Author Archives: aynrand

John Stuart Mill suggests in his article “Avoid Millionaire Tax or End Homelessness” that an additional tax on the rich is necessary to aid the homeless. Any tax levied for any purpose other than the defense of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness is an overreach by the government. Increasing taxes on one segment of the society for the benefit of the other is even more unjust. Mill claims the rich are “entitled” if they believe it is unfair for them to be taxed to aid the less fortunate. However, it is those who expect to benefit from the labor of others who are entitled. Mill frames the issue as rich vs. poor, but in actuality the issue is the industrious vs. the unproductive.

Man should be guided by the principle of pursuing his own happiness, not the collective happiness or a greater good as Mill asserts. He claims, “we should strive for a better society as a whole.” What he fails to understand is there is no “we”; there is no “society.” America is nothing more than a collection of individuals pursuing their own interests. If you believe otherwise, then you also believe that the interests of some men are to be sacrificed to the interests and wishes of others. A nation requiring men to sacrifice their products for the benefit of others reduces some to slavery. A slave can be categorized as anyone who doesn’t benefit from their labor and that’s what this tax will do. It will take the hardworking, the productive and force them to work so others can benefit.

Every man has a right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Mill and other collectivists have misinterpreted these as absolute rights. They could not be more wrong, the right to property means one has the right to pursue property, not to have it provided for him. The purpose of the government is to protect these aforementioned rights. A tax on the rich doesn’t serve the purpose of protecting individual rights; it in fact does the opposite. The government is removing the individual’s right to their property, which was earned by their own pursuits. This new affront is just another example of government fast approaching the stage where it does whatever it pleases; extracting taxes from anyone for any “public project” it wishes. The government, with its monopoly on force, will cause death and destruction, as does every country that resorts to socialist policies to repair inequality.

The government officials who wish to increase taxes for the benefit of those in need are attempting to accomplish a desirable goal. However, they are foregoing their mental processes when they forget the cost of their desires. That cost is the potential loss of productivity by removing money from those who have proven they can produce. The Sears Tower is not produced in a society where the rich can’t pursue greater wealth, nor is the skyline of New York City. Without money in the hands of the productive we risk living in the realm of “Anthem,” where we admire three-story buildings as great works of architecture and the candle as the ultimate scientific discovery.

We cannot be fooled by the rhetoric of Mayor Steinburg, Sen. Pro Tem Kevin or John Stewart Mill. They spew terms like “public interest” and “for the benefit of society” to mask their real motives of obtaining power and prestige. These slogans of altruism give a semi-plausible form to their urges of power lust. Protecting the rights of the individual requires a rejection of this false altruism.

May my liberal peers forgive me for writing this article.

Senate candidate Roy Moore enforces irrational values when refusing to admit his past actions or the nefarious nature of those actions. Moore has been pressured to withdraw from the Alabama race following accusations of making sexual advances towards teenage girls during his thirties. Though Moore initially lost support when the allegations were published, President Donald Trump endorsed him to increase Republican representation, leading to discrete funding reinstatement from the Republican National Convention (RNC) to restore “get-out-the-vote funds,” bolstering the Republican Party in Alabama.

By endorsing Moore, government officials fail to define ethical behavior and the desired consequences of that behavior. Molesting children is prohibited by law, yet Moore cannot reasonably be tried for a decades old alleged crime. The safety of children is a rational value, unshared by predatory Moore and %48 of Alabama voters. Harming children is already a crime, leaving the question of how we as ethical and free individuals will remain steadfast in morality, asking if we will choose not to be represented by those who attack the innocence and safety of children. Moore will maintain irrational values, favoring his own survival as a politician and as a member of society over considerations of good or evil. As Moore must preserve himself, we the nation must preserve our high standards of value and integrity.

Man has no authority over his abilities to feel that something benefits him or is evil. What he will consider joyous or painful, love or hate, desire or fear, depends on his standards of value and reality. If he chooses irrational values, as many Alabama voters are, he switches his emotional capacity from protection to destruction. The irrational is the impossible; it contradicts the facts of reality; facts cannot be altered by desire but can destroy those who desire impossibilities. If Moore wishes to live free as a child molester and represent the American people, he will disintegrate his consciousness; turning his personal life into a dark, morbid war with meaningless conflict (matching the objectivist attitudes of most people today).

