In what most people could have probably predicted, the EU has gone after Microsoft again for “monopolistic” actions again. A few years ago it was because they bundled Media Player with Windows. This time it’s Internet Explorer. Why? Because the CEO of Opera Software, makers of the one of the today’s least popular internet browsers, made a formal complaint that Microsoft was abusing its position by including Internet Explorer with Windows.

According to the Opera Software CEO, Jon von Tetzchner:

It’s important that people have a choice of browsers. It’s important that we don’t have one company dominating the browser market.

Is it necessary to point out that people do have a choice of browsers, and that installing a new browser is only a few clicks away? Is it necessary to point out that Internet Explorer has been leaking market share to Firefox (my personal choice) and other browsers? Is it necessary to point out that in Europe that market share was down to 59%? Since when does 59% of market-share constitute a monopoly in Europe?

The answers to these questions don’t get at the fundamental issue, which is the right to own property. Computer programmers should have — and must have — the right to write software programs as they see fit, to write software with whom they choose, and to charge whatever they want, and this ruling is an attack on that basic right. Still, those questions and their answers show just how ridiculous this EU prosecution is and how petty Jon von Tetzchner and Opera must be for even filing their ruling. Because even after the EU levies millions in fines and forces Microsoft to make another crippled version of Windows, nobody’s still going to know what Opera is nor are they going to go to the trouble of installing it. The Opera browser just doesn’t offer what the others offer (especially Firefox), which their stagnant and almost non-existent market share shows.

Jon von Tetzchner and Opera are probably going to be successful in using the EU to hurt Microsoft in a way they could never do in the free market, and I bet they’ll get away with it, too. The best way to stop these types of government abuse is to stand for individual rights and petition the government not to involve themselves, but in the meantime I’m going to suggest a smaller step: Uninstall Opera. You probably don’t have it installed, anyway, but in case you do, drop it like a bad habit. I just did. It’s not going to help Microsoft, but it might make you feel a little better.

I received an email suggesting that I watch “I.O.U.S.A.” this past weekend on CNN, and I did. I’ve been engaged in a little email correspondence about the movie since then, and since my latest email is practically a full blog post I’m going to post it here. My original question was “What was the point to this movie?” and the response was “The point of the movie was to wake americans up to the economic problems the USA faces.” Here’s my next response:

—

If the point of “I.O.U.S.A” was wake Americans up to our economic woes, I think it was lacking. Economic problems don’t just appear randomly like weather events. They have specific causes, but it’s those causes that this movie refuses to address. It tries to stay agnostic when it comes to determining the cause of the problems it’s supposed to warn us about. But since those causes resulted in those problems, and the problems are what we don’t want, they can’t be ignored. It’s actually the causes that we have to focus on, not ignore.

I don’t have an exact quote, but later in the movie the narrator says something to the equivalent of, “No matter what you think caused this problem…” and then later “It’s only a question of *when* this will
happen unless we change.” Well, how can they say *when* when they haven’t identified the *what*? And how can we change something when we don’t know what causes the problems?

Imagine if a fireman took this approach when giving a presentation to school kids about the dangers of fire.

Fireman: “Ok, kids, fire is very dangerous. It burns things, including people. Questions?”

Kid 1: “How can I prevent fires from starting at my home?”

Fireman: “Sorry kid, that falls outside the scope of this discussion. I’m here to tell you that fire is bad. Next?”

Kid 2: “What should I do if a fire starts?”

Fireman: “There are many possible actions available to you, but all I can say right now is that if you come across fire you should do something to change the situation.”

I’ll take my criticism of this movie one level deeper. So far as this movie refuses to acknowledge the role that government intervention has played in getting us here, it actually makes the problem worse.
Instead of alerting Americans to the problems that government intervention has caused, it tricks them into thinking that more government intervention is the cure! The CNN discussion after the movie is a great example. While discussing the fact that Americans don’t save money, one of the moderators suggested (while smiling) that the government “force” or “strongly suggest” that Americans save. Nobody on the discussion panel batted an eye, including the two men that were actually behind the making of “I.O.U.S.A!” That type of discussion is the type of “waking up” that this movie brings to those that watch it.

I have only one positive thing to say about the movie. It smashes the myth of the “budget surplus” that Clinton fans are so proud of. It shows that the “surplus” is actually just a temporary overage in Social Security income versus payouts, and those “surplus” dollars will still have to be made up later.

