AynRandfan

From the page: "Ayn Rand described Thanksgiving as "a typically American holiday" whose "essential, secular meaning is a celebration of successful production. It is a producers' holiday. The lavish meal is a symbol of the fact that abundant consumption is the result and reward of production." She was right.

This country was mostly uninhabited and wild when our European forefathers began to develop the land and then build spectacular cities, shaping what has become the wealthiest nation in the world. It's in the American spirit to overcome challenges, create great achievements, and enjoy prosperity.

We recognize that individuals free to produce create enormous wealth. We uniquely dedicate ourselves to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. It's no accident that Americans have a holiday called Thanksgiving �" a yearly tradition when we pause to appreciate the bountiful harvest we've reaped."

From the page: "Washington - Ah, Thanksgiving. The word conjures up images of turkey dinner, pumpkin pie, and watching football with family and friends. It kicks off the holiday season and is the biggest shopping period of the year.

Children are taught that Thanksgiving came about when Pilgrims gave thanks to God for a bountiful harvest. It seems we vaguely mumble thanks for the food on our table, the roof over our head, and how lucky we are in spite of these hard economic times. After all, our lives are so much better than, say, those in Bangladesh.

But surely there is something more to celebrate, something more sacred about this holiday.

What should we really be celebrating on Thanksgiving?

Ayn Rand described Thanksgiving as "a typically American holiday" whose "essential, secular meaning is a celebration of successful production. It is a producers' holiday. The lavish meal is a symbol of the fact that abundant consumption is the result and reward of production." She was right. "

From the page: "Climate change threatens our nation. Pollution is the cause. We must reverse course now to save future generations from misery.



Contrary to environmentalist hysteria, the problem is not carbon dioxide warming the earth. Instead, our political climate of freedom suffers the pollution of environmentalist controls of our industrial economy.



On November 18, environmentalists dressed up as clowns rallied at the state capitol to demand that Colorado shut down a coal-fired electricity plant.



That night, Keith Lockitch, an environmental analyst with the Ayn Rand Center, explained in a Denver talk why environmentalist controls threaten human life and well-being"

From the page: "Over the summer of 2009, Americans witnessed something quite extraordinary: Thousands of citizens not usually involved in politics gathered in public protest and energetically confronted government officials about the policies of an administration they had elected just a few months earlier.

Polls suggest that many Americans share the protesters� views. Voters� opinions about Obama�s performance as president generally have reversed since February. The Rasmussen poll indicates that as of August 23, 41 percent strongly disapproved of his performance, and only 27 percent strongly approved.1 Concerning health-care reform�"a central goal of the administration�"a large majority of voters opposed a �oepublic option,” feared the government more than the insurance companies, and disagreed with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi that the companies are �oevillains.” Just 19 percent of Americans rated American health care overall as poor; 48 percent rated it as good or excellent.2 Such figures indicate a trend of declining support for the agenda of the Obama administration and its congressional supporters. If this trend continues, there is a possibility of serious Democratic losses in the 2010 mid-term elections."

From the page: "The Washington Post has come out swinging against Yale University Press for deciding to cut visual depictions of Mohammad from a new scholarly book on the Danish cartoons crisis. The book, �oeCartoons that Shook the World” by Jytte Klausen, was purged not only of the 12 infamous cartoons, but also of an illustration from a children�s book and other artistic depictions of the prophet. None appear in the book, for fear that Islamists may launch attacks in response. The Post�s editorial observes that the cartoons are �oeinflammatory and tasteless” but notes that �oeit�s difficult to imagine a more legitimate place for them” than in a scholarly work. By refusing to publish the images, �oeYale University Press is allowing violent extremists to set the terms of free speech.”"

From the page: "ntroductory Note by Lin Zinser: In today's proposals for sweeping changes in the field of medicine, the term "socialized medicine" is never used. Instead we hear demands for "universal," "mandatory," "single-payer," and/or "comprehensive" systems. These demands aim to force one healthcare plan (sometimes with options) onto all Americans; it is a plan under which all medical services are paid for, and thus controlled, by government agencies. Sometimes, proponents call this "nationalized financing" or "nationalized health insurance." In a more honest day, it was called socialized medicine.

Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea--which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical--it does not work--but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral. This is not a case of noble in theory but a failure in practice; it is a case of vicious in theory and therefore a disaster in practice. I want to focus on the moral issue at stake. So long as people believe that socialized medicine is a noble plan, there is no way to fight it. You cannot stop a noble plan--not if it really is noble. The only way you can defeat it is to unmask it--to show that it is the very opposite of noble. Then at least you have a fighting chance.

What is morality in this context? The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man's unalienable, individual rights. The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with--and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil.

Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at McDonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights--and only these.

Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want--not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

To take one more example: the right to the pursuit of happiness is precisely that: the right to the pursuit--to a certain type of action on your part and its result--not to any guarantee that other people will make you happy or even try to do so. Otherwise, there would be no liberty in the country: if your mere desire for something, anythingg, imposes a duty on other people to satisfy you, then they have no choice in their lives, no say in what they do, they have no liberty, they cannot pursue their happiness. Your "right" to happiness at their expense means that they become rightless serfs, i.e., your slaves. Your right to anything at others' expense means that they become rightless. "