The Undercurrent Magazine Summer 2006

7/31/2019 The Undercurrent Magazine Summer 2006

1/12

European diplomats, who courted Iran in an attemptto halt its suspected nuclear weapons program, re-

gret that diplomacy did not dissuade Iran from its plans.But this failure was foreseeable.

That diplomatic effort was touted as a reasonable way tosettle the dispute over Irans suspected nuclear weapons pro-gram without any losers. By enticing Iran to the negotiatingtable, we were told, the West can avoid a military confronta-tion, while Iran gains economic incentives that can helpbuild its economy. But the negotiationsbacked also by theBush Administrationonly strengthened Iran and turned itinto a greater menace.

European diplomacy with Iransupported byWashingtonnecessarily strengthens Iran.

by Elan Journo

INSIDE THIS ISSUEThe Self-Censorship Epidemic

on College Campusespage 2

The Moral Goodness of theAtomic Bombing of Hiroshima

page 3

A Businessman Stands forPrinciple and Property Rights

page 4

Dont Be Evil, Googlepage 5

World Peace RequiresWorld Freedom

page 6

The Backward Strategyof Democracy

page 8

The Roots of the Hamas Victorypage 9

It was as if an underground stream flowed through the country and broke out in sudden springs that shot to the surface at random, in unpredictable places. Ayn Rand

Domestic SecuritySecures Our Demise

DEATH TODIPLOMACY

WITH IRAN

In recent months, Congress has raised concerns overthe presidents use of warrantless wiretaps and his

approval of a proposed take-over of major U.S. sea ports by aUnited Arab Emirates-owned company. In the case of warrant-less wiretaps, the president is criticized for the excessive useof power. In the case of his permissive handling of the portsdeal, the president is criticized for the failure to use power.

The presidents critics never seem to be satisfied, yet theynever identify a principle that should

CONTINUED ON PAGE 6

Undercurrentthe April 2006 / Volume 2, Issue 2 / the-undercurrent.com

OBJECTIVISMThe Undercurrents cultural commentary isbased on Ayn Rands philosophy, Objectiv-ism. Objectivism, which animates Ayn Randsfiction, is a systematic philosophy of life.

It holds that the universe is orderly andcomprehensible, that man survives by rea-son, that his life and happiness comprisehis highest moral purpose, and that heflourishes only in a society that protects hisindividual rights.

In these pages we hope to defend thesevalues. To learn more about the ideas be-hind them, you can begin by reading AynRands books, such as The FountainheadandAtlas Shrugged, or by visiting aynrand.org.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 5

Congress must rein in the presidents powerby givinghim a War Declaration.

by Felipe Sediles


2/12

2

Campus Commentary

The recent cartoon controversy has testedAmericas willingness to defend one ofits constitutionally protected rights: the rightto speak freely. In recent months, the DanishnewspaperJyllands-Posten published twelvecartoons depicting Mohammad and ridicul-ing the teachings of Islam. Islamic funda-mentalists responded with violent protests,death threats, and demands for apology. Ina valiant effort to express solidarity andsupport for the principle of freespeech, other newspapers acrossEurope joined the crusade by re-publishing the cartoons. Sadly,American publications like The

New York Times and The Wash-ington Postsuccumbed to the re-ligious sensitivities of Muslims and declined

to proudly assert their rights.As ardent defenders of free speech, we at The

Undercurrent wondered how campus publica-tions were addressing this issue. We were thrilledto learn that theDaily Illini, the student newspaperat the University of Illinois, was first to reprint thecontroversial caricatures. But like many Ameri-cans around the country, students and faculty atthe U of I failed to understand the true nature offree speechand thus failed to support theDI.

Fifteen campus organizations expressedtheir disapproval in aDIarticle: It is unac-ceptable to use free speech as a platform forIslamophobia...Free speech is not a licenseto propagate content that is deliberately in-

cendiary and serves no constructive purpose.We are not asking for censorship. We areasking for responsible journalism.

Humair Sabir communicated a similarview in his guest column in theDI: Accord-ing to the constitution, the editor in chiefsdecision was legal and he had full rights toprint the cartoons. But that does not excludehim from the responsibility he has towardshis community: a community that reads the

DI, and lets it be a part of their daily lives.What Sabir and campus associations eu-

phemistically called responsibility is in factthe greatest threat to free speech in our present

society. There is indeed a distinction betweenresponsible and irresponsible use of freedom.The press has a constitutional and legal rightto publish uncouth obscenity, but that does notnecessarily mean that the decision to do so ismoral. Critics such as Sabir associate the car-toons with precisely this kind of irresponsibil-ity. What they refuse to consider is the fact thatthe cartoons are accurate representations ofmany adherents of Islam. What more proof doAmericans need than the images of Muslimsburning down the Danish embassy, killing in-nocent victims, and publicly chanting deaththreats to America and her supporters? Truth isoffensive only to those who refuse to acceptit because of their blind adherence to mysticaldoctrine. Because it is the primary responsibil-ity of journalists to report the truth, it would beirresponsible notto publish them.

Regrettably, views antagonistic to freespeech are common in intellec-tual circles. ADaily Californianinterview with political sciencelecturer Darren Zook revealedhis sentiment that Journalistshave a right to publish politicalcartoons...There should, how-

ever, be self-censorship, not out of fear, but

out of cultural sensitivity.In a panel discussion at UCLA, Khaleel

Mohammed, assistant professor of religion atSan Diego State University, made clear thatfree speech is subordinate to religion: If this isyour idea of freedom, if you takethe religious values of 1.4 billionpeople and demonize them, wedont call that freedom. We dontwant that freedom.

Zook and Mohammed can-didly support self-censorship,the notion that the right to thinkand express ones ideas freely issubordinate to the sensitivities of the offend-

ed party. It is ultimately the sacrifice of onesautonomous mind to the irrational demandsof another. But just as man is not the slaveof his brother, a publication is not the slaveof its readership. This does not mean that anewspaper should publish anything and ev-erything. The press can voluntarily choosenot to publicize something, but the decisionto do so or not should remain insensitive tothe emotional demands of the public. If areader finds something offensive, he has theoption to avert his eyes.

Sadly, those responsible for educating thenew generation try to justify self-censorship

on the grounds that it is beneficial to learn-ing. Professor Mobin Shorish, who was pres-ent at the U of I rally, articulated his views ina DIarticle. He claimed that the cartoonsgo against the mission of the University be-cause good learning cannot take place in ahostile environment.

In essence, Shorish expresses the viewthat political correctness fosters a prosperouslearning environment. But does good learn-ing require students to surrender their reason-ing minds and their right to freely express theirthoughts in order to appease those potentiallyoffended? Can a student learn the differencebetween right and wrong by holding the viewthat all cultures and ideologies merit equaltreatment? How will Americans hold theirheads up high and denounce their enemies ifthey are taught to tolerate everything and any-thing? Ideas such as those championed byShorish have one purpose: to thwart the veryprocess a University is meant to promote.

Other newspapers refused to follow theDIs example. The Harvard Crimson justifiedtheir refusal to reprint on the grounds that itwould neither further inform the public northe debate. Similarly, the Chicago Marooneditorial board determined that reprinting was

not necessary to fulfill their primary responsi-bility...to provide news that adds to [their] com-munitys discourse. What these commentatorsfail to realize is that the main purpose of freespeech is to defend an individuals right to ex-

press his thoughts independent ofanothers desire to discuss themwith him. Yet discourse cannotarise under the muzzle of a gunone can only support the belea-guered Danish cartoonists, not at-tempt to initiate discourse withthe thugs who terrorize them. Norcan rational discussion take place

in an environment that subordinates an individ-

uals independent judgment to the feelings ofthose who follow religious doctrine.

Offended students at the U of I partici-pated in a peaceful demonstration againstthe cartoons. Many described them as blatantmanifestations of hatred and racism. Fortu-nately, protesters did not go unchallenged.Two students rallied in front of the protesterswhile holding enlarged reproductions of theMuhammad cartoons for all to see. In hisDIcolumn, Jeff Myczek challenged the reasoningbehind the Quad demonstration. He addressedthe protesters directly: If it is the negative

The Self-Censorship Epidemicon College Campuses

Critics refuse to considerthe fact that the

cartoons are accuraterepresentations of many

adherents of Islam.

Campus critics of Muhammad cartoonsmisunderstandand rejectfree speech

by Kelly Cadenas

CONTINUED ON PAGE 7

The main purpose offree speech is to defendan individuals right toexpress his thoughts

independent of anothersdesire to discuss them

with him.


3/12

3

On August 6, 1945 the American Air Forceincinerated Hiroshima, Japan with anatomic bomb. On August 9, Nagasaki was oblit-erated. The fireballs killed some 175,000 people.They followed months of horror, when Ameri-can airplanes firebombed civilians and reducedcities to rubble. Facing extermination, the Japa-nese surrendered unconditionally. The invasionof Japan was cancelled, and countless Americanlives were saved. The Japanese accepted mili-tary occupation, embraced a constitutional gov-ernment, and renounced war permanently. Theeffects were so beneficent, so wide-ranging andso long-term, that the bombings must be rankedamong the most moral acts ever committed.

