This one is for you Objectivists out there.
From Kushal Sharma @ TheAtlasphere:

When most people hear about open source software, they think of charity, altruism, and "free stuff." At a deeper level, however, the open source movement is often highly individualistic.

I am a fan of Ayn Rand’s writings, and I deeply admire and follow Objectivism to the extent of my understanding.

I consider rational selfishness to be a great virtue, and anyone who understands its value would scoff at anything that has an altruistic motive.

For this reason, some Ayn Rand fans might disagree with the premise of the open source software movement. That, however, could be a mistake.

What exactly is open source? Open source is a movement started by people who believe that when customers buy software, they should have the actual source code to the software.

This means anyone capable of making changes to the source code and customizing the software to suit their needs, can do so without worrying about whether they’re infringing upon copyright or trademark laws.

It also follows that you are free from mandatory updates and have a choice about whether to use any updates you receive. Unlike some commercial products, once you buy or download open source software, you get the entire software with redistribution rights and not just the “right to use it for a limited time.”

This freedom, coupled with the availability of the source code, is the backbone of open source. This has made it possible for people to incorporate a great number of important changes to the software and make it truly world-class.

This also makes the nature of development in open source community-based, which is the reason why almost all open source software is available free of cost.

The open source movement has developed an intricately balanced, yet surprisingly robust, community for developing software.

However, since open-source software is available free of cost, most people outside the movement — and within it — mistakenly see it as an altruistic undertaking.

Quite a few of them have even forgotten that it is not intended to be free as in "free beer" but free as in “freedom of speech.”

Either way, most of them fail to realize that there is an individualism at its core. And it is this spirit, not altruism, which lies at the heart of the open source movement.

Words cannot describe. Just listen.



And here we have the lyrics:

Today we bring you an excellent article from Aaron Nye on Helium.com. where he posits some very interesting and very true facts about modern secondary education.

Here's a snippet from Mr. Nye's article:

It seems that people these days are content to watch "American Idol" and "Entertainment Tonight" on television rather than actually learn anything. Most folks have forgotten (or more to the point, never knew) what learning is. Critical thinking has gone, like so many other invaluable skills, the way of the do-do. In ancient Greece, universities were not the classroom style, rote memorization facilities of indoctrination of today. Indeed, they were far from what passes for modern education. They actually taught people the skill of philosophy.

From the NY Times:

A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States do not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal will soon rule on whether the cover story of the October 23, 2006, issue of Maclean’s magazine violated a provincial hate speech law.

This series of articles examines commonplace aspects of the American justice system that are actually unique in the world.

Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.

Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say the magazine, Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsweekly, violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They say the magazine should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self-respect.”

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions here last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean’s violated the law. As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.

“It’s hate speech!” yelled one man.

“It’s free speech!” yelled another.

In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minorities and religions — even false, provocative or hateful things — without legal consequence.

The Maclean’s article, “The Future Belongs to Islam,” was an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn called “America Alone” (Regnery, 2006). The title was fitting: The United States, in its treatment of hate speech, as in so many other areas of the law, takes a distinctive legal path.

An excellent rant detailing the differences between these two philosophies comes our way from Robb Allen over at The Line is Here:

I shouldn’t blog angry, but if I took the time to calm down before I wrote anything, you’d get biannual posts and like it.

So, this morning I’m talking with a friend at work. Said friend (we’ll call him “Sally”) is a flaming Democrat. Sally tends to be fairly even headed and not a complete socialist twat, but he still has that core belief that for every problem, the is an equal and opposite government program to fix it.

To Sally, the government is a benign entity that only can be corrupted by Republicans. If only Democrats were in charge, nothing bad would ever happen, hence, it is totally permissible to submit every last facet of your life to Uncle Sam’s caring and compassionate scrutiny.

Yet he thinks that the government shouldn’t butt into your home life. Go figure.

Could it be possible that libertarians may have some serious clout when it comes to this year's presidential election?
Could be.............could be.

From an article in the New York Times:

So maybe it isn’t very “live and let live” for libertarians to assemble en masse in the hopes of exerting power. But some libertarians, feeling a little heady after their party’s national convention last weekend, are making a bold claim: this is the year their voting bloc will hold some serious sway in American politics.

“We are in the beginning of a libertarian moment,” said Nick Gillespie, editor of Reason, the libertarian monthly.

