According to “professor” Reich “the American myth of the triumphant individual may have outlasted its time . . . The story of the little guy who works hard, takes risks, believes in himself and eventually earns wealth, fame and honor” is outmoded. Moreover, Mr. Reich insists “we must begin to celebrate collective entrepreneurship . . . [where] success can be measured only in reference to collective results” and not “individualistic endeavor.”

When applied specifically to the construction community, professor Reich warns against “white male construction workers” receiving a disproportional amount of the stimulus package largess – by the mere fact they dominate most of the skilled trade positions. Instead, presumably we should hire unskilled workers (read “victims” of what ever perceived slight) while having the central planners insist on fairness by insuring “only modest differences in income” are allowed.

While we have come to expect the unexpected (including the whacky and nonsensical) out of California universities, this dangerous philosophy is a direct frontal assault on the very economic system this nation was built on. Capitalism, entrepreneurial spirit, risk taking, the free market of ideas and goods, with its attending rewards (return) are thrown overboard for “collective entrepreneurship” – which is nothing more than socialism. We should be worried, very, very worried – I don’t believe this was the “change” most of Obama’s supporters thought they were voting for last November.

Besides, didn’t we already have this debate and President Ronald Reagan assign their side to the “dust bin of history?”

I believe the debate should start with the question: “What is the purpose of an individual’s life?”. If, as Ayn Rand wrote, the purpose of one’s life it is to live and enjoy life, then the debate shouldn’t center on whether one’s choices help society. It should center on what choices cause an individual to be happy.

It is only the ethic of altruism that requires an individual to focus on the lives of others.