The bombings have been called manythingsbut moral? The purpose of morality,wrote Ayn Rand, is not to suffer and die, butto prosper and live. How can death on such ascale be considered moral?

The answer begins with Japanese culture.World War II in the Pacific was launched bya nation that esteemed everything hostile tohuman life. Japans religious-political philos-ophy held the emperor as a god, subordinatedthe individual to the state, elevated ritual overrational thought, and adopted suicide as a pathto honor. This was truly a Morality of Death,which had gripped Japanese society for near-ly three generations. Japans war with Russiahad ended in 1905 with a negotiated treaty,which left Japans militaristic culture intact.The motivations for war were emboldened,and the next generation broke the treaty byattacking Manchuria in 1931 (which was not

caused by the oil embargo of 1941).It was after Japan attacked America that

America waged war against Japana prop-er moral response to the violence Japan hadinitiated. Despite three and a half years ofslaughter, surrender was not at hand in mid-1945. Over six million Japanese were still inAsia. Some 12,000 Americans had died onOkinawa alone. Many Japanese leaders hopedto kill enough Americans during an invasionto convince them that the cost of invasion wastoo high. A Die for the Emperor propagandacampaign had motivated many Japanese civil-ians to fight to the death. Volunteers lined up

for kamikazeDivine Windsuicide mis-

sions. Hope of victory kept the Japanese causealive, until hopeless prostration before Ameri-can air attacks made the abject renunciationof all war the only alternative to suicide. TheJapanese had to choose between the Moralityof Death, and the Morality of Life.

The bombings marked Americas totalvictory over a militaristic culture that hadmurdered millions. To return an entire nationto morality, the Japanese had to be shown theliteral meaning of the war they had wagedagainst others. The abstraction war, the pro-paganda of their leaders, their twisted samuraihonor, their desire to die for the emperorall of it had to be given concrete form. Thisis what firebombing Japanese cities accom-plished. It showed the Japanese that thispoint to burning buildings, screaming chil-dren scarred unmercifully, piles of corpses,

the promise of starvationthis is what you

have done to others. Now it has come for you.Give it up, or die. This was the only way toshow them the true nature of their philosophy,and to beat the truth of the defeat into them.

Yes, Japan was beaten in July of 1945buthad not surrendered. A defeatis a fact; an ag-gressors ability to win is destroyed. Surrenderis a decision, by the political leadership and thedominant voices in the culture, to recognize thefact of defeat. Surrender is an admission of im-potence, the collapse of all hope for victory, andthe permanent renunciation of aggression. Suchrecognition of reality is the first step towards areturn to morality. Under the shock of defeat, astunned silence results. Military officers no lon-

ger plan for victory; women no longer bear chil-dren for the Reich; young boys no longer playsamurai and dream of dying for the emperor.

To achieve this, the victor must be intran-sigent. He does not accept terms; he demandsprostrate surrender, or death, for everyone ifnecessary. Had the United States negotiatedin 1945, Japanese troops would have returnedto a homeland free of foreign control, met bycivilians who had not confronted defeat, un-der the same leaders who had taken them towar. A negotiated peace would have failed todiscredit the ideology of war, and would haveleft the motivations for the next war intact. We

might have fought the Japanese Empire again,

twenty years later. Fortunately, the Americanswere in no mind to compromise.

President Truman demonstrated his will-ingness to bomb the Japanese out of exis-tence if they did not surrender. The PotsdamDeclaration of July 26, 1945 is stark: Theresult of the futile and senseless Germanresistance to the might of the aroused freepeoples of the world stands forth in awfulclarity as an example to the people of Japan. . . Following are our terms. We will not de-viate from them. There are no alternatives.We shall brook no delay . . . We call uponthe government of Japan to proclaim nowthe unconditional surrender of all Japanesearmed forces . . . The alternative for Japan isprompt and utter destruction.

The approach worked brilliantly. After thebombs, the Japanese chose wisely. The meth-od was brutally violent, as it had to bebe-cause the war unleashed by Japan was bru-tally violent, and only a brutal action coulddemonstrate its nature. To have shielded Japa-nese citizens from the meaning of their ownactionsthe Rape of Nanking and the BataanDeath Marchwould have been a massiveact of dishonesty. It would have left the Japa-nese unable to reject military aggression thenext time it was offered as an elixir of glory.

After the war, many returning Japanese troopswere welcomed by their countrymen not asheroes, but with derision. The imperial causewas recognized as bankrupt, and the actionsof its soldiers worthy of contempt. Forced toconfront the reality of what they had done, asense of morality had returned to Japan.

There can be no higher moral action by anation than to destroy an aggressive dictator-ship, to permanently discredit the enemysideology, to stand guard while a replacementis crafted, and then to greet new friends onproper terms. Let those who today march forpeace in Germany and Japan admit that theirgrandparents once marched as passionately for

war, and that only total defeat could force themto re-think their place in the world and offertheir children something better. Let them thankheaventhe United Statesfor the bomb.

Some did just that. Hisatsune Sakomizu,chief cabinet secretary of Japan, said after thewar: The atomic bomb was a golden oppor-tunity given by Heaven for Japan to end thewar. He wanted to look like a peaceful manwhich became a sensible position only after theAmericans had won. Okura Kimmochi, presi-dent of the Technological Research Mobiliza-tion Office, wrote before the surrender: I think

The Moral Goodness of theAtomic Bombing of HiroshimaDemanding unconditional surrender forces an

enemy to abandon the Morality of Death.

by John Lewis

CONTINUED ON PAGE 7

Only total defeat could forceJapan and Germany to re-thinktheir place in the world and offertheir children something better.


4/12

4

Objectivism in the Culture

According to Objectivism, the principle ofproperty rights is a cornerstone of a free so-ciety. The right to property is the recognitionthat human life requires material goods, andthat an individual has ownership over thegoods he produces.

The principle of property, once acceptedubiquitously in this country, has been underattack for over a century. The expansion ofeminent domain is one example.

Eminent domain is the governments le-gal power to confiscate private property

for public use. Traditionally, it was lim-ited to the replacement of homes and farmswith highways, power plants, airports. In the

past few decades, however, it has grown toinclude the seizure of homes for the sake of

private development projects: condominiums

and shopping centersLast June, in a historic expansion of

eminent domain, the Supreme Court ruledthat the governments power of eminentdomain includes the power to force a pri-vate party to transfer property to another

private party in any case where such atransfer increases local taxes. Suzette Kelo,a nurse, was ordered to give up her lov-ingly-restored home to private developersbecause the municipal government wantedthe extra tax revenue.

The history of eminent domain shows theprocess by which a principle, abandonedin theory, gradually disappears in practice.

Historically, the defenders of property didnot defend property as a political principle.They granted the idea that property is ownedonly by government permission, and then ar-gued only that it was usually not in the pub-lic interest for the government to revokesuch permission.

This pragmatic, anti-principle strategyfailed to work. The exercise of eminent do-main has grown and grown. As Justice San-dra Day OConnor wrote in her Kelo dissent,The specter of condemnation hangs over all

property. Nothing is to prevent the State fromreplacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton,

any home with a shopping mall, or any farmwith a factory.

Two intellectual elements are neces-sary to stop eminent domain: a defense of

property rights, and a defense of the needfor moral and legal principles. The phi-losophy of Objectivism makes possible thisdual defense. Intellectuals and business-men influenced by Objectivism are takingup the cause.

Among businessmen, there is no great-er champion of the principle of propertyrightsand of the deeper principles un-derlying themthan John Allison, CEO of

BB&T, the 9th largest U.S. bank. After Kelo,Mr. Allison announced that his companywould refuse loans to developers that madeuse of eminent domain. In the following in-terview with The Undercurrent, Mr. Allisondiscusses his companys new policy.

The Undercurrent: Thank you, Mr. Allison,for your time. Your company has adopted apolicy of refusing loans to companies usingeminent domain. Why?

John Allison: We were facing somepractical decisions about whether we wouldfinance projects where eminent domain was

being used to benefit one individual at theexpense of another individual. We decidedwe wouldnt do those kinds of projects. Itwasnt consistent with our values.

TU: Why not? What is wrong with theuse of eminent domain?

JA: It basically assumes that the public

good, no matter how that happens to arbi-trarily be defined, overwhelms individualrights. In fact the public good is an invalidconcept. We teach our employees in ourdealings with the public in our branches thatthere is no such thing as the public. Theresonly concrete individualstheres only TomBrown, Suzy Jones, and Fred Smith. Whenthe public good starts to prevail, what isreally means is good for them and bad foryou. Thats whats really going on here.

Consider urban renewal. Many peo-ple would say urban renewal is success-ful because it eliminates blighted neigh-borhoods. Well, its successful for thosewho bulldoze the town, but if you look atwhat actually happened, to low income[families] and minorities in particular,from the use of eminent domain for ur-ban renewal, its a disaster. It destroyedmany families.

TU: Refusing loans to companies seemsto mean refusing potential profits. Do youworry that such a moral stance may harmyour business?

