Three on Rand

Yaron Brook writes in an Ayn Rand Institute media release:

Obama-nomics couldn’t be more wrong. Prosperity requires that the government drastically cut government spending. That way, as much real capital as possible will remain in private hands, and be put to productive use by entrepreneurs to create valuable goods and services to sell at home and abroad. By taxing and inflating our wealth away, Obama will simply be creating more of the crushing debt that brought about the current crisis. You don’t put out a fire with more gasoline. And you don’t end a recession by destroying capital.

Keith Lockitch (also of the Institute) writes for the Washington Times:

Why is it that no matter what sacrifices you make to try to reduce your “environmental footprint,” it never seems to be enough? Well, consider why it is that you have an “environmental footprint” in the first place. Everything we do to sustain our lives has an impact on nature.

And Stephen Moore writes about Atlas Shrugged for the Wall Street Journal:

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises — that in most cases they themselves created — by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism. …

The current economic strategy is right out of “Atlas Shrugged”: The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you.

Moore makes a couple of missteps — what he describes is not “simply” the “moral of the story,” which is much richer, and the Atlas Society that Moore mentions doesn’t do justice to Rand’s work — but his article is worth a read, as are the other two pieces.

Ayn Rand’s work is increasingly relevant in today’s world.