That aside, I’m giving the movie two big thumbs down. It’s hard enough to get people to look honestly at our economic problems and see that the free market is the victim, not the culprit. This movie just muddies that issue even more. I’d rather try to argue with an environmentalist who had just watched “An Inconvenient Truth” than an average person who had just watched “I.O.U.S.A.”

Darren

Last year, my wife (and I at her side) spent nine straight days in the hospital. We got through it, but it was tough. We had doctors, nurses, and lab guys coming in and random times, all saying or doing different things, and it wasn’t long before we started to lose track of who said or did what and when. We still got great care and were taken care of, but we never felt like were in total control nor could we even fully explain what was going on.

Well, without getting into specifics, we had to spend some time at the hospital last weekend. We thought it was nothing, and it turned out to be nothing, but it took some tests and an overnight stay. We learned a few things from last year, though, and were able to handle things better this time. The biggest change in what we did is also the simplest:

Write everything down.

If a doctor comes in, write down his or her name, what he or she did, what was said, and the time. If a nurse asks a question or dispenses any medication, write down the nurse’s name, the medication, and the time. If a lab guy comes in to get labs, write down the lab tech’s name and time. Basically, keep your own timed log of the care you are given, written in your own words.

You’ll probably never need it, and if things turn out great you can file it away. But if things turn out a little worse and the hospital stay is longer, it might be all you have except your memory. Hey, if anything, when your family asks how things are going you can answer their question. It will give you just that little extra bit of control that you wouldn’t otherwise have.

When compared to the hundreds of billions and billions on that our government has been wasting over the past few months, $1.34 billion might not seem like a lot. But it is, especially when it’s thrown away for nonsense like digital television coupon boxes. And to make matters worse, they need more money because ran out of free converter coupons!

From the Warwick Beacon:

With the Feb. 17 deadline for U.S. television stations to broadcast only in digital format looming, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch has issued a consumer advisory that the $1.34 billion TV Converter Box Coupon Program [...] has run out of money. Consumers are now being placed on a waiting list to receive a coupon that will help pay for a TV conversion.

I knew the government was offering free $40 coupons to anybody who wanted one, but I didn’t know it had gone this far. Today I received a recorded phone call from a company saying that the government requires that I buy this digital box, and I hung up before I heard the rest of the gimmick to get their hands on my government coupon. And if I looked on Craigslist or eBay, I wonder how many free government digital converter boxes I’ll see for sale?

What a waste.

Here’s the seventh, and final, post in my series about the “Objecting to Objectivism” show, hosted by by Matt Dillahunty and Russell Glasser of the Atheist Experience group.  I’ve spent a plenty of time pointing out inaccuracies in the hosts’ presentation of Objectivism, so to finish this series I want to point out a revealing admission Dillahunty made during the show, briefly address what Ayn Rand meant by “second-handed” (which Glasser didn’t bother to offer the viewers), and offer some closing comments.

Criticizing a book you didn’t read

If an individual want to learn something about any subject, he has to gather facts related to that subject.  For example, if I want to learn more about cats, I have to gather data by looking at cats, reading books about cats, or talking to feline experts.  If I want to learn how to change my oil in my car, I have to open the manual and read the instructions.  If I want to learn what Matt Dillahunty stands for, I have to listen to his podcasts, read his internet postings, or even talk to the man.  And of course, if I want to learn what Atlas Shrugged is about, I have to read the book.  Right?

Apparently not.  Around minute 84 of the video, Dillahunty made the following statement (emphasis mine):

And yet, there’s no particular original idea, I find no particular original idea in Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead, or Objectivism.

This is Dillahunty’s opinion, and I wasn’t going to respond to this because I want to focus on the the inaccuracies in his and Glasser’s show.  However, hearing this statement reminded me of something that he said earlier in the show.  Around minute 60, Dillahunty and Glasser said the following (emphasis mine):

Dillahunty: Yeah, and this promotion of oligarchical ideas where the intelligent are the ones who rule or these separatist societies where we’ve taken all the geniuses off… having not read Atlas Shrugged, and… I have no idea how John Galt’s little experiment worked out.

Glasser: Oh, of course, he took over the world.

I think the presentation Dillahunty and Glasser gave of Objectivism is evidence enough that their opinion of Objectivism is not based on facts, but here’s an explicit admission that Dillahunty’s opinion isn’t.  He said he didn’t find an original idea in a book he had never read.  I don’t know what else to say.