JA: We have always been a principle-driven business. We believe that acting con-sistently with our principles is to our long-term benefit even if at times there may seemto be short-term consequences.

TU: What has been the response of yourshareholders, and of the general public, toyour announcement of this new policy?

JA: Though we hadnt really expected abig public reaction, we have received thou-sands of phone calls, emails, letters, from in-dividuals, from businesses, even from gov-ernment officials, in support of our policy oneminent domain. People have pretty strong

feelings about [this issue]. I think theresbeen a positive response both on our eminentdomain stance and that we, a large business,would act on principle.

TU: Do you think that the Kelo decisionset up the positive response to your policy?

JA: Yes. I think that people realize thatKelo is a major change in the standard bywhich eminent domain can be executed. Inthe past the theory was that eminent domainwould be used for truly public projects.Clearly, with Kelo, any city council can takeanybodys property if they think it will raisetaxes. That is really a low standard, and ascary standard.

TU: BB&T has been active in support-ing philosophical scholarship into the natureof capitalism. How do you expect this to paydividends for your company?

JA: If you look at the regulatory costthats imposed on the banking industryand on business in general, its huge. Infact, I think people would be startled howbig it is. The reason such regulation ex-ists is that while many people realize thatcapitalism produces a lot of improvementin the standard of living, most people per-ceive capitalism to be either amoral at

A Businessman Stands forPrinciple and Property Rights

John Allison of BB&T Bank speaksandactsagainst eminent domain.

by Ray Girn

CONTINUED ON PAGE 8

Kelois a major change in thestandard by which eminent domain can

be executed...with Kelo, any citycouncil can take anybodys property if

they think it will raise taxes.

Thats a really low standard, and ascary standard.


5/12

5

Dont Be Evil, Google

In launching Google.cn on January 25th,the beloved search engine caved in to theChinese governments demand that it blockpolitically sensitive content from searches.Now, if a Chinese web surfer wants to learn,for instance, about the 1989 massacre at Ti-ananmen Square, he will find 13,600 pagesof government-sanctioned mythswith1,566,400 pages, those containing the politi-cally dangerous truth, omitted.

Critics have expressed disappointment

at what they view as the companys bla-tant breach of principles. Dont be evil,Googles company motto, is now chanted bymany of Googles opponents, who decry itsprofit-driven collusion with a depraved,

freedom-squelching regime.But the critics get it backwards. The evil

of Google.cn will not garner a large profit forGoogle; it will undercutthe companys prof-it-making capacity, in the long run.

To see that, one need only study the storyof Googles success. A decade after its birth,the Google brand has morphed into a com-mon household verb. We no longer searchfor information; we google it. Unlike othersearch engines, whose confusing and ineffi-ciently sorted search results were often metwith resentment by weary users, Google hasearned the loving trust of its customers. Likea close friend, it stands by to answer ourburning questions on every subject, quickly,

simply, reliably.Googles founders attempt to explain the

unique aura of trust hovering over their com-panys brand by brandishing their Dont beevil motto. According to Googles Philos-

ophy page, this refers primarily to Googlespolicy of not biasing search results withirrelevant paid ads or bombarding its us-ers with cumbersome pop-ups. Allegedly,Google resists the temptation to do evil,unlike other IT companies, by refusing to putprofits above service to its users.

In reality, however, Googles search meth-odology distinguishes Google not because itis less evil, but because it is a more effec-tive business modelgiven that Googlesproduct is information, and a separation ofads from search content is the most effectiveway to ensure that users can instantly accessthe information they are looking for.

guide his use of power: Shouldhis powers to protect our securitybe open-ended, or should they be

restricted? If restricted, restrictedby what principle? This questionneeds to be answered to settleany of the ongoing post-9/11 de-bates about the proper use of thehomeland security department,the Patriot Act, immigration re-strictions, border security, airportsecurity, cockpit security, intelli-gence reform, etc.

Furthermore, while it is im-portant to define the presidentsproper powers concerning do-mestic security, it is even moreimportant to realize that domes-

tic security measures are notour best means of securing ourfreedom against foreign terror-ists. What is needed is a foreignpolicy that aggressively pursuesthem and their state-sponsors.

In practice, the strategy of se-curing our freedom with domesticsecurity has led to an unprece-dented growth in the states polic-ing powers. The president enjoysthe freedom to grant warrantlesswiretaps, to use secret militarytribunals with lower standards of

proof to try suspects of his ownchoosing, to indefinitely detainimmigrants, and to limit intel-ligence briefings to Congress byexercising greater secrecy. Withthe recent renewal of the PatriotAct, law enforcement agencieswill continue to enjoy the free-dom to conduct espionage withimpunity and to conduct secret,essentially warrantless recordssearches, physical searches, and

many other things.The president often justifies

his powers by citing the Congres-sional authorization given to himon September 18th, 2001 authoriz-ing the president to use all neces-sary and appropriate force againstthose nations, organi-zations, or persons hedetermines planned,authorized, commit-ted, or aided the ter-rorist attacks that oc-curred on September11, 2001. Further-

more, the Patriot Actauthorizes the FBI to engage incertain investigative activities pro-vided that they are for purposesof protecting against terrorism.

Many have raised concernsover the threat these new law-enforcement powers pose to thevery freedom they are intendedto secure. Some of these concernsare not legitimate, but some are.The legitimate concerns demon-strate that, in the long-run, noamount of police-state power

will prove adequate for preserv-ing our freedom.

Some fear that these police-state powers unjustifiably infringeon our civil liberties. Posing as de-fenders of freedom, these criticsconfound civil liberties with fun-damental rights, demanding thatcivil liberties be preserved at allcost. But civil liberties are deriva-tives of fundamental rightstheyare not fundamental themselves.

Take trial by jury as an exam-ple. The principle underlying trialby jury is procedural: because manhas a fundamental right to life andliberty, the state cannot punishhim for a crime until objectiveevidence of his crime has been

identified. This is be-cause under normal,peacetime circum-stances, trial by juryimproves the chanc-es that a suspectsfate will be reviewedby at least one objec-

tive observer. Undernormal circumstances, high stan-dards of evidence are required be-cause it is worse to punish an in-nocent man than to fail to punisha guilty one.

In order for the state to be ableto implement these procedures, itmust have the time to find peo-ple who are able to be jurists, thetime to collect high levels of evi-dence, the time to present everyshred of relevant evidence in tri-al, etc. In a time of war, however,

such extensive procedures be-come a threat to the freedom theyare meant to uphold in a time ofpeace. When the loss of a singlesecond of time could result in theloss of many lives, governmen-tal actions mustbe expedited, forthe sake of protecting the funda-mental rights to life and libertythat civil rights are designed toprotect. This same consideration

justified warrantless searches

and wiretaps, secret trials, andany number of emergency pow-ersprovided that these powersare temporary and their purposeis clearly defined.

But are the presidents cur-rent powers temporary or delim-ited to a clearly defined purpose?The answer is no, and it is herethat critics of the president raisea legitimate concern.

The presidents powers alleg-edly deriving from the September18th, 2001 resolution exist in or-der to prevent any future acts of

international terrorism againstthe United States. It does notspecify which terrorists must bestopped or how many of themmust be stopped until their threathas been removed with satisfac-tion. In essence, it leaves openthe possibility of an open-ended,ongoing War on Terrorism, mo-tivated by little more than the po-tential for attacks. Without a clearobjective, the War on Terrorismwill become permanent and the

Googles concessions to Chinese censors under-mine freedomand Googles long-term profits.

by Gena Gorlin

DomesticSecurity

Secures OurDemise

CONTINUED ON PAGE 11

CONTINUED FROM COVER

CONTINUED ON PAGE 7

Domestic securitymeasures are notour

best means of securingour freedom against

foreign terrorists.


6/12

6

If your college campus is anything like mine,there are probably at least a few postersaround declaring the evils of war and exhort-ing everyone to work for world peace.

Its not a new call. For centuries, peoplehave worked and prayed for world peace,but it hasnt happened yet. Why has this goalnever been achieved in spite of everythingthat people have tried to do to reach it?

The problem lies in the fact that no one

has yet properly identified the true causes ofwar. Many supposed causes of war havebeen put forward over the years, such as pov-erty or military strength. But each of thesetheories identifies the wrong cause, with the

result that the solutions people have attempt-ed have not solved the problem and havesometimes even exacerbated it.

The old Marxist/socialist theory was thatrich, capitalist nations started wars to gain con-trol of more wealth and trade opportunities. Thistheory has since been discredited. Wealth is notbased solely on controlling vast tracks of landor natural resources, as was thought before theIndustrial Revolution. Resources are a neces-sary condition for wealth, not its cause. Wealthcomes from thought, innovation based on sci-ence, capital investment, and entrepreneurialproduction. Going to war to gain political con-trol over resources is counter-productive; it may

procure resources, but it destroys wealth. Thishas been made clearer over the years. Japan, forexample, went to war to gain more resources inWorld War II, and ended up losing everything.Since then, they have completely sworn off any

use of military force, and have become an eco-nomic success.

