Delta Airlines - and ATL on a Leash

Photo Courtesy of Torsten Henning, public domain

Delta was threatening to leave Atlanta-Hartsfield over a disagreement on paying for a new terminal. Front page news yesterday was them finally making a deal. I also checked Delta's webpage, and it seems both ATL and DAL are very happy with the deal so far, or so they say. My guess is ATL probably has its' tail between its legs and a large red sore spot on the rump, but they still have a smile on their face.

Atlanta-Hartsfield is responsible for over "20 billion dollars annual impact" according to the DAL Newsroom - or approximately $4,000 for every man, woman, and child in Greater Atlanta. As Delta effectively owns half of Atlanta-Hartsfields Terminal space, and has Atlanta as its most important hub and corporate headquarters, Delta is heavilly connected to that $4,000. At a time when every one of ole' ATL's pillars is failing below it, from finances to media to Lockheed Martin, that $4000 has become more important then ever before. Unemploymet is now over 10%, and despite vast areas of unused brownfield in the city, especially near Oakland City and East Point MARTA stations and in Bankhead east of Tech, Atlanta continues to fail at attracting heavy industry. With no other possible expansion points in sight, the Airport has become a critical economic stabilizer, perhaps even an opiate, fool's gold telling us we're okay when we're not.

I've said it many times and I'll say it again, we are obviously suffering from taxes, regulation, and inefficient infrastructure, especially in transportation and water supply. Why else would half of Bankhead, in the core of the city and near major freeways, be deserted? Why else would a relatively well-educated labor force find no employment, despite low labor and living costs? And why else would a major rail hub with low land costs fail to find industry? And when we do "develop," it only serves to push out the locals, creating yet more despair and more crime somewhere else! And sometimes we can't even find tenants - we are clearly subsidizing, by one means or another, development that we don't need. Folks, you don't get land valued lower then Idaho Falls in a metro area of 5.3 million by making smart decisions!

So instead of cowtowing to Delta Airlines and depending on one industry for our cities future, let's actually diversify for once.

A States Rights argument against Federal Aid for Fulton County

Now that the flood waters have lowered a bit, I wanted to take a few minutes on this quiet Sunday evening to make the case that Fulton County NOT get aid from the federal government.

While I understand that many are suffering because of recent events, and they certainly should be helped, it is my personal belief that only the State of Georgia, along with any private charities, should be responsible for helping them through this crisis.

The whole point of a monetary system is to assign value to certain items, places, people, services. The whole point is the correct distribution of assets. It should not surprise anyone that there are certain parts of the country where you would not be flooded even if it did rain like that and it probably wouldn't anyways - my childhood home of Seattle, WA immediately comes to mind. In the Seattle Area, there are very strict regulations that prohibit you from building on flood plains. As a result, only a handful of communities built before these regulations were in effect ever get flooded to begin with. What's even better, the floodprone areas are reserved for farming, keeping local agriculture close to the city center and allowing for easy expansion of railways and classification yards if made necessary by industrial growth.

In addition, as Fargo, North Dakota demonstrated earlier this year, the elbow grease and hardwork of the townspeople, or local government, can be a far more powerful protector and rebuilder then anything that dispassionoate, hardhearted FEMA could ever muster. They saved their town completely, the floodwaters never breached their sandbags.

If Georgia is not willing to regulate its' building, it should either pay the cost of repair work and humanitarian aid like a gentleman, pursue the grace of voluntary donors, or improve the land to handle future flooding, while also picking up its' current bill. Preferably, it should do all three.

When states pay for their own disasters, the natural disadvantages of living in that state are fairly, justly, and correctly measured against the citizens, driving out business to safer states and places, and making states responsible for their own maintenance. What's even better, as states are more responsible for their own maintenance, federal government will have both less mandate and less ability to interfere in their governance. States Rights and States Responsibilities go hand and hand.

