Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

After reading all the posts by the so-called convervatives I am now really conviced. The thing is the more I read the more I realize that according to Objectivism homosexuality is immoral. This is really sad 'cause I very much consider myself a Capitalist.

I think it is best that most gay men and woman stay far away from Objectivism.

I am considering the works by Adam Smith and Friedrich Nietzsche. I think if Objectivists really knew me they would anyway consider me a second hander.

I know some great Objectivists and I hope they will still consider me a friend. Luckly that I did not tell my other gay friends about Objectivism. I still think Ayn Rand was dead wrong about homosexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andre,

Sorry, but this does not ring true. Without rehashing the debate, it is clear that the huge majority of Objectivists,

inclusive of the ARI intellectuals, stand for homosexuals.

How did you reach your conclusion? I am puzzled: I sense an emotional response here.

However, let's take the worst-case scenario. Let's say you are right.

Say for argument that I believed Objectivism to be anti-Semitic (my mother was Jewish), but in my study of it, I'd found

O'ism to be true, from start to end - with that one glaring anomaly.

Would it be rational of me to discard the total opus, for one peripheral contradiction?

So assume the same for homosexuality; if you are convinced O'ism is correct in every way, why reject it on one, personal,

(and uninformed) view - admitted to be wrong by modern Objectivists - of the founder, Ayn Rand? No, I don't think so -

wouldn't you rather work from inside the philosophy to correct that prejudice?

But if you have other reasons for disagreement, now THAT's another thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Tony, tell me then how should I understand the following statements I have read on the internet. These are the ones I can find now:

"Leonard Peikoff thinks (male) homosexuality represents a desire for the approval of other men by little boys who didn't get picked for football. But being gay is still OK because the aberration is ineradicable."

"Nathaniel Branden says he would still be willing to help a homosexual patient "convert" to heterosexuality if the patient "insists that he or she genuinely wants to change."

"'Or the adolescent who flees into homosexuality because he has been

taught that sex is evil and that women are to be worshiped, but not desired?'" – The virtue of selfishness, Chapter 2 Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice.

Perhaps Nathaniel Branden is not considered an ARI intelectual anymore. I don't know the history. Thing is I can't keep on trying to 'defend' my sexuality. I feel like I am the one rationalizing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading all the posts by the so-called convervatives I am now really conviced. The thing is the more I read the more I realize that according to Objectivism homosexuality is immoral. This is really sad 'cause I very much consider myself a Capitalist.

Which posts specifically, have "convinced" you that homosexuality is immoral?

No, an individual being homosexual does not necessarily follow that he is immoral. In this context, the likewise is true, simply being heterosexual does not imply that he is moral, necessarily. An individual is an integrated being, how can you just "analyze" one detail of their life and determine if they are "broken" or "unbroken", not looking at their whole self, in the context of their life?

I think it is best that most gay men and woman stay far away from Objectivism.

Are you implying that a philosophy such as Objectivism and a sexual orientation are mutually exclusive? I'm talking about a philosophy to guide your life, not a religion to enslave it.

... I think if Objectivists really knew me they would anyway consider me a second hander.

Why do you think other individuals would consider you a second hander?

I know some great Objectivists and I hope they will still consider me a friend. Luckly that I did not tell my other gay friends about Objectivism. I still think Ayn Rand was dead wrong about homosexuality.

Why would they not consider you a friend? Simply because of your sexual orientation?

I'm not sure why more questions of sexual orientation were not brought up to Miss Rand, but from what I understand she did have some friends that were gay.

Edited by brianleepainter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which posts specifically, have "convinced" you that homosexuality is immoral?