With their old theory discredited, the Marx-ists needed a new explanationhence themore recent theory that not wealth but povertycauses wars: the rich countries of the world ex-ploit poorer nations economically and then thepoorer nations rise up in protest. But this theoryis also incorrect; a nations control of resources

per se is not the underlying cause of war.Some resource-poor countries, such as many

nations in Africa or North Korea at the end ofWorld War II, have gone to war over resources.In these cases, statist governmentssystems

World Peace Requires World Freedom

The proposed dealwhichwas said to include the saleof civilian aircraft and mem-bership for Iran in the WorldTrade Organizationrested onthe notion that no one would

put abstract goals or principlesahead of gaining a steady flowof economic loot. And so, ifonly we could have negotiat-ed a deal that gave Iran a suf-ficiently juicy carrot, it wouldforgo its ambitions.

But to believe that Iran reallyhungers for nuclear energy (asit claims) is sheer fantasy. Pos-sessing abundant oil and gas re-serves, Iran is the second-largestoil producer in OPEC. To believethat it values prosperity at all isequally fantastic; Iran is a theoc-racy that systematically violatesits citizens right to political andeconomic liberty.

What Iran desires is a nuclearweaponthe better to threatenand annihilate the impious in theWest and in Irans neighborhood.Iran declares its anti-Westernambitions stridently. At an offi-cial parade in 2004, Iran flaunteda missile draped with a bannerdeclaring that: We will crushAmerica under our feet. (Itsleaders, moreover, have for years

repeated the demand that Israelmust be wiped off the map.)

A committed enemy of theWest, Iran is the ideological well-spring of Islamic terrorism, andthe worlds most active sponsorof terrorism (according to theU.S. government). A totalitarianregime that viciously punishesun-Islamic behavior among itsown citizens, Iran actively ex-ports its contempt for freedomand human life throughout the in-

fidel world. For years it has beenfomenting and underwriting sav-age attacks on West-ern and Americaninterests, using suchproxies as Hezbollah.Like several of the9/11 hijackers beforethem, many senior AlQaida leaders, fugi-tives of the Afghani-stan war, have found refuge inIran. And lately Iran has funneledmillions of dollars, arms and am-munition to insurgents in Iraq.

Its absurd to think that by of-fering Iran rewards to halt its ag-gression, we will deflect it fromits goal.

The only consequence of en-gaging such a vociferously hos-tile regime in negotiations is thewhitewashing of its crimes andthe granting of undeserved le-gitimacy. The attempt to concili-ate Iran has further inflamed theboldness of Irans mullahs. Whatit has taught them is that the Westlacks the intellectual self-confi-

dence to name its enemies anddeal with them accordingly. Ithas vindicated the mullahs viewthat their religious worldviewcan bring a scientific, technologi-cally advanced West to its knees.

Whether or not negotiationsyield a deal, diplomacy abetsIran. The deal would have sus-tained Irans economy, proppedup its dictatorial governmentand perpetuate its terrorist waragainst the West. But even with-

out a deal, simply by prolongingnegotiations, Iran grows stron-

ger because it gainstime to continue co-vert nuclear-weap-ons research.

This approachof diplomacy-with-anyone-at-any-costnecessarily re-sults in nourishing

ones enemy and sharpening itsfangs. That is what happenedunder a 1994 deal with com-munist North Korea. After end-

less negotiations and offers ofaid, North Korea promised notto develop nuclear weapons.When the North was caughtcheating on its pledge, the Westpursued yet more negotiations,and the North eventually prom-ised anew to end its nuclear pro-gram. In February 2005 NorthKorea declared (plausibly) thatit had succeeded in building nu-clear weapons.

Another, older attempt to ne-gotiate with an avowed enemy

was a cataclysmic failure. In1938 the Europeans pretendedthat Hitlers intentions were notreally hostile, and insisted thatpeace in our time could be bro-kered diplomatically (by lettinghim take Czechoslovakia). Thenegotiations afforded him timeto build his military machine andemboldened him to launch WorldWar II.

Ignoring the lessons of his-tory, the Europeans embarked

on negotiations with Iran thatlikewise sought the reckless pre-tence of peace today, at the costof unleashing catastrophic dan-gers tomorrow.

To protect American (andEuropean) lives, we must learnthe life-or-death importance ofpassing objective moral judg-ment. By any rational standard,Iran should be condemned andits nuclear ambition thwarted,now. The brazenly amoral Eu-ropean gambit has only aidedits questand will entail a fu-

ture confrontation with a bolder,stronger Iran.

Elan Journo is a junior fel-low at the Ayn Rand Institute.

This article is reproducedwith permission from the Ayn

Rand Institute. 1995-2006 AynRand Institute (ARI). Its inclu-sion in The Undercurrent doesnot represent an endorsement ofThe Undercurrent by either theauthor or the Ayn Rand Institute.

Death toDiplomacy

with Iran

Statist governmentnot poverty or weaponryisthe greatest threat to peace.

by Audra Hilse


CONTINUED FROM COVER

What Iran desires isa nuclear weaponthebetter to threaten and

annihilate the impious inthe West and in

Irans neighborhood.


7/12

7

it is better for our country to suffer a total de-feat than to win total victory . . . in the case ofJapans total defeat, the armed forces would beabolished, but the Japanese people will rise to

the occasion during the next several decades toreform themselves into a truly splendid people. . . the great humiliation [the bomb] is noth-ing but an admonition administered by Heavento our country. But let him thank the Ameri-can peoplenot heavenfor it was they who

made the choice between the Morality of Lifeand the Morality of Death inescapable.

Americans should be immensely proud ofthe bomb. It ended a war that had enslaved acontinent to a religious-military ideology ofslavery and death. There is no room on earth forthis system, its ideas and its advocates. It took acountry that values this world to bomb this sys-tem out of existence. For the Americans to do

so while refusing to sacrifice their own troopsto save the lives of enemy civilians was a sub-limely moral action. They destroyed the foun-dations of the war, and allowed the Japanese torebuild their culture along with their cities, asprosperous inhabitants of the earth. Were it true

that total victory today creates new attackerstomorrow, we would now be fighting Japanesesuicide bombers, while North Koreawherethe American army did not marchwould bepeaceful and prosperous. The facts are other-wise. The need for total victory over the Moral-ity of Death has never been clearer.

Dr. John Lewis is Assistant Professor of

History at Ashland University. He has a PhDin Classics from the University of Cambridge,and has written for numerous academic andObjectivist publications. His book, NothingLess than Victory: Military Offense and theLessons of History, is forthcoming.

stereotype of Islam that you aretrying to fight, why was there nota single poster condemning theacts of rampant Muslim mobs inthe Middle East?

The Harvard Salient raisedsimilar questions when they re-published four of the Danish car-toons, claiming that they wouldnot [cater] to a sensitivity borneof fear of death that has plaguedmany would-be critics of radicalIslam. Below these were twovile cartoons representative ofthe kind published in state-run

newspapers throughout the Islam-ic Middle East. The juxtaposi-tion is clear: while Islamic funda-mentalists can and do pillory theirenemies, they do not respect oth-ers right to do the same.

Why dont Muslims denounce

the Arab cartoons? Likewise, whydont they protest the violence inDenmark? Their silence can beinterpreted objectively to signifya tacit agreement with the criticsof America and an implicit sanc-tion of violence. As Dr. Wafa Sul-tan said in an interview publishedin The New York Times, Muslimsare hostages to [their] own be-liefs and teachings. Muslimsdo not protest violence becausefreedom of speech does not existwithin Islamic dogma. They donot believe in free speech, but inself-censorshipas Khaleel Mo-hammed himself makes clear.

Despite our enemies persis-tent attacks on free speech, wehave not lost the war. Unwaver-ing defenders of free speech arestarting to fight at the forefront

in this battle between East andWest. The Undercurrentrecent-ly published a special cartoonflyer that has been distributedat major universities, such asColumbia, Yale, and the Univer-sity of Chicago.

The Ayn Rand Institute alsolaunched a campaign to bringthe Danish cartoons to the widestpossible audienceand to arrangea series of lectures to discuss thevital need to defend free speech.ARI has already participatedin panel discussions at UCLAand Johns Hopkins University.LOGIC, the Objectivist group atUCLA, hosted a civilized discus-sion between four panelists thattook place in front of an audienceof approximately 180 people. TheJHU Objectivist Club decided tosponsor the discussion after theydistributed a poster showing aMuhammad cartoon and a stampreading I too am Spartacus. Theclub learned later that day that an-gry student groups had removedthe posters without their consent.

The list of freedom fightersis not limited to the Objectivists.Other campus newspapers pub-lished the cartoons after theDaily

Illini took the initiative. Amongthese are publications such as Pri-mary Source at Tufts University,

theNorthern Star at Northern Il-linois University, and the Califor-nia Patriotat UC Berkeley.

Chicago Maroon writer TeresaMia Bejan realizes that now is nota time for toleration: To advocatecensorship and issue apologies...sends a message to the world thatthe free press is somehow respon-sible for these atrocities, not theradical imams who stir up hate, orthe violent mobs who murder. Forthis reason, Americans must standunited in our battle to defend oneof our most important foundingprinciples: freedom of speech.

