Objectivism and War by Neil Parille

The Ayn Rand Fan Club (YouTubers Scott Schiff and Willliam Swig) has a new episode entitled “Objectivism and War,” which discusses the views of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook on war, focusing on the status of innocents in war.  Rand’s comments, albeit off the cuff, don’t seem consistent or entirely thought out.  She says, in response to a question about war with the Soviet Union:

Why is it important to be concerned about politics?  Why should we care about having the right social system?  Because our lives are dependent on it.  Because those systems, good or bad, are established in our name, and we bear responsibility.  So that the Soviet citizens who are innocent I hope someday will be destroyed in a proper war along with the guilty.  There aren’t very many innocent ones, and they’re not in the big cities—they’re mainly in concentration camps.  

Robert “Rewrite” Mayhew in his edition of Rand’s Question and Answers, toned down her response a bit, adding a new sentence -- “If we go to war with Russia” -- to make her call for the death of innocents (now put in scare quotes) appear conditional.

But we must care about the right social system, because our lives depend on it—because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it.

If we go to war with Russia, I hope the “innocent” are destroyed along with the guilty.  There aren’t many innocent people there; those who do exist are not in the big cities, but mainly in concentration camps.

Scott and William then mention Peikoff, who was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly shortly after September 11, 2001.  Peikoff called for the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and said what kind of weapons to be used was entirely battlefield issue to be determined by the military in the war zone.  As William says, even of utilitarian grounds, there are good reasons not to use nuclear weapons since many of the people killed who would have been allies or even spies for the United States.  I’m no expert on Iran, but I get the impression that the base of the regime’s power is in the countryside.  Using nuclear weapons against the major cities could increase the support for the regime and perhaps radicalize the fence sitters.  Best I can tell, the entire leadership of the Ayn Rand Institute has either called for the use of nuclear weapons against Saudi Arabia and Iran or at least said it should not be taken off the table.  Never considered is that there are European countries where the Islamic population is now approaching ten percent.  The ARI doesn’t seem to have given any thought on what might happen in, say, London (now fifteen percent Muslim) should the spiritual capitals of Islam be attacked with nuclear weapons.  Likewise, it isn’t clear how attacking Iran and Saudi Arabia would stop terrorism.  For example, how would the 2016 Nice truck attack (which was carried out by a Tunisian living in France) been prevented by an attack on Saudi Arabia or Iran?

They close with the always eccentric and bombastic Yaron Brook.  Brook said recently concerning the Palestinians that Israel should cut off their food, water, electricity, etc. and “If people die of starvation it’s on them.” But if that doesn’t work, Israel can always carpet bomb them.

But nothing takes the cake like Brook’s statement in 2004 that the wife of an enemy combat soldier should be considered a military target just like her husband.  If that ever occurred to me, I hope I’d have the common sense to keep it to myself.

Brook at some point must have realized that his comments come across as so blood thirsty and deliberately inflammatory that it is hurting his reputation.  A couple years ago he called for people to edit his Wikipedia page to remove his support for, among other things, torturing Palestinians.  As Scott notes, Brook has decided to position himself recently as public intellectual (for example making courses for the Peterson Academy) and not just a niche Objectivist YouTuber.  It looks like he’s embarrassed about some of his previous statements.

A couple final points:

First, Objectivists often claim that the death of innocents is entirely the fault of the aggressor country.  While that may be correct in terms of strict causality, this doesn’t justify indiscriminate violence by defensive countries.  If a group of thugs take over a city block, that doesn’t mean the police can bomb apartment complexes.

Second, Objectivists tend to minimize the number of innocents in a country.  One wonders at the height of Stalinist terror what percentage of Soviets supported the regime.  Objectivists often claim that the innocents should overthrow the government.  But this is easier said than done and ignores what’s called the “coordination problem.”  While the majority may oppose a repressive regime, an uprising in one city might be put down before other cities can rise up, particularly in an era before mass communication and the internet.