Saturday April 17, 2010
Direct Political Action for Freedom Lovers: What Works and What Doesn't
***Please note location change***
This month, Carl Maertz will facilitate a discussion on "Direct Political Action for Freedom Lovers: What Works and What Doesn't," where we come away with some 'to dos' that we can implement. This issue is more important today than ever.
The meeting, on Saturday, April 17, at 7:00 p.m., will be at Carl and Wendi's house in Glen Carbon. Email mail@gatewayobjectivists.net for directions or more information.
Follow-Up Excerpts and Links from The Peikoff-Kelley Dichotomy Presentation
Much of this timeline comes from a compilation by Michael Stewart Kelly on the Objectivist Living forums.
1982 - Andrea Rich, the former owner of Laissez Faire Books, said that Peikoff participated in two book signings for Laissez Faire Books.
"As I remember, someone asked him later that evening why he had agreed to sign books for us and he said something to the effect that he would sign books for Attila the Hun in order to get his message out. That doesn't sound like he thought we were 'no longer libertarian,' does it?"
1985 (May 10, June 25 and December 4) - Peter Schwartz published the three-part article Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty in The Intellectual Activist.
"Libertarianism is a parasite and is incompatible with Objectivism."
"One cannot look at the majority vote of a group, but at the essence of the founding ideas of the group."
Early-1980s to 1986 - Robert Bidinotto recalls the tension in the Objectivist movement at the time, regarding whether or not Rand had an affair with Nathaniel Branden.
"If you set off-limits to rational inspection any area of reality, that sets a methodological precedent for arbitrarily descending into irrationality whenever the truth becomes too painful or inconvenient to confront."
"Back in the mid-1980s, when rumors of Barbara's forthcoming biography began circulating, I vividly recall the 'official' Objectivist position -- stridently maintained for years by Peikoff, Schwartz, et al. -- that the Brandens were filthy liars for even daring to absurdly suggest that there ever had been an affair between Rand and Nathaniel Branden. I just as vividly remember the 'reasoning' offered to support these denials: that Ayn Rand was madly in love with and faithful to her husband; that Branden was a low-life and that a relationship with him would have been morally and psychologically impossible for 'a heroine' and a 'spiritual giant' like Ayn Rand; that Leonard Peikoff, as an intimate friend of Rand's and as her 'intellectual heir,' would have been in a position to know the truth of the matter, and that he had always vigorously denied it; that you'd have to believe Ayn Rand was less than she was, and that her Intellectual Heir was a bald-faced liar, in order to believe the claims of the sleazy Brandens; etc."
May 1986 - The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden was published, becoming a nationwide bestseller.
1986 - Robert Bidinotto recalls more after the book was published.
"In his own published screed against Barbara, Peter Schwartz asked in his closing paragraphs: So what if any of the claims in Barbara's book happen to be true? The real importance of Ayn Rand, he said, lay in her philosophy and novels: 'It is her books that she should be judged by.' A curious position coming from people who had long argued that Objectivism permits no breach between mind and body, theory and practice -- and who had, since 1968, used that very argument against the Brandens."
June 1986 - On Principle, an Objectivist newsletter, publishes a positive review by Robert Bidinotto of Barbara's book. David Kelley was on the Editorial Advisory Board of the newsletter, and Bidinotto recalls that Kelley refused to resign, based on pressure from Peikoff.
"The immediate provocation for the antagonism between Peikoff and Kelley was Kelley's refusal to disassociate himself as an 'adviser' to the Objectivist newsletter On Principle after it published my glowing June 1986 review of Barbara Branden's Passion of Ayn Rand. Peikoff by this time regarded one's response to Barbara's book as a litmus test of his loyalty to Objectivism. Because of my past writings in Schwartz's publication The Intellectual Activist, Peikoff (like Schwartz) was incensed over my rave review of the book, and regarded its publication in On Principle as beyond the pale. Peikoff then pressed Kelley to sever his 'adviser' status with On Principle; Kelley refused; and the rest, as they say, is history.
June 26, 1986 - Peikoff published a statement in The Intellectual Activist, titled "In Response to Inquiries," stating that PAR was written against Rand's wishes and denouncing Barbara as immoral and an enemy of Objectivism for doing it anyway.
"The forthcoming biography of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden was undertaken against Miss Rand's wishes. Miss Rand severed relations with Mrs. Branden in 1968, regarding her as immoral and as an enemy of Objectivism. Being aware of Mrs. Branden's longtime hostility to Ayn Rand, including her public attacks on Miss Rand after her death - attacks interlarded with protestations of adulation - I have refused for years to meet with Mrs. Branden or to cooperate on this project. I had no reason to believe that the book would be either a faithful presentation of Ayn Rand's life or an accurate statement of her ideas. Advance reports from several readers of the book in galley form have confirmed my expectations. Therefore, I certainly do not recommend this book. As for myself, I have not read it and do not intend to do so."