He didn't say that, he said that he thinks according to Objectivism homosexuality is immoral. Just because a lot of us say that it's not true means we're right. In any case, I don't think it's a viewpoint consistent with Objectivism in general, and like Jonathan mentioned earlier, I think Rand was misapplying her own system of thought. Or at the very least, sexuality is such a particularized subject that it goes beyond the field of philosophy, which is reason alone for me to say that Objectivism has nothing to do with sexuality other than advocating clear and precise concept formation. There is no Objectivist view on physics because physics goes beyond philosophy in the sense it requires specialized knowledge, though the Objectivist position on induction matters a whole lot.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well from a ceratin persepective I can see why Nathaniel Brandon and Peikoff though those things. The problem was that they had assumed that homosexuality was a mental illness, and then sought to find explanations for the mental illness within their ideology. I remember reading an Anarchist (socialist) text that sought to explain the source of the vices of masturbation and sodomy in capitalist oppression (in this case, the prison system). Of coures very few modern Anarchists are against those things, and you coudn't fault them for some 19th century guy trying to speculate on the source of a percieved vice/illness given a framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading all the posts by the so-called convervatives I am now really conviced. The thing is the more I read the more I realize that according to Objectivism homosexuality is immoral. This is really sad 'cause I very much consider myself a Capitalist.

I think it is best that most gay men and woman stay far away from Objectivism.

I can't really see how you're coming to this conclusion, unless you're baseing is off of the users here trying to rationalize Rand's view of the immorality of homosexuality. Even in those cases, they're attempting to state that she was wrong based off of false information. I've never seen anywhere that Objectivisim is incompatable with being homosexual or hetrosexual.

Now, if you're baseing it off that I don't support the notion of "gay rights" - That's not because I think gays should have no rights, but that I don't think any sort of "______ rights" are valid unless it's "Individual rights." To assign any group rights is at the expense of other's rights. Instead of trying to give rights to people based off their sexual orientation (or gender/race/hair style) efforts should be focused on stopping the violation of individual rights.

Edited by MrSeagull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading all the posts by the so-called convervatives I am now really conviced. The thing is the more I read the more I realize that according to Objectivism homosexuality is immoral. This is really sad 'cause I very much consider myself a Capitalist.

Interesting, what is the difference between my first response which was, "Which posts specifically, have "convinced" you that homosexuality is immoral? " and this newly updated response, which is " Which posts specifically, have "convinced" you that homosexuality is immoral according to Objectivism?" Objectivism is in accordance with reality correct? If homosexuality is immoral according to Objectivism, but in reality homosexuality is moral, then does Objectivism fail as an integrated system? But, isn't Objectivism, being a philosophy, exempt from matters of sexual orientation, since this requires the specialized sciences for further understanding and knowledge to be gained? I think so. If so, then excuse my previous question.

I mean...if one doesn't arrive at morality through "God", then what's the alternative? Reality? Which is in what way different than Objectivism?

There is a problem that may result from categories, in that an individual labeled as homosexual is in a way subsumed as immoral or moral simply off of this category, which is not the case. Again, a straight man's categorization of heterosexuality does not lead to the necessity of being moral based off of said sexual orientation, and likewise, a gay man's categorization of homosexualty does not lead to the necessity of immorality based of off this different sexual orientation.

Actually, I'm curious as to the prerequisite particulars necessary in the categorization of sexual orientation to deem ones morality. What premise(s) is first required, through an early age to arrive at ones sexuality? I'm assuming, that sexual orientation does not necessarily equal morality and that there are true premises that lead to homosexuality that are in accordance to living life as a rational man. So, there can be experiences in ones life that are absolutely moral that lead to homosexuality, just as there are events in ones life that lead to heterosexuality. Can there be false premises in a man's life that lead to heterosexuality? Sure. So, what's the point of painting with a broad brush?

Superman123, I would ask you to perhaps write to Dr. Peikoff in a podcast question, but I assume he is tired of responding to the topic, given his initial opening statement:

http://www.peikoff.c...uality-immoral/

Edited by brianleepainter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, what is the difference between my first response which was, "Which posts specifically, have "convinced" you that homosexuality is immoral? " and this newly updated response, which is " Which posts specifically, have "convinced" you that homosexuality is immoral according to Objectivism?"

If one is not an Objectivist, the two questions mean very different things. The first asks him when he himself came to the conclusion that homosexuality is immoral, the second asks when he came to the conclusion that Objectivism teaches that it is immoral. (And even if one is not an Objectivist, the two questions don't mean the same thing, though they will have the same answer.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Leonard Peikoff thinks (male) homosexuality represents a desire for the approval of other men by little boys who didn't get picked for football.

"'Or the adolescent who flees into homosexuality because he has been

taught that sex is evil and that women are to be worshiped, but not desired?'" – The virtue of selfishness, Chapter 2 Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice.

