon themselves the curse of darkness that the poor in less developed countries pray will be lifted with an abundant supply of inexpensive electricity.

It would be one thing if the purpose of sitting sans illumination for one hour was to remind us of how wonderful it is to have energy for every modern convenience, and to encourage us rededicate ourselves to unleashing even more of it.

It would be one thing if the purpose was to remind us that we can cut our electric bills by clicking the off switch on lamps in rooms we’re not using though since it is our money, we know that anyway.

But the purpose of Earth Hour is “a massive show of concern for the environment.” It does not simply raise consciousness about real issues like polluted water or air that might harm human beings. It most of all perpetuates the radical environmentalist idea that the earth itself is of value apart from and even above humans, that it must be accorded “respect” as if it were a person, and that we humans must sacrifice our well-being and comfort in order to protect it from harm. Earth Hour perpetuates a wider, anti-human agenda.

Energy’s Enemies

Consider some of the efforts of the environmental extremists who are dedicated to limiting our access to inexpensive energy. They’re the ones behind the ban on tapping into an ocean of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. That area is larger than ten of America’s states. The drilling rigs altogether would cover only the area of an international airport. And the only “wildlife” drilling would really disturb would be mosquitoes in the endless wastes of mud and muck in the summer.

They’re the ones who want to ban the Keystone pipeline that would bring oil from Canada because that oil is extracted from tar sands. What’s so bad about tar sands? Nothing, other than the fact that using them  “disturbs” the environment,” like every other human activity.

Environmental extremists are the ones who want to ban “fracking,” a way of safely open up huge reserves of natural gas trapped deep below the surface. They and their Hollywood friends have created the fiction that fracking poisons the land, livestock, and people in the area. But no credible study, including those by the often-alarmist EPA, have found such a problem. For more info on this, check out the eye-opening movie FrackNation.

No fun in the dark

Those who want to fuzzy-mindedly feel good about themselves by turning off their lights on Saturday should reflect on what a boon it is to have electricity and what a burden it is to not have it.

Last summer the people in the Washington, D.C. area didn’t like one bit finding themselves in the position of their impoverished neighbors of other country. A storm knocked out the electricity, in some areas for a week. And D.C. in July without air conditioning, to say nothing of TV, internet, cell phones and anything needing plugs or chargers, underscores the meaning of primitive.

In fall 2012 Hurricane Sandy devastated houses, businesses, and lives in the northeast. Some 6 million people were without power in its wake. The misery was compounded for of hundreds of thousands who had to suffer without electricity in the following weeks.

Perhaps you’ve seen the now-iconic satellite photo of the East Asian area at night. We see lights forming a slight crescent-shape, the island of Japan, surrounded by the darkness of the sea. To the bottom left of the crescent we see another pattern of lights which looks like another island in the sea. Then a little further left we see a blaze of lights forming a huge Chinese mainland. But that seemingly isolated island is, in fact, South Korea. It is connected to the mainland via North Korea, which is virtually light-free; In North Korea, it’s Earth Hour every hour, a radical Gaea-worshipper’s paradise. (And there's no evil capitalism there, either!)|

For the love of humanity

Symbolism as well as substance matters. And the symbolism of Earth Hour is truly antithetical to human well-being. The “environment” is of value only relative to humans. We might value a forest because we can walk through it and enjoy its beauty or because we can harvest its trees to build our homes.

And what distinguishes we humans from lower animals is that we use our minds to utilize the material world for our own benefit, so we can survive in comfort and realize our own dreams. And unleashing energy is key to any worthwhile human achievement.

So don’t be suckered into turning off your lights for Earth Hour. Leave them all on as a sign of your support for a human-centered morality and as a celebration of human achievement.

Hudgins is director of advocacy and a senior scholar at The Atlas Society.

EXPLORE:

Robert James Bidinotto, “Death by Environmentalism.” March, 2004.

Edward Hudgins, “Energy & Environment: The Moral Battle of Our Day.” August 8, 2008.

William R Thomas, “Why Ecology Requires Economics.” April, 2005.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) joined Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) a number of times on the Senate floor this Wednesday in Paul’s heroic 13-hour “Mr. Smith” style filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination to head the Central Intelligence Agency. Among a series of thought-provoking questions on the role of government in a free society, praise of Sen. Paul’s excellent character as a statesman and for the first time in history giving a voice to the “twitterverse” in the US Senate, Sen. Cruz did something you see almost as rarely as an elected official actually fighting for the heart and soul of constitutional government: he brought Ayn Rand to Capitol Hill.

“One of my all time heroes, Ayn Rand, in Atlas Shrugged described how the parasitical class would put into place arbitrary power. Standard-less rules precisely so the productive citizens in the private sector would have to come on bended knee to those in government seeking special dispensation, seeking special favors because that arbitrary and standard-less rule empowers the political class and disempowers the people. I couldn’t help but think about Ayn Rand’s observations.”

Referring to a hearing earlier that day, in which Eric Holder was grilled on whether or not it would be constitutional for the federal government to kill US citizens on US soil, Cruz found himself “thinking of those arbitrary standards Ayn Rand talked about. That if the only protection we the people have against the federal government choosing to take the life of a US citizen on US soil is our trust that they would refrain from doing what is inappropriate rather than the protections of the constitution then I would suggest that our liberty is fragile, indeed.”