Interview with Dr. Yaron Brook

Recently, I was pretty lucky in getting a few moments of Yaron Brook's time. As many of our readers know, Dr. Brook is the President and Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute. Dr. Brook was kind enough to answer our questions on objectivism, foreign policy and economics.


George Dienhart: My understanding of Objectivism is that reality exists independent of consciousness and that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure capitalism. Today, America seems headed into the opposite direction. No respect for individual rights and a collective mediocrity seems to be what many on the left are pushing as the new American dream. What dangers lurk for the future of America if we continue down this path?

Dr. Yaron Brook If we keep heading down this path, the ultimate result economic collapse and some form of dictatorship. The more important question is: Why are we on this path? What explains today's political trend--and how do we reverse it? That's part of what Ayn Rand addresses in her novel Atlas Shrugged.

In essence, Rand argues that the reason capitalism is under attack is because it has lacked a moral defense. Capitalism is based on the profit-motive and self-interest, and yet our culture views these things as destructive and immoral. The result is the clamor for ever-more wealth redistribution and ever-more regulations and controls.

Atlas Shrugged challenges us to rethink our entire conception of morality. It presents the view that, properly understood, self-interest and the profit-motive are morally noble. In Ayn Rand's view, selfishness doesn't mean doing whatever one feels like--it doesn't mean lying, cheating, and stealing. It means pursuing one's rational self-interest: it means living a rational, productive life and dealing with each other through voluntary trade to mutual advantage.

The reason capitalism is good is because it's the only system that fully protects self-interest and the profit-motive. That's the message Americans need to hear if we are to reverse today's anti-freedom trend.

So while it's true that, as the question notes, the left is pushing greater government intervention into the economy, the conservatives deserve their share of the blame for failing to defend capitalism. Indeed, some of the worst anti-capitalist policies and regulations now in effect were advocated by conservatives--from the prescription drug Medicare expansion to Sarbanes-Oxley. The conservatives are opposed to self-interest, and so they cannot defend capitalism.

George Dienhart: I agree, the right should have done a better job while we were in power. You mentioned defending capitalism- what about defending the nation?. Where does the notion "preemptive" war fit into Ayn Rand's philosophy? Generally, based on what I have read to understand Ayn Rand's role of reason, Objectivists hold that the initiation of physical force against the will of another is immoral, as are indirect initiations of force through threats, fraud, or breach of contract. The use of defensive or retaliatory force, on the other hand, is appropriate. To me the war, though preemptive, was defensive. Was Iraq in your viewpoint a defensive war?

Dr. Yaron Brook: Iraq could have been a proper war of self-defense--if it had been part of a larger effort to crush the jihadists. Iraq was something of a threat, and, more broadly, a free nation has the right to invade any dictatorship. A dictatorship has nor rights, no claim to sovereignty. But, as it was executed, the Iraq war was not in our interest. This is for two reasons.

First, it is absurd that in a fight against Islamic totalitarianism, we would target the secular Iraqi regime, and leave the theocrats in Iran unmolested. Iran was and is a much greater threat to the U.S. and is the moral inspiration of the jihadist movement.

Second, the goal of the Iraq war was perverse. The goal of the Iraq war was not American self-defense--it was, in the words of President Bush, to "sacrifice for the liberty of strangers." As a result, our troops were prevented from crushing the enemy. Indeed, the welfare of Iraqi civilians was often considered a higher priority than the welfare of our troops. (For more on this, see Winning The Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism, edited by ARC's Elan Journo.)

George Dienhart: Leftists would say that the money spent on the war would be best spent building schools and nation- building. This seems to be in total opposition to what you are saying- "Don't crush our enemies, make our enemies into friends". They would spend money that could be used to defend our troops on PR campaigns to show our enemies that "America is not so bad". In your opinion, would this work?

Dr. Yaron Brook: There are many mistaken assumptions in the question. In regard to our national security, we don't need to teach our enemies that America is "not so bad." They don't need to like us--they need to fear threatening us. You can't accomplish that by mending fences and building schools.