According to Hasan Ali,president of the Muslim Stu-dents Association at the Univer-sity of Chicago: You dont fightfire with fire...You fight it withunderstanding. We at The Un-

dercurrent offer an alternative:fight fire with reason.

Kelly Cadenas is a second yearundergraduate at Harvard Univer-sity where she currently pursues adegree in biochemistry.

presidents emergency powers will becomedictatorial.

Of more pressing concern, however, isthat any genuine threat these new police-state powers pose to our freedom pales incomparison to the danger of relying on suchpowers for the preservation of our freedomfrom foreign threats.

Consider what the guaranteed long-termsuccess of such a policy requires. In a worldwhere there are major foreign governmentssuch as those of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Ara-bia, supporting those who are plotting to cir-cumvent these measures (to say nothing ofIrans attempt to acquire nuclear weapons),America is simply too big and too free for

police-state powers to prevent every possibleattack. The state would have to have every-one wiretapped, check every single containerthat enters our ports, detain every single per-son at our borders, have cameras on everystreet corner, etc. The continuance of thispolicy, while foreign threats are allowed to

exist, will most certainly fail to prevent allfuture attacks.

In order to end the threat of future at-tacks and to delimit the life and scope ofnew police-state powers, we must thereforedemand a war declaration, not further open-ended law-enforcement measures. Ratherthan worrying about how and when we placeindividual terrorists on trial, Congress mustplace regimes who support terrorists on tri-al, declare them to be enemies of the UnitedStates, and demand their unconditional sur-render as the objective of war. At this pointthe proceedings would be a mere formality:

we are already in a de facto state of war withmultiple regimes, so Congress has the dutyto make it a speedy trial.

If we declare war, some emergency do-mestic security measures will be required.But we will have no legitimate reason to fearthem, as long as they do not violate funda-

mental rights and as long as we know whenthe emergency will come to an end. Congres-sional critics of the president should realizethat our Constitution gives them the powerto rein in the president through a war decla-ration. Thus, if we are to protect our libertyfrom an unlimited, ever-encroaching police-stateand from foreign enemies who wouldimpose their own police state on usnoth-ing short of a clear, confident declaration ofwar will suffice.

Felipe Sediles is a Ph.D. student in aero-space engineering at Syracuse University.

CartoonControversyon Campus

The Morality ofHiroshima

Domestic SecuritySecures Our Demise

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3




8/12

8

This January, the Islamic terrorist organi-zation, Hamas, won the Palestinian elec-tions by a landslide. It now effectively con-trols Parliament. President Bush responded tothe election by complimenting the democraticprocess. You see, he said, in a line quotedby Time Online, When you give people thevote, give them the chance to express them-selves at the polls and theyre unhappy withthe status quo, theyll let you know...I like thecompetition of ideas. I like people who haveto go out and say, vote for me, and heres whatIm going to do. Theres something healthyabout a system that does that.

There is nothing healthy about Hamas.Since 1989, Hamas has orchestrated knifeattacks, shootings, kidnappings, and suicidebombings against the Israeli populace. In2002, they killed 30 and wounded 140 morewhen they bombed a hotel in Netanya. Theircovenant reads like the street-corner rantingsof a religious maniac, or a verse from the Old

Testament. To quote just a few lines: Thehour of judgment shall not come until theMuslims fight the Jews and kill them, so thatthe Jews hide behind trees and stones, andeach tree and stone will say: Oh Muslim, ohservant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me,come and kill him.

In case the world thought Hamas mightsoften its policies on assuming power, HamasPolitical Bureau head Khaled Mashal dis-abused us of that fantasy on Al-Jazeera televi-

sion a month after the elections. He declaredthat the election victory had instilled Hamaswith strength. With its new position of power,

Hamas would force the world to respect it.The grave implications of the Palestinian

elections cannot be overlooked simply becausethose elections were democratic. The electionsillustrate democracys harmsthat is, the harmsof a system that subordinates individual rights tomajority whims. Democracy is a system of op-pression: an Athenian majority can vote to putSocrates to death for his crime of teaching Athe-nian youths to think. A German majority canelect a racist dictator who promises to purge thenation of Jews. An Afghani majority can sen-tence Christian convert Abdul Rahman to death,for rejecting Islam. An Iraqi majority can ratifya constitution that institutionalizes Islam as thestandard for justice. Democracies can vote tosilence free speech, to enslave minority popula-tions, to murder political dissidents. Democracyis the end of freedom.

The political system that truly imple-ments freedom is one that protects individu-al rights. America is such a system. Americawas founded, not as a democracy, but as aconstitutional republic: a representative gov-ernment that writes its laws in accordancewith the life, liberty and property of its citi-zens, not public caprice.

President Bush bases his foreign policy onhis stated desire to spread freedom to foreign

nations. From his 2006 State of the Union ad-dress: Abroad, our nation is committed to ahistoric, long-term goal - we seek the end oftyranny in our world...Every step toward free-dom in the world makes our country safer, andso we will act boldly in freedoms cause.

Even by his own standard, Bush has failed.He has betrayed his mission to spread free-dom abroad. This is not because of the reasonthat liberals cite: that Bush has disrespectedIraqi culture. It is because Bush needed to

eradicate that culture, and replace it with onethat values freedom. Instead, he has allowedthe majority to determine the shape of Iraqi

government. The majority has ratified a con-stitution that institutionalizes religion and re-ligious oppression. Bush has sold out freedomin Iraqin the name of democracy.

Bushs approach in Iraq reflects the ideathat democracy, implemented by free elec-tions, is identical to freedom. This isnt so. Afree election simply serves to establish what-ever system the majority prefers. In Iraq, asin Palestine, the system the majority prefersis a theocracy.

If America is going to spend resources ona war in Iraq, and if it is going to concernitself with the future of the country it has de-feated, it would better guide its actions bythe truth that the protection of rights is thebasis of a free society.

In Iraqs case, this should mean writinga rights-based constitution, and mandatingthat it be followed. The Iraqi culture is notfriendly enough toward free government forany other method to be successful.

In a country that is friendlier towardsfreedom, and has a better understanding ofthe rights-protection that it requires, encour-aging elections may in fact be the best meansof encouraging freedom. This may, for ex-ample, be the best strategy in the Ukraine,Belarus, and other Eastern European coun-

tries. Elections are part of a free societyjust not the essential part.

For an election to promote freedom,the candidates must fundamentally agreeon the nature of free government, thoughthey disagree on implementation. Thatrequires a society in which the nature offreedom is widely understood and valued.Ultimately, it is philosophy that protects afree society, namely the philosophic belief

The Backward Strategyof Democracy

best, but typically immoral,so they think its necessaryto have all these governmentrules and regulations in orderto reign in capitalism.

We continue to supportthings like United Way, whichare traditional charities thatbanks have supported. Butweve started focusing more and

more contributions on the mor-al foundations of capitalism. Ibelieve that our support for themoral foundations of capitalismis probably the most importantcontribution we make from ashare-holder perspective. Andits a small cost relative to thehuge regulatory burden that isimposed on our company.

TU: As a successful busi-nessman, what advice would yougive to a college student whowishes to understand the key tosuccess in business?

JA: The key to success inbusiness is having the right

principles. And the number oneprinciple is to make rational de-cisions based on the facts. Suc-cessful businesspeople dontnecessarily have higher IQs.Its good to have a high IQ, butwhat really creates advantagesfor successful business people isthat they face reality and makemore rational decisions.

Once you get the principlesright, it doesnt guarantee suc-cess in the rest, but if you dontget the principles right you donthave a chance for success in therest of your life. Your readersinterested in BB&Ts corporate

principles can read about themon our website (bbt.com/bbt/about/philosophy/values.html).

And of course in this regardmy favorite book, and the bookI would certainly recommend toany student, isAtlas Shrugged.

TU: Thank you, Mr. Alli-son, for your time. You are aninspiration.

JA: Thank you.

Ray Girn is a graduate ofthe University of Toronto, andnow teaches math and scienceat a private elementary schoolin Orange County, CA.

Individual rightsnot electionsare the key to aforeign policy of freedom.

by Rebecca Knapp

John Allison

on EminentDomain




9/12

9

Last January, Hamas won an overwhelm-ing majority in parliamentary electionsfor the Palestinian Authority. The victoryof this terrorist organization, whose ex-plicit goal is to wipe Israel off the map, hasshocked the world. Why are the leaders ofthe Western world so surprised by this de-velopment? Why did Hamas win, despite thepredictions of all the experts?

The leaders of the Western world are sur-prised because Israel has gone to great lengthsto pacify the Palestinians, withdrawing fromGaza and surrendering control of the area overto the Palestinians. Israeli leaders expected thePalestinians to respond to this withdrawal byceasing their terror attacks against Israel.

The assumption underlying this policyof appeasement was that the Arabs living inGaza and the West Bank merely desire inde-pendence from Israel, and that terror is justtheir way of pressuring Israel to pull its armyout of these territories. The Israeli occupa-tion, it is said, has made life very difficultfor the Palestinians. Israeli soldiers continu-

ously patrol the area and Palestinians haveto go through lengthy security checks whenthey travel. Once Israel pulls the settlers andsoldiers out of the territories, the Palestinianswill be able to achieve independence and willhave no reason to continue terrorist acts.

