Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

"The Betrayal of Ayn Rand"

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The Betrayal of Ayn Rand

An Open Letter to Objectivists

June 15, 2009

By Rick Koerber

Founder of the Free Capitalist Project

Long after her death, it’s sad to see so many Objectivists losing sight of Ayn Rand’s personal mission. Talking like an Objectivist, referencing the characters in her books, and using the vocabulary of her movement—are all poor substitutes for acting in accordance with the ideas of an Objectivist and working to usher forth the moral revolution she so passionately advocated.

While there are notable and significant exceptions too many Objectivists that I come across on a regular basis seem to be using their intransigent atheism to justify abandoning the actual hard work of BEING real radicals for capitalism. I’m writing this criticism, not to be sensational or to attack, but to rattle a few rusty mental cages among a crowd I consider to be my friends—friends however, who seem to have succumbed to what Ms. Rand regularly described as the ‘sluggish inertia of unfocused minds.’

Before I go any further let me also offer two very distinct caveats at the outset. Number one, I am not an expert on Objectivism—though I do consider myself a diligent student. Number two; I do not mean to suggest that most Objectivists are not thinking. I mean instead to suggest that a large number of so-called Objectivists seem to be entertained and satisfied by their own thinking—in some queer sort of intellectual masturbation—rather than translating their ideas into marketable, articulated tools for ‘building a new culture on a new moral foundation.’

Somehow, almost three decades after her death, a large body of self-proclaimed followers seems to be attempting, and in large measure successfully, a tragic historical revision; namely, equating the title Objectivist (and the less used phrase ‘radical for capitalism’) with the much less diligent pursuits of being an isolated, libertarian leaning atheist. This intellectual abdication is no simple error in judgment. It is the hallmark of second-handers and amounts to nothing less than a betrayal of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Even worse, this betrayal is being perpetrated by a significant portion of those very people who claim to be her advocates and defenders.

Alright. If I’ve gotten the attention of my desired audience, so far my remarks have been the equivalent of taking a stick and poking it violently into a previously docile beehive. Before I’m overcome with a multitude of now irritated bees intent on me as their new target—let me back up and create some context.

I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time perhaps five years ago. So, in the world of Ayn Rand fans and students, I’m certainly not an old timer. I did, however, find Atlas Shrugged to be, quite simply, earth shaking. I literally fell in love with the characters. It wasn’t because I was enjoying the fiction. I often found the reading long and arduous. Instead, I found in Atlas Shrugged, a systematic articulation of the main conflict facing the modern world, in a way that I had only been struggling to come to terms with previously.

Nevertheless, when I finished reading the book I found myself in a sort of depression. I had grown so accustomed to coming home from the office and sitting down to spend a few hours with Dagny, Reardon, Francisco and John Galt—eagerly plowing through pages to learn how they were dealing with the moochers and looters, that when the story ended, it was like saying goodbye to new friends. I actually experienced a real feeling of emptiness and withdrawal for the first few weeks after finishing the book.

It didn’t take long however, for me to realize that it was not her characters that I had actually fallen in love with, it was Ms. Rand herself–the mind behind the characters. This realization sent me on my own personal odyssey. Soon I was reading the Fountainhead and not long after I had ordered every book I could find online, authored by Ayn Rand. I read everything. I read Objectivist Epistemology, the Night of January 16th, the Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and on and on. I was like a starving man who had been invited to a banquet feast.

Oddly, while I was certain I had never read anything like Ayn Rand’s works, the material seemed somehow familiar. My own ideas were becoming more clear, and new related ideas were not hard to grasp at all. Ironically, I was so new to reading Ms. Rand that virtually no one around me knew enough to correct me when I would refer to her as “Ann Rand” rather than Ayn.

It didn’t take long before essentially every one of my seminars, every daily radio program, and every class that I was teaching had some reference to Ayn Rand or her books. For example, my recently completed four-hundred and forty-seven page student manual for my “13 Principles of Prosperity” course, contained forty-seven direct references and over one-hundred indirect references to Ms. Rand and her works. Some days I would talk about Comprachicos on the radio, during others I’d simply be quoting John Galt to one of my students. The bottom line is—I became a very sincere and diligent student of Ms. Rand and Objectivism.