I really don't understand this attitude some people have that in order for homosexuality to be a "legitimate" or moral thing it has to be absolutely the result of biology in the form of some gay gene, or gay hormones.

If your attracted to someone of the same sex, then your attracted to someone of the same sex, where precisely this attraction came from, from the point that you were conceived to the point that you start feeling sexual attraction is irrelevant.

Looking at this contention that people become gay because of the view that "women are to be worshipped but not desired", as well as it would gel with a certain view of popular morality seems to be total speculation and not supported at all by evidence and I don't think the rejection of that little bit of theorizing on Branden's part has any impact on Objectivism as a system.

I don't believe there is one definitive scientific understanding of the cause of sexual orientation and the speculations of some specific people on this one concrete issue does not affect the validity of Objectivism as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every Objectivist I've met in real life has been rather homophobic.

I sincerely hope this is not true. I am an Objectivist, I am as straight as an arrow and I have quite a few gay and lesbian friends. I think homophobia is, quite frankly, not only a sign of intense ignorance of the related science and other information about the subject that has been out for *at least* a decade but, in 2012, intellectually disgusting, and I have little interest in dealing with those people any more than is absolutely necessary in my day to day life. As they say...when ignorance begets confidence...

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading all the posts by the so-called convervatives I am now really conviced. The thing is the more I read the more I realize that according to Objectivism homosexuality is immoral.

I'm gonna break down the way this conversation has progressed, tell me if it's accurate:

1. You read a couple of out of context quotes from a press conference, a few posts on the Internet from people you know nothing about, and concluded that X is true.

2. I (and others) read most of the relevant literature on the subject, and concluded that the opposite of X is true.

3. We told you our conclusions.

4. You decided that you were right to begin with, because "conservatives" told you so.

And, finally:

5. The proper, rational way to go about this would instead be to just stop taking everyone's word for what the answer is, and instead read all the same literature I have read (the literature Objectivism consists of), understand it, and then see if you can debate us on what specifically makes Objectivism pro or anti gay, by relying on facts instead of hearsay.

That would of course require a great deal of intellectual effort. Objectivism is not an easy subject to master. Are you up for that, or are you just going to continue trolling with this nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or are you just going to continue trolling with this nonsense?

@Nicky, Are you accusing me of trolling? I do not understand just because I have a different opinion than you. I recall the other day that a lot of christians came on this forum and everybody showed them more tolerance than that. In fact I have seen a lot of homophobic, hurtful comments on this forum and they have not been accused of trolling. Why would I want to troll bad things like this? It would be in my own interest for homosexuality to be moral in terms of Objectivism.

I (and others) read most of the relevant literature on the subject, and concluded that the opposite of X is true
Well it seems your conclusions are very different from Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, and Nathaniel Branden. Firstly Ayn Rand, we can only speculate on what her views on homosexuality would be today. People say she would change her views looking at the scientific evidence today. But she did not change her views on smoking after knowing about the evidence. In fact she only stopped smoking when she got cancer as I understand. So we do not know what she will think today. And she is the writer of Objectivism or is it an open system now?Leonard Peikoff doesn't say it’s immoral but I do not buy his argument when he clearly says that homosexuality is the result of a faulty premise. And those words 'aberration is ineradicable' how can he say that when Objectivism seems to say that we are volitional beings.It seems like Nathaniel Branden does think that homosexuals can become straight. If he really thought homosexuality is moral he would not want to "help" people change their sexuality. Would it not then be immoral to do so.And how do you know what I know. I want to ask you, ‘do you know what causes any kind of sexuality?’ I would say nobody really knows. I do not want to promote agnosticism but nobody can really answer that today.
That would of course require a great deal of intellectual effort. Objectivism is not an easy subject to master.
Well for someone like me with my concrete minded mentality perhaps I cannot know. Some of these abstract concepts are very hard or perhaps I just don't want to understand them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And she is the writer of Objectivism or is it an open system now?

