Objectivist Round-up, May 2025

1. Harry Binswanger doesn’t like Harvard, and in particular its philosophy department.  I’m no historian of philosophy, but I have read some works by the philosophers he mentions, and like many Objectivists, Binswanger wants to give the worst possible interpretation to these thinkers.

2. Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate discuss whether important to know Rand’s life to understand her philosophy.  After listening to it three times, I’m not sure what Ghate and Brook think.  In any event, contrary to Ghate, Rand’s post-Atlas Shrugged depression is well-documented.  Ghate strangely says it’s hard to know much about Rand’s personality f you didn’t know her.  Brook says, quoting Leonard Peikoff, that Rand didn’t consider herself a genius.  This, if true, must be the first case of false humility in Rand’s life.  Allan Gotthelf once told Rand, “You’ve done for consciousness what Aristotle did for existence,” to which Rand responded, “that’s true.”

The Curse of Ayn Rand's Heir (Neil Parille)

The Atlantic Magazine published a lengthy article, The Curse of Ayn Rand’s Heir, which discuses Leonard Peikoff and his relationship with Rand and the Objectivist movement and also Peikoff’s daughter Kira’s conservatorship action (which she ultimately withdrew).  I thought the article was fair and balanced, to coin a phrase.  I note that the author, Chris Beam (who interviewed me for an hour or so), mentions that before his marriage to his nurse Grace Davis, Peikoff gave Kira $2 million, so maybe Peikoff’s contention (through his spokesman James Valliant) that he was cash strapped has some truth to it.  (Before the marriage and the $2 million payment, Peikoff bought a $3.5 million home for him and Davis to live in).  The article mentions that Peikoff is leaving Rand’s books to a committee but doesn’t speculate as to how Davis will be able to pay the mortgage and other expenses after he passes.  (Something tells me that Davis and her son – who lives at the house – aren’t planning on “downsizing” after Peikoff goes to his reward.)  Some Objectivists claimed the article was a “hit piece” noting that The Atlantic has a reputation for being left of center.  But I think anyone who reads the piece can see that Beam (whose politics I don’t know) just wanted to tell an interesting story.  Had he wanted to attack Peikoff, he could have dwelled on Peikoff’s rewriting of Rand’s posthumous material, his breaks with other Objectivists, and the restrictive policy of the Ayn Rand Archives.  He mentions these things in passing.

As Greg Nyquist said a while ago, no one seems particularly interested in what Rand would have wanted.  Of course we may never know.  When Rand died Peikoff was childless so she may have assumed that Peikoff would leave his estate to Objectivist causes.  Yet at the end of the day it’s hard to imagine that Rand would have wanted a fair portion of her estate to go to people who probably never heard of Objectivism until recently.  In any event, I think my conclusion stands: while Peikoff may be competent, it certainly looks like he is being taken advantage of.

Objectivist Round-up, April 2025

1. Carl Barney has funded The Leonard Peikoff Library, a website containing all of Leonard Peikoff’s lectures and courses.

2. Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) philosopher Greg Salmieri is asked how much of Kant Rand read.  He says he doesn’t know because we don’t have any books by Kant that she “marked up.”  Salmieri says that Rand likely learned a lot about Kant from Peikoff and she may have studied the various arguments in the Critique of Pure Reason with him.  Brook asks Salmieri about Rand’s take on Kant and he says it’s correct albeit on a high level.

3. The Ayn Rand Fan Club has a typically insightful discussion of Objectivity in Objectivism.  There is an interesting quote from Peikoff who says, in effect, that people couldn’t think rationally before Rand wrote Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.  

4. For whatever reason, many ARI-associated Objectivists have now decided that the Russia/Ukraine war is of existential importance and the United States must go full-bore into supporting Ukraine.  They seem to have combined their dislike of Trump with their dislike of Russia.  Putting aside the merits of all this, the ARI has forgotten the semi-isolationism of Rand and Peikoff.  (For example, in The Ominous Parallels, heavily edited by Rand, Peikoff praised those who wanted to keep the US out of World War Two and said President Roosevelt manipulated the US into an unjust war with Japan.)