Being a Mormon, and therefore a member of the larger “Christian” community, one of the most obvious contradictions in my new intellectual landscape was that Ms. Rand was an unapologetic, unwavering atheist. As time passed two related problems emerged. My religious friends and associates began regularly expressing concern about my unflinching advocacy of Ms. Rand’s ideas and at the same time so-called Objectivists would summarily dismiss me, my arguments, my ideas, and the movement I was building, because, in their words, I was a “God-believer.”

Nevertheless, I continued studying Ms. Rand and have also worked diligently to cultivate relationships and opportunities with people from all walks of life, including Objectivists. For example, a few years ago I was extremely excited to travel with an associate to southern California to meet Yaron Brook and a few of his colleagues at the Ayn Rand Institute. They represent, generally speaking, some of the exceptions that I mentioned earlier on.

Over time I’ve learned that while there exists an unfortunate camp of so-called Christians who just can’t stomach the idea that Ayn Rand, an unapologetic atheist might have known something worth studying—even more oddly and surprisingly, there exists a camp of so-called Objectivists who can’t seem to think past the possibility that there might be some of us “God-believers” whose beliefs do not necessarily clash with reason.

In 1963 Ms. Rand, in a letter to US Congressman Bruce Alger wrote:

In accordance with the principles of America and of capitalism, I recognize your right to hold any beliefs you choose—and, on the same grounds, you have to recognize my right to hold any convictions I choose. I am an intransigent atheist, though not a militant one. This means that I am not fighting against religion—I am fighting for reason. When faith and reason clash, it is up to the religious people to decide how they choose to reconcile the conflict. As far as I am concerned, I have no terms of communication and no means to deal with people, except through reason. If you find that your beliefs do not clash with reason and that your political views are rational—then that is the area in which we can communicate. I sincerely hope that we can.

I think it might do my Objectivist friends well to consider a few points drawn out by this quotation from Ms. Rand.

1) There is a difference in fighting for reason and fighting against religion. Ms. Rand’s mission was the former.

2) It’s possible for a religious person and an Objectivist to communicate and cooperate when they both agree that reason is the standard in any mutual communication or endeavor.

Much more could be said about brain-off tribalists, who are eager to exclude ‘outsiders’ as a means of self-preservation. But, relevant point to these considerations is that as ‘a radical for capitalism’ myself, I’m at a loss to explain why so many Ayn Rand followers evidently think such titles are merely a slogan or private label social tattoo of sorts. Or to put the matter even more succinctly, these days it’s hard to sort out the Objectivists who are fighting for reason from those who are simply fighting against religion. In my own experience, Objectivists have twice in this past month told me that they could not assist my Free Capitalist Project since we do not disallow religious beliefs as a standard of our membership. How irrational!

In the early 1960’s Ms. Rand wrote to Senator Barry Goldwater saying,

I regard you as the only hope of the anticollectivist side on today’s political scene, and I have defended your position at every opportunity…I am not suggesting that you should take a stand against religion. I am saying that Capitalism and religion are two separate issues, which should not be united into one “package deal” or one common cause. This does not mean that religious persons cannot crusade for Capitalism; but it does mean that nonreligious persons, like myself, cannot crusade for religion.

Ms. Rand’s willingness to have hope and confidence in someone, despite their differences in belief and opinion on a subject as significant as the existence of God—is far afield of the contemporary banter spewed forth by a large group of her followers today. Consider, I was just reading Jared Seehafer’s March 17, 2009 piece entitled, “Jesus Christ or John Galt? The Republican Party’s Identity Crisis” published by Capitalism Magazine (http://www.capmag.com), and thinking to myself—“He’s not advocating for reason, he’s fighting against religion.” It was this realization that caused me to go and dig up the two quotes used above from Letters of Ayn Rand.

In his essay Mr. Seehafer concludes,

Republicans who support capitalism need to understand that those who combine religion with politics are their enemies, and must be ostracized from the party. In order to be successful, they need to defend capitalism on ethical grounds, which means recognizing that their best pitchman is not Jesus Christ, but John Galt.

