Essay Contests On Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead And Anthem

Anthem Essay Contest Information
Eligibility: 8th, 9th and 10th Graders
Entry Deadline: March 20, 2010
FIRST PRIZE: $2,000
5 SECOND PRIZES: $500
10 THIRD PRIZES: $200
45 FINALISTS: $50
175 SEMIFINALISTS: $30

Topics
Select ONE of the following three topics:

1.Why do you think the Council of Vocations assigns Equality the job of Street Sweeper? Is it due to error, incompetence or a more sinister motivation? Explain.
2.The old locks and lack of guards in the Palace of Corrective Detention indicate that prisoners never try to escape. Why do you think they do not? Explain.
3.In a single, unified essay, explain the meaning and wider significance of EACH of the following quotes in the story:
1. “To be free, a man must be free of his brothers.” (Ch. 12)
2. “It is my mind which thinks, and the judgment of my mind is the only searchlight that can find the truth.” (Ch. 11)
3. “And we thought that we could trust this being who looked upon us from the stream, and that we had nothing to fear with this being.” (Ch. 8)

The Fountainhead Essay Contest Information
Eligibility: 11th and 12th Graders
Entry Deadline: April 26, 2010
FIRST PRIZE: $10,000
5 SECOND PRIZES: $2,000
10 THIRD PRIZES: $1,000
45 FINALISTS: $100
175 SEMIFINALISTS: $50

Topics
Select ONE of the following three topics:

1.Howard Roark refuses a major contract when he most needs it, claiming that his action was “the most selfish thing you’ve ever seen a man do.” (Ch. 15) Why does he call his action “selfish”? And why do other people call it “selfless”?
2.Gail Wynand is a brilliant individual who rose out of the slums by means of his own talent and effort. But despite his reverence for man’s noblest achievements, his newspaper, The Banner, presents the most lurid and loathsome values. Why does Wynand pander in this manner? And why doesn’t Howard Roark?
3.Choose the scene in The Fountainhead that is most meaningful to you. Analyze that scene in terms of the wider themes in the book.


Atlas Shrugged Essay Contest Information

Eligibility: 12th Graders, College Undergraduates, and Graduate Students
Entry Deadline: September 17, 2010
FIRST PRIZE: $10,000
3 SECOND PRIZES: $2,000
5 THIRD PRIZES: $1,000
20 FINALISTS: $100
20 SEMIFINALISTS: $50

Topics
Select ONE of the following three topics:

1.According to John Galt, selfishness is both moral and practical. Explain what he means by this and how events of the story illustrate and dramatize his point.
2.Explain the meaning and wider significance of the following quote: “The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.” According to the story of Atlas Shrugged, what ideas underlie the opposing maxims that “money is the root of all evil” and that “money is the root of all good”?
3.Capitalism’s defenders usually appeal to the “public good.” Contrast their approach to capitalism to Ayn Rand’s approach in Atlas Shrugged.

The Moral Foundation of Capitalism

The First Annual Objective Standard Essay Contest

Topic for 2010:
The Moral Foundation of Capitalism

Few people who advocate capitalism know fully what this social system is, and even fewer are able to defend it on moral grounds. What is capitalism? What are its distinguishing characteristics? On what moral principles do they depend? And why are so few people able to name and uphold these principles?

Prizes
First place: $2,000 plus publication in TOS
Second place: $750
Third place: $300

Eligibility

The contest is open to anyone ages 18 to 35, excluding TOS contributors. Students and non-students alike are encouraged to enter.
Submission Deadline and Announcement of Winners

The deadline for submissions is August 15, 2010. Winners will be announced on October 15, 2010.

Specifications and Formatting

Essays must be in English, 6,000 words maximum.

A time to Party! and part with socialism

Political ideologies are simple tools by which people decide on the general direction they think society ought to take. In a true democracy, different political ideals have to compete to win the support of the people. The authors of the Indian Constitution had specifically debated and rejected the idea of binding the country to socialism. Yet, the Preamble to the Constitution was amended in 1976, and the election law in 1989, requiring all political parties to affirm to the Constitution, and to socialism. Now, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that there are valid questions on the issue of socialism, though academic, at this point in time. So it is a time to form a Party, and part with socialism!

