The Culture of Reason Center is offering lectures 1-20 of Nathaniel Branden’s The Basic Principles of Objectivism Course for sale as individual MP3 downloads. These are the original lectures that Branden gave during the operation of the Nathaniel Branden Institute in the 60’s. Enjoy!

Lecture 01: The Role of Philosophy
Lecture 02: What is Reason?
Lecture 03: Logic and Mysticism
Lecture 04: The Concept of God
Lecture 05: Free Will
Lecture 06: Efficient Thinking
Lecture 07: Self-Esteem
Lecture 08: The Psychology of Dependence
Lecture 09: The Psychology of Sex
Lecture 10: The Objectivist Ethics
Lecture 11: Reason and Virtue
Lecture 12: Justice vs. Mercy
Lecture 13: The Evil of Self-Sacrifice
Lecture 14: Government and The Individual
Lecture 15: The Economics of A Free Society
Lecture 16: Common Fallacies About Capitalism
Lecture 17: Romanticism, Naturalism and The Novels of Ayn Rand, Part 1
Lecture 18: Romanticism, Naturalism and The Novels of Ayn Rand, Part 2
Lecture 19: The Nature of Evil
Lecture 20: The Benevolent Sense of Life

Today, I celebrate my birthday. Well, not really. I should call it my re-birthday. You see, I grew up in East Berlin, and today twenty years have passed since the Fall of the Berlin Wall.

I was 8 years old, living in Moscow on that day. Little did I know that it would not only change the course of history, but my life as well.

Back then I did not understand the significance of what had happened. However, when I returned to Berlin during the summer of 1990, I could already feel that some profound change had taken place, and that more was to come. Still, I had yet to grasp how philosophy shapes man and his creations. I had yet to gain the knowledge necessary to perceive how the human spirit is uplifted by freedom and crushed by coercion.

But today, I understand that the fall of the Berlin Wall opened much more for me than a physical border.

Had it not been for that day, I would probably not be living in the United States now. Those who wanted to cross the East German border, attempting to exercise one of their most fundamental individual rights — the freedom to seek greater economic liberty and personal opportunity — were shot by the border guards.

Had it not been for that day, I would probably not have obtained a degree in philosophy, or have been exposed to the great minds of classical liberal and libertarian thoughts — John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, and Milton Friedman. Higher education was rationed, controlled and censored; individualists were spied on, harassed, blackmailed and imprisoned in East Germany.

Most importantly, had it not been for that day, I would not have met my husband, a man as passionate about choosing his life as I am about choosing mine.

Yet, I do not regard this day as a reminder not to take for granted the freedom I now enjoy. It is simply the day that I and millions of other people regained the ability to exercise the rights we naturally possess.

What matters are not the walls that we erect, but the ones that we tear down.

John Mackey speaks with reason.tv about his proposal for healthcare reform, the history of Whole Foods, and dealing with government interference.

Here is a well done video series of brief lectures on the U.S. Constitution. There a seven of them currently, and each is about ten minutes or less in length.
Read the rest of this entry »

Jacob Sullum reports on the Atlasphere that:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that drug offenders account for about 25 percent of local jail inmates, 21 percent of state prisoners and 55 percent of federal prisoners. Since 1980 the number of drug offenders in state prisons has increased by 1,200 percent, more than four times the increase in violent offenders. … According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, however, only one in ten federal crack offenses involves violence or the threat of violence. … Research conducted by criminologist John DiIulio, economist Anne Morrison Piehl, and sociologist Bert Useem in the late 1990s found that many, if not most, people sentenced for drug crimes in New York, Arizona, and New Mexico were “drug-only offenders,” meaning the only crimes they’d ever committed involved the voluntary exchange of politically incorrect intoxicants for money.

Read the rest of this entry »

I took the liberty of a small break after a crazy semester and the time to prepare for the coming, also crazy, one. Hence, my posting was a bit sparse these past few weeks. But all should return to normal rather soon. In the meantime, I shall briefly vent my outrage at Illinois’ smoking ban that went into effect January 1. The act is conveniently referred to as “an act concerning public health” and bans smoking from bars, restaurants and other public places. Of course, the ban is predicated upon the much touted ills of second-hand smoke. The Act itself states that

Secondhand tobacco smoke causes at least 65,000 deaths each year from heart disease and lung cancer according to the National Cancer Institute.

But the question is under what circumstances is that really true? Most studies investigating the effects of second-hand smoke looked at people who are exposed to it on a daily and prolonged basis, such as people who live with smokers, and did not always find that it did harm them. In fact, one long-term study published in the British Medical Journal found that its results

do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

Never mind that many restaurants had already become smoke-free without any force of law but simply because their customer base appreciated it enough. Small bars and restaurants relying on smoking clientèle will most likely be hit hardest by the economic effects of this ban. But most importantly, what ever happened to personal responsibility? If you don’t want to be in a smoky environment, don’t frequent such an establishment. And, those working in places where many people smoke also have a choice. They don’t have to work there if they think it will harm their health. The fact is, the mechanisms of the market were working in the direction of making many places smoke-free and would have left enough places offering the opportunity to smoke for those people who choose to go or work there. The aftertaste of this law in my mouth is worse than cigarettes.