Mr. Seehafer, like many “quick-to-the-punch” atheists, evidently does not see the contradiction of his own position. He indicts Republicans for mixing religion and politics and yet he himself brings the two together in his self-created, albeit artificial and irrational dichotomy of Jesus Christ vs. John Galt. His, ‘purge through ostracization’ is the same conservative approach taken by Republicans against Objectivists over the last five decades. Perhaps even more ironically, Ms. Rand, the creator of John Galt’s character, has actually said that,

Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism—the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul and the salvation of one’s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal…

I suppose that Mr. Seehafer and my other friends like him would not want to throw out the Declaration of Independence because Jefferson was a “God-believer” and the document itself (being political) references “Nature’s God,” the “Creator,” and “the Supreme Judge of the world.” I suppose also that Mr. Seehafer is not interested in throwing out the Constitution of the United States simply because so many of its drafters were “God-believers” who invoked his name during the convention. Ms. Rand argues instead that;

The Founding Fathers were America’s first intellectuals, so far, her last. It is their basic political line that the New Intellectuals have to continue. Today, that line is lost under layer upon layer of evasions, equivocations and plain falsehood; today’s Witch Doctors claim that the basic premise of the Founding Fathers was faith and uncritical compliance with tradition; today’s Attila-ists claim that the basic premise was the subordination of the individual to the collective and his sacrifice to the public good. The New Intellectuals must remind the world that the basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man’s right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: man’s right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; and that the political implementation of this right is a society where men deal with one another as traders, by voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. The moral premises implicit in the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers, in the social system they established and in the economics of capitalism, must now be recognized and accepted in the form of an explicit moral philosophy…The world crisis of today is a moral crisis—and nothing less than a moral revolution can resolve it: a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the American Revolution.

The point, being missed by Mr. Seehafer and so many of my Objectivist friends, is that the question of God and issues of religion have become their knee-jerk excuse for idleness, laziness, crassness and disengagement. The mission we have before us, all of us who love our lives, is to advocate for this moral revolution. The only required foundation for that, according to Ms. Rand, is a shared commitment to two essential principles: a) emotions are not tools of cognition; B) no man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. All other philosophical contradictions—including issues surrounding God and religion—will be resolved, in time, by a group of reasonable and thinking people.

Why is it that such a large number of so-called Objectivists like to write or speak, but few can demonstrate that they’ve devoted any significant thought whatsoever or any meaningful, sustained action to bringing about a veritable, tangible movement as described by Ms. Rand?

It was several years ago, after picking up a copy of For the New Intellectual for the first time, that I boarded an airplane and felt the challenge I’m attempting to convey today. I’m certain that I must have read the majority of that essay with my jaw literally gaping open. It’s probably the only flight in my life that I don’t remember uttering a single word to any other passenger. For the New Intellectual, is the most comprehensive and detailed call-to-action for those of us who value truth and love our lives – more than anything I’ve ever come across.

We reformed businessmen could benefit from the efforts of Objectivist intellectuals who can free themselves from their own irrational mental indulgences. Yet, I regularly meet so-called Objectivists who can quote or paraphrase—nothing—from that essay. How is this possible? How is it possible to be an Objectivist, or anything close, and not be committed to the revolution advocated by Ms. Rand?

Long before I had started reading Atlas Shrugged I was engaged in an effort to organize at least 300,000 members into a “free capitalist” cause. My organization, the Free Capitalist Project, advocates for capitalism as the foundation of a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the Founders. I wonder how many so-called Objectivists even recognize that language.

The second-hander’s dream of tribal prestige is no substitute for getting on with the business of this revolution. This is no theoretical project and no amount of theoretical posturing will do.

In one of the most poignant sections of his radio address, John Galt challenges:

If you find a chance to vanish into some wilderness out of their reach, do so, but not to exist as a bandit or to create a gang competing with their racket; build a productive life of your own with those who accept your moral code and are willing to struggle for a human existence…raise a standard to which the honest will repair: the standard of Life and Reason. Act as a rational being and aim at becoming a rallying point for all those who are starved for a voice of integrity—act on your rational values, whether alone in the midst of your enemies, or with a few of your chosen friends, or as the founder of a modest community on the frontier of mankind’s rebirth.”