ARI Speaks for Rand (by Neil Parille)

The Ayn Rand Institute’s (ARI) Chief Philosophy Officer Onkar Ghate and philosopher Ben Bayer have a new video, Why the Ayn Rand Institute Comments on Current Events.  The discussion is defensive, trying to justify the large amount of time spent on current affairs, including topics that Rand didn’t — or couldn’t have — commented on such as Israel, immigration, Donald Trump, COVID and Ukraine.  These topics get at least as much attention as Rand’s philosophy.  For example, the on-line journal of the ARI (New Ideal), lists 277 articles on Objectivism and Philosophy versus 330 articles on Culture and Politics.

Ghate and Bayer dutifully report that the ARI does not claim to speak for Ayn Rand.  This is incorrect, e.g.  “The Anti-Intellectuality of Donald Trump: Why Ayn Rand Would Have Despised a President Trump.”  Not only that, but the founder of the ARI (Leonard Peikoff) has repeatedly claimed to speak for Rand.

One thing I find interesting is that of four issues the ARI seems most concerned about – abortion, immigration, Israel (and the greater Middle East), and Donald Trump  – Rand wrote  about only one (abortion).  Bayer admits that these positions often get criticism from some ARI supporters. Consider immigration. Although ARI doesn’t seem to have an official position on the question, their denizens tend to support what is called “open immigration.”  A person should be free to enter and reside in the United States (or any other country) so long as he doesn’t have a criminal background.*  (ARI supporter Harry Binswanger opposes screening, saying the border between two countries should be no different than the border between New York and Connecticut.)  

Objectivist Round-up, March 2025

1.      Ayn Rand Institute philosopher Ben Bayer attacks Christianity.  While there are things to disagree with, Bayer actually has read some primary sources and doesn’t repeat any of the usual Objectivist urban legends about religion.

2.     Harry Binswanger just posted some Objectivist trivia questions.  Bonus points if you can name the four U. S. states that Ayn Rand didn’t mention in Atlas Shrugged.

3.     The ARI has released Raymond Newman’s interview with Ayn Rand.  The interview took place during the end of 1980 (Rand died in March 1982).  Rand is a little slow but still sharp.

4.      According to the ARI, there are “thousands” of handwritten pages in Rand’s papers that are now being transcribed (later in the article it looks as if the material is roughly 3,000 pages).  These include some of her early notes on philosophy.  While the Archives have never (best I can tell)  provided a complete list of all Rand’s papers, I wouldn’t have gotten the impression from reading the introductions to the posthumously published works that this much material remains to be published.

Objectivist Round-up, February 2025

1. Shoshana Milgram, who has been working on a biography of Ayn Rand for at least twenty years, gave an interesting talk at OCON 2024 – “Behind the Scenes: Ayn Rand’s West Point Lecture (1974–2024).”  Rand gave her Philosophy: Who Needs It? lecture there.  I listened to almost all of it and no mention of any biography.

2.  Multi-millionaire Objectivist supporter Carl Barney will be creating a “Great University” in March 2025 to “foster reason, objectivity, and the pursuit of truth into the American culture and, indeed, worldwide.”

3.  The Ayn Rand Institute just published The Art of Thinking, transcripts of lectures by Leonard Peikoff given in 1992.

Objectist Round-up, January 2025

1. The Ayn Rand Letter (1971-1976) is now out in a moderately priced paperback edition.

2. The Ayn Rand Fan Club has a review of the Objectivist response to Donald Trump’s election.  Co-host William Swig notes that in 2020, Yaron Brook said the country is done with if Trump got elected.  As Swig notes, there is a tendency in Objectivism to say “the end is near” going back to Rand’s essay, “The Fascist New Frontier.”