Like the President and the RNC, Moore will always alter his ethics and behavior in such a way that benefits himself and his party–for survival, not reality or facts. Choosing to remain complicit amid allegations of harassment upholds objectivism and fails agreed-upon societal standards, such as: rape, murder, and assault, especially of children, are immoral and reprehensible. Because Moore’s victims were teenage girls, aspects of their innocence and naivetë is overlooked and confused with consenting womanhood, which is additionally confused with enticement and feminine virtue. Government sponsors, such as the RNC, would not support Moore if it were morally and socially agreed upon that sexual harassment and assault is undeniably evil, threatening the safety, freedom, and potential happiness of affected victims.

President Trump utilitarianistically claimed that Moore’s alleged crimes should go unpunished so that he can pursue justice as a Senator, ending other crimes and implying that whatever injustice Moore prevents as Senator will be more important to the nation’s security than preventing assault and harassment, despite domestic violence being the leading factor in the premature deaths of women globally and in the United States. Those who have been or may be accused of assault redefine ethics to protect each other. If Moore’s actions are unethical, the President’s and other representatives’ past actions will be so, losing societal protection for their irrational emotions, urges, thoughts, whims, or desires. If the President is surrounded by others with objectivist ideals, he will receive a licence to do as he pleases, altering fact and reality to avoid portraying himself as a selfish brute in the altruists’ image.

The greatest historical Orator, Aristotle, felt ethics and decency were skills that could be practiced and refined, like physical and mental excellency. Because these assaults were sins of Moore’s past, if he were to renounce his candidacy, he could be ethical now. His decision to remain in Alabama’s Senate race is a dismissal of his wrongdoing. Moore has not refined his ethics as Aristotle taught, continuing to uphold objectivism and irrational standards of value.  By funding Moore, the RNC also complies with objectivism, distorting virtue and social morality for political gain, ignoring a social contract with the government to protect us, the people, who adhere to paying taxes and new legislative regulations. The independence of self is important, and should only be mandated in as much as liberty is protected.

The RNC and President are failing to protect children and victims of assault, belittling their roles as government entities and responsible citizens. The RNC is actively redefining ethics in its own interest, and will continuously give ethics new definitions that benefit its party over Americans. Politics is partisan, but maintaining bipartisan codes of ethics would enforce virtuous conduct and prevent candidates like Moore from objectivist behavior. Complicity toward low standard values (by government officials, candidate Moore, and pro-Moore voters in Alabama) supports the ability to change what is considered right and wrong at the expenses of children and liberty.  

Physician-assisted suicide is a debate in the United States that people know of, but not a lot of people talk about. Not to be confused with euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide does not include the physician administering the fatal dose of drugs, but prescribing them to a mentally stable patient. This is legal in several countries, including Canada, and six states in the U.S. allow it when the patient is terminally ill with fewer than six months to live.

While some may view this as “unethical,” who really gets to say? The issue should be left up to one person and one person only: the doctor’s mentally stable patient. Nobody should infringe upon an individual’s selfishness and tell them they are not able to act in their own personal interest, even if that interest is their own death. Since right to life is a person’s only true fundamental right, they have the right to do things to keep that life sustained. With that is the right to act on one’s own judgment, without pressure, to achieve one’s own personal goals. When life gets subjectively bad enough, a person may act on their best judgment to achieve their goal, even if that is death.

Everyone agrees that each individual has a right to his or her own life, and that is respected without question. When a person makes a decision, it is based partly on desire. Desire does not mean, in this case, a person wants it or feels like it, it takes a process of reason for a person to decide what he or she truly desires. The person does not decide until they can say they desire it because it is the right thing to do. When a person opts to take his or her own life in a peaceful manner, assisted by a doctor, the decision is based upon their own process of reason in determining what is right.