I am a radical for capitalism. While there exists any number of different groups who could use a healthy criticism, today, I’m challenging my Objectivist friends who have become complacent and disinterested. The hollow, righteous sounding bromides so often uttered by feigned intellectuals so lucidly able to describe our culture’s impending doom—is no substitute for a deliberate, strategic and organized effort put forth in defense of Ms. Rand, Objectivism, and capitalism.

This criticism is an open invitation from some of us, who like you, have stepped out of that dismal gray vacuum of a bankrupt culture and are committed to ushering forth the producer revolution advocated consistently by Ms. Rand.

We, who are NOT about to die, salute you.

It seems to me that his main point is that if you are not an activist for Objectivism, you have missed the point of the philosophy, and are lazy or disengaged. But is your life your own, or does it belong to a cause?

What are your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

" Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism—the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul and the salvation of one’s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal…"

I stopped there.

As a former Christian, and someone who was taught the Bible everyday for 6 years I find this absolutely ridiculous. The point of salvation is not to save your own ass from a vengeful God, but to relieve yourself of freedom and individuality in replacement for the will of CHrist (As embodied by the Church). Objectivism and Christianity, Objectivism and theism are direct opposites. To claim otherwise is to change the definition of one of those terms drastically.

Christ was a supporter of pacifism at the worst times, and of violence at the worst times. If he ever even existed, for which we have not a shred of evidence to say that he did, he was nothing more than a quite deluded and perhaps insane rabbi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Erik Martinsen
How do you know other Objectivists are not busy spreading their ideals? That seems to be the point you make, and yet I can only wonder what you have done besides writing this letter.

In defense of the author of the article (Rick Koerber), he's an extremely industrious individual and certainly a dedicated activist for laissez-faire capitalism. Many of the Mormons who's part of his Free Capitalist Project are leaning towards Objectivism (they do, for example, have Ayn Rand study groups), though I believe they're attempting to come up with ways to rationalize being a Mormon and an Objectivist at the same time—which of course can't be done.

Edited by Erik Martinsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with some of your general points although it doesnt seem like too much new, but the existence of God can never be reconciled with reality or reason so you carry a contradiction no matter how rational you are otherwise.

I have rational friends who believe in God but they just have not taken the time to fairly investigate the reason and nature of their belief in God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is your life your own, or does it belong to a cause?

What are your thoughts?

It is my own.

You are cringe-inducing self-refuting example of rationalism. This reason thing is new to you, and you still just don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Rand's letter to Goldwater she says "I am saying that Capitalism and religion are two separate issues, which should not be united into one “package deal” or one common cause." Or in other words: "keep religion out of politics" (Capitalism being the political branch of the Objectivist philosophy). Therefore I don't see why there is any cause of indignation when the writer at CapMag says the same thing.

I suggest you look at The Egoist's avatar. That's an eloquent statement about mixing religion and politics. Then there's the recent murder of Dr. Tiller.

I've no qualms to join forces with someone who either believes in a deity (any deity) or even practices a religion, so long as they don't try to force their religion on me, especially not by government action. I don't mind the odd religious pitch now and then, either, as I'm free to ignore them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The letter is addressed to all those in Objectivism who refuse to have any dealings whatsoever with God-believers, which in some cases can be irrational, especially when one is already trying to advocate for Capitalism (due to Capitalism being the separation of Church, State and Economy). Included in Capitalism though, is freedom of belief. So in that sense, Capitalism and God-belief are separate issues, and he defends that position with help from Rand, who supported Senator Goldwater on his Capitalist anti-collectivist leanings, but not his religious beliefs.

Essentially, fighting for Reason, and therefore Capitalism, is different than fighting against Religion. Religion is always too hard to fight head-on against those who are too deeply entrenched. But in making the case for Reason through Capitalism and prosperity, more people come around of their own free will. Which is why he mentions Mr. Brook as one of the few to whom the letter is not addressed (ie Brook fights for LFC, not against religion).