However, Israels policy of appease-ment failed miserably. Instead of pacifyingthe Palestinians, the withdrawal from Gazahas only strengthened their aggressivenesstowards Israel.

Immediately following the withdrawal,Hamas launched a public celebration of itsvictory over Israel. Claiming that their at-tacks drove the Zionist enemy out of Gaza,

Hamas distributed posters exhorting moreArabs to support their organization and jointheir ranks. Its leaders declared that theywould respond to this retreat by expandingtheir war against Israel.

Over the months since then, Hamas hasconsolidated control over the Gaza Strip.Thousands of new recruits have flocked toits green banners. Hamas has armed its vastterrorist army by smuggling weapons intoGaza from Egypt through the Rafah bordercrossingwhich Israel opened as a peace of-fering to the Palestinian Authority. Fugitiveterrorists have found asylum in the Strip,

along with specialists on terrorism and mis-sile technology sent by Iran, the groups pri-mary source of funding. This strengtheningof Hamas led, ultimately, to its victory in theelections. Israels retreat from Gaza has giv-

en Hamas the power and the public supportit needs to launch a third Intifada.

The appeasement policy has achievedthe exact opposite of its intended results, be-cause this policy was based on a mistakenpremise. Contrary to the wishful thinkingof Israeli leaders, Arab terrorists want a lotmore than an end to the occupation.

The Arabs terror-war against the Jews start-ed in the 1920s, long before the founding of theState of Israel in 1948, let alone its occupationof Gaza and the West Bank in 1967. Israel oc-cupied these territories in the Six Days War asa direct response to Arab aggression. Followingthe occupation, Israel enabled the free passageof Palestinians from the occupied territories toIsrael. However, following the 1987 Intifada,Israel applied some restrictions on Palestiniansentry to Israel as a measure of self-defense, and

these restrictions increased in direct proportion

to continued acts of terror by Arabs. Similarly,the IDF actions in the territories are increasedafter each new wave of attacks on Israel. Thedifficulties of living under the occupation wereentirely self-inflicted by the Palestinians, whenthey forced Israel to take these defensive mea-sures. The Israeli occupation and the restrictionson Palestinians are the resultnot the causeof Palestinian terrorism.

By embracing Hamas, the PalestinianArabs do not aim merely to drive Israel outof these territories and form their own state.While gaining control over as much of theland as possible is certainly one of their goals,their actions follow from a much deeper mo-

tive. The organization they have elected tolead them was established for the sole pur-pose of destroying Israel. Hamas leadersvow that they will not stop until this goal isaccomplished. Suicide bombing is not onlytheir immediate tool of getting more land; itis also the best weapon they currently haveto kill as many Jews as possible.

Hamass call for the annihilation of Is-rael is not some extreme misinterpretationof Islam. The Muslim religion requires thetotal submission of the individuals mind toGods will. It demands the regimentation oflife under Islamic law. And the Koran com-

mands the death of those infidels who dareto resist.

Israel, in contrast, acknowledges the rightof each individual to think and live for him-self. Although a Jewish State, its secular sys-

tem of government protects the rights of allcitizens, regardless of creed or race. Israel isan island of reason, civilization and libertywithin a sea of blind faith, primitivism andtyranny. The Muslim world hates Israel not inspite of its values, but because of them. Thevery existence of Israel is a reproach to Islam.Consequently, the Muslim world can settle fornothing less than Israels destruction.

The Gaza withdrawal has not only pro-vided the terrorists with an immediate rewardfor their aggression, but has also embold-ened them to continue fighting for the totaldestruction of Israel. More appeasement willonly encourage more terror, until the Israelishave nothing left to give.

Israel has the right to exist for the samereason that Muslims want to destroy it: be-cause it protects the rights of its citizensin-cluding its Arab citizensto live freely andpursue their happiness. Instead of apologiz-ing for its success and giving more powerto its avowed enemies, Israel must assert itsright to exist and defend itself.

The leading candidate for Prime Ministerof Israel, Ehud Olmert, is planning to forgeahead with further withdrawals and conces-sions, planning to apply Sharons policy ofdisengagement to the West Bank. Instead of

continuing the appeasement policy by hand-ing the West Bank over to Hamas, Israelmust take a stand and fight back.

Corinne Bloch has a B.Sc. and M.Sc. inbiology. She is currently working on a Ph.D.in neurobiology at the Hebrew University of

Jerusalem and a Ph.D. in philosophy at TelAviv University.

The Roots of the Hamas VictoryPalestinian terrorists want to destroy Israel, not

to escape oppresion.

by Corinne L. Bloch

SPONSOR

The Gaza withdrawal has not onlyprovided the terrorists with an

immediate reward for theiraggression, but has also emboldened

them to continue fighting.


10/12

10

in which individual rights are castaside in favor of state controlare

in control of the countries resourc-es, and mismanage or destroy them,making it necessary to go lookingfor more resources elsewhereusually in neighboring countries.Again, Japan during World War IIis a good example.

But not all poor countries havegone down this road; South Ko-rea and Taiwan (both very poorat the end of World War II) havenever initiated war against theirneighbors and have become quitewealthy. Their governments start-ed out authoritarian but steadilybecame freer as time has passed.Resources are in the hands of theproducers of wealth, individualcitizens and businesses, and havebeen used well and to the advan-tage of everyone involved.

Whether a government is statistor not also makes a difference forhow a country handles the resourc-es it actually has. Look at the So-viet Union, another nation that wasdefinitely not peaceful. Russia hadvast amounts of material resources

of all kinds and the potential to beone of the wealthiest nations on theplanet, yet its citizens spent near-ly a century subsisting in horrificpoverty because the Communistgovernment mismanaged or de-stroyed the human resourcestheentrepreneurs, scientists and inves-torsneeded to take advantage of

all of the natural resources. Thepattern of external conflict fol-lows here, too. The Soviet Unionwas involved in a direct war withAfghanistan for many years, andproxy wars elsewhere in the thirdworld, such as China before WorldWar II, North Korea and Vietnam.

The lack or possession of re-sources alone does not determinethe peacefulness of a nation.The common thread that can bepicked out from those countriesthat are aggressors is that it is al-ways the government that is incontrol of the nations resources.

The poverty theory isnt theonly one proposed as the reasonfor warfare. What about those whoadvocate disarmament as a wayto end wars? Whether it comesfrom the religious, turn-the-oth-er-cheek view or from a moresecular stance such as the anti-warprotesters of the 60s and 70s,the pacifist movement has longclaimed that the mere existence ofmilitary power breeds suspicion

and arms races between countries,which in turn lead to further con-flict. For instance, they claim thatif America would get rid of all itsnuclear weapons, many if not allother countries with nuclear ca-pabilities would no longer feelthreatened and would abandontheir nuclear weapons as well.

But merely building weap-ons, of any kind, isnt what startswars. Who is building the weapons,and why? Is it the Soviet Union,building up the biggest arsenal itcan get so that it can retain controlover its satellite states and conquermore territory whenever it needsmore resources? Or is it the UnitedStates, pulled into an arms race bynecessity to make sure that the ag-gressive communist powers werekept in check? If there hadnt beena Soviet Union (or other similarpower) after the end of World WarII, continued armament build-upwould have been unnecessary, andAmerica would have scaled hermilitary back to a normal, peace-time level, as she began to do afterthe Soviet Union finally collapsed.

A statist government builds uparms with an eye to further con-quest. A proper government buildsup arms in self-defensea policywhich actuallypreventswars. If theSoviet Union had genuinely thoughtit could defeat the United States, itwould not have hesitated to declare

warit was not a love of peace thatheld them back. America and theSoviet Union never went to warbecause the Soviets knew that theycould not win. The United Statesnever declared war because it wasnever necessary for our defense;peace through overwhelming fire-power actually works rather well,as long as the overwhelming fire-power is in the hands of a proper,non-statist government.

So, if all of these proposedcauses of war arent the right an-swer, then what is? Looking at all

these examples of which nationsdo start wars, historically, the cor-rect answer is manifest: it is statistgovernmentsgovernments thathold total control over the lives oftheir citizens and their countrysresourcesthat start wars. It is thegovernments that rule by fear andbrute force, as opposed to law, thatbegin wars. If the government canforce its men into the military bydraft, and can commandeer at willthe productive efforts of its workersto produce war material, then what

is there to stop it from waging warwhenever it feels like? Nothing.

Identification of statism as thecause of war makes it easy to iden-tify the solution: freedom. If a na-tions government is based on ob-

jective rule of law, then individualrights will be protected for all citi-zens. That means no draft (a viola-

tion of the right to life) and no com-mandeering resources (a violationof the right to own property). Thatmeans that the government will notbe able to go to war without its citi-zens consent, making wars not re-lated to self-defense nearly impos-sible. A free people will volunteerto defend themselves and their free-doms, but they will not volunteer tofight a war that is unnecessary orhas nothing to do with them. Thepeople of a free, wealthy (indus-trialized) nation live much betterwhen their country is at peace andthey are free to produce and trade,both within their own nation andwith other nations. War can onlydisrupt this.