The thing is, Rand barely even elaborated so her conclusion seems to come out of nowhere. Sexuality is in big part a specialized topic that certainly considers sociology and psychology, but at the same time, a fundamental philosophical idea like sense of life would certainly impact conclusions about sexuality. Objectivism as a philosophical system can't possibly have anything more to say about sexuality than it being sense of life related, because anything more to say isn't philosophy per se but an application. Unfortunately, Rand seemed to use weak observations for her conclusions, and Peikoff is even worse for not doing any research on sexuality that is easily available (his viewpoints on transgenderism indicate as much), even though he doesn't say homosexuality is immoral per se. I see no reason to suggest homosexuality is only the result of faulty premises any more than heterosexuality is. The problem is that I've rarely seen any discussion - whether it involves Objectivism or not - about sexuality beyond extremely academic settings. Most other people take it as clear cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested... somewhat... to know how recent Branden's comments are, and whether he'd still stand by them if they are old ones. Of course he's not really an Objectivist any more so depending on the timing, the answer might not be germane.

Also, just because Leonard Peikoff says something, that doesn't make it Objectivism.

The only person whose pronouncements can plausibly be taken as authoritative would be Ayn Rand, and even there, there is a Garbage In, Garbage Out effect at work.

Objectivism is among many other things a method to be applied in order to answer specific questions, but you have to have proper inputs (knowledge) to base your conclusions on. Back in AR's day homosexuality was considered, by the "experts" to be a mental illness and no doubt she was taking that erroneous information into account when she spoke.

It is not a principle of Objectivism that homosexuality is immoral even if some Objectivists might conclude as much (and never mind the occasional individual who calls himself an Objectivist and rationalizes in a way to confirm his prejudices).

You seem to be bending over backwards to conclude Objectivists don't want you around; that's why some people have asked if you are trolling.

Edited by Steve D'Ippolito

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it seems your conclusions are very different from Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, and Nathaniel Branden.

Ok, but that's irrelevant. The debate is on whether my conclusions are right or wrong, not on whether they are the same as other people's.

Why aren't you addressing whether I'm interpreting Objectivist Ethics properly or not? Could it be because you don't know, because you don't know what Objectivist Ethics even is?

Well for someone like me with my concrete minded mentality perhaps I cannot know. Some of these abstract concepts are very hard or perhaps I just don't want to understand them.

You're welcome to prove me wrong. What abstract principle in Objectivism can be applied to conclude that homosexuality is immoral?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a principle of Objectivism that homosexuality is immoral even if some Objectivists might conclude as much (and never mind the occasional individual who calls himself an Objectivist and rationalizes in a way to confirm his prejudices).

I know all about them rationalizing business. I think think JASKN said it very succinctly and helped me understand the concept very well:

It really irks me when Objectivists try to use Rand's own words to warp the correct method of reaching conclusions: observe then figure out. NOT figure out then observe (that is, try to rationalize pre-conceived notions into fitting with actual reality).

But I am still not satisfied yet I still have one 'issue'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please look at the following article:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/643710-tea-party-taboo-the-atheism-of-ayn-rand

It began without controversy. At a routine board meeting of the North Star Tea Party Patriots (NSTPP), a coalition of activist groups in Minnesota which this author chairs, a vote was taken to admit a new member organization. The new group was the Minnesota Objectivist Association (MOA) which advocates the philosophy of Ayn Rand as expressed in her novel Atlas Shrugged.

and

Ayn Rand was an atheist, and her philosophy of Objectivism did not acknowledge the existence of God. Thus was alleged an irreconcilable difference between the Tea Party and Ayn Rand.

This is what I know about the Tea Party:

a) Believes in god

B) Seems to want to limit Federal government but is very much ok with it on state level.

c) Says that they do not want to get involved in social issues. But they obviously do want to on state level.

d) Basically conservative and anti-gay.

Here is my issue why would an Objectivist association want to basically leave their philosophical base behind and join a Tea Party group. In seems like the Tea Party is at odds with the Objectivism. Lucky that the Tea Party movement wasn't prepared to just let go of their "philosophical" base. This made me thinking Objectivist go on about individual rights and so on and how they are ok with homosexuality. But what happens when it is not convenient to do so. Perhaps they will be will to sacrifice some group’s individual rights for the sake of some political power. I once saw a movie one of the actors said basically "Ha! the constitution! that is only for straight people!"