And Egoist, where you stopped reading is a quotation of Rand, either from Atlas or VoS, I don't quite remember. She used Jesus as an example promoting the selfishness and moral sanctity of one's soul (ie consciousness).

Also, I would think any religionist fighting for Capitalism should be supported, since they're essentially defeating themselves, no?

Edited by Chris.S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially, fighting for Reason, and therefore Capitalism, is different than fighting against Religion.

No. Fighting for reason requires that we fight against religion. But fighting for capitalism does not require that we fight religion concurrently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have to disagree. Reason only requires you fight for yourself, and in doing that, I'd say it erodes religion passively. How often does one convert a hard-core God-believer in head-on debate? I'd say hardly ever. One can't fight the cloud of nothing that is God, but when a religionist fights for Capitalism, he already accepts the premis of reason, and will eventually lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow, almost three decades after her death, a large body of self-proclaimed followers seems to be attempting, and in large measure successfully, a tragic historical revision; namely, equating the title Objectivist (and the less used phrase ‘radical for capitalism’) with the much less diligent pursuits of being an isolated, libertarian leaning atheist. This intellectual abdication is no simple error in judgment. It is the hallmark of second-handers and amounts to nothing less than a betrayal of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Even worse, this betrayal is being perpetrated by a significant portion of those very people who claim to be her advocates and defenders.

That is true, I'm sure there are people such as you describe in this paragraph. What that has to do with your religion, which is irrational, I can't imagine. Sounds like you're just doing the ol' ad hominem: you're just here to argue in favor of religion (or it being acceptable for an Objectivist), but, since there are no arguments to be had, you're trying to win the conversation by calling us intolerant and intellectually lazy, in advance.

If some Objectivists are intellectually lazy, it's certainly not because we reject religion as irrational. That part is intellectually spot on.

even more oddly and surprisingly, there exists a camp of so-called Objectivists who can’t seem to think past the possibility that there might be some of us “God-believers” whose beliefs do not necessarily clash with reason.

God-believers rely on faith. That is the opposite of reason. Ayn Rand made that very clear, and condemned mystics of all kind in no uncertain terms, in the first book you read: Atlas Shrugged.

Claiming that people are not truly Objectivists because they refuse to accept mysticism is not very sharp. I'd love to turn your words around and call it intellectually lazy, but it's not even that: I don't know what it is, except a long winded speech which ammounts to an ad hominem.

The letter is addressed to all those in Objectivism who refuse to have any dealings whatsoever with God-believers

I read it differently. I think it is addressed to those Objectivists who think belief in God goes against reason. But I do want to address what you are saying:

