Still, there are many self-styled “Objectivists” who advocate precisely such a dereliction of government’s responsibility to protect Americans from foreign threats–those who advocate completely “open borders” and who oppose the deportation of even criminal aliens. They advocate abolishing all immigration law entirely–and they do so in the name of “Objectivism.”
It is vital to recognize in this context that many nations of the world define such basic crimes as murder and rape very differently than under American law. Some places are in a state of near anarchy and do not keep or collect data on criminals as the United States does.
This means that criminal border screening must include an active process of investigation that examines the individual’s previous conduct, not merely the willingness of a foreign country to be rid of them or to have them subjected to criminal charges.
Were there to be no screening for immigrants at the border, nothing would prevent another country from systematically expelling its own criminal populations into the United States.*
Students of Objectivism who oppose any border enforcement, or who advocate that there should be no deportations, whatever, are simply ignoring Objectivist political philosophy.
Here is Peikoff attacking a certain unnamed Objectivist for the “racism” charge”:
One anti-ICEr suggests that conservatives who defend ICE and deportation are really racists — presumably, in this case, because we are supposed to be hostile to brown bodies. In other words, this student of Objectivism (I don’t call him an Objectivist because he is clearly still learning what the philosophy is) is not only perpetrating an ad hominem, but also invoking as self-evident the WOKE explanation of all evil: RACISM.
Speaking for myself: as a teenager, I spent most Augusts in Canada lying on Grand Beach getting a great tan, all the kids did, and we all boasted how brown we looked. Then, some years later, while dating in New York City, I applied bronzer liberally to my face and neck, wanting to look like someone who did not spend all of his time reading books (though it ruined my shirt collars). And now I have married a person of multi-racial ethnicity, and to me Grace is the most beautiful woman I have ever known.
Interesting that Peikoff implies he is a “conservative.”** Hard to say with certainty who Peikoff is criticizing, but it sounds like he’s talking about Yaron Brook.
2. Speaking of the above, Yaron Brook doesn’t seem to be aware (or care) that Peikoff apparently thinks Brook supports “the left” when it comes to ICE and Peikoff has publicly called him out for it. Considering Brook’s continued attacks on Trump (whom Peikoff supports), perhaps Brook thinks that his hostility to Trump won’t get back to Peikoff (he seems to imply this). The ARI still lists Peikoff as the founder so I’m not sure why Brook isn’t a bit more restrained when it comes to Trump in light of Peikoff’s habit of breaking with people.
3. Unresolved trauma? Don’t expect any sympathy from Yaron Brook.
____________
* Which Fidel Castro did during the Mariel Boatlift (opening up Cuba’s mental hospitals as well).
** A point I owe to Scott Schiff.
----Neil Parille
7 comments:
I was up to very recently somewhat involved in the current "pro-Trump/anti-Trump" Objectivist schism, as manifested on Facebook where various members of both sides interact. I vacillate between seeing that schism as comical or pathetic, but it's really none of my concern: most recently, I've rejected the philosophy, with prejudice, and disassociated myself from almost everyone who calls themselves Objectivist (of whatever kind).
Really, all I can say is this: a pox on both their houses. The one thing they all share is a deep aversion to the facts, whether they oppose or support the Trump administration's mass deportation or any other policy. I would be amazed by how little they all know about the things they so confidently, and smugly, opine about -- only, as discussed on this site, Ayn Rand taught them that facts don't really matter when you want to make an assertion. So their ignorance and evasion is to be expected.
I don't want to delve into the question of immigration and Trump's mass deportation, other than to say that it's being led by some very bad people like Stephen Miller (a white nationalist) and Russel Vought (a white Christian nationalist).
As I've noted in a previous comment here, the Department of Homeland Security social media account posted a meme talking about how great America would be after the "deportation" of 100 million people -- which would obviously mean tens of millions of citizens and legal residents, and almost certainly refers to non-white people given all of their other white Christian nationalist messaging. Personally, I don't take that messaging lightly.
