In Ayn Rand's magnificent book Atlas Shrugged the leftist politician-regulators, near the climax of the book, pass a law forbidding businesses change their activities in any way. The directive is called 10-289. It attempts to chain employers and employees to their current jobs, current locations and current practices.
Their motives are three-fold.
First they are animated by a moral opposition to profit seeking per se. They call it 'greed' because they can't imagine an intellectual or moral defense of self-interest so they prefer to describe the pursuit of profit and the pursuit of happiness in emotional terms, 'greed'. (Remember this distinction when you consider similar controversies described in emotional rather than intellectual terms, e.g. 'hate', 'hope', 'compassion'.) They are opposed to businessmen changing their activities in an attempt to make more money.
Second they wish to protect their cronies in business who aren't able enough to make good decisions, like moving to more business friendly regulatory environments, businesses that instead thrive on government protections, handouts, and loan guarantees. Think of pre-nationalized GM here, that didn't have the brains, balls or perhaps the legal ability to move to the more business friendly southern states, while Toyota et al. were doing well there. By preventing any further changes the regulators hope to keep their cronies in business while together they, the government and crony businessmen, pick over the carcass of the dying economy. They can only imagine redistributing wealth, not creating it.
Third they wish to prevent the irrationality of their existing policies from becoming evident. If businessmen are allowed to change, move, or quit in response to the disincentives of current regulations, the harmful effects of those regulations become clear to all. California politicians are starting to panic over all the businesses and individuals that are moving to Texas. And unions have always been upset that businesses could move to 'right-to-work' states that recognize some elements of free employer-employee relationships in opposition to collective compulsory bargaining laws.
Those of you who have read Atlas Shrugged know why this is happening (collectivism and altruism). Those of you that haven't, might want to pick it up to get an idea of the destructive moral power behind these kinds of directives and what they'll lead to if we do nothing about it.
Two big items of note this week in the realm of the unaccountable statism. The first isn't exactly regulatory, but relates to earlier stories that did directly involve the regulatory agencies (energy and health and human services to be precise). It is Obama's continued, demonstrable contempt for the Constitution. Obama has openly declared that he won't abide by a law passed by congress and signed by himself, the portion of the budget that defunds some of his czars. He's also trying make an end run around the Surpreme Court's ruling that struck down the DISCLOSE act, in an attempt to stifle free speech in the upcoming elections.
The other big item is the NLRB's attack on business. One of its members has filed a complaint that would prevent Boeing from building a plant in South Carolina. If this is allowed, it has grave implications regarding our freedom of movement and association.
For those of you in San Diego that are Objectivists, Tea Partiers, or sympathetic and interested in philosophic discussions (looking especially at you and your bar friends Dueling Barstools and you at Left Coast Rebels), here's an event this weekend. Two sessions of the American Philosophic Association will be discussing Rand's ideas. This is a first and looks fairly interesting. (Posted on HBL and communicated separately to me by Prof. Gotthelf)
From Allan Gotthelf
The Pacific Division of the APA meets at the Hilton San Diego Bayfront this weekend. Two of its programs deal, in part or in whole, with Objectivism. This is extremely rare, and I would like to urge all of you (or your friends) who might possibly attend to try to do so. It will be important to show that there is a serious interest in Ayn Rand's philosophic thought, and attendance at these meetings, which unfortunately have stiff competition from other meetings of more common interest among philosophers today. (For registration information, see below.)
22 Apr 1-4 pm: The first APA program ever to feature Ayn Rand in one of its lecture titles is called "Uncommon Virtues: Creativity, Productivity, and Pride". Aristotle and Ayn Rand will get the bulk of the attention.
The main speakers were to be Christine Swanton (Univ. Auckland) and I. Greg Salmieri is scheduled to comment on Swanton and Helen Cullyer (Mellon Foundation, formerly of Univ Pittsburgh), an expert on pride in Aristotle, was to comment on me. For medical reasons I have, regrettably, had to withdraw. Dr. Cullyer will do a paper in my place, focused on Aristotle but pointing to fundamental similarities concerning the nature and virtuous character of pride. Greg Salmieri will comment on that paper as well.
Saturday 23 Apr 6-8 pm: The Ayn Rand Society will hold a program on "Rand on Punishment", with papers by David Boonin (Univ. Colorado) and Irfan Khawaja (Felician Univ.). I was to chair this meeting, but in my place Greg Salmieri, a member with me of the ARS Steering Committee, will chair.
More details are available on the ARS website: www.aynrandsociety.org (scroll to 2010-2011 Programs). Attendees must register at the APA Registration Desk at the hotel for the convention, but as explained at that ARS website page, you can register for individual meetings at $10 (or so) per meeting. That is the only cost.
The big news this week, not extensively covered below, is that the federal budget for the remainder of 2011 was passed and signed and the GOP did not manage to cut any spending or cut any regulatory activities. The rider to defund greenhouse gas regulation was ultimately abandoned. Shameful in my opinion. My GOP representative Bilbray voted for the budget and I've told him I'll never vote for him again.
