Once upon a time the left and the right were political opposites. The left condemned capitalism and sought to expand government’s role in our lives; the right defended capitalism and endorsed limited government. Over the years, although the right became less and less committed to individual freedom and capitalism, it nonetheless presented a discernible alternative to the collectivism of the left.
I’ve long argued that the modern libertarian movement was born out of a visceral hostility to the state rather than an intellectual opposition to statism. Over the years, part of that movement has “mellowed,” so that its anarchist leanings are no longer openly manifested. . . .
Multiculturalism is the demand that no ”culture” be elevated above any other. It is the demand that all beliefs held by various groups be regarded as equally valid and equally good.
Our postmodernist intellectuals claim that no objective reality exists; there is only the subjective world we create, shaped by the social class to which we belong. While this may seem like an ivory-tower issue
Some have argued that we should surrender the term “selfish” and find a different word to denote what Objectivism means by that concept. To address their arguments
A very favorable review of In Defense of Selfishness was written for Forbes.com by John Tamny. Titled “Ayn Rand and Henry Hazlitt Made the Same Point in Different Ways,” this edifying review can be found here.
Well before In Defense of Selfishness was published—when its working title was The Tyranny of Need—I was interviewed by Don Watkins of the Ayn Rand Institute. Here is an edited excerpt (and you can click below it for the audio version of the full interview): Q. If you asked most people what morality is, I think they
By Peter Schwartz and Yaron Brook (Indianapolis Star, July 24, 2002) As yet another appalling suicide-bombing takes place in Israel, killing 19 people and wounding dozens more on a bus packed with schoolchildren in Jerusalem—as Hamas claims credit for the massacre—America’s policymakers still insist on seeking an “even-handed,” diplomatic solution. In the past 18 months,
By Peter Schwartz [This was published in the Contra Costa Times, July 19, 2003; the Canberra Times, July 24, 2003; and the Charlotte Observer, July 25, 2003] Those who claim that the United States has a moral obligation to send troops on a “humanitarian” mission to Liberia have it exactly backward: our government has a