Meeting in Denver, the Libertarian Party chose as its new standard-bearer Bob Barr, the former four-term Republican congressman from Georgia who has already been branded a spoiler by Sean Hannity, the conservative commentator from Fox News.

The most well-known libertarian figure, the Republican Ron Paul, has a book at the top of the best-seller list and has raised millions on the Internet while gathering 1.1 million votes in the primaries and caucuses so far. (In the libertarian strongholds of Idaho, Washington State, Montana and North Dakota, he got more than 20 percent of the Republican vote.)

Michael Kinsley, writing in Time magazine last fall, predicted that voters with libertarian leanings are going to be “an increasingly powerful force in politics.” The auguries come even from Hollywood, where a film adaptation of the libertarian writer Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” is planned for release next year starring Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, both of whom are said to be Rand fans.

The Libertarian Party faithful expressed their hopes that if Mr. Barr can tap into the well of Ron Paul supporters, it could be their biggest election yet.

More here.

Just thought I'd share this with you all.

Here we go. Maybe the calendar should be set back to 1984.

From Global Research:

In the wake of Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins' (R-ME) alarmist report, "Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorism Threat," the Senate may be moving towards passage of the Orwellian "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" (S. 1959).

A companion piece of legislative flotsam to the House bill, "The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" (H.R. 1955), the Democrat-controlled Congress seems ready to jettison Constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. The bill passed the House by a 404-6 vote in October. Twenty-three congress members abstained, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers.

More here.

When will politicians, and the people who vote for them, learn that the more you regulate something the harder you make it for honest, law abiding citizens to function as honest, law abiding citizens? Just look at gun control or the licensing requirements in some states for cosmetologists. I'm just saying.

I just finished reading Little Brother by BoingBoing.net's very own Cory Doctorow, and I must say I was floored by the by the scope of this "young adult" book.

This is some of the best near-future sci-fi I've read in a very long time. The political tone of the book and the ideas about how technology enriches the lives of those who use it and transparency in government are extremely thought provoking.

I would recommend to anyone, even those over 25 (wink,wink), to go out right now and buy the book.

Believe me, you will not be disappointed.

For those of you who don't know, Brooke Oberwetter, aka The Jefferson 1, was arrested for silently bopping her head in the Jefferson Memorial on April 13 as part of the Thomas Jefferson Dance Party, organized by our friends in Liberty over at Bureaucrash, to celebrate the occasion of Thomas Jefferson's 265th birthday, and as a way to revive the dancing-as-freedom meme.

Here are my thoughts on the matter:Really!? Standing around bopping your head on "public" property (an oxymoron if I ever heard one) is an arrestable offense?! Don't Park's Department personnel have more important things to do? Oh, right, they work for the Park's Department, of course they have nothing better to do. My bad.

Fore more info on the Jefferson 1 and to donate to her legal defense fund, visit the Free the Jefferson 1 weblog here.

[R]ightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual

Visit this site to see where you land on the "political compass".


My score is here.

For those of you who haven't seen it yet, John Adams, the new miniseries from HBO is a must see for those of you who enjoy great television. It has all the hallmark of a great television series: political intrigue, drama, and romance.

Besides, you might actually learn a thing or two from this show.

I urge you now to seek it out and add it to your season pass.

Visit the John Adams site on HBO.

You might recall that last month an American businesswoman in the great, freedom-loving nation of Saudi Arabia was arrested, strip-searched, finger-printed, and detained for having the audacity of hanging out in a Starbucks with a man who wasn't a relative.

Spurred in part by the infamy of this incident, a brave female journalist with Arab News is now posing some tough questions for the famously brutal Saudi religious police (Known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice).

Among the questions she's seeking answers for: "Why is having coffee in a public place with an unrelated man considered 'illegal seclusion'?"; "Is a strip search really necessary for women arrested for khulwa (illegal seclusion)?"; and finally, "Is brutally beating a suspect to death a form of promoting virtue or preventing vice?"

We here at the Professor Politico Show commend this woman for her courage in trying to put a cruel and corrupt system on trial.

From the little I've read, this book looks to be another excellent addition to my library.

About the book:

As Americans head into a crucial election year, pundits are coloring everything in red and blue. But according to David Boaz, the old labels of left and right don’t tell us much any more. What we are witnessing is a contest of "Big-Government Conservatives" vs. "Big-Government Liberals."