Although Cruz may be correct that American liberty is fragile, it is the long awaited arrivals of leaders like him, Mike Lee, and others who stood with Rand Paul on Wednesday that give Americans a powerful sense of hope for the future. And in that future, our liberties are not fragile. They are not weak, nor fleeting. They are robust and long-lasting and will finally reopen the way for the heroic individualism that made America everything it is today, and everything it has the potential of being tomorrow. 

 Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has announced that the U.S. military will make its default policy one of equality for women. No general class of jobs, including combat-related positions, will be off-limits to female soldiers once a transition phase is completed. (Apparently, some case-by-case exclusions may continue.)

It's about time!

People are individuals most of all, and it is rare for any skill-based job to be one that only people of one sex can perform. It's a principle of rational individualism to judge people by their abilities and actions, not by their race, sex, hair color, or any other less essential characteristic. It is right, just, and is the most effective policy to employ those most qualified on objective grounds.

But now, a new challenge may arise. In many fields, the opening of opportunity to excluded groups, including women, has quickly lead to collectivist benchmarking. The military currently insists that each solider be objectively qualified for the work he or she does. But how soon will it become imperative to include more women, no matter how standards must be twisted? How soon will people just ask why the percentage of women is not such-and-such, rather than asking whether an objective process of assessment has been applied to all soldiers in all positions. 

Still, for now, let's congratulate the Joint Chiefs of Staff for taking this long-needed step forward. 

President Barack Obama’s inauguration for his second term was held on Martin Luther King’s birthday with Obama’s hand on King’s and President Lincoln’s Bibles. The event was tinged with grim irony.

Four years ago most Americans, no matter their party, could celebrate the election of a black American to the presidency. Obama's election showed that one’s race need not be a barrier to the highest aspirations. Yet today we witnessed the celebration of enslavement by those being enslaved.

Nature of liberation

To understand this sad spectacle let’s start with race. Dr. King rightly fought against laws that overtly discriminated against blacks.  And he was fond of quoting the Declaration of Independence’s understanding that “all Men are created equal” and its vision that each individual is endowed “with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Let’s fill in here the unique vision of America, “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

King also famously declared, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

In a free society that moral code would mean that we each strive for our own happiness and pursue our own dreams through our own individual efforts; that we each take responsibility for our own lives and actions; and that we accord our fellows equal rights to live their own lives, dealing with them based on mutual consent, and judging them based on who they are.

Liberty betrayed

Since King’s times, most black leaders and white liberals have insisted that blacks be judged first and foremost as members of their racial group rather than by the extent to which they take charge of their own lives and take pride in their achievements as individuals. Worse, these leaders have encouraged blacks to think of themselves as helpless victims, as children entitled to special state-provided handouts and privileges.

The morality of irresponsibility created the pathologies of broken families, crime, and chronic poverty. This benefits only the race hustlers—touted by the liberal media—who require a dependent class to exploit, hustlers such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Obama’s preacher Reverend Wright, and Rep. Maxine Waters.

Obama could have broken this pathology.  In his second inaugural address he spoke of “Our celebration of initiative and enterprise, our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.” But these were empty, cynical words.

Rather than using the bully pulpit of his office to celebrate individual achievers, the theme of his administration has been to demonize them, as he did again in his inaugural address by declaring that “our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.” It’s tax time!

Obama has pushed the entitlement mindset  as well as actual handouts into overdrive, for example, with more individuals on food stamps than ever. Blacks are more entrapped in the plantation of a soul-killing moral code than ever before.

Transcendent collectivism

Obama is in one true sense a president who has transcended race. He is foisting on all Americans, regardless of race, the morality of entitlement as well as the entitlements themselves that have created the pathologies that make so miserable the lives of many blacks. Obamacare is but the most notable example.

In his inaugural address Obama quoted the Declaration on the rights of individuals to our own lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. But he then distorted the meaning of those words by stating, for example, that “Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life’s worst hazards and misfortune.”  Not individuals caring for their own families and friends but the “nation”--that is, the collective as manifest in paternalist political elites.

Obama then turned truly Orwellian. He stated that “preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.” And that action was not based on voluntary cooperation but, rather, on government action and mandates.

We heard nothing in Obama’s speech about the record deficits that he has racked up with his profligate spending. We heard nothing of the continued economic stagnation and high unemployment, especially in the black community. We simply heard a celebration of the welfare state and a promise of something even worse.  Obama proposed to make the fight against global warming a priority, a war on energy production that strikes at the heart of our industrial economy and that will depress living standards for all Americans.

Perhaps the most depressing part of the inauguration was the throngs of those Americans who are being slowly enslaved to the state by Obama’s policies and collectivist views cheering their enslaver.

But freedom cannot be snuffed out so easily. There are still enough Americans who understand where Obama is taking the country and who are acting to stop it. But they must not attack only the policies of Obama and his ilk as economically irresponsible. This is a battle of philosophies. They must counter Obama’s collectivism with a true individualism based on the morality of holding one’s own life as one’s highest value and accepting nothing less than the freedom to pursue one’s own happiness—the vision of America’s Founders.
------------
Hudgins is director of advocacy for The Atlas Society.

For further reading:

*Walter Donway, “Nationalizing the Financial Industry.” July 25, 2012.

*Alexander Cohen, “The Radical but Conservative Declaration of Independence.” January 31, 2011.

*Edward Hudgins, “Thoughts on Racial Thinking.” January 17, 2009.

*Edward Hudgins, “Will America Unite Under One Obama?” December 29, 2008.

*Edward Hudgins, “Color and Character.” January 17, 2003.