Ha individual rights that is only for straight people?

Edited by Superman123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I don't know if this will make any substantial difference or not here, but it's worth a shot.

Hello, Superman. I've read all of this thread. At the top of this page you have said that you think if Objectivists knew you that you think they would consider you second handed for something to do with your sexuality I presume, though it isn't stated directly so. I'm not heterosexual and this has been no secret and yet in the two or more years I've been regularly participating here I have never had anyone accuse me of being second handed or any other negative thing for not being heterosexual. I've never had any supporter of Objectivism I've spoken to anywhere evaluate me badly in any way for me sexuality. By far and large, I've had a very warm and welcoming reception. Heck, for a while early in my time here the chat room had just about more non-heterosexual regular participators than heterosexual ones. Fun times. Sans a few minor pests like one could find anywhere else, there is no threat of being subjected to harassment for non-heterosexual people from Objectivists.

As for the pests, for the most part they haven't been responded to all that harshly recently due to a couple things. One is trolls being a lot like pigeons - pesky, nasty, unwelcome and only further encouraged to stick around and bring friends if you feed them. (Which by the way, I don't think you are a troll though your recent posts are kind of baffling.) Another is that we're pretty tired of a lot of the same old same old from certain people and groups so after a while they cease to as effectively make your blood boil and we just don't feel like going through the same old stuff with these people over and over. One guy in this thread has been around for ages just barely skirting the rules of the forum to avoid getting kicked out and all he ever seems to post on is homosexuality and abortion. On homosexuality, he insists on blindly adhering to anything to ever come out of Rand's mouth or pen without question or says one is immoral and not an Objectivist (not true) and offers no other attempt to support his position. On abortion though, he rejects Rand's position (which she wrote much more on and provided her reasoning for) and yet acts like this in no way subjects him to being immoral or not an Objectivist like he says in homosexuality threads of any disagreement with Rand on basically anything at all ever no matter what. This person's credibility is zilch, just ignore them like most of us do by now. Maybe some time soon they'll just finally get ejected from this place. As for the Christians who were floating around for a little while, I don't think I saw any of them in here and even if they were in here saying bad stuff, clearly they don't speak for Oism. :P We do welcome inquiry from non-Objectivists about Objectivism, so unless they start making a nuisance of themselves, they're welcome to be here. That's why we don't just kick people out right away or harass them when they say they're Christians. I think a bunch of them left or were kicked out though finally for spamming up all over so much Christiany stuff that it just kept taking over and diverting one thread after another.

As for quotes from others, Branden is no longer an Objectivist, whatever he says after his break with Rand is irrelevant to Oism. I know Peikoff is fine with homosexuality by now at least(I'm pretty sure somewhere I saw from a recent convention on Objectivism a quote of a homosexual man in the audience asking him about how it actually seems like there is a higher rate of non-heterosexuality among supporters of Objectivism than in the general population and Peikoff's response was something like, "Is there a problem here?" to which everybody just chuckled.) As for what Rand herself said while she was alive, there's an important thing here that most of us are familiar with that people new to this may not know. There's an important distinction made between things which are part of Objectivism proper and anything else, even if it was said/written by Rand herself. Some things are obvious, like color preference not being a part of Objectivism. That's not a philosophic issue. There's also that some things may be a philosophic issue, but still are not part of Objectivism because they were not by Rand or approved by her for inclusion as part of her philosophy of Objectivism (maybe because she thought it was wrong, maybe she didn't hear about it to judge it, maybe it was written after she died.) Some things may be issues which there can be right and wrong answers on, unlike what the best color is, but they are issues of specialized science. Psychological subjects and questions of nutrition and such are not part of philosophy. All the philosophy of Objectivism has to say on those things is basically, "try to pay attention, look at the conclusions of well done research and take care of yourself as best as you can on the basis of such." This and the fact that we are not omniscient means that the best choice to make in regard to these things may change as information is updated. (For example, this is why Rand quit smoking after a while when the research started showing significant health risks in connection with it. Before this evidence was provided, she had no reason to evaluate smoking as bad for her life.) There are also significant distinctions between the *principles* of the philosophy and particular applications of them. Principles may be properly or improperly applied, but some issues are a lot less simple and obvious about what principles apply how to what particular case and so it isn't blatant that, "Objectivism says X about the proper response to situation Y." So, issues like sexuality and gender have the problem that not only did Rand not show the full reasoning behind her conclusions, how they connected and lined up with Objectivism (thus meaning nobody else has any reason to believe her even if they believe she is right on things in Objectivism and for all we know they may have been based on outdated info or heck, no info, though that would be unusual for her), there's also the fact that the workings of these things are much better categorized as matters for psychology than philosophy.