3. The Ayn Rand Fan Club has an interesting discussion of “the tribalism charge in Objectivism.”  ARI Objectivists, for whatever reason, seems to use this charge to attack people and ideas that don’t like in a similar way the left attacks its opponents as “fascists.”  ARI philosopher Greg Salmieri was asked if Objectivism is tribalistic and he said, in effect, that all groups are.  I’d mention that maybe half of the early Objectivist leadership was related to each other either biologically or by marriage.  The ARI strikes me as somewhat “tribalistic.”  While their breaks with other people or groups seem reasonable from their perspective, the implication of these breaks – that they alone are competent to opine on Objectivism and even whom Rand would vote for – strikes me as tribal.

4. Up-and-coming Objectivist psychologist Gena Gorlin has an interesting overview of psychology.  Gorlin says she agrees with Rand’s 1971 statement that psychology, as a science, is “barely making its first steps.”  Rand probably said this as a jibe against Nathaniel Branden.  In any event, I find Gorlin’s view surprising for someone with a doctorate in psychology.  Psychology has been studied on a scientific basis for well over a century.  (Many authors associate it with Wilhelm Wundt’s 1879 laboratory.)  Certainly, the study of intelligence is anything but its infancy phase.  The validity of IQ tests, the correlation between IQ and life outcomes, and the high heritability of intelligence (50% to 80%) are well-established.

Objectivist Round-up, December 2024

1.     The Ayn Rand Fan Club interviews anarcho-capitalist Walter Block.  Block discusses his involvement with the Objectivist movement in the 1960’s, among other things.  Speaking of Block, he debated Objectivist Michael Leibowitz on anarcho-capitalism.

2.    Carl Barney posted about the Leonard Peikoff conservatorship case.  Barney takes Kira Peikoff’s side.  Barney concludes his post by saying, “This ordeal is private between Leonard, Kira, and now Grace. Let’s leave it alone,” while spending the previous ten or so paragraphs “trashing” people including Tal Tsfany (ARI president), Yaron Brook, James Valliant, and Peikoff’s new wife.  Brook said Barney is lying about him.  Looks like the Objectivist world is using this sad situation to settle old scores.

3.    The big news, of course, was that Donald Trump was elected president.  From what I can tell, most Ayn Rand Institute officials either supported Vice President Harris or didn’t vote.  On the other hand, most non-ARI Objectivists, even those who don’t support “Open Objectivism”, voted for Trump. It’s interesting that of the three issues that most concern the ARI – abortion, immigration and Israel – Rand wrote about only one

Objectivist Round-up, November 2024

1. Alexandra Popoff, author of the new biography of Ayn Rand, is interviewed here.

2. The Ayn Rand Fan Club interviewed David Kelley on his theory of propositions.

3. The Ayn Rand Institute’s Aaron Smith interviewed Elan Journo concerning his recent reviews of the 2009 biographies of Ayn Rand by Jennifer Burns and Anne Heller.  Journo continues to misrepresent these books.  At the end of the interview, Journo says there is a biography in the works (presumably the authorized one by Shoshan Knapp, which has been promised for at least 20 years).

4. Leonard Peikoff will be voting for Trump

5. Kira Peikoff, Léonard’s daughter, is dropping her conservatorship action.  Her statement reads in part:

In March of 2024, I filed for a Conservatorship over my 91-year-old father, Dr. Leonard Peikoff. I took this action after I lost all communication with him and he deeded title to his house to his nurse and then married her. I was subsequently cut out of his life. I felt I owed it to my father, with whom I had a lifelong loving and close relationship, to protect him. The conservatorship was my only option to reach him and to try to help him after communication closed.

After much thought, I have decided to drop the conservatorship case. Although I still believe I have a strong legal case that is supported by multiple disinterested witnesses (see first comment below), a neutral Court-appointed medical expert, and the presumptions of undue influence under California probate code, my dad has shown himself to be beyond reach as a victim used by his abuser.

Even though many people in our lives can attest that we previously had a close and loving relationship for 38 years, my father has been convinced, under what I believe is the undue influence of his nurse-turned-wife, that I am an evil, greedy person who doesn’t care about him and only wants his money. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even if I were to prevail at trial, so much damage has been done already that it would amount to a Pyrrhic victory.

