www.sierratimes.com/archi...thomas.htm
Cuttin' through the Bull #95
What About Objectivism?
Copyright 2001 By Ray Thomas 12.10.01
In the sixties, I was a "rabid conservative." But that was before I realized that even though there were many facets of conservatism with which I agreed, there were also many with which I didn't agree. Not only that, I found such a huge mass of apathy that I didn't think we were ever going to be able to make any advances against the power seekers. This coupled with my confusion over many things, caused me to withdraw from politics completely for many years.
That was before my two brothers, Bob and Rick, the ones with whom I had previously written an excellent defense of capitalism in answer to a letter to the editor of the Indianapolis Star-News, insisted that I read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, a more than 1,000 page book. The whole idea frightened me. I had never read anything that long and confidentially, didn't want to. But they kept at me, and when I fell and almost twisted my right ankle off, laying me up for almost a year, I decided to tackle it, just to make them happy.
That book changed my life for the better and I recently completed my ninth reading of it. Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, answered every question I had which had confused me earlier. Questions such as: "Why does Rockefeller, who has more money than he could ever spend, embrace socialism, a philosophy that reviled the rich and wanted to take it all away from him?" The answer was simple: never having to worry about where his next dollar is coming from, always being able to buy anything he wanted, he had no more worlds to conquer. So power was the next thing for him to want, and socialism was the vehicle. You don't have to own the money, so long as you control, absolutely, how it is spent.
Like many philosophies people espouse, there are those who disagree with them, sometimes people who should know better. I expect the liberal power seekers to disagree with Objectivism, but I find it irritating that Ayn Rand's own selected "philosophical and financial heir," Leonard Piekoff is so "hidebound" about her philosophy, declaring it to be a "closed issue," that what she wrote and said was the end-all, be-all of Objectivism. It's not.
A lot of people think just because Ayn Rand had some personal foibles that they should just ignore her philosophy. Wrong. You should never "throw out the baby with the bath water." Sure; Ayn Rand was human. She made mistakes and, in some cases, was wrong on some of her conclusions because she approached certain subjects on a subjective, rather than an objective level. Should she have known better? Maybe, but the mistakes she made in her lifetime should not destroy the effect of her masterwork, the philosophy of Objectivism. In her own case, her own philosophical mentor was wrong about many things, according to her. But she still acknowledged a debt to him when she wrote in Atlas Shrugged: "The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle. I most emphatically disagree with a great many parts of his philosophy -- but his definition of the laws of logic and the means of human knowledge are so great an achievement that his errors are irrelevant by comparison."
She was "dictatorial" in her relations with her closest confidantes, whom she laughingly called her "collective." She demanded ideological purity in their every thought concerning "her" philosophy and "excommunicated" them should they disagree with any part of it. Such people were declared "persona non grata" and were forever shunned. To this day, some of her followers cling to this dogmatic approach to Objectivism, which has led to the establishment of two separate groups, "warring" over the right to be the primary Objectivist group. One group is led by Leonard Peikoff, her "intellectual and financial heir," who is represented by the Ayn Rand Institute. The other is David Kelley, who heads the Objectivist Center, formerly the Institute of Objectivist Studies. Both preach basically the same message, but have major disagreements over details -- and because of the dogmatism displayed by Peikoff, her disciple, they are "at war."
I personally think that if Peikoff were to be a bit less dogmatic, they could easily work out their differences, but I don't think that is going to happen any time soon. Should it come to pass, I would welcome it. Until then I intend to get what good I can get from both factions and attempt to "walk the thin line" between them. But should I fail, it won't make a whole lot of difference to me if they were to both "denounce" me (although that is a tool of only one faction) since the entirety of Ayn Rand's philosophy tells me I should not live for the approval of any person. That my own approval is all that is needed. Therefore, I can be an Objectivist without the support or approval of either faction -- and that's the way I like it.
I have been an "individualist" all my life. I did not come to Objectivism as something to be learned. I have been a "practicing Objectivist" since long before I had what it was, laid out for me in her writing. I did not come to Objectivism by "accepting" what she said. On the contrary; Objectivism "came to me" by confirming what I already knew to be true and giving me a framework to use in understanding it. If Ayn Rand hadn't come up with Objectivism, someone else would have, and that someone else might have even been me. But I happily "give over" to her because, as an Objectivist, I don't need the approval of others. I'm just happy to see the philosophy by which I've lived all my life given a name and to be practiced by others.
If someone asks me where I stand on the political scale I tell them I'm a liberal -- a classical liberal. Or I tell them I'm a "rational individualist." They amount to the same thing. This country was created as a free country by classical liberals such as Thomas Jefferson and every one of them was a rational individualist. Classical liberalism is not well known today as a philosophy, political or otherwise, and it bears no resemblance to the "liberalism" that is practiced today. Classical liberals believed in many of the same things believed in today by conservatives, without the tendency to control our personal lives thrown in.