In The Politics of Freedom David Boaz takes on both liberals and conservatives who seek to impose their own partisan agendas on the whole country. He explains
• why freedom is both "pro-choice" and "pro-life"
• the growing libertarian vote in America
• how the Republicans became the tax-and-spend party
• how the Democrats joined the Republicans in foreign adventurism
• the failure of the war on drugs and what can be done about it
• how competition can give us better schools
• the betrayal of our constitutional rights
• why markets work and government planning doesn’t
• and everything from gay marriage and the nanny state to taxes and terrorism.

For nearly 30 years, David Boaz has been speaking directly to the large and growing number of Americans who are fed up with politics as usual. His articles speak to the perspectives and values Americans have always held privately and more and more are coming to embrace openly. Now, for the first time, his best writings are gathered in one collection.

A recent survey found that 59 percent of respondents described themselves as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." Boaz shows that majority that their fundamental political value is freedom. Whether it’s the freedom to choose a church, a school, or a lifestyle, The Politics of Freedom gives voice to a value most Americans embrace. For the millions of Americans who don’t neatly fit into the red or blue, who are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, who reject big-government conservatism and nanny-state liberalism, this book offers a new politics of freedom.

Also From Blog Critics Magazine:

Barack Obama apparently deftly delivered another bullet to his foot with his recent comments about his "white grandmother." He called her a "typical white person" and the news commentators on radio and TV are lovin' it! The tone of their comments boil down to this: 'How dare he, a black man running for president, use racial stereotypes when racial stereotypes have done so much to hurt civil rights.'

Well take it from a 'typical white person', stereotypes or not, I can certainly understand his grandmother's fear of walking past certain people (be they white, black, Hispanic or other) on any street. WHY? Simply because some of them are very different and different is, to many of us typical white people, not good — in fact it's scary sometimes.

More here.

No man has the right, under any circumstance, to initiate force against another man, nor to threaten or delegate said initiation of force. - The Zero Aggression Principle


As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government. -Dave Barry


I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will not live for the sake of another man's life, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine. - John Galt's Oath from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged

I have been teaching economics at the university level for twenty-five years. Easily the most often-asked questions relate to monopolies. The questions are often put in the following form: "In an economy free of governmental regulation, wouldn't a firm or group of firms obtain a monopoly over some vital resource or product? And won't the monopoly then exercise its power by raising prices?"

The issues most often revolve around the oil industry and the famous Standard Oil Company antitrust case. The history of Standard Oil, students frequently tell me, proves that monopolies exist in free markets — and that they do raise prices arbitrarily — and that this is precisely why we need antitrust laws.

Are monopolies truly an inherent problem in a free market? And do we need antitrust laws to combat them?

The clearest definition of monopoly is one seller, with the law prohibiting competitors from entering the market. Local telephone and cable-television companies are examples — they are usually provided a monopoly by their local governmental officials — that is, they are made the only provider of the service in a certain locale — and competition is prohibited by the local governing body. Obviously, this is not a monopoly arising in a free market since it is the government not the market that is dictating the number of suppliers. The best way to get competition in these types of activities is to remove the legal restrictions on market entry — which, by the way, is happening in some cable-television markets, which has resulted in a decrease in prices.

What can you do to provide yourselves and your families with the promise of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Maybe the Free State Project (FSP) is what you're looking for.

For those of you who don't know, the FSP is an effort to get 20,000 liberty-loving individuals to move to New Hampshire.

They're looking for productive, tolerant folks from all walks of life and of all ages, creeds and colors who agree with the simple political philosophy that government exists at most to protect people's rights and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else.

Here's a quick primer on the FSP:





Get more info about the Free State Project here.

Nothing, aside from the panic that most older adults have that the Internet is turning their brains into gray goo.

From Salon.com:

The other week was only the latest takedown of what has become a fashionable segment of the population to bash: the American teenager. A phone (land line!) survey of 1,200 17-year-olds, conducted by the research organization Common Core and released Feb. 26, found our young people to be living in "stunning ignorance" of history and literature.

This furthered the report that the National Endowment for the Arts came out with at the end of 2007, lamenting "the diminished role of voluntary reading in American life," particularly among 13-to-17-year-olds, and Doris Lessing's condemnation, in her acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize in literature, of "a fragmenting culture" in which "young men and women ... have read nothing, knowing only some specialty or other, for instance, computers."

More here.