If people who happen to not be atheists do form a strictly political (non-religious) movement that advocates for Capitalism, Objectivists should support them (or not) based on their political views: the religion of individuals within that group would be irrelevant. I think there are such organizations, but I can't think of any Objectivist who claim that they should be ignored, based on the fact that they don't have an "atheists only" policy. Can anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright - I just received a google alert that pointed me here. I must apologize but I have not been frequenting this Online resource. I did not post my story here and regret that someone - though well intentioned - did it without my permission. I would prefer to engage in the conversation I started with the essay. I'm willing to do so but have no interest in managing multiple in depth conversations via the Internet in multiple locations. So - let me just offer the following. 1) Thanks for reading. 2) I'm serious and mean no disrespect. 3) The point of my essay was not to argue the question, "Can a religious person be an Objectivist" or can "Objectivism accept religion." The point was that to ADVOCATE for capitalism is more important than to crusade against religion. The first takes care of the second, but crusading against religion may well lead nowhere. 4) I'm interested in the responses to my article, but would you kindly bring them to the place where I published the article http://www.rickkoerber.com 5) I will be happy to start frequenting this forum, to be candid I had forgotten about it years ago. But - for this conversation, I prefer to have it at my blog where it was originally posted. Finally, just to clarify, the reason so many "Mormons" seem to be attracted to Objectivism is that a) Our religion was founded by a man who redefined several essential terms - which addressed several ancient conflicts. One of the major redefinitions (though I'm sad to say it receives too little attention in our own culture) is the term "faith." As a Mormon I do not accept the definition of "faith" to mean what Objectivists vilify. I too am against Mysticism in all its forms. Faith (not to give a definition off the cuff, just an explanation), when I use the term means - the act of projecting the mind forward, contemplating the future, based upon a reasoned reflection on known principles. Or, in other words - hoping really hard that some magic happens that contradicts all law and all reason is not a MORMON's definition of faith. Faith, to a Mormon, is the moving cause of all intelligent beings because it is being able to project the mind forward and see an outcome - perhaps not the details - but the general outcome because a rational process of applying principles from the present on through the possible situations of the future enable us to manage expectations without resorting to guessing, wishing, or mysticism. So - the reason I bring this up, is I'm happy to discuss, even anxious to discuss, but we will have to start at the beginning. Because to me - and I am certainly not alone - faith is not opposed to reason nor can it be divorced from it. Neither is it reasonable to suggest that since the "normal" definition of faith contains a fundamental contradiction that it shouldn't be redefined. Mormonism teaches that it was Jesus's definition that became corrupt by later teachers. Faith, truth, reason are a package deal in my mind. Reason without faith is short sighted, non-introspective, self-loathing (using the term as I intend it to be used).

Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I projected my mind into the future, and I magically reflected on some known principles, to foresee a mass suicide in your cult's future, fella'. I wish they wouldn't find any Objectivism related literature at the compound, afterward, but I guess that's too much to ask.

Let's just hope the NY Times will go bankrupt before it happens, so I don't have to read another article linking Rand to religious sects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't support mysticism, but you do believe that an angel gave some guy in Utah some magical golden plates describing the visit of Jesus Christ to American Indians which, of course, he could not show to anyone, but was able to translate them from Egyptian into English by putting them into a hat containing magical stones. And then there's the magical underwear.

And you want us to believe you are not in a cult?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FreeCapitalist Project is more than just a cult. It’s leader, Rick Koerber, is currently under federal indictment for Wire Fraud, Mail Fraud, and Tax Evasion. (See http://saltlakecity.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pr...9/slc052609.htm )

Accroding to news articles, he used his Mormon faith as a way to sucker people into his alleged ponzi scheme. (See http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12485991)

My advice is to forget this clown and his moronic article and move on to other topics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, guys, hold on. Let me back up a little.

First of all, I did not write this article, but some of you responded as if I had; that may be understandable looking back at my documentation. My comment at the end, where my real question was, was meant to be in a separate post so you would see it as separate, but looking back I see it in the same post. Do not assume that I posted this because I agree with all his points. So I repost and restate my question:

"It seems to me that his main point is that if you are not an activist for Objectivism, you have missed the point of the philosophy, and are lazy or disengaged. But is your life your own, or does it belong to a cause?" Or in other words, is there any validity to the idea that we betray Rand if we do not actively advocate for capitalism?

I think religion is secondary to this particular discussion; the real point is that if we want to avoid waking up as slaves, we must take action. But if you say you HAVE to get involved, how is that different from saying your life is not your own? That's the point I wanted to explore.

Now, about the atheism--if you want to argue with Rick about that,I recommend you go to the website he posted, where you're more likely to get a direct response.

About dealing with Rick--he influences a lot of very passionate people, who could be allies in political matters and who may not be as far off as you might think.

About the Mormon religion-- It happens that Mormons have a more rational theology than possibly any other religion, and it is worth looking at the differences if you are interested. If you're not, why even bother commenting? Few here would argue that relgion is rational; we understand what Rand meant. (Although I may not have documented my perspective enough for you to understand where I was coming from.) But how can such a substantial group of people think their religion is rational, even after reading Rand? What does that say about the human condition, and about strategies for improving the world around us? It's really quite interesting to hear the arguments, even if they're wrong, if you're not busy just condemning it.

I posted here because I thought I would get rational discussion, not diatribes and insults about a religion I don't even believe in.