My father’s love for me has been destroyed, and I no longer believe that any amount of evidence brought to his attention will open his eyes. Also, a conservator’s actions to protect him from financial fraud would take at least another year or two of contentious litigation to reverse the harm that has likely already occurred. If he is not able to understand what should be obvious, that I am trying to protect him, I do not wish to put him through a prolonged legal battle at this stage of his life.

Kira also released a couple of affidavits from people who know Leonard and have first-hand information concerning his relationship with his new wife.  While Leonard may be competent, it’s hard not to conclude that he is being taken advantage of.  For example, his wife’s son appears to be living in the nearly four-million-dollar mansion.  Harry Binswanger sided with Kira saying Peikoff’s wife is a “gold digger.”

Retouching Rand (by Neil Parille)

Back in 2009, I wrote an essay Retouching Rand, which discussed the Ayn Rand Institute’s efforts to create a better Ayn Rand.  These efforts involved fibbing about Rand (for example, Leonard Peikoff’s claim that Rand quit smoking because she concluded it was dangerous, when in fact she quit because she got lung cancer, and James Valliant’s dishonest hit piece, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics).  A lot has happened in the past fifteen years, so it’s time for an update.

Retouching Ayn Rand’s Posthumously Published Material

At the time my essay was published, Jennifer Burns had not published her 2009 autobiography of Rand, Goddess of the Market.  Burns revealed for the first time what was suspected: much of Rand’s posthumously published material was so heavily edited as to be essentially worthless.  As described by Laissez Faire Books at the time:

One other area that I found of significant interest is Burns discussion of the various problems surrounding Rand documents made public by the Ayn Rand Institute, Leonard Peikoff’s organization. There has been a great deal of controversy over indications that ARI doctored documents. Some of this doctoring was admitted by ARI, which asserted that they merely made clarifications consistent with what Rand had intended to say. Burns, who has seen the originals, says this is not the case.

She does say that the letters of Rand, that have been released, “have not been altered; they are merely incomplete.” But the same is not true for other works of Rand, including her Journals Burns writes, “On nearly every page of the published journals an unacknowledged change has been made from Rand’s original writing. In the book’s foreword the editor, David Harriman, defends his practice of eliminating Rand’s words and inserting his own as necessary for greater clarity. In many case, however, his editing serves to significantly alter Rand’s meaning.” She says that sentences are “rewritten to sound stronger and more definite” and that the editing “obscures important shifts and changes in Rand’s thought.” She finds “more alarming” the case that “sentences and proper names present in Rand’s original …have vanished entirely, without any ellipses or brackets to indicate a change.”

The result of this unacknowledged editing is that “they add up to a different Rand. In her original notebooks she is more tentative, historically bounded, and contradictory. The edited diaries have transformed her private space, the hidden realm in which she did her thinking, reaching, and groping, replacing it with a slick manufactured world in which all of her ideas are definite, well formulated, and clear.” She concludes that Rand’s Journals, as released by ARI, “are thus best understood as an interpretation of Rand rather than her own writing. Scholars must use these materials with extreme caution.”

The bad news is that “similar problems plague Ayn Rand Answers (2005), The Art of Fiction (2000), The Art of Non-Fiction (2001), and Objectively Speaking (2009).” Burns says all these works were “derived from archival material but have been significantly rewritten.” Rand scholars have long suspected such manipulation of documents; Burns confirms it with evidence she herself saw.*

As noted above, Journals was edited by David Harriman.  Ayn Rand Answers and The Art of Non -Fiction were edited by Robert Mayhew, Objectively Speaking was edited by Peter Schwart, and The Art of Fiction was edited by Tore Boeckmann.  Harriman is no longer associated with the ARI.  However, Schwartz and Mayhew are.  I’m not sure about Boeckmann.