August 20, 1986 - Peter Schwartz published an untitled statement in The Intellectual Activist denouncing PAR as "pseudo-Freudian" and arbitrary, regardless of whether the facts it contained were true.
"Ultimately, what real difference is there if any of the factual allegations made by Barbara Branden - or anyone else of her ilk - happen to have actually taken place? Ayn Rand's glorious achievement is her philosophy and her literature."
November 10, 1988 - David Kelley gave a speech entitled "Objectivism and the Struggle for Liberty" at the Laissez Faire Supper Club of Manhattan.
1988 - Bidinotto recalls:
Peikoff and Schwartz then publicly seized upon Kelley's earlier speech at the Laissez Faire supper club to manufacture a case of Kelley's disloyalty to Objectivism.
January 1989 - Judgment Day by Nathaniel Branden was published, and then revised and published under the name of My Years With Ayn Rand in November 1998.
February 27, 1989 - "On Sanctioning the Sanctioners" by Peter Schwartz was published in The Intellectual Activist, stating that Objectivists should not be speaking at libertarian events.
"Libertarians are patently not allies in the ideological battle for capitalism, regardless of how many free-market positions they may claim to endorse. Nor are those who support them (i.e., those who contribute to the Libertarian Party or lend their names to Libertarian magazines or promote Libertarian bookstores or serve as after-dinner speakers at Libertarian functions). They are all in fact furthering ideas and values fundamentally inimical to those of Objectivism. Consequently, TIA's editorial masthead, as well as Second Renaissance Book's catalogue of authors, categorically excludes anyone who openly preaches Libertarianism - or who supports the preachers. It is dishonest and self-defeating to treat such people as partners in the cause of reason, egoism and capitalism. They are not."
"If those views constitute 'honest' disagreement on the part of people objectively seeking the truth - then the concepts 'honesty,' 'objectivity' and 'truth' have been stripped of all rational meaning; and then everything, from communism and religion to terrorism and Libertarianism, becomes just a matter of opinion."
March 1989 - "A Question of Sanction", an open letter by David Kelley, was sent to about 30 people. It became widely distributed and discussed in the Objectivist community.
"In scores of articles and speeches, my goal has been to defend individual rights on an Objectivist foundation-as clearly and forcefully as I can, to as wide an audience as possible. As a polemicist, my efforts are naturally directed at people who are not already Objectivists. To reach that audience I must speak to groups and write for publications that do not share my ideas. In using these channels of communication, I try to make sure that my association with them does not put me in the position of endorsing ideas I reject. That would defeat my purpose. But I cannot engage my opponents without conferring some benefit on them, in some indirect and attenuated fashion-buying their books, helping them retain their audience, or the like. If every such benefit is to be condemned as aiding the enemy, then one cannot participate in the marketplace of ideas. One can only preach to the converted - a sorry sort of ingrown activism."
"Libertarianism is a broadly defined movement. The subjectivists represent one definite wing of the movement, and we cannot make common cause with them. But they are not the only or even the predominant wing. Many who describe themselves as libertarians recognize that rights must be grounded in a rational, secular, and individualist moral philosophy."
"Laissez Faire Books is not a magazine with an editorial policy, or a party with a platform. It is a book service, selling virtually anything on Objectivism, pro or con. I have autographed copies of The Evidence of the Senses as a way to help sales. In doing so, I was not endorsing or supporting any work but my own."
"In appearing at the Supper Club they sponsor, I was not, as Schwartz says, an after-dinner speaker at a libertarian function. I was the function. The sole purpose of the occasion was to hear my explanation of why individual rights and capitalism cannot be established without reference to certain key principles of Objectivism: the absolutism of reason, the rejection of altruism, and the commitment to life in this world as a primary value. Since I explicitly criticized libertarian ideas that are incompatible with those principles, I was obviously not endorsing them."
"I want to comment on three specific issues:
1) A sense of proportion. Those who indulge in moral hysteria-condemning all moral error with the same fury, without regard to differences of degree-destroy their own credibility
2) Evil vs. error. The concept of evil applies primarily to actions, and to the people who perform them. Truth and falsity, not good or evil, are the primary evaluative concepts that apply to ideas.