Rick--I did not intend this to be a bash Rick session, or to discuss your ideas in a way you could not follow. I recommend if people want to discuss with you, they post where you asked them to. However, I was not looking for conversation with you here; I was looking for Objectivist atheists to give their perspective on a particular point. I am also interested in conversation with you about some of the points, but when I am ready for that, I will not do it here, as per your request.

To "the great rand"--I am angry that you would dismiss him because he has been indicted. The last I heard, we are still innocent until proven guilty in this country. When you violate the rights of one, you violate the rights of everyone. If you are ever accused of a crime, do you want to be condemned as guilty before the trial has been completed? The system here may not be perfect, but you are wrong to dsimiss him on the basis of news articles. If you don't want to be here, then you are quite free to move on to other topics. I, for one, do not know if Rick is guilty or innocent of any crimes. How can I know, when I have not seen any objective evidence? All I"ve heard is gossip.

But folks, that is all irrelevant.

Please stop throwing insults and either read another thread or listen to the point. Which I repeat:

do we betray Rand's philosophy if we do not advocate for Capitalism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TFC, I have not read your essay, but if the following is an accurate summary...

The point of my essay was... ... that to ADVOCATE for capitalism is more important than to crusade against religion.
...then, I'm not sure to whom your essay was addressed. I don't know many Objectivists who crusade against religion of a non-political nature.

Of course there are times when religious people try to get laws passed, which violate individual rights. When that happens, they are also targets of the crusade for Capitalism. Apart from that, you'll rarely see much anti-religious activism from Objectivists. As atheists, Objectivists will obviously argue against religion. However, few Objectvists are allied with the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins, because we know that one has to offer something positive, rather than purely a rejection.

Even Capitalism is not the primary focus. The primary focus is against the morality of altruism.

Most important, advocacy is not one's standard of value. To a large extent it is an optional value that might be outweighed by many others that are more important.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most important, advocacy is not one's standard of value. To a large extent it is an optional value that might be outweighed by many others that are more important.
This is what I wanted to talk about. Suppose one said that without advocacy, we are always at the mercy of those who would organize for collectivism. Isn't that what we are experiencing now? In a way that may be all too real, if we do not advocate for liberty, we will one day all wake up as slaves--unless you don't believe that our liberties are right now in serious jeopardy. It may be an optional value, but the consequence of not choosing it is loss of liberty. We have that right--we can choose a value that leads to death. But we can't deny the consequence of the choice. So the case for the self-interest of advocacy is a good one.

But it has to include the idea that it still must be chosen freely, not forced upon one by guilt. And THAT is the problem I have with this essay; it uses guilt-inducing words against those who do not advocate for capitalism. It makes me feel that I am being asked to sacrifice for my own good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I , for one, agree that the original article deserves careful attention. I found it sobering, thought-provoking and sincere. The author's affiliations, or reputation, or FCP's integrity, are not, surely, the primary point here. I agree with FreeObjectivist in all he's posted here.

But then -and possibly being a long time atheist helps- I am not an Objectivist who believes that our nearest and most dangerous enemy is moderate religionism.

I have seen and heard enough of 'Attila', the State, the Collective, to believe that that is where the O'ist's priorities lie.

So we have religionists who are caught in a struggle to resolve Faith with Reason. Faith with Freedom; Faith with Capitalism. I am certain that these are uneasy bed-fellows in the short term, and the truly honest ones will eventually find them contradictory. Especially Reason.

Now as Ayn Rand demonstrated in that Jesus Christ quote, it is possible to find value everywhere. More, that one SHOULD look for value everywhere - at the very least, something can be taken and learned from everything. From this quote alone, and dozens of other sources, this seems clear.

The question before us is : do we throw out the baby with the bathwater? Is Capitalism in such a healthy state that we can resist all advances for alliances from every quarter? Do we really have the confidence that Reason will triumph over Mysticism?

Yes, I believe that Objectivism should stay pure to itself and in itself. I do also see other bodies as concerned about Freedom and Capitalism as we are - in fact even drawing inspiration and philosophy from Objectivism. Do we need arms-length allies, or don't we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...