Except this, that is.  Immediately before he made the minute-84 minute I quoted above, Dillahunty said the following:

She wrote a book or something about “Philosophy, Who Needs It” and she consistently railed against the ideas of various philosophers including some reportedly, like Kant, she had never even read.

This is Dillahunty criticizing against Ayn Rand for railing against the ideas of philosophers that she hadn’t read, all while deriding the ideas of a philosopher that he hadn’t read.

By the way, Ayn Rand did not promote oligarchy.  And Atlas Shrugged did not end with John Galt “taking over the world.”

Second-handers

One of the big false statements that Russell Glasser repeatedly made was about second-handers.  According to Glasser, Objectivists use the term “second-handers” in a similar way that scientologists use “suppressive person,” and that Objectivists can split people into three classes:  the geniuses, the “useful” people like Eddie Willers, and second-handers.  He addressed “second-handers” so many times that I could have made it a separate post in this series, but frankly I feel that his assertion is so ridiculous I don’t want to spent much of my time to address it.  I will, though, do something that Glasser wouldn’t do:  Use Ayn Rand’s own words to identify how she used the term.  By doing a quick search on the Ayn Rand Lexicon website, I was able to find the following quote from Ayn Rand from “The Argument from Intimidation” in her book “The Virtue of Selfishness:”

A [second-hander] is one who regards the consciousness of other men as superior to his own and to the facts of reality. It is to a [second-hander] that the moral appraisal of himself by others is a primary concern which supersedes truth, facts, reason, logic. The disapproval of others is so shatteringly terrifying to him that nothing can withstand its impact within his consciousness; thus he would deny the evidence of his own eyes and invalidate his own consciousness for the sake of any stray charlatan’s moral sanction. It is only a [second-hander] who could conceive of such absurdity as hoping to win an intellectual argument by hinting: “But people won’t like you!”

Final comments

There are enough problems to write more posts in this series, but I believe that by this point I’ve shown that the two hosts gave a very inaccurate presentation of Objectivism.  It’s one matter to discuss whether Objectivism is right or wrong, but it’s an entirely different matter to misrepresent what it is and what Ayn Rand stood for.  The former is a great thing, and it’s something that I still question even today as I learn more and more about Objectivism.  The latter is a bad thing, no matter what you’re discussing.  It’s a matter of intellectual honesty.  I think the viewers and listeners should expect more from the Atheist Experience than they received from the “Objecting to Objectivism” show, and I hope I’ve helped to correct some of the bigger factual errors.

That said, I’d like to speak positively about one of the hosts, Matt Dillahunty, especially because I’ve spent much of the past few posts tearing down things that he said.  Putting his show on Objectivism aside, he actually seems like a pretty rational guy.  Just check out the following from his bio on the Atheist Experience website:

I was raised in a loving, Southern Baptist home and was a fundamentalist Christian for over 20 years. [...] After the first couple of years, reason forced me to acknowledge that my faith had not only been weakened by my studies – it had been utterly destroyed. The thoughts, writings and wisdom of people like; Robert Ingersoll, Voltaire, Dan Barker, Richard Dawkins, Farrell Till and many others, helped free my mind from the shackles of religion without a single moment of despair. I continue to study philosophy, religion, science, history and the many other topics which have helped me to understand reality and enjoy my life.

Having spent the majority of my life compartmentalizing my religious beliefs to keep them safe from skepticism, it’s thrilling to leave the critical, investigative, hungry portion of my brain turned “on”.

I have respect for people who are able to take those overcome those types of influences in their lives for the sake of the truth.  That’s not only an act of intellectual honesty, it’s an act of courage.  I know that when I visit my family for Thanksgiving and Christmas, I don’t have to worry about hiding parts of my life so I don’t make anyone cry and worry over my soul.  I think that if he took that same approach to Objectivism, he’d have a different opinion than the one that he gave on this show.  He’d at least see that her books were different than his co-host described them.

I don’t know anything about Russell Glasser except what I’ve heard on this show.  And that he considers Objectivists “foolish atheists” who make other atheists look bad.

Part 1: Objecting to Objectivism – The King’s Rational Self-Interest?
Part 2: Objecting to Objectivism – Cooperation
Part 3: Objecting to Objectivism – Objective Reality
Part 4: Objecting to Objectivism – The Train Scene
Part 5: Objecting to Objectivism – Teaching, Altruism, and the Profit Motive
Part 6: Objecting to Objectivism – Did Ayn Rand Read Kant?
Part 7: Objecting to Objectivism – Matt Doesn’t Like the Book He Didn’t Read