The crucial issue is that the government's responsibility is to defend us from foreign threats--not to engage in "nation-building." As I discuss in my article (written with Elan Journo), The "Forward Strategy" for Failure, the only time rebuilding an enemy nation can possibly be legitimate is after the enemy has been defeated. Once they have been thoroughly crushed and demoralized, and realize that they're goal is hopeless, then it may be advantageous to help them rebuild, as we helped Japan rebuild after World War II. Before then, it's suicidal.

Let me add, it's unfair to pin this view exclusively on the left. The right believes the same thing. We went to Iraq, not to crush the enemy, but to spread democracy. In Afghanistan, our soldiers are being used, not only to fight, but to build schools, playgrounds, and sewers. Recall that it was President Bush who saw to it that we dropped food packages on the Afghanis at the same time we were dropping bombs.

The fact is, none of our political leaders support American self-defense.

George Dienhart: Many of our enemies are in the Middle East. Where does Israel fit in here? Should the US spend more or less on defending what many see as our closest ally in the Middle East?

Dr. Yaron Brook: Israel deserves America's support. Whatever its flaws and inconsistencies, Israel is a rights-protecting regime, and therefore has a moral right to exist. Its enemies--the same enemies we face in our fight against Islamic totalitarianism--have forfeited that right. The primary thing the United States has to do with regards to Israel, however, is simply to stop pressuring it to appease the Palestinians and allow it to defend itself.

George Dienhart: Let's move on to the financial crisis. What has American business forgotten in regards to Ayn Rand's works? What would be most helpful to remember today to get us out of this financial crisis?

Dr. Yaron Brook: This issue is not so much what business has forgotten, but what few have recognized and appreciated. Ayn Rand's novels can be read on many levels. Some businessmen I've talked to read the book and see Rand's depictions of productive heroes, her depiction of business as a heroic undertaking, and it inspires them. And they also see her depiction of how government controls and regulations strangle the productive geniuses, and it helps them see that freedom is crucial for economic growth.

But the message of Atlas is much deeper. One of the key messages of Atlas Shrugged is for people--and businessmen in particular--to stop sanctioning their own destroyers. Every time a businessman talks about "giving back to the community," as if by producing goods people want he was taking something away from it--every time a businessman apologizes for his wealth--every time a businessman gives money to a university that churns out anti-business, anti-capitalist propaganda, he is acting for his own destruction.

Above all, however, Ayn Rand's works offer businessmen--and everyone else--an enormous positive: a new, rational view of morality. A view that upholds the virtue of productiveness, of integrity, of pride--a morality that tells the individual to place nothing higher than the rational pursuit of his own well-being and happiness. For those interested in learning more about her views, I encourage them to read her books, The Virtue of Selfishness, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

George Dienhart: Regardless of what the administration says, most Americans believe we are still in recession. If the current administration called today and asked for advice, what would you say?

Dr. Yaron Brook: To quote one of the heroes of Atlas Shrugged, "Get out of the way." That is, deregulate, decontrol, slash spending, cut taxes--begin the process of freeing up the economy. Ultimately, the answer is to establish a free society. Indeed, we just launched a new website, Principles of a Free Society, that describes in specific terms what the solution is.

George Dienhart: Interesting, essentially, the institute is advocating the free market ideals that conservatives are supposed to support. What if the Bush administration had asked for advice, what would you have said.

Dr. Yaron Brook: Same answer as before. What's necessary to change this country is a radical departure from the current administration, the previous administration, or any Republican or Democrat who could conceivable get elected in the near future. What's needed is not, fundamentally, political change, but cultural change. What needs to change are the anti-individualism, anti-freedom ideas that dominate the culture. That kind of change doesn't start at the political level--it starts at the educational level.

Yaron Brook regularly appears across the country. To find upcoming events, including panels, with Dr Brook and other intellectuals at the Institute, please visit the Ayn Rand Center's website, www.aynrandcenter.org.