At least one part of Peikoff's argument is laughable: saying he can't be a racist because he spent his summers getting a nice tan. When people talk about hostility to "brown people," they are not referring to white folks who slather themselves with suntan oil.
The basic problem with Objectivism is that it starts from the assumption that you can rationally infer the solution to any problem from very basic premises. In reality, any number of contradictory inferences can be drawn from the axioms that Rand regarded as all-important. For instance, "existence exists" does not lead ineluctably to any particular conclusions. A Buddhist, a Zoroastrian, a Hindu, a Confucian, a Muslim, a Christian, a Jew, an atheist, a philosophical materialist, or even a philosophical idealist can all agree that existence exists. They just disagree on what it means to "exist" and what "existence" consists of. Rand started with that premise and then smuggled in various ancillary assumptions that she never tried to prove - that existence exists independent from consciousness, that existence constitutes only the physical world, that existence in the sense of "matter and energy" is the ground of being, etc. Probably neither she nor her followers even grasp that these propositions are not inherent in "existence exists."
When Objectivists clash over specifics such as border policy, they have no way to resolve the dispute, because the different viewpoints come down to unstated assumptions that "feel" like self-evident truths.
Agreed with all of that. And then, you have to toss in the fact that Objectivists tend to be egregiously ignorant of the facts. They form such strong and moralistic opinions, as evidenced by Valliant's and Peikoff's essays, without knowing a damn thing about any of it. And I know this personally when it comes to Valliant, because I've argued with him a few times on Facebook -- while also seeing that he's a slimy worm, along with being ignorant and evasive. (Yes, I possess some animus toward him specifically, as I do many of the Objectivists I've interacted with on Facebook.)
"In reality, any number of contradictory inferences can be drawn from the axioms that Rand regarded as all-important. "
As I pointed out below, using Rands's comments on immigration you could come up with different positions even an ethnic based immigration approach. In any event I doubt Rand would have agreed with the popular no screening approach of Binswanger and Brook. -- NP
Yaron Brook doesn’t seem to be aware (or care) that Peikoff apparently thinks Brook supports “the left” when it comes to ICE and Peikoff has publicly called him out for it.
I don't think at this point Yaron Brook needs to worry about what Peikoff thinks. Peikoff is too old and frail to shut down the current ARI and start anew. And in any case, what Objectivism as a movement is suffering from is not the threat of internal schisms, but the lack of any sort of coherent central authority that can speak for Rand in today's world. No one can say for sure what Rand would have thought of Trump, or ICE, or the Covid Vaccine, or the Iran War, or any other of a number of pressing issues on the current scene. So it should not come as a surprise that Rand's current crop of followers should clash on these issues and fall to quarreling among themselves. Without a central figure to decide where orthodox Objectivism should stand on these troublesome contemporary issues, the current set of Objectivist luminaries will struggle to create a unified movement. Objectivism, as a movement, will continue its descent into slough of internal chaos and external irrelevance. Rand's novels, especially The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged will continue to find readers who will be inspired by Rand's eccentric "vision." But that's as far as it will go.
As a critic of Objectivism, I had a vague hope that Rand's philosophy would make a better account of itself in these latter days, if only to provide a more worthy opponent for critical jousting. One hardly relishes kicking a dead horse, especially when the animal has begun to stink.
There's a recording from a few years back where Peikoff says he gets all of his information from Fox News and/or right-wing talk radio. So, his opinion on such things isn't surprising. One has to wonder where Rand would have gotten her information if she were alive today -- her track record in that regard wasn't the best, given that, for example, she basically got her ideas about Native Americans from 1950s Westerns.
I love it when the Objectivist community has debates on topics such as these. Do they think that Trump, Vance et al are going to take notice of what they say!
Wouldn't it be a more productive use of their time to debate "Who would win in a fight, Captain Kirk or Captain Picard?"
Post a Comment