My article titled "A time to Party! and part with socialism" was published in the August edition of Pragati.

Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that questioned the validity of the 42nd amendment to the Indian Constitution, which among many other things, added the terms “socialist, secular” to qualify the democratic republic in the Preamble. The amendment dates back to 1976, to the dark days of Emergency. Later, the Representation of the People Act, the law governing political parties and elections, was further amended to include the section 29A, making it mandatory for all political parties in India to affirm to “socialism” if they were to be registered by the Election Commission of India for the purpose of participating in the electoral process.

The courts always dismiss petitions before them once they pronounce a particular judgment. In this case, however, the Supreme Court acknowledged the “academic” question raised in the petition, but felt that since no political party has so far objected to it, there are perhaps no really aggrieved parties. So it allowed the petitioner to “withdraw” the petition. This withdrawal, however, means that the Court has not ruled against the issue, but considers it to be valid, and has kept it open for a future occasion.

The champions of individual freedom in economic and political spheres have long bemoaned the fact that there is no political platform in India that truly reflects their aspirations. No doubt there are liberals of different shades in almost all political parties, but still there are no avowedly liberal political parties.

Political parties are plentiful, with around 50 parties represented in the national parliament, and hundreds of parties operating at state and local levels. They represent a diverse range of interests: national, state, regional or local. They claim to represent varied sections of society based on national, ethnic, linguistic, religious, caste, and other identities. Yet, the political ideals on offer are very limited, as all parties are bound by socialism if they are to participate in electoral politics. Incidentally, independent candidates are not required to affirm to socialism, and if elected have only to take oath to uphold the Constitution. One of the reasons for this limited range of political options in the largest and the most vibrant democracy in the world, is the law that requires affirmation to socialism.

By legally restricting the political ideology to “socialism”, a couple of serious anomalies have been created. Having introduced “socialism” through the political and constitutional process, it is now being implied that “socialism” cannot be opposed and removed by the very same constitutional process. How can one mount a political campaign calling for the removal of “socialism” in the election law or in the Constitution, after having affirmed to “socialism” as a political ideal?

Secondly, what does socialism mean? The Constitution does not define it. The judges hearing the PIL commented that the meaning could vary. But could “socialism” include feudalism, imperialism, fascism, Nazism (national socialism), communism, capitalism, and everything else? If it does have such a wide range of meanings, why have it at all? The judiciary spends a lot of effort on interpreting the law by trying to precisely define the words in it. Justice would come to an end if words were given such variable meanings.

The Supreme Court has seen this as an “academic” exercise. But the impact of “socialism” in the Constitution and in the election law raises questions about possible violation of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and basic structure doctrine. If democracy is among the sacrosanct elements articulated in the judgments on basic structure, then what good is democracy where political discourse is limited exclusively to one political ideology?


Political ideologies matter in shaping public opinion and policies. The stated goal of all political action may be to improve general welfare; but, it is the ideology that provides the vision, and determines the direction and nature of the policies that are designed. Policy decisions whether to nationalise an industry or economic sector, or to privatise it, are shaped much more by political ideologies, than by hard core technical analysis of the merits of the proposed policy measures. In a democracy, people and leaders are not experts in all fields. Political ideologies come as a simple tool by which people decide on the general direction they think society ought to take, and the merits of specific public policies.


There is no functioning democracy in the world which restrains the space for peacefully competing political ideologies, except perhaps Germany, where there is some restriction on propagation of Nazi ideology. In every major democracy, the political ideology that is most successful in reflecting the aspirations of the large number of people at any given time, changes the political dynamics during elections. From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair, the fortunes of political leaders and their parties have swung with the popular perception of the political ideologies of the time. This is what makes democracy such a potent political tool, and ensures the political survival of the society through the various competing ideologies.