Objectivist Round-up, October 2024

1. The Ayn Rand Institute’s Elan Journo interviewed Harry Binswanger about Alexandra Popoff’s new biography of Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand: Creating a Gospel of Success.  The biography of Rand is part of Yale University Press’s Jewish Lives series. While I think Popoff goes a little too far in finding Jewish influences on Rand and her works, Binswanger can’t even concede it’s metaphysically possible.  Binswanger thunders: “Rand was not influenced!”  Apparently, it’s all or nothing for Binswanger.  (How this is consistent with the Objectivist view that it’s ultimately a handful of intellectuals who drive the benighted masses is beyond me.)  Binswanger takes a jab at Barbara Branden’s 1986 biography of Rand, The Passion of Ayn Rand.  He doesn’t name Branden but concedes the author knew Rand.  He then takes a jab at the 2009 biographies of Rand by Jennifer Burns and Anne Heller.   They want to describe Rand as crazy (none of them does) and want to find heightened influence on Nietzsche on Rand “because they want to.”  Apparently, no take on Rand other than Binswanger’s can be made in good faith.  At the end of the interview Binswanger takes exception to Popoff’s claim that Rand’s husband Frank was “meek.”  Binswanger gives a couple examples of Frank’s supposed assertiveness.  I don’t think these examples undercut the portrayal of Frank by other biographers.  In any event, since ARI associated writers have contested over the years that Frank consumed alcohol to excess in his sad, final years why doesn’t Binswanger attack Popoff for confirming this (she had complete access to Rand’s archives, a fact never mentioned by Binswanger or Journo)?  Journo asks Binswanger about how Popoff quotes him but doesn’t acknowledge that Popoff corresponded with him.

2. Yaron Brook was asked about David Harriman’s editing of The Journals of Ayn Rand.  There has been controversy about this for a long time, in particular when Jennifer Burns published her 2009 biography of Rand, Goddess of the Market. Burns reported that Harriman rewrote sentences where Rand was tentative to be more emphatic to conform with her later thinking.  Harriman even moved paragraphs around. (Similar editing plagued 5 other posthumous works.) While Brook doesn’t mention Burns or discuss the nature of the changes, he says that while someone could quibble with this or that editing decision, the editing was supervised by Leonard Peikoff and Peikoff approved the work. Brook also says one can always compare the book with the originals, which is untrue. The Archives are open for the most part only to supporters (but see above and below).

Objectivist Round-up, September 2024

1. The first biography of Ayn Rand in fifteen years just came out, Ayn Rand: Writing a Gospel of Success by Alexandra Popoff.  Chris Matthew Sciabarra reviews it.   Popoff is interviewed here.

2. Phil Donahue passed away recently.  He interviewed Rand two times: here and here.

3. The Ayn Rand Archives has enjoyable presentation: Ayn Rand In Film and On Stage.

4. Leonard Peikoff’s daughter Kira is attempting to place him under a conservatorship.  According to Leonard this was prompted by his changing his will, giving half of his estate to his wife and half to Kira. Peikoff said he is unable to pay his legal fees because he had given so much of his estate to Kira that he has little left. After Peikoff’s letter was published, it was discovered that his wife is 28 years younger than him and was his caregiver.  Peikoff and his wife (whom he married two years ago) purchased a $3.7 million dollar home in San Diego.

Neil Parille Revisits Question: Is Objectivism a Religion?

In 2008, I published a blog post, Is Orthodox Objectivism a Religion?  A lot has happened in the last sixteen years – the retirement of Leonard Peikoff, the publication of three biographies of Ayn Rand, several schisms, etc. – so I think it’s time for an update and a potential re-evaluation.  As with my 2008 piece, my discussion of Objectivism is limited to Objectivists associated with the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) unless otherwise noted.

1. Rand saw herself as something of a secular prophet. In the first edition of Anthem, published in 1936, she wrote, “I have broken the tables of my brothers, and my own tables do I now write with my own spirit.” Rand’s writing is frequently apocalyptic as well. She begins John Galt’s sermon in Atlas Shrugged with an Old Testament-like rebuke of a sinful world facing judgment. “I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are perishing—you who dread knowledge—I am the one who will now tell you . . . .”

Nothing much to change here.