Finally, a rational person takes a decision-making process very seriously. They do not act on a desire without either being aware of the potential results or making themselves aware of the potential results. If the practice were to exclude mentally unstable patients, a rational person should be trusted to make the decision. Even if the decision is one that ends their own life, that decision was made to achieve the goals made attainable by the individual’s right to life. The rational person will make the rational choice most of the time to do what is necessary to continue their life, but if the choice is to discontinue their life, that right should not be held from them.

Leave it to customers to regulate big businesses until they can get the best deal. The United Kingdom Parliament is passing a Digital Economy Act (2017) that requires companies reveal their use of customer data. Just to be clear this is an incredibly socialist infringement on private businesses’ rights to operate freely. Next parliament will have to force Grandma to publish her secret recipe just because your family wants to make sure cocaine isn’t the magical secret ingredient. But seriously when are people going to learn that if you don’t like the price, you can go somewhere else. This is why competition exists. It is quite the slippery slope to vote in favor of a bill that compromises a private business to the mold of a public interest.

The drama of this bill came about when transport-giant, Uber, was discovered to  have access to data that tells them when a customer’s battery life. Uber admitted that while they know a person is more willing to accept the higher “surge” pricing when their phone is about to run out of battery, they claim that they do not use the information to affect the price. The conversation was raised that tech companies in Silicon Valley have formed a sort of monopoly on data and that that data belongs to the people.

Only it doesn’t. Remember those long terms and agreements pop-ups that you knew deep down you ought to read but definitely didn’t read? Those little guys pretty much caught you red handed relinquishing your rights to such personal data in exchange for use of services. A fair trade most would think—until the price just isn’t right.

It is important to keep in mind that these businesses didn’t become successful for playing it fair. They play it smart and efficient. No one demands a local cookie shop change their prices and reveal their recipes and business plans because their cookies are good but overpriced. People can simply shop somewhere else if that is their prerogative. This is the way a free market works. When governments regulate private enterprises as if they are a public service simply because they are so popular they might as well be, then the market is no longer free. If governments want to redistribute the wealth and services, then they can enter into a trade agreement with those businesses. Everything comes at a cost and that goes for the parliament and its people.

After 14 years of intensive training and studying I finally can pursue my passion of being a doctor. Though I have incurred years of debt and hardship for my family to put me through college and medical school, I shall hopefully be able to pay off loans that have been accumulating interest since I began my undergrad many years ago. I am fairly concerned about  my ability to pay off my debt as soon as I can, however with the reliability in the job market for specialized doctors, I am certain I can pay it off.

However, I am not sure how long it will take for me to pay my debt off. The current tax system works against me in that I must pay a higher rate of tax than my colleagues who make significantly less than me. Though I sacrificed my twenties to be able to attain the highly coveted position of a doctor, I am subject to an unfair tax bracket. Does this equalizer make up for the years I spent studying on Friday nights while my peers were out in the city? Making memories I will never be able to have for myself?

To that my answer is no. I do not regret the profession that I have picked, as I find great happiness in the ability to save someone’s life. However I do believe that the years of hard work I have put in merits the extra income I make.

Today, I have found out that there is this tax reform that is in the process of being passed that serves to correct this taxation imbalance. If this passes, I will be taxed 4% less than what I used to be taxed.

All this time, though I made more money than my peers, the debt and the higher tax bracket I was in negated those benefits. I should not have to suffer so that others have not made the same decisions of me shouldn’t.

Though I am aware of the negative impacts this tax reform could have on others, I know that the bracket system by nature is made to give a helping hand to those who do not make as much. While I agree with the idea of this tax-based assistance, I am happy that this reform will slightly restore the balance because I know that people like me are the beneficiary of the act.

I can use this extra income to pay off my student loans and focus more on enjoying the life I now have. I come back from work less stressed now that I have a more flexible budget and can choose how I want to relax, whether it be staying at home or going out to a fancy dinner to treat myself.

A lifetime of hard work merits this lifestyle, for I have sacrificed more than early financial liberation to get here.