Ruth Institute Blog

I went to see Atlas Shrugged Part III the night it opened. The evening led me to reflect on what had attracted me to Ayn Rand as a twenty-something graduate student in economics.

And let it be said: I was very attracted to her ideas. I appreciated how she dramatized the evils of a centrally planned economy. I was persuaded by her depiction of the fast descent of economic control into a totalitarian state.

Most of all, I loved how she said it was ok to be selfish. There it is. The naked truth about the appeal of Ayn Rand. Selfishness and an irrational individualism continues to be a glaring weakness of much of the Right today.

But why exactly, was selfishness so appealing to my twenty-something self? Read more…

In my last post, I asked, “Where are the libertarians when we need them?”  (Metaphorically, by asking about Libertarian icon, Murray Rothbard.) I was looking at the truly appalling Reproductive Health Bill, foisted on the people of the Republic of the Philippines, by the United Nations Population Fund, aided and abetted by the United States government.

When the government is taking such a heavy-handed approach to “reproductive health” as to insist on a “Certificate of Compliance” before couples can get married, or to mandate “age-appropriate” sex education, one naturally wonders: what is the problem this legislation is designed to solve? Is there an over-population crisis in the Philippines?

The Philippine Archipelago

What are the facts?

In the Philippines, the Total Fertility Rate is (are you sitting down? Are you ready for this shocking over-breeding?  Drum roll…..) Read more…

Have you ever seen a dog race up to the boundary of a yard, and abruptly stop?  It looks very odd, until you realize that the dog is wearing a fancy collar.  You surmise that there is an invisible electric “fence” embedded in the yard. The dog has been shocked so often that it stops itself before it actually touches the invisible fence line.

This image flashed in my mind as I was reading “Home Economics: The Consequences of Changing Family Structure,” by Nick Schulz. Mr. Schulz does a fine job laying out the harmful effects of the deconstruction of the family, both to individuals and to the larger project of the free society. This nice little book lays out the economic consequences of family breakdown.  But he studiously avoids anything that might have even the remotest chance of getting him tagged with the label of “moralizing.”  Or perhaps I should say, anything that would “zap” him with such a label.  

He throw out the obligatory protective covering right at the beginning of this small paperback by promising to refrain from “passing judgment about divorce or out-of-wedlock births.”  I think this is rather an odd position to take while describing such  socially destructive trends.   But that is where we are as a culture, due to the systematic strategy of the Life Style Left of zapping anyone who dares to challenge their Orthodoxy. You know the Orthodoxy, don’t you?

• The kids will be fine as long as their parents are happy.  Read more…

In my previous post, rebutting the Libertarian Party of MN’s position on same sex marriage, I mention that I have written about why the government can’t really get out of the marriage business. It is interesting to me how common this argument has become.   I think lots of people just wish this whole topic would go away, and they hope that privatizing marriage will somehow make that possible.  Rather than restating all my arguments, I’m going to repost and relink to some of my articles. Suffice to say, that I don’t think the argument for privatizing marriage works.

Here is one called, Privatizing Marriage is Not the Answer to the Same Sex Marriage Debate.  Comment away!

The Libertarian Party of Minnesota has taken a position on the proposal to place a marriage amendment on the ballot for the voters of Minnesota.  I am taking the time to rebut this paragraph because this kind of argument has become all too common, even among those who have every desire and intention to expand the scope of government.  You might think this would give Libertarians pause, but, that is another story.

Here is what the LPMN has to say:

The proposed Gay Marriage Ban would expand government control and restrict the freedom of consenting adults to live their own lives as they choose. Libertarians believe that marriage is a private matter between individuals. We believe that marriage is a fundamental human right, and that all personal relationships, including marriage, should be at the sole discretion and agreement of the individuals involved, as well as any family, friends, or religious institutions they may choose to involve. Government has no business restricting or interfering with marriage. This ban would create a caste system by dividing society into two classes: those who are permitted to marry, and those who are not.

Let’s start at the beginning:

The proposed Gay Marriage Ban would expand government control and restrict the freedom of consenting adults to live their own lives as they choose.  Actually, affirming that marriage is the union of a man and a woman does not affect anyone’s ability to “live as they choose.” It affects people’s qualifications for the rights and responsibilities associated with a social and public institution. Same sex couples can live together, invest and spend money together, probably share parenting, and of course, do anything they want in their bedrooms.

Libertarians believe that marriage is a private matter between individuals. This statement has multiple meanings, and so is nearly Read more…