History bears this out. Whenwas the last time Britain and theUnited States, the two most consis-tently capitalistic countries, wentto war against each other? 1812?They have fought in wars sincethenwars against statist regimeslike those of the Nazis, of militantJapan, of the Soviet Union, or ofthe Taliban and Saddam Husse-

inbut only in self-defense. Theyhave notfought wars against otherfree, equally peaceful nations.

So, if free, capitalistic coun-tries are only fighting wars againstcountries that threaten their free-dom, then what would happen if allcountries in the world were free andindustrialized? All the incentivesand need for war would disappear.Instead, we would have a world inwhich industrialized nations, up-holding individual rights, woulddeal with each other on the basis offree trade, not armed conflict.

World peace is a wonderful goalto strive for. But much more thanthatits an achievable goal, as longas we learn where and how to start.Liberate the world and bring the In-dustrial Revolution to all nations,and there will be peace on earth.

Audra Hilse is currently asophomore at Lawrence Univer-sity. She is studying history andminoring in Japanese. She likesto read and write fiction in herspare time.

World PeaceRequires

World FreedomCONTINUED FROM PAGE 6

SPONSOR


11/12

11

Googles revolutionary search algorithmwas designed to sort results along parametersthat maximize the results credibility and rele-vance to the user. Recognizing that their search

formula is the most reliable, user-centered wayof sorting information, the Google execs re-fused to tamper with it. Even when they couldbarely stay financially afloat in 1999, and in-vestors pressured them to accept the then-pop-ular advertising model promoted by Overture,Inc. (which provided ads masked as search re-sults to Yahoo, AOL and others), Brin and Pagerefusedchoosing to preserve the integrity ofresults generated by their algorithm.

Unfortunately, in their conception of paidads and pop-ups as evil, Googles found-ers have failed to articulate the wider moralprinciple underlying their business genius:the integrity of remaining committed long-term to a standard they know is good. Afterinventing their new search method and tryingit on the Stanford populace, Page and Brinidentified a fact about their search engine:because it organized information usefullyand reliably, seekers of information wouldcome to prefer it; therefore, it would makemoney. With that fact in mind, Page and Brinhad no trouble resisting quick cash temp-tations that would compromise the formulaand ultimately breach users trusttherebycurtailing Googles long-term profits. Yetthey continued to decry the evil of prof-it-hungry tactics like ads and pop-ups, ig-

noring the fact that their method yielded avastly larger profit, in the long-term, thanYahoos or InfoSeeks pragmatic tinkeringwith search results.

If Google understood the moral princi-ple that renders their long-term approach tobusiness so successful, they would know thedisastrous implicationsand genuine evilof fraternizing with China.

Consider, as just one projected effect, theconsequences of Google.cn on Googles long-term business strategy: their adherence to thesearch formula that has set them apart sincetheir inception. After years of refusing on prin-ciple to tamper with the algorithm, Google is

now smearing its basic methodology of user-oriented, unbiased search with the stark op-posite: filtering of information according topolitical decree. Googles mission will now bedivided between impartial dissemination of thetruth and cosmetic manufacturing of lies. TheChinese customers Google is targeting so hun-grily will now experience a lame, fragmentedGoogle. It is not only the government that

Chinese users will now distrust; it is Google,whose technicians and programmers will be incharge of excising forbidden information. Ac-cordingly, Western users are already buzzingabout Googles sell-out to the Chinese; fora brand that distinguishes itself as a differentkind of company, Google stands to poison itsreputation with this mealy-mouthed move.

If Google applied the same principledapproach to its dealings in China that it hasapplied (up to now) to its search sorting, itwould see that no long-term corporate strat-egy is possible in Chinaa country wheregovernment thugs can capriciously intrudeinto a corporations affairs at any moment,for any reason.

If Googles owners thought in principles,they could have taken a lesson, for instance,from the recent Yukos scandal in the semi-dictatorship of Putins Russia: when the ex-KGB President seized control of the giant oilcompany on a vicious impulse, throwing itsCEO in prison, American investors lost mil-lions of dollars in a single day.

By throwing its search engine to thewinds of the Chinese governments politicaldictates, Google stands to lose not only themoney it is investing in China, if the govern-ment should decide to shut down Googles

headquarters, or seize its ad revenues;Googles presence in China may just as eas-ily result in physical harm to both its ownemployees and to Chinese citizens whoseprivate information the government can ac-cess with Googles help.

Lest you think this is mere ugly conjec-turing: two years after Yahoo!s venture intoChina, the company became so entangled inCommunist bureaucracy that it facilitatedthe arrest of dissident journalist Shi Tao, byinadvertently divulging his e-mail address tothe government. Instead of successfully ex-ploiting the Chinese market, Yahoo! raisedhell from the media and probably lost buy-

ers confidence via the scandal; now Google,whose success is particularly contingent onits chaste reputation, stands to fall into thesame pit.

Google invented and subsequently stayedloyal to its algorithm in order to achieve a cer-tain long-term end: to organize the worldsinformation and make it universally accessi-ble, making billions of dollars on the value

of that information. But when a company isnot free to decide how to run its business, thelong-term is an unknowable void that gov-ernment bureaucrats can fill with any mish-mash of mandates and intrusions that theywish. This freedom-squelching powernotpop-ups or flashy adsis true evil.

In fact, a company can act morally onlyby exercising integrity: by adhering to a pol-icy that furthers its long-term purpose. Aninternet company has every right to organizeits search results according to relevance oraccording to ad revenues or any other waythat serves its purpose; the prerequisite,however, is precisely that they have a rightto do it. Because Google has risen to flour-ish in a free Western society, it was able toadhere to its principle of relevance-basedinformation without hindrance from partieswho disagree with them. In China, Googlehas surrendered that right. Now they are im-potent to uphold any professional principle,as capricious Chinese tyrants always standpoised to thwart it.

If Google understood the power of mor-al integrity, it would uphold its right to dis-pense its productinformationwithoutrestraint. And it might realize how muchgreater a benefit could be garnered, in the

long run, by launching an information cam-paign: by, indeed, bombarding its users withlarge banners, company-sponsored state-ments, and press releases proclaiming theevil of Chinas regime. Google wields anunrivalled power to disseminate informationfast and far. If Google employed that powerto upholdfreedom rather than bolster dicta-torship, the world would listen. Then Googlemight come to symbolize a truly idealisticand reputable company to its customers.

Gena Gorlin is a sophomore enrolled atTufts University and the New England Con-servatory.

Dont Be Evil,Google

that the individuals life is in-violate, and that the actions hemust take to preserve his lifeconstitute the rights sanctifiedby government. Only when thephilosophy of rights perme-

ates a culture will that culturebe willing to preserve a systemthat protects rights in action.

The belief that the democraticwill is sacrosanct prevents Amer-ica from properly condemningHamas electoral success. Withpublic will as the standard ofgood government, Hamas mustbe evaluated positively. But theidea that Americans should cheerwhen terrorists are elected topower is insane. It is the first sign

that something is wrong with thestandard Bush has asked Ameri-cans to adopt.

Americas policy of ap-proving and seeking democraticelections, regardless of their re-sults, has allowed Hamas thatmuch more leeway in its jihadagainst Israel, and ultimately,against America. Hamas nowhas a country behind it. Whilethe United Nations continuesto bicker about whether to stop

sending its millions to Palestine,Hamas will continue to use thosemillions to undermine the peaceand security of the West.

The more Bush spreads de-mocracy, the more he threatensfreedomabroad and on Ameri-can soil.

Rebecca Knapp is a senior atthe University of Chicago. She isstudying classics and plans to at-tend law school.

BackwardStrategy of

Democracy




12/12

12

SPEAKERS, EVENTS, MEETINGSUniversity of Colorado

(Boulder, CO)Announcement: TheBoulder Objectivist Clubwill hold regular meetingsthis semester.Further info: Visit http://www.colorado.edu/stu-dentgroups/objectivists

or email Jim Manley([email protected])

University of Chicago(Chicago, IL)

Announcement: TheUniv. of Chicago Objec-tivist Club will hold regu-lar meetings this semester.Further info: Visit http://objectivist.uchicago.edu,or email Rebecca Knapp([email protected])

What: Panel Discussionon the Muhammad Car-toon ControversySpeaker: Panelists to in-clude Yaron Brook of theAyn Rand InstituteWhen: April 25th, 6 PMWhere: University of

Chicago campus, locationTBAContact: Rebecca Knapp([email protected])Description: Panelistswill discuss the Muslim re-sponse to Muhammad car-toons published in Euro-pean papers, the responseof the American media,and the implications of thecontroversy for the free-dom of speech. Further de-tails TBA.

