I was once an Objectivist. I do not see my former self as an enemy. The primary target of Objectivists are people they view as “statists”. Ancaps also view them as statists but I think we agree on political principles - they just have not learned to apply those political principles consistantly yet. View them as potential converts - not enemies. We can even work with them on some immediate goals of mutual benefit (i.e. educating the public about basic economics).
Well if that’s the case we should definitely reach out to them. The worst case scenario is that we win a handful of converts, the best case is we have a party that may represent in the future.
Well if that’s case I say we consider them shaky allies. Theirs no shame in working with stronger movements until we can stand on our own. And also It sounds like they despise the Federal Reserve, a common enemy that needs to be destroyed!
They do despise the Federal Reserve. The most ironic figure to come out of the movement is Greenspan who was once part of Rand’s inner circle. Before he became Chairman of the Fed.he was a strong supporter of the gold standard and an opponent of the Federal Reserve. The story with Greenspan is a simple one: power corrupts. Power corrupts, that is all that needs to be said about Greenspan.
I agree, we should reach out to them.
From my interactions with Objectivists, mostly of the ARI/Peikoff variety, I have been forced to conclude that they are not my allies. Here are some of the reasons for this conclusion:
-
They are taught to despise libertarians and anarchists, possibly moreso than any other group. Objectivists pride themselves on not being libertarians, and they’re correct that they aren’t libertarians for reasons that will follow.
-
The contemporary Objectivist line on foreign policy has become indistinguishable from neoconservatism, if not more extreme than what most neoconservatives are willing to embrace. Civilian populations are free game to be mass-murdered in the crossfire between nation-states, any ntry that nationalizes its oil is allegedly allowed to be invaded in the name of protecting U.S. buisiness interests, they advocate things like invading Iran and Venezuela, and so on.
-
Objectivists have no fundamental qualms with centralization and monopoly. I’ve had multiple Objectivists confirm to me that they would not in principle be opposed to a global government so long as it was an Objectivist government. Their criteria for good government is essentially that it’s run by Objectivists, regaurdless of the power or size of that government. This reflects a general naivety about the problems with the centralization of power, and I fear that an Objectivist government would reduce to a centralized technocratic dictatorship in reality.
-
Objectivists rabily support intellectual property law. I know that this is somewhat up for debate in libertarian circles, but generally libertarian anarchists agree at least insofar as an opposition to patents.
-
As soon as the libertarian anarchists wish to secede or form alternative organizations, the Objectivists will initiate force on them and claim that you are the initial threat because your claim of independance or competition threatens “objective law”. In this way, they have the NAP totally backwards, similarly with their foreign policy. In short, Objectivists quickly show their true colors as law and order conservatives.
-
Objectivism is ultimately a closed system, I.E. if you do not essentially agree with Rand (note: or Peikoff’s interpretations of Rand) on everything under the sun then you’re not allowed in the club. It is also quite likely that you will put up with extreme emotional abuse if you consistantly try to disagree with them. Libertarianism is a comparatively open system, given that it has no broad philosophical requirement and is thus polycentric in nature.
Brainpolice, you give very strong reason why not to align with the Objectivist Movement; something that deserves future debate. But how do you feel about the Boston Tea Party, are they people worth reaching out to? If the general consensus is yes, I’ll provide their URL adress. So we can reach out to them and build a bigger movement.
To be fair, I’m primarily refering to Leonard Peikoff and the ARI (and my observations and interactions with followers of this group on youtube). It’s debatable the degree to which the ARI deviates from Rand and the degree to which the other Objectivist groups that split off (or were essentially purged) are more reasonable. I’ve gotten the impression that the Boston Tea Party and David Kelley’s segment of the Objectivist movement is more reasonable.
I actually made the jump from minarchism to anarchism under the influence of post-objectivists and over the strange debates that have taken place over the concept of “subscribed government” (and it does seem that Rand was kind of vague on this).
Brainpolice, you give very strong reasons why not to align with the Objectivist Movement; something that deserves future debate. But how do you feel about the Boston Tea Party, are they people worth reaching out to? If the general consensus is yes, I’ll provide their URL adress. So we can reach out to them and build a bigger movement.
I agree Brainpolice.
But I do think that objectivists should be reached out to before they actually become Objectivists. Much what is appealing about Rand’s work can be found in Libertarian / Anarchist principles: Freedom, non-existant or impotant governmnet, personal responsibility and looking upon the success of others as a source of inspiration rather than a cause for envy. If they discover Mises, Rothbard and those who expound on freedom and anti-agression today then perhaps we can get to them before they change their name to a pantomime Anglo-Saxon one with three names followed by “The Third” or “The Fourth”.
Once you get someone who was formerly known as “Steve” called Steele Dirk Penobscott IV telling us we need to destroy Mecca and the Vatican because religion is illogical…then they are indeed lost.
I think that the former objectivists who made the jump to libertarian anarchism (Such as Geoffery Allan Plauche, Stefan Molyneux, The Tannehils, XOmniverse, etc.) and a referance to Roy A. Childs’s letter to Rand are best for trying to get such people on board. But I fear that those who have already fully embraced Objectivism as a dogma are generally a lost cause.
We should! We’ll call it “THE SCREW IT PARTY” it’s symbol: a donkey and an elephant doing it doggy style. [:P] All jokes aside we should find the first “apolitical” political party to show people how pointless parties are for the most part.
People who accept ANYTHING as a dogma are a lost cause. Dogma, by its very nature, causes an end to future thought on that topic. If you want to bring Objectivists over to the side of Anarco-Capitalism you need to understand the way they think. A good, cheap and small primary source is a thin little book called “For the New Intellectual”. It contains what she considered the most important snippets from her novels. Once you get inside the heads of their heroes you can better communicate why, to be consistent, they must embrace anarco-capitalism. And (this is important) do not speak in terms of having them cease to be Objectivists, oh no, simply say you want them to be consistent in their Objectivist principles.
Just be careful you don’t get sucked into their dogmatic view of the world…
I do not think you need worry about An-Caps becoming dogmatic Objectivists. There is a famous post-World War I phrase, “How’re you going to keep them down on the farm once they’ve seen Gay Paree [sic]?” At the time “gay” did not have its modern connotation and simply meant happy. The idea was, once you have seen something so grand and Cosmopolitan (in both meanings of the term) as Early 20th Century Paris, France it is difficult to give up all of that. There is no “going back home”. Even if you go back home in the physical sense you are forever changed as a person. All that I found attractive about Objectivism is found to an even larger extent in Anarco-Capitalism.
If I recall correctly, that’s how the Libertarian Party originally started. And look where it is now [^o)]
Conceived by animal cross breeding? Pics or it didn’t happen.
[:P] No, the apolitical part. Lol
The Libertarian Party was never a “apolitical” party they’ve always had the intention of getting people into office. A real apolitical party’s main goal was to show that all parties are essentially pointless. It’s more of an art thing than a government thing. Basically a relations tool.
From New Libertarian Manifesto, footnote 10 of Chapter I: