FreeObjectivist

Well, I'm not a sock puppet, and I posted the article for honest intentions, because I wanted to discuss it. Love the metaphor, though! I think there's truth that it may be impossible to make anything but temporary alliances. This whole "betrayal" concept illustrates the point nicely. Rick and company honestly do not see the contradiction between Galt's Oath and believing in a being who tells them to sacrifice their lives for a greater good. They believe that god is rational, and if we just understood how rational their faith is, we would be able to accept god too--or at least not be so intransigent in our atheism. (BTW, "theism" means "god belief," so a-theism means "the absence of god belief." FWIW. Maybe you know this already.) I have heard some of the FCP people cite Galt's Oath for themselves. They take the principle of non-sacrifice, of living your own life, surprisingly far considering their allegiences. Some of them even come to question their premises. . . I think if the ally can accept the premise, and the premise is stated clearly, they can be worked with, but the premises must be checked regularly for concurrance. You can't assume that all members of an organization will agree or that the same members will maintain their agreement over time. You have to actually check what they mean on a regular basis. There is definitely short term value in working with others. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." But you can never forget that he is still fundamentally your enemy--as is demonstrated by having a so called friend call Objectivists betrayers because they are anti-religion! I like the comment that the law of identity needs something positive to get traction on. That's precisely why Rick's attack on people who are too opposed to religion to work FOR reason is so telling. I claim that he is missing the point about what they are doing; they are not just distracted, they are working to pull down a fundamental obstacle to the positive one they hope to instill. He's acting as if they're just being silly and should focus on the REAL issue. He wants them to put aside what they perceive as the importance of atheism and work with him. (He still has not posted my comment on his blog....) But Ojbectivism is fundamentally a-theist, because all "evidence" for god is arbitrary and emotional. So to give the law of identity some traction, you can call yourself an Objectivist (or student of Objectivism!) and that is FOR something. It's like he's telling people not to be what they are because he isn't. Oh, and I don't think the "american people' were rational in their choice about which presidential candidate to vote for. They vote by how they feel, not by a rational process. If they gave even a little rational thought to it, the whole system would be stronger and we would have a lot more to work with.

Thank you, that is what I was looking for. It just didn't feel right to me to be told "you have to advocate." It feels too much like being told I have to live for someone else. No, despite confusion to the contrary, I am not trolling or being sarcastic. I meant commitment to individual rights. I just read Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value," and now I understand what you mean. I thought this more or less coming in to this discussion, but after reading "Fact and Value," I was struck by it much more deeply. I was reluctant beforehand to be firm about the things I disagreed with; as soon as I read Peikoff's argument, I understood immediately that I need to make a moral judgment about some of the ideas that claim to ally themselves with Objectivism. As soon as I recognized this, I felt a great calm come over me, the calm of knowing that a contradiction in myself was finally in accordance with reality. I am very grateful to Ayn Rand for the time she spent diligently thinking through this philosophy, and for all those who have taken her seriously enough to propagate it. And Rick, if you read this, you are attempting to resolve a contradiction by redefining the terms. You can equate faith with confidence in principle, but to do so robs the word of any useful meaning. Reality will go on not conforming to those definitions, no matter how neat a resolution they appear to produce. Faith is acceptance of an assertion without any objective evidence; it inherently means the acceptance of emotion as cognition. Atheism is essential to Objectivism. Do you call yourself an Objectivist? If so, you are wrong to do so. It is not merely a silly dispute between camps that could be good allies, it is as distinct as the difference between life and death. The moral revolution you champion (yes, I did recognize where the language comes from) depends first and foremost on the inviolability of the individual mind. As soon as you claim that self-interest leads to faith (Principle 2 of your credo--I recognize that language too), you disconnect the mind from its only source of knowledge: reality. The claim that a rational god is part of reality is arbitrary, and the assertion that god authors prosperity (Principle 1) or governs in the affairs of men (the FCP Pledge) destroys a man's confidence in his own mind. I applaud the energy of your efforts, but I must speak up against the contradiction I see in your words.

Thank you. I think there is no reason to refuse alliances, providing they adhere to agreed on fundamental principles, so that we are actually fighting for the same thing. The question is, how fundamental is the disagreement over religion? Is it a fatal difference, or is there some other even more fundamental principle that can still be held despite religion? In the case of this particular religion, their flaw is not that they ascribe primacy to consciousness, but that they accept the arbitrary. As long as they confine the arbitrary to their concepts of religion, and as long as they do not ask us to live for them, I think we can form a safe alliance. I find Galt's Oath a good standard: I will not live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. I think if we can make it clear to them that we differ on the point of arbitrary claims and agree on the rightness of living for your own sake, they will also feel more comfortable with the alliance. Perhaps then they will not feel the need to "prove" their religion to us. I was disappointed to find that the comment I made on Rick's blog was not posted. http://www.rickkoerber.com/2009/06/18/the-...of-ayn-rand/307 It was respectful, so I have to wonder why. I am hoping to find that there is just a time lag for moderation, and that it will yet show up. What do you mean?

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.

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?

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; 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?