Chicago Objectivist Society(Chicago, IL)

What: Two Lectures - AynRand and the Virtue of In-tegrity and Working WithAyn Rands JournalsSpeaker: James Valliant,

author ofThe Passion ofAyn Rands CriticsWhen: Saturday, April15thWhere: DowntownChicago at the DePaulUniversity Campus.Cost: $49 ($39 full timestudents)Contact: [email protected]: James Val-

liant, the author of ThePassion of Ayn RandsCritics, is presenting twonew lectures to the Chi-cago Objectivist Society.For the last twenty years,Ayn Rand has been thevictim of attacks on herbehavior and psychologyinspired by the biographies

of Nathaniel Branden andBarbara Branden. Finally,a critical response to theBrandens allegations hasbeen published, The Pas-sion of Ayn Rands Critics,by James S. Valliant. Inthis two-part lecture, Mr.Valliant first examines theproblems with the Bran-dens accounts. The sec-ond part of this lecture isa unique insight into AynRands character from theonly author who has hadaccess to her private jour-nals.

New York University(New York, NY)

Announcement: TheNYU Objectivist Club will

hold regular events thissemester.Further info: Visit http://nyu.objectivismonline.net or email [email protected]

University ofSouthern California(Los Angeles, CA)

What: Panel: Unveilingthe Danish Cartoons: ADiscussion of Free Speechand World ResponsePanelists: Dr. YaronBrook, Dr. Daniel PipesWhen: April 11 2006,7:30 pm 10:30 pmWhere: Davidson Con-ference Center EmbassyRoomContact: USC Objectivist

Club ([email protected])Description: The Danishcartoons depicting Mo-hammed have sparked aworldwide controversy.Death threats and violentprotests have sent the car-toonists into hiding andhave had the intended ef-fect of stifling freedom ofexpression. The reactionto these cartoons raises ur-

gent questions whose sig-nificance goes far beyonda set of drawings. What isfreedom of speech? Doesit include the right to of-fend? What is the signifi-cance of the worldwideIslamic reaction to the car-toons? How should West-ern governments have re-

sponded to this incident?How should the Westernmedia have responded?These and related issueswill be discussed by pan-elists from different back-grounds and perspectives.A questions-and-answersperiod with the audiencewill be included. Pleasenote that the cartoons inquestion will be displayedat the event. Respect forthe discussion forum willbe strictly enforced.Further Info:www.uscobjectivistclub.com

University of Michigan(Ann Arbor, MI)

What: Public Lecture,

Religion vs. MoralitySpeaker: Dr. AndrewBernsteinWhen: April 10, 20068:00 pmWhere: University ofMichigan CampusContact: Jennifer Hsieh([email protected])Description: Convention-ally, most people believethat morality can only bebased in religious faith-that in a world withoutGod, no principles of rightand wrong could exist.Related to this, philoso-phers have long held thatno objective, fact-based,rational code of values ispossible. Regarding bothpoints, this talk shows that

the exact opposite is true.The purpose of morality isrooted in a factual require-ment: the need to guidehuman life on earth. Reli-gion is utterly incapable ofsuccessfully doing so. Liferequires a naturalistic codeof rationality, egoism andfreedom. Religious faithclashes with every princi-ple of a proper moral code

and, as such, has led, andcan only lead, to hell onearth.Further Info: http://www.umso.org

Lawrence University(Appleton, WI)

What: Public Lecture,

The Morality of WarSpeaker: Dr. Yaron BrookWhen: April 6, 20068:00 pmWhere: Lawrence Uni-versity, Memorial Union,Riverview LoungeContact: Eric Lanser([email protected])Description: As the deathtoll of American troopscontinues to mount, we aretold this war must drag onfor years to come and itwill demand even moresacrifices from our soldiers.At home, we are urged toaccept the inevitability offurther catastrophic ter-rorist attacks. Is a quickmilitary victory within ourreach? If so, why must so

many of our soldiers andmore civilians die? Whydoes Washington seem tocare more about avoidingcivilian casualties in Bagh-dad than in New York City,Denver or San Francisco?Why are terrorists whodeliberately target chil-dren and other civiliansfor slaughter accordedrights under the GenevaConvention? Dr. YaronBrook, Executive Directorof the Ayn Rand Institute,explains how AmericasWar on Terrorism is beingsabotaged by the moralcode of altruism embod-ied in the just-war theory

that drives Washingtonswar strategy. He offers analternative a Morality Of

War based on Ayn Randsrational egoism, an alterna-tive that is a practical andrational solution to Islamicterrorism.

The Objecti ve Standard(Glen Allen, VA)

What: A Debate -- Emi-nent Domain: To Preserveor To Abolish?

Speakers: To Pre-serve: Jeffrey A. Finkle(President and CEO of theInternational EconomicDevelopment Council).To Abolish: Yaron Brook(Executive Director of theAyn Rand Institute)When: Monday, May 1,2006, 7:00 PM 9:00 PM

Where: Holeman Lounge,National Press Club, 52914th St. NW, 13th Floor,Washington, D.C.Cost: Free

The Ayn Rand Insti tute(Irvine, CA)

What: Introduction to AynRands PhilosophyWhen: Wednesdays, April26 thru May 31stCost: $99 for general at-tendees, $25 for studentsand teachersDescription: The AynRand Institute is offeringa six-session introductorycourse on Ayn Rands phi-losophy, which she namedObjectivism. The courseis designed for readers of

Ayn Rands fiction who arenow interested in learningthe basics of her philo-sophical system. Classesbegin April 26 at 7:30 PM(Pacific). Participants mayattend in person at ARIsoffices in Irvine, Califor-nia, live via telephone, orby listening to recordingsof each class through theInternet. For more infor-mation on the course andhow to register, please visitwww.objectivistconferenc-es.com/intro.

What: Lecture by TaraSmith (Title to be an-nounced)When: Tuesday, May 9,2006Where: Hyatt Regency

Irvine; 17900 JamboreeRoad; Irvine, CaliforniaCost: Free

What: Lecture by OnkarGhateWhen: Thursday, June1, 2006Where: Hyatt RegencyIrvine; 17900 JamboreeRoad; Irvine, CaliforniaCost: Free

What: Objectivist Aca-demic Center applicationdeadlineWhen: April 16, 2006Description: Apply by thisdate for admission to theObjectivist Academic Cen-ters four-year undergradu-ate program on objectivethought and communica-

tion. Visit www.aynrand.org for more information.

National University(La Jolla, CA)

What: Earn college creditfor studying ObjectivismWhen: Fall 2006Where: OnlineContact: Dr. Brian Simp-son ([email protected])Description: An under-graduate course that usesAyn Rands The Virtue ofSelfishness and Capital-ism: The Unknown Idealas the required reading ma-terial is available to enrollin at National Universityof San Diego. This courseis ECO 430 Economics& Philosophy. The course

will be taught online, anda limited number of schol-arships are available. Inthis course, students willlearn about the relation-ship between philosophyand economics. Theywill study the philosophicfoundations of free marketeconomics, as well as oth-er economic ideas. Theywill learn about the linkbetween ethics and eco-nomics, as well as aboutthe important function ofbusinesses in the economy.Students will study topicssuch as the Objectivist eth-ics, altruism, individual-ism, racism, the virtue ofintegrity, why business-men should be honest, thenature of the antitrust laws,

the gold standard, the na-ture of government andrights, government financ-ing in a free society, amongother topics. This coursewill be taught by Dr. Bri-an Simpson, an assistantprofessor in the School ofBusiness and Managementat National University.

The Undercurrentis a student publication, produced and distributed by collegestudents at campuses across North America.

All inquiries regarding contributing, distributing, and advertising shouldbe directed to [email protected]. For more information on The Un-dercurrent, back issues, additional resources, and further commentary, visit ourwebsite at the-undercurrent.com.

Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ned Chalmers, Ray Girn,Gena Gorlin, Rebecca Knapp,and Quinn Wyndham-Price

Advisory editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quinn Wyndham-PriceProject manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rebecca KnappProject assistants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Doug Peltz, Felipe Sediles,

Jared SeehaferLayout & design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ned ChalmersCopy Editor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lance Broker

Disclaimer.The Undercurrentis an independent student publication and doesnot necessarily represent, in whole or in part, the views of the Estate of AynRand, or the Ayn Rand Institute. The views expressed and facts contained ineach article are the responsibility of the author.

Copyrights. Copyright 2006 The Undercurrent. Each article is the propertyof its author; all other content is the property ofThe Undercurrent. No portionmay be reproduced in whole or in part without the express written consent ofThe Undercurrent.

Death to Diplomacy with Iran is reprinted with permission from theAyn Rand Institute. 1995-2006 Ayn Rand Institute (ARI).

Printed in the United States by Rantoul Press, Rantoul, IL.

DONORS

Donors: Sidney Cammeresi, IV

Benefactors: Steve and Kathy McBride, toMichigan State University

Sponsors: Tom Dungey; Frederick H. Fisher, Jr.;Lindsay Joseph; Peter LePort, litedimensions.com;David and Nicole Ragaini; Rob Tarr

What do you think ofThe Undercurrent?

Participate in an online survey athttp://the-undercurrent.com/feedback

The Undercurrent Magazine Summer 2006

Documents

Transcript of The Undercurrent Magazine Summer 2006