Meanwhile California politicians and activists continue to promote the same kind of economic suicide and the story of the tomato farm in Camp Pendleton closing is emblematic of our future with Fed created inflation and state regulations crushing farming, especially water regulations. More and more businesses will be destroyed or driven out with the government the only remaining growth 'industry'.
I saw Atlas Shrugged Part 1 last night. There was lots of awkwardness in the dialogue, unevenness in the scenes, and some miscasting. BUT the positive portrayal of businessmen and productive activity was once in a lifetime. I don't know if the movie itself will convince people to read the book. I think not. My wife thinks it will. The media buzz clearly is already though. If you don't ever plan to read the book, seeing the movie will at least give an idea of what Rand is about when you hear about her ideas. And you will more and more often over the next many years (and decades).
UPDATE (06-27-11): Atlas Shrugged is no longer showing in San Diego. Hasn't for a while. Read or reread the book instead. Its a thousand times better. Or read my blog. :) UPDATE (05-10-11): As of today, its still showing in San Diego. Go to the San Diego Reader link for updated showtimes.
A relatively thin week. Many of the stories I had collected had to do with how agencies would be effected by a government shutdown, but now that promise has passed. The biggest news is the expansion of the ADA's definition of a 'disability', about which I've blogged elsewhere.
As I delve more into news sources, I'm shifting even more away from mainstream media articles and towards blogs and sites who's focus is for the protection of individual rights and against unaccountable regulatory agencies. In that way I hope that you will find not only stories, but entire organizations that will help intellectually arm you against state intrusions.
This is not getting nearly as much press as it should. The EEOC recently published new guidelines regarding what will be considered a disability protected under the ADA, effective May 24. The two changes are that minor and episodic diseases will now be covered, including for example diabetes and bipolar disorder. The second, and more significant change, is that the burden of proof will now rest on the employer to prove that the litigating employee does not have the claimed disability (a near impossibility given how modern diseases are classified and diagnosed) or that he, the employer, is making accommodations. Since the former won't stand in court, employers will now be forced to accommodate an endless series of demands by 'disabled' employees. Besides the ramps and special bathrooms we'll all have onsite medical facilities to deal with medical problems, perhaps psychiatrists, extra security for violent disorders, meetings shortened to 5 minutes to accommodate those with attention deficit disorder, cafeterias with all manner of foods to accommodate the gluten intolerant and nut allergic, the list is endless.
The ADA should be repealed, and urgently so with these new changes. A disabled person has no more right to a job than an able person. It is the employers right to hire who he wishes, under whatever terms he demands and to fire them should he decide their employment is not in his interest. A right is not a claim on another's person or property. A right defines freedom of action, freedom from coercion. Disabled or not an employee's right is only to accept employment offered him, not to compel the employer to hire him, give him special consideration or force him to build wheelchair ramps and supply an on-site psychiatrist and security for his manic rages.
I have nothing against someone who has an inconvenient or debilitating condition through no fault of their own. But it is not the responsibility of the rest of humanity to make up for that condition. It is a fact of life, neither the fault of the victim nor of anyone else and must be adjusted to by the victim, their family and friends.
Furthermore, that condition can to some extent be treated or overcome through wealth, i.e. technology, science, robotics, medicine. and it is not in the interest of the disabled to make it impossible for businessmen to create that wealth or institutions to discover that science. Shackling our economy with these kinds of regulations and lawsuits is just suicide for all, including the disabled. How well did the disabled fair before industrial civilization? Not well. And that's were the ADA is taking us if its applied with any consistency.
Of course it won't be applied consistently, it will be used as a weapon by disgruntled employees, bitter job applicants, business rivals and political foes to bring any company of their choosing to its knees. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Koch brothers, vilified among leftists for their vocal defense of capitalism, attacked this year under the new interpretation of the ADA.
Would you be shocked to learn that George H.W. Bush signed the ADA into law in 1990 and that George W. Bush signed the ADAAA (amendment act) in 2008? I'm not.
Come May, employers will be required to provide accommodations for a new range of issues and diseases that have recently been given the distinction of “disability” after an update to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The document published in the Federal Register includes the final revised ADA act and interpretative guidelines, which, according to an EEOC release, are ”designed to simplify the determination of who has a ‘disability’ and make it easier for people to establish that they are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.” The regulations go into effect May 24.
In the most current version of the act, “disability” is defined as a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities of such individual.” In other words, a disability was always considered to be constantly “debilitating.” The new regulations maintain the ADA’s definition of disability, but major changes come from how the terms “impairment” and “life activities” are interpreted. With the new language, “impairment need not prevent or severely or significantly restrict performance of a major life activity to be considered a disability. Additionally, whether an impairment is a disability should be construed broadly, to the maximum extent allowable under the law.”