3) Tolerance. Tolerance is not a virtue where evil is concerned; evil flourishes by the tolerance of good people. But it is a virtue in the cognitive realm. It is appropriate not only among people who disagree about the application of principles they share, but also among people who disagree on the principles themselves. Tolerance is not a weak-kneed confession of uncertainty. It is a recognition that certainty is contextual. It is a recognition of the fact that knowledge is neither revealed nor invented, but acquired by an active process of integration; that any conclusion we reach is tied to reality by a long chain of reasoning, and presupposes an enormous context; and that open discussion and debate are the proper means of intellectual exchange. Every age of reason has welcomed diversity and debate."
"Ayn Rand left us a magnificent system of ideas. But it is not a closed system. It is a powerful engine of integration. Let us not starve it of fuel by shutting our minds to what is good in other approaches. Let us test our ideas in open debate. If we are right, we have nothing to fear; if we are wrong, we have something to learn. Above all, let us encourage independent thought among ourselves. Let us welcome dissent, and the restless ways of the explorers among us. Nine out of ten new ideas will be mistakes, but the tenth will let in the light."
May 18, 1989 - "Fact and Value" by Leonard Peikoff was published in The Intellectual Activist, declaring that Objectivism was a closed system, in opposition Kelley.
"Kelley's paper is a repudiation of the fundamental principles of Objectivism. His statements make clear to me, in purely philosophic terms and for the first time, the root cause of the many schisms that have plagued the Objectivist movement since 1968. The cause goes to the essentials of what Objectivism is. I have, therefore, decided to interrupt my book on Objectivism in order to name this cause once and for all."
"Objectivism holds that value is objective; value is based on and derives from the facts of reality. Reality dictates and demands an entire code of values; man must discover and choose values. Every proper value-judgment is the identification of a fact: a given object or action advances man's life (it is good): or it threatens man's life (it is bad or an evil). The good, therefore, is a species of the true; it is a form of recognizing reality. The evil is a species of the false; it is a form of contradicting reality. Or: values are a type of facts; they are facts considered in relation to the choice to live. In the objective approach, since every fact bears on the choice to live, every truth necessarily entails a value-judgment, and every value-judgment necessarily presupposes a truth."
"Kelley's viewpoint is an explicit defense of a dichotomy between fact and value, or between cognition and evaluation, and thus between mind and body. If ideas cannot be judged morally in terms of their causes and effects, why and how can a man's actions-his bodily movements-be judged morally?"
"Kelley, who has turned into a champion of 'tolerance', a few years ago accused Ayn Rand and me of pronouncing moral judgment to my face, and I broke off all relations with him."
"Kelley states that Ayn Rand's philosophy, though magnificent, 'is not a closed system.' Yes, it is. Philosophy, as Ayn Rand often observed, deals only with the kinds of issues available to men in any era; it does not change with the growth of human knowledge, since it is the base and precondition of that growth. Every philosophy, by the nature of the subject, is immutable. New implications, applications, integrations can always be discovered; but the essence of the system-its fundamental principles and their consequences in every branch-is laid down once and for all by the philosophy's author. If this applies to any philosophy, think how much more obviously it applies to Objectivism. Objectivism holds that every truth is an absolute, and that a proper philosophy is an integrated whole, any change in any element of which would destroy the entire system."
"My answer is: Objectivism does have an 'official, authorized doctrine,' but it is not dogma. It is stated and validated objectively in Ayn Rand's works."
"The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence state the 'official' doctrine of the government of the United States, and no one, including the Supreme Court, can alter the meaning of this doctrine. What the Constitution and the Declaration are to the United States, Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand's other works are to Objectivism. Objectivism, therefore, is 'rigid,' 'narrow,' 'intolerant' and 'closed-minded.' If anyone wants to reject Ayn Rand's ideas and invent a new viewpoint, he is free to do so-but he cannot, as a matter of honesty, label his new ideas or himself 'Objectivist.' "
"Objectivism is not just 'common sense'; it is a revolutionary philosophy, which is a fact we do not always keep in mind. Ayn Rand challenges every fundamental that men have accepted for millennia. The essence of her revolution lies in her concept of 'objectivity,' which applies to epistemology and to ethics, i.e., to cognition and to evaluation. At this early stage of history, a great many people, though bright and initially drawn to Ayn Rand, are still unable (or unwilling) fully to grasp this central concept. They accept various ideas from Ayn Rand out of context, without digesting them by penetrating to the foundation; thus they never uproot all the contradictory ideas they have accepted, the ones which guided the formation of their own souls and minds. Such people are torn by an impossible conflict: they have one foot (or toe) in the Objectivist world and the rest of themselves planted firmly in the conventional world. People like this do not mind being controversial so long as they are fashionable or 'in'; i.e., so long as they can be popular in their subculture, or politically powerful or academically respectable; to attain which status, they will 'tolerate' (or show 'compassion' for) whatever they have to."
