Shouldn’t objectivists or LFC’s be a little more intelligent and try convert instead of confront?
Do you agree that the masses are mostly shallow in their political ideas?
If you agree, within a democracy, given that the political leaders are elected by the masses, are all western countries doomed to socialism?
I agree that most people are shallow, in their knowledge of philosophy, but I disagree that shallowness causes one to be a socialist. Most people pushing socialism on those masses are in fact not shallow, they are quite well versed in Kantian philosophy (which could hardly be called shallow).
But the masses aren’t choosing socialism (or actually, pragmatism and skepticism, which allow politicians to enact socialist programs) out of ideological fervor, but simply because they see no alternative to those two. Objectivism is a viable alternative, and it seems to be inching closer to hitting the mainstream. When/if it does, people will choose it. I’d say Objectivists should simply spread the word, through whatever means are available (confrontation, education, whatever)
Shouldn’t objectivists or LFC’s be a little more intelligent and try convert instead of confront?
What do you mean by that?
If you mean what I think you do, I would say no. The fact is that in the marketplace of ideas, the most widely offered choice is evil. However it is well-packaged evil – not naked Hitlerianism, but ultimately reducible to exactly what Hitler offered nonetheless. In order to “be more intelligent”, we must confront the underpinnings of contemporary evil ideas for what they are, and hope that when exposed, that fact will lead rational men to reject evil and embrace good. Confrontation is essential to persuasion.
The one area that I think is reasonably open to stylistic amelioration is the need for extreme public denunciation. In my not so humble opinion, everything that I just said is in fact obvious and true, and therefore I should not need to say this, in an ideal universe. From what I can tell, though, you are not being an evil evader for asking the question, and therefore it would be wrong of me to denounce you as being an evader for even asking. I start from the presumption that others are morally good, and need strong evidence to the contrary in order to conclude with certainty that another person is in fact morally evil. This “presumption of goodness” means that it takes stronger evidence to prove that a person is in fact evil, in comparison to the alternative of presuming evilness and then seeking to overturn that conclusion by proving with certainty that they are good.
Now as for the particular editorial, I’d say that that author is just full of beans. There’s basically no logic to her claim; it’s just an emotional rant, one best ignored.
The author seemed to be overly concerned with whether or not Rand had any friends. Not much attacking of Rand’s ideas, more personal attacks against Rand herself. Demonize and they will follow I guess…