Impairments that are in remission or are episodic, such as cancer or epilepsy, can now be interpreted as “substantially restricting the performance of a life activity” when the condition is active.
Under the regulations, “major life activities” include “major bodily functions,” such as functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, and brain, neurological, and endocrine functions. The rules document clarifies that not every impairment will be considered a disability and gives clear examples, such as HIV infection, diabetes, epilepsy and bipolar disorder.
Formerly, the burden of proof was on the worker to prove he or she suffered from a condition that required certain accommodations; now it will be up to individual employers to make certain they have not overlooked any condition or disability that could be covered under the law.
A census estimate (PDF) from 2005 found that of all Americans, 16.5 percent of people aged 21 to 64 had some level of disability; 45.6 percent of this group was employed.
In its preliminary estimation of the effects of the amended ADA, the EEOC, predicted that the new regulations would increase the pool of those considered to be workers with disabilities by 160,000 people; but further analysis and input from academics and experts raised that estimation to between 12 million and 38.4 million new disabled workers.
The EEOC further estimates that the broadened definitions will lead to between 400,000 and 1.2 million new accommodations employers will be required to provide, which is estimated to cost between $60 million and $183 million annually. The commission notes that many of these accommodations will be low-cost, such as allowing breaks or making small modifications to office equipment.
“Just as the ADAAA [ADA Amendments Act] was the result of a considerable bipartisan effort by Congress, the final rule represents a concerted effort of EEOC Commissioners representing both parties to arrive at regulations that hold true to that bipartisan Congressional intent,” said EEOC Commissioner Constance S. Barker in a press statement. “I was pleased to have been able to vote in favor of the final rule.”
Read the full analysis and implications of the regulations here.
Law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides a list of implications for employers, essentially suggesting new tactics for fighting lawsuits. These include:
“Defendants are far less likely to prevail in court by arguing that an individual is not disabled and therefore is not covered under the ADA and/or does not require accommodation. “
Now more than ever, employers must focus on reasonable accommodation, and on whether an individual with a physical or mental condition is otherwise qualified to perform essential job functions, with or without reasonable accommodation.”
“Lawyers defending ADA cases in court must, in most cases, wean themselves off arguing that the plaintiff is not disabled … the employer must typically focus its arguments on accommodation – it made accommodation, the plaintiff failed to request accommodation, the plaintiff declined accommodation, the plaintiff failed to participate meaningfully in the accommodation process, etc.”
“The class action epidemic that continues in most parts of the country will now likely expand further to encompass mass actions under ADAAA. Some such actions will be brought by the EEOC under pattern and practice theory. Others will be filed by plaintiffs seeking class certification under Rule 23. … The EEOC’s repudiation of that approach could well mean a rise in class cases, e.g., by numerous individuals with a particular impairment, or numerous individuals having various impairments – all of them now protected.”
This video from Penn & Teller is also worth a watch:
I wouldn't call it a theme of the week, but the impending unionization of farm workers (through SB104) combined with the continued attacks on farming for the sake of the delta smelt and new proposed regulations of irrigation runoff adds up to a very pessimistic future for farming in California.
John Allison, Objectivist Businessman/Banker is giving a talk in La Jolla on Monday. He is a very successful banker and the only banker that I know of that spoke out publicly against the bailouts. Here is the announcement from the Ayn Rand Center's website. His talk is free and open to the public. I've only seen him before on John Stossel's show. The topic looks interesting and he's a fairly good speaker. Hope to see you there!
Using Ayn Rand's Values to Create Competitive Advantage in Business
By John Allison
While John Allison was chairman and CEO of BB&T Corporation from 1989 to 2008, the company grew from $4.5 billion to $152 billion in assets to become the 10th largest financial institution headquartered in the United States. During this same period, BB&T expanded its insurance business from a small local agency to become the 6th ...largest insurance broker in the world. BB&T has weathered the Great Recession better than almost any bank in America.
Mr. Allison, who remains on the board of directors of BB&T, attributes the success of BB&T to the concept of Principled Leadership, based on an uncompromising commitment to fundamental values. In his talk, he will explain how Ayn Rand's ethical system can be used practically to create a competitive advantage in any organization. He will highlight how to use a clear sense of purpose and conscious commitment to rationality as a means of energizing your employees and avoiding fundamental business mistakes. He will also outline the necessity of having a fully integrated and non-contradictory set of principles for organizations and for individuals, and discuss typical errors in the decision process of pragmatic business leaders. Mr. Allison will show how the pursuit of personal happiness and organization success are in harmony when the individual and the organization have values based on reality and reason.
Doors open: 6:15 p.m. PT
Talk: 7 p.m. PT
Q&A: 7:45 p.m. PT
This event is free and open to the public, but an RSVP is appreciated. Please email events@aynrandcenter.org to RSVP.
For more information, download the event flyer.