That's not to say Objectivism has nothing to say about the topic, just that it is broad and heavily dependent on what psychology turns up. For one thing though importantly, sexuality is a matter of what one feels. Feelings are not subject to ethical evaluation because they are not a matter we can control directly like what we say or if we attack somebody or not. Feelings are not right or wrong, good or bad, they just are. They are the product of other things which give rise to them and it is those things we may evaluate, not the feeling itself. The question then, which is up to psychology and other specialized sciences, is what is that underlying stuff and what are its consequences? Whatever the nature of the cause(s) though, even if it were to be due to some kind of error of any type or other kind of unfortunate incident (not to suggest that is generally the case), that doesn't mean the feeling or the person would be evil or should deny it. Nobody suggests somebody with arachnophobia pretend it isn't so or that they are bad because of this. Causes are still a bit inconclusive generally of sexualities, but consequences are a much clearer issue.

Potential negatives to one's life in association with non-heterosexuality that are known are being subject to harassment and opposition by people that don't like you, but if that was any kind of real reason to make something bad for your life, Objectivism as a whole would be screwed as it is full of unpopular stuff. You may have greater difficulty finding suitable partners if you are homosexual due to it being much less common than heterosexuality, but everybody has things they require in partners that will shrink the pool a lot and make it take time and effort to find somebody suitable. Babies? Not everybody wants them, they can be adopted, there's surrogacy and sperm donors, and for lesbians (though expensive) science has now made it possible for them to make a baby with two female parents, though for homosexual men this is not yet possible, yet. Clearly Rand didn't have a need to breed anywhere in Objectivism anyway. As for sexual activities, so penis-in-vagina is off the table, oh well. There's been thousands of years to get inventive and I've never heard of anybody saying a male and female shouldn't be together because some kind of disability may prevent intercourse.

As for the issue of the law of identity, one is to recognize and not evade the facts/nature of themselves. Just because something is typical of most humans doesn't necessarily mean it must be so of all of them. Many traits may be typical of humans but a variance from them may exist without disqualifying one from humanity or damaging them. A typical example I bring up is what hand(s) somebody writes with. Most are right handed. Lefties used to get smacked for using their left hand and I've heard some religious people thought using the left hand was some kind of evil thing. More things are commonly designed for right handed people due to the statistics still, but there is obviously no flouting the nature of oneself as a human being in using one's left hand for writing and other tasks. If nobody can come up with any potential objection to sex with one's own gender within the framework of Objectivism but the issue of the law of identity, then they have nothing to object to but doing so if one is heterosexual, otherwise it is just an exercise in *accordance* with one's unique, individual identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please look at the following article: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/643710-tea-party-taboo-the-atheism-of-ayn-rand and This is what I know about the Tea Party: a) Believes in god B) Seems to want to limit Federal government but is very much ok with it on state level. c) Says that they do not want to get involved in social issues. But they obviously do want to on state level. d) Basically conservative and anti-gay. Here is my issue why would an Objectivist association want to basically leave their philosophical base behind and join a Tea Party group. In seems like the Tea Party is at odds with the Objectivism. Lucky that the Tea Party movement wasn't prepared to just let go of their "philosophical" base. This made me thinking Objectivist go on about individual rights and so on and how they are ok with homosexuality. But what happens when it is not convenient to do so. Perhaps they will be will to sacrifice some group’s individual rights for the sake of some political power. I once saw a movie one of the actors said basically "Ha! the constitution! that is only for straight people!" Ha individual rights that is only for straight people?

