The proper solution is for government to start protecting the rights of all individuals to act on their judgment, which means (among many other things) the right to operate their businesses as they see fit and to voluntarily contract with others—or not to do so—as they see fit.

Women who get birth control via insurance either pay for it via higher premiums, or, if their insurance is legislatively subsidized, get it for “free” only in the sense that others are forced to pay higher premiums (or higher taxes) than they would otherwise pay. In that latter case, the birth control is still not free.

Rights-respecting foreigners have a moral right to move where they choose and to seek work where they choose, and Americans have a moral right to hire and otherwise associate with such people. These rights are instances of the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

The Supreme Court delivered an important but substantially mitigated victory to advocates of individual rights by throwing out the ObamaCare requirement that business owners pay for health insurance when doing so violates their religious convictions. At issue was whether the federal government could force businesses to provide health insurance that covers forms of birth control.

Many methods of food production or preparation involve some risks to consumers . . . but it is properly up to consumers to evaluate those risks and make their shopping decisions accordingly. If people wish to consume raw fish or raw milk or hamburgers grilled rare or cheese aged on wooden boards, they have a moral right to do so . . .

A ban on drones is a patent violation of Americans’ rights to liberty and property. Farmers have a moral right to employ the latest technologies. . . . There’s no reason to suspect that flying drones at low altitudes over uninhabited, private crop lands would subject anyone to any substantial risk, much less that doing so would violate anyone’s rights.

Needless to say, a rights-respecting (or even partially-civilized) government does not arrest people for dancing, cheering for a sports team, or not wearing a headscarf. This is just another indication of the barbarism entailed in taking Islam seriously and establishing governments on the basis of religion.

Unfortunately, when some economists think of values as “subjective,” they assume that there is no objective standard for determining moral value; they assume that value is only a matter of personal opinion.

A commission established to investigate “false” campaign statements—as evaluated by a group’s political enemies and by politicians and bureaucrats—is inherently biased, and its very existence violates people’s rights to free speech. With virtually every campaign message, one side claims it is the truth whereas the other side claims it is not.

Prior to the passage of ObamaCare, leftists selected Colorado, a bellwether state (among other places), to begin promoting their health “reforms” nationally, and many of their proposals eventually became part of ObamaCare. Apparently the left is now trying the same strategy to place retirement accounts substantially under government control.

Dave Brat—who recently upset Eric Cantor in a Virginia congressional primary—says he is heavily influenced by free-market thinkers, including Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, and (to a lesser degree) Ayn Rand. More encouraging, a paper that Brat wrote in 2011 indicates that he endorses the separation of church and state.

Although Galperina rejects the idea that a pet can be objectively valuable to a person, in fact it can be. As a cat owner myself, I can attest that cats are playful and cuddly, they often do amusing things, and they provide companionship. My owning my cat objectively—that is, factually—contributes to my life and happiness.

The fact that the Bible advocates the murder of homosexuals (as well as the murder of “witches,” of those who worship other gods, and of blasphemers—among others) indicates that the Bible, far from being a guidebook for morality, is largely an absurd book of mindless and evil prohibitions and commandments rooted in nothing more than ancient superstitions.

The most important issue was not the influence of Rand on Brat—that was widely reported and thus abundantly obvious—but the differences between the views of Rand and Brat. That was the point that was not obvious to many people, and that is the issue that is crucially important for advocates of Rand’s ideas to clarify.

Although it is senseless to campaign against so-called “white privilege," one sort of pervasive privilege is real, it is evil, and it should be not only checked but ultimately abolished. It is the privilege government grants to some people to violate the rights of others. Call it “statist privilege.”