The nearest political philosophy today to classical liberalism is Libertarianism, although they need a lot of work in order to be able to supplant one of the major political parties. They have some good ideas, but they aren't very good at selling them to the public. An example is the Libertarian who is asked if he believes drugs should be legalized and answers, simply, "yes." That's instead of explaining that The "drug war" isn't working and is helping to create a police state. That after all the billions of dollars that have been expended in the "drug war" and all the rights we have had taken from us in support of it, we have just as many, even more drug addicts today than we have ever had in the past. As with booze, making drugs illegal is just not working. Meanwhile, the "drug war" is used as an excuse to take away still more rights. So why don't we try something different?
If I had been told a few years ago that police could walk up to you, search you without a warrant, take your money, and let you go, keeping the money without even filing charges against you, I wouldn't have believed it. But with the RICO Laws, passed to "fight the drug war," they can do that. They can raid your home on the unsupported word of a drug addict, abuse you and your family, and "confiscate" your property with no charges being proven against you. Then it's up to you to file suit to get it back. That's after they've made you a pauper and after you have filed a bond guaranteeing payment of the government's legal costs, whether you win or lose (if you can afford it).
He doesn't explain that all the drug war is doing is creating more criminals, this time in the government, whose criminal activities are thought to be legal because they're "law enforcement officers." All he does is say "yes," and let people think what they wish.
The Libertarian philosophy is very simple. They believe that everybody has the right to do anything they wish, so long as in doing so they do not interfere with the right of the next person to do the same. That no one has the right to tell them otherwise because that is interfering with their rights. They believe that people have the right to engage in violence in self defense, but not to initiate violence.
For this reason, Libertarianism, like Objectivism, is misunderstood by those who don't know much about either. My advice to those who don't like either is to learn more about both. You don't have to agree with every tenet of either to claim it. Neither are "closed loops" and either can be improved upon by thinking individuals who are adamant about their thinking. That's what individualism is all about.
Liberal theories are not an expression of ideas, but a bucket of slime emptied in public." (With thanks to Ayn Rand)
Ray Thomas

Cuttin' through the Bull #95
What About Objectivism?
Copyright 2001 By Ray Thomas 12.10.01
In the sixties, I was a "rabid conservative." But that was before I realized that even though there were many facets of conservatism with which I agreed, there were also many with which I didn't agree. Not only that, I found such a huge mass of apathy that I didn't think we were ever going to be able to make any advances against the power seekers. This coupled with my confusion over many things, caused me to withdraw from politics completely for many years.
That was before my two brothers, Bob and Rick, the ones with whom I had previously written an excellent defense of capitalism in answer to a letter to the editor of the Indianapolis Star-News, insisted that I read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, a more than 1,000 page book. The whole idea frightened me. I had never read anything that long and confidentially, didn't want to. But they kept at me, and when I fell and almost twisted my right ankle off, laying me up for almost a year, I decided to tackle it, just to make them happy.
That book changed my life for the better and I recently completed my ninth reading of it. Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, answered every question I had which had confused me earlier. Questions such as: "Why does Rockefeller, who has more money than he could ever spend, embrace socialism, a philosophy that reviled the rich and wanted to take it all away from him?" The answer was simple: never having to worry about where his next dollar is coming from, always being able to buy anything he wanted, he had no more worlds to conquer. So power was the next thing for him to want, and socialism was the vehicle. You don't have to own the money, so long as you control, absolutely, how it is spent.
Like many philosophies people espouse, there are those who disagree with them, sometimes people who should know better. I expect the liberal power seekers to disagree with Objectivism, but I find it irritating that Ayn Rand's own selected "philosophical and financial heir," Leonard Piekoff is so "hidebound" about her philosophy, declaring it to be a "closed issue," that what she wrote and said was the end-all, be-all of Objectivism. It's not.
A lot of people think just because Ayn Rand had some personal foibles that they should just ignore her philosophy. Wrong. You should never "throw out the baby with the bath water." Sure; Ayn Rand was human. She made mistakes and, in some cases, was wrong on some of her conclusions because she approached certain subjects on a subjective, rather than an objective level. Should she have known better? Maybe, but the mistakes she made in her lifetime should not destroy the effect of her masterwork, the philosophy of Objectivism. In her own case, her own philosophical mentor was wrong about many things, according to her. But she still acknowledged a debt to him when she wrote in Atlas Shrugged: "The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle. I most emphatically disagree with a great many parts of his philosophy -- but his definition of the laws of logic and the means of human knowledge are so great an achievement that his errors are irrelevant by comparison."