The Constituent Assembly had deliberated at length on this very question of “socialism” in 1949. Even while acknowledging that there are many provisions in the Constitution that are socialistic in nature, the constitution makers had decided not to tie the hands of the future generations to a particular political idea. No less a person than Dr B R Ambedkar, the chairman of the drafting committee had then said,“What should be the policy of the state, how society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether …”If democracy is one of the basic features of the Constitution, then restricting it to on political ideology, is clearly a violation of the basic feature doctrine. What would be a democracy, where political parties are not free to fly their particular ideologies, and compete with each other in an attempt to peacefully persuade the citizens to one vision or another?

Swatantra Party Maharashtra—the inheritors of the mantle of the Swatantra Party, founded by stalwarts like C Rajagopalachari, Minoo Masani and others in 1959—had written to the Election Commission of India in 1994, noting their opposition to the ideas of socialism, and their inability to affirm to socialist ideals. The Commission had replied by pointing at the amendment to the section 29A of the Representation of the People Act which mandates affirmation to socialism. It thus acknowledged that its role is to implement the law as it stands, not to change or reinterpret it.

By acknowledging the “academic” nature of the question in the PIL, the Supreme Court has actually opened a door for the political liberals to come out of the woodwork. Now is the time for the liberals to come together and form a political party, with the sole objective of registering their opposition to the affirmation to socialist ideal. After forming the political party, an application to the Election Commission for registration needs to be filed, even though it is likely to be rejected for not meeting the legal requirement. That would enable the party to go to the Supreme Court and seek redressal of a legitimate and real grievance.

Liberals may not yet be a political force to have an electoral impact in India, but by forming a party with this narrow objective, can leave a permanent imprint on the political future of democratic republic of India. This is a not an exclusively liberal cause, though, and it is open to all shades of political opinion. If one ideology enjoys legal sanction today, then tomorrow another could very easily be banned. Putting democracy in a straitjacket will signal the end of political freedom.

All are welcome to the Party of the free and the brave! If the political space can be legitimately opened up, then the political agenda would have to change too, and then the electoral space will inevitably follow.

Libertarianism & Racial Nationalism

The Occidental Quarterly

Essay Competition

$1,000 prize

For an Essay on the Topic:

Libertarianism

&

Racial Nationalism

# Essays must be in English.
# Essays must be at least 2,000 and no more than 5,000 words.
# Essays must be submitted electronically in Word or RTF format.
# Authors may use pen names.
# Only one entry per author.
# Essays must not have previously appeared in print.
# The winning essay will be chosen by the Editor of TOQ. All decisions will be final.
# The contest is open to anyone worldwide, except the Editor of TOQ.
# The winning essay and other worthy entries will be published in TOQ.
# The deadline for submissions is June 1, 2010.
# Winners and Runners Up will be informed by August 1, 2010.

Authoritarian Capitalism Vs Western Liberal Version

2010 Hayek Essay Contest

Topic:

Examine whether authoritarian capitalism is a viable alternative to its Western liberal version, to promote long term economic growth and development. (In 5000 words)

Age Criteria:

Essay Contest is open to all individuals 35 years old or younger.

Prizes:

First prize: $2500 cash award + travel grant

Second prize: $1500 cash award + travel grant

Third prize: $1000 cash award + travel grant

Deadline: May 31, 2010

Democracy That Delivers

CIPE Youth Essay Contest 2010

Topics:

Democracy that delivers
Entrepreneurship and society
Women and participation

Age Criteria:
Students and young professionals aged 18-30.

Contest Deadline:
June 18, 2010

Essay Length:
2,000 - 3,000 words

Ways to advance freedom

The deadline of ‘Young Writer on Liberty' contest by the Adam Smith Institute is on April 30th.

The contestants should write three articles on

Ways to advance freedom

The title of each article is up to the contestants.

1st Prize:
£500 cash prize
3 articles published on www.adamsmith.org/blog
3 books on the subject of liberty
2 weeks work experience at the ASI
Invitation to the prize giving on our Summer Boat Party

2nd Prize:
2 articles published on www.adamsmith.org/blog
2 books on the subject of liberty Invitation to the prize giving on our Summer Boat Party

3rd Prize:
1 article published on www.adamsmith.org/blog
1 book on the subject of liberty
Invitation to the prize giving on our Summer Boat Party