Neil Parille Review Latest Rand Biography

Ayn Rand: Writing a Gospel of Success by Alexandra Popoff is the first biography of Ayn Rand since the 2009 biographies of Rand by Anne Heller (Ayn Rand and the World She Made) and Jennifer Burns (Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right).

As readers of the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature Blog know, the first biography of Rand was Barbara Branden’s biography The Passion of Ayn Rand, which was published in 1986.  Branden’s biography was largely commendatory; however, she first revealed that Rand and Nathaniel Branden had an affair and alleged that this affair led to Rand’s husband Frank O’Connor’s excess consumption of alcohol (which is well documented for his sad, final years but less well documented in the 50s and 60s).  Because Barbara Branden had a falling out with Rand in 1968, Objectivists associated with Rand’s heir Leonard Peikoff were encouraged to dismiss this book out of hand.  Peikoff went so far as to denounce the book (while saying he would never read it) as an “arbitrary assertion.”  This culminated in Peikoff’s friend James Valliant’s 2005 dishonest hit piece, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, which purported to show that Branden’s biography (and Nathaniel’s memoirs) were lies from beginning to end.

Objectivist Round-up, August 2024

1.  The big news, by far, this month is the publication of a new biography of Ayn Rand in the prestigious Yale University Jewish Lives series by Alexandra Popoff.  It will be published August 6.  Based on a review in the Washington Post and the limited page views on Amazon it seems well worth reading.  It will be the first biography of Rand since Anne Heller’s and Jenniefer Burns’ 2009 biographies.  Popoff was given access to the Ayn Rand Archives and says she admires the Burns and Heller biographies (which largely confirm the accuracy of the Branden accounts).  Her goal, as she says, is to discuss Rand in the context of her Jewish upbringing.  Why was Popoff given access to the Ayn Rand Archives?  Was it because it’s a niche publication published by a prestigious press?  Has the ARI given up on an eventual authorized biography?  Inquiring minds want to know.

2.  Another book about Rand: Ayn Rand and Advaita Hinduism.  I know next to nothing about this branch of Hinduism so at 66 dollars I’ll likely pass.

3. I’ve often considered writing an essay about the Objectivist / Ludwig von Mises take on Nazism.  Fortunately, David Gordon did it for me.

Objectivism and Transgenderism

Charlotte Kushner over at the americanthinker.com has written a harsh critique of ARI's attack of Matt Walsh's documentary "What is a Woman?" While Kushner's article makes some interesting points and lands a few well aimed blows at Onkar Ghate, Chief Philosophy Officer at ARI (what a title!), what interests me more is the general view taken by ARI on this contentious issue. The position of ARI, as far as I can make out, is that there is nothing wrong with transgenderism and that there is no reason to object to individuals transitioning from one gender to another. This is notable if for no reason then it's not likely  that Rand would have agreed with this. But it's also interesting in that there are reasons to doubt that Rand herself could have provided a cogent argument against the morality of transitioning based on the principles of her own philosophy.

There are four basic positions on the trans-issue:

1. Gender dysphoria is both a real and a dire condition which can be successfully treated through a surgical intervention by which the individual is turned into a kind of replica of the gender he/she identifies with. This treatment is so effective at curing the individual's suffering that it can and should be used on minors. Transgenders are often to brutally treated by society that they deserve to have their medical expenses compensated by the state (i.e., taxpayers) and/or insurance companies.
2. Gender dysphoria is likely real and a dire condition, but to "cure" it by surgical intervention is so radical and invasive that only adults should be allowed to make use of it. Minors should not be allowed to transition because it's just too risky. What if they live to regret the irreversible changes inflicted upon them?
3. Whether gender dysphoria is real or not is besides the point. Transitioning is just too extreme a cure for the condition. That such procedures should be allowed against children is a scandal. Psychologists who manipulate minors into transitioning and the surgeons who perform the operation deserve prison sentences. Adults, however, because they are adults and hence free and sovereign citizens, should be allowed to transition, but they must bear all their medical expenses and not become a burden on tax payers (or insurance companies).
4. Any kind of transitioning or puberty blockers should be illegal, because it's against the laws of God and/or the universe. Gender dysphoria, to the extent that it is real, is a mental illness that needs to be treated with psychology-based interventions, not physical mutilation. Those who transition become perpetual patients (i.e., they need constant medical care and access to hormones), and this means they'll likely become a burden on an already over-burdened medical system.