She was "dictatorial" in her relations with her closest confidantes, whom she laughingly called her "collective." She demanded ideological purity in their every thought concerning "her" philosophy and "excommunicated" them should they disagree with any part of it. Such people were declared "persona non grata" and were forever shunned. To this day, some of her followers cling to this dogmatic approach to Objectivism, which has led to the establishment of two separate groups, "warring" over the right to be the primary Objectivist group. One group is led by Leonard Peikoff, her "intellectual and financial heir," who is represented by the Ayn Rand Institute. The other is David Kelley, who heads the Objectivist Center, formerly the Institute of Objectivist Studies. Both preach basically the same message, but have major disagreements over details -- and because of the dogmatism displayed by Peikoff, her disciple, they are "at war."
I personally think that if Peikoff were to be a bit less dogmatic, they could easily work out their differences, but I don't think that is going to happen any time soon. Should it come to pass, I would welcome it. Until then I intend to get what good I can get from both factions and attempt to "walk the thin line" between them. But should I fail, it won't make a whole lot of difference to me if they were to both "denounce" me (although that is a tool of only one faction) since the entirety of Ayn Rand's philosophy tells me I should not live for the approval of any person. That my own approval is all that is needed. Therefore, I can be an Objectivist without the support or approval of either faction -- and that's the way I like it.
I have been an "individualist" all my life. I did not come to Objectivism as something to be learned. I have been a "practicing Objectivist" since long before I had what it was, laid out for me in her writing. I did not come to Objectivism by "accepting" what she said. On the contrary; Objectivism "came to me" by confirming what I already knew to be true and giving me a framework to use in understanding it. If Ayn Rand hadn't come up with Objectivism, someone else would have, and that someone else might have even been me. But I happily "give over" to her because, as an Objectivist, I don't need the approval of others. I'm just happy to see the philosophy by which I've lived all my life given a name and to be practiced by others.
If someone asks me where I stand on the political scale I tell them I'm a liberal -- a classical liberal. Or I tell them I'm a "rational individualist." They amount to the same thing. This country was created as a free country by classical liberals such as Thomas Jefferson and every one of them was a rational individualist. Classical liberalism is not well known today as a philosophy, political or otherwise, and it bears no resemblance to the "liberalism" that is practiced today. Classical liberals believed in many of the same things believed in today by conservatives, without the tendency to control our personal lives thrown in.
The nearest political philosophy today to classical liberalism is Libertarianism, although they need a lot of work in order to be able to supplant one of the major political parties. They have some good ideas, but they aren't very good at selling them to the public. An example is the Libertarian who is asked if he believes drugs should be legalized and answers, simply, "yes." That's instead of explaining that The "drug war" isn't working and is helping to create a police state. That after all the billions of dollars that have been expended in the "drug war" and all the rights we have had taken from us in support of it, we have just as many, even more drug addicts today than we have ever had in the past. As with booze, making drugs illegal is just not working. Meanwhile, the "drug war" is used as an excuse to take away still more rights. So why don't we try something different?
If I had been told a few years ago that police could walk up to you, search you without a warrant, take your money, and let you go, keeping the money without even filing charges against you, I wouldn't have believed it. But with the RICO Laws, passed to "fight the drug war," they can do that. They can raid your home on the unsupported word of a drug addict, abuse you and your family, and "confiscate" your property with no charges being proven against you. Then it's up to you to file suit to get it back. That's after they've made you a pauper and after you have filed a bond guaranteeing payment of the government's legal costs, whether you win or lose (if you can afford it).
He doesn't explain that all the drug war is doing is creating more criminals, this time in the government, whose criminal activities are thought to be legal because they're "law enforcement officers." All he does is say "yes," and let people think what they wish.
The Libertarian philosophy is very simple. They believe that everybody has the right to do anything they wish, so long as in doing so they do not interfere with the right of the next person to do the same. That no one has the right to tell them otherwise because that is interfering with their rights. They believe that people have the right to engage in violence in self defense, but not to initiate violence.
For this reason, Libertarianism, like Objectivism, is misunderstood by those who don't know much about either. My advice to those who don't like either is to learn more about both. You don't have to agree with every tenet of either to claim it. Neither are "closed loops" and either can be improved upon by thinking individuals who are adamant about their thinking. That's what individualism is all about.
Liberal theories are not an expression of ideas, but a bucket of slime emptied in public." (With thanks to Ayn Rand)
Ray Thomas

Please Visit my published Article Archive
"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to "the common good," but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages adn cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance -- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way." (Ayn Rand)

"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to "the common good," but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages adn cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance -- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way." (Ayn Rand)