This is a really bad way to judge Objectivism. For one thing first of all, some people calling themselves adherents to a philosophy and then contradicting the philosophy doesn't mean the philosophy has changed, it means the people are not actually adherents of it. Second of all though, as far as the Tea Party goes, Objectivists have on occasion participated with the Tea Party protests because they were seen to be mainly about people being upset over things like the crazy debt and other economic issues and the welfare state and such. Many people who are upset about such things of course are conservatives and many conservatives are not only at least superficially opposed to having heavy government interference in the economy, they are also heavily into pushing religiously motivated bigotry into meddling laws. The Tea Party however was not officially a socially conservative republican and such movement. It had no official ties to any existing political parties or organizations. Based on this, many Objectivists looked at this as an opportunity to speak to these people who were rejecting these altruistically motivated economics and show them a solid philosophic base for rejecting these things instead of eventually having people push them back toward it out of painting them as heartless and immoral. The intent was to spread our ideas to them, not have us adopt positions from many of them. However, the Republicans saw opportunity here too and quickly started trying to butt in and capitalize on this and take it over until there was basically nothing left, just more people pushed back into the same old two party dichotomy. Mind you though, not everybody who supported Objectivism was on board and comfortable with such efforts to begin with and whatever happened or anybody did, there is nowhere written into Objectivism some pro or anti Tea Party position, and most certainly nothing about throwing anybody's rights under the bus for power, whether one thinks that would happen here or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I know about the Tea Party:

a) Believes in god

B) Seems to want to limit Federal government but is very much ok with it on state level.

c) Says that they do not want to get involved in social issues. But they obviously do want to on state level.

d) Basically conservative and anti-gay.

Then I would have to say that you knowledge is flawed. I am an active member of the Tea Party, and atheist, and an Objectivist(in training.) What I saw in these protests was a mostly genuine push by the right against bigger government. I consider this a step in the right direction.

As it stands now, you're going to find a wide assortment of viewpoints in the Tea Party - From fighters for economic freedom, to borderline anarchists. Of course, you'll find the type that support big government, when it comes to faith-based legislation, mixed in, but they do not define the whole of the movement.

From your last few posts, I really can't help but feel you're actively searching for villains to point a finger at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) Believes in god

B) Seems to want to limit Federal government but is very much ok with it on state level.

c) Says that they do not want to get involved in social issues. But they obviously do want to on state level.

d) Basically conservative and anti-gay.

You forgot racist.

Here is my issue why would an Objectivist association want to basically leave their philosophical base behind and join a Tea Party group.

The reason why Objectivists join the Tea Party is to bring Objectivism into the movement, not leave it behind. Unlike other political movement, the Tea Party is actually open to pro-freedom arguments.

Also, what Richard Dawkins needs to understand is that there are people in this world who don't believe in God, and yet who don't define themselves by that fact. Ayn Rand was an atheist, she wasn't an Atheist. Atheism is not the philosophical, social and political base of Objectivism. Objectivism is defined by reason and individualism, and we hope to mold the Tea Party into a movement defined the same way. We are not looking to make it into an atheist group, just a non-religious one.

Obviously. there is a powerful right wing movement also looking to use the Tea Party as a vehicle for their own agenda. And people like you, who ignore how the Tea Party started (as a reaction to Bush and Obama's efforts to expand the government, by taking advantage of the financial crisis) and go out of their way to instead focus on the religious activists who are attempting to hijack it, are helping them do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for all the lovely responses. Especially Eioul and bluecherry yours where really awesome.

What I still do not understand is what purpose it would be to limit Federal government but promote State regulations and controls. I think that would only serve to shift the power of government form the Federal level to the state level. Perhaps even alienate the states from each other.

@Nicky look at my posts carefully and perhaps you will fugure out what the purpose of my posts are. I won't tell you outright but if you think a bit perhaps you could figure it out :):zorro:

Edited by Superman123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectivism *doesn't* think it is cool for rights to be violated at the state level any more than at the federal level. :P Perhaps you assumed we did because a lot of others associated with the Tea Party do, but nope, not us.

You are welcome and I'm glad to hear you've found this helpful. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I did not assume so, I was reffering specifically to the Tea Party not Objectivism. Pointing out how would any Objectivist would want to support a party that would want to do so?

Yes your posts where very interesting bluecherry, very much so :)

Edited by Superman123

Share this post


Link to post
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...