Now one of the claims of Objectivism is that it can determine questions of morality through "reason." But how would "reason" determine which of these four positions is, from an ethical point of view, most correct or valid?  It seems like whenever people talk about this issue, whether it is Yaron Brook, Matt Walsh, or Joe Biden, the main issues at stake are assumed as kind of moral axiom that cannot be questioned or denied.  And no wonder---because, as George Santayana reminds us, "The ultimate intuitions on which ethics rests are not debatable, for they are not opinions we hazard but preferences we feel; and it can be neither correct nor incorrect to feel them." If you are horrified by the sufferings of gender dysphoria and are convinced that radical surgical interventions can bring an end to all this suffering, then it's hard not to conclude that either the first or the second position is the morally "right" one. But if on the other hand you find yourself horrified at the idea of genital mutilation and creating permanent wounds that have to be kept in an unhealed state, you'll be hard pressed to regard gender assignment surgeries as anything but an abomination that needs to be put down by the force of law. But in either instance, where is the "reason"? It is certainly not found in the mere feeling of horror.

Objectivists have failed to add anything to this controversy through their so-called "reason." They have merely expressed their various preferences, and then quibbled in bad faith about the rationalizations used to justify rival positions. Ghate and company have it out for Matt Walsh. So they put the worst possible interpretation on everything he says and act like this somehow makes them "rational." Ghate contends, for example, that because Walsh went to Africa to ask some tribesman what they thought of men trying to become women, this constitutes evidence of a desire to return to a more primitive state---as if Walsh is eager to give up all his wealth and access to modern conveniences in order to live in a grass hut in Africa. Walsh of course has no desire to live in a grass hut and Ghate's inuenndo is just another of the usual smears that Objectivists of the more orthodox stripe often specialize in. 

Objectivist Roundup, July 2024

1.  Another month and another Kindle Book.  The Atlas Society just published Robert Tracisnki’s Pocket Guide to Ayn Rand.

2.   The Ayn Rand Fan Club had an interesting discussion of “Social Hierarchies In and Out of Objectivism.”  They mention a recent interview with economist Walter Block who was involved in the Objectivist movement in the 1960’s.  He confirms the cultish side of Objectivism and says Rand would excommunicate people if she thought they were failing to see the implications of her thought.  They also include an interview with up-and-coming Objectivist psychologist Gena Gorlin.  Gorlin is asked if she’s read Nathaniel Branden’s The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem (a post-Split book).  She says she hasn’t read it or much of Branden.  She says he’s a minor figure in psychology and implies his theory of self-esteem is outdated.  Certainly, Branden’s exaggerated view of the importance for self-esteem hasn’t held up well in recent research (for example, it’s been shown that criminals have high self-esteem and even commit crime to keep their self-esteem up).

3.  The Ayn Rand Institute Press just published a collection of writings by Tara Smith and others called The First Amendment.  I enjoyed Smith’s essays and in particular her discussion of religious exemptions to government laws and regulations.  Of note is Onkar Ghate’s essay on the “separation of church and state.”   As long time readers of the ARCHN Blog know, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government.  States could and did support religion in various ways.  Ghate doesn’t mention this or even appear to know this.  He mentions Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist where he coined the phrase.  However, in his Second Inaugural Address, Jefferson wrote, “I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.”  And what would an essay on religion be without the Tertullian misquote – “I believe because it's absurd”?

4.  The big news this year is that the Ayn Rand Institute is moving from California to Austin, Texas, minutes away from the University of Texas at Austin.  The ARI has purchased the land and will construct an Ayn Rand Center and an Ayn Rand University campus.  I don’t know if there is a backstory here, other than the ARI’s major donor lives in Austin and the ARI funds some professorships at UT-Austin.