"The real enemy of these men is not Ayn Rand; it is reality. But Ayn Rand is the messenger who brings them the hated message, which, somehow, they must escape or dilute (some of them, I think, never even get it). The message is that they must conform to reality 24 hours a day and all the way down."
"THIS, I FINALLY SEE, is the cause of all the schisms which have plagued the Objectivist movement through the years, from the Brandens in 1968 on through David Kelley, and which will continue to do so for many years to come."
"The cause is not concrete-bound details - not differences in regard to love affairs or political strategy or proselytizing techniques or anybody's personality. The cause is fundamental and philosophical: if you grasp and accept the concept of 'objectivity,' in all its implications, then you accept Objectivism, you live by it and you revere Ayn Rand for defining it. If you fail fully to grasp and accept the concept, whether your failure is deliberate or otherwise, you eventually drift away from Ayn Rand's orbit, or rewrite her viewpoint or turn openly into her enemy."
May 18, 1989 - "On Moral Sanctions" by Peter Schwartz was published in The Intellectual Activist as an addendum to "Fact and Value".
"I gave two examples of evils being sanctioned by those, such as David Kelley, who profess to be advocates of reason, honesty and justice. The first example pertained to the open or tacit support they have given to arbitrary, gratuitous attacks against Ayn Rand (such as those in Barbara Branden's biography). These smears represent unjust assaults upon a profound value, and should be denounced, not tolerated-as should the sanctioners of those assaults."
"IS LIBERTARIANISM AN EVIL DOCTRINE? Yes, if evil is the irrational and the destructive. Libertarianism belligerently rejects the very need for any justification for its belief in something called 'liberty.'"
"The 'benefits' of speaking to Libertarian groups are as nonexistent as the 'benefits' of exhibiting books at an Iranian fair. The Libertarian movement is not some innocuous debating club. It is a movement that embraces the advocates of child-molesting, the proponents of unilateral U.S. disarmament, the LSD-taking and bomb-throwing members of the New Left, the communist guerrillas in Central America and the baby-killing followers of Yassir Arafat. These views have all been accepted under the Libertarian umbrella (and remain accepted under it by everyone who still calls himself a Libertarian)."
"Does this restrict the options open to Objectivist speakers? Certainly. Objectivism is a restrictive philosophy. It holds that the irrationalities of today's culture should not be aided. However, this fact does not require Objectivist thinkers to communicate only with those already in basic agreement. Ayn Rand, after all, somehow managed to convey her ideas to many millions without having to violate her principle of not sanctioning evil. …There are those with mixed ideologies, who hold mistaken but not necessarily irrational views, such as various conservative or liberal groups. There may be nothing wrong in cooperating or debating with those who merely hold mistaken views (as long as one makes clear what one disagrees with); there is nothing wrong in implying that they are moral. It is the irrational that ought not be granted a moral sanction; it is the irrational that should not be addressed as though it were open to reason."
"IT IS PARTICULARLY HARMFUL to speak under the patronage of an organization that epitomizes Libertarianism, such as Laissez-Faire Books. This is a book store that is the major source of Libertarian literature in the world; it is a division of Libertarian Review, Inc.; its editor is a well-known Libertarian speaker and writer; it advertises itself as offering the largest selection of books on 'liberty' - a term it defines according to the contradictory criteria of Libertarianism."
"The evil of Libertarianism is in no way mitigated by the fact that some, or many, of its followers do not understand its essence and its implications. …The contradiction, then, is this: The handful of Libertarians who may be open to reason need to be told that Libertarianism as such is anti-liberty and that Libertarian organizations should be boycotted. But this cannot be conveyed via a talk which is itself sponsored by a Libertarian organization."
"The existence of Objectivism is widely known throughout the Libertarian movement. It is certainly not difficult for any of its members to seek information about it outside the confines of Libertarianism, where there are writers and speakers available to enlighten them. If an Objectivist wants to communicate something worthwhile to such people, there is one absolutely vital lesson they need to be taught and one indispensable method of teaching it. The lesson is that if they truly want a rational foundation for defining and defending liberty, they should renounce Libertarianism and its 'tolerance,' and should instead adopt Objectivism, where there is no tolerance for the irrational. And an essential method of imparting this lesson is by not speaking to Libertarian groups - by demonstrating that Objectivism consistently refuses to cooperate with and to sanction its antithesis - by showing, in other words, that we practice what we preach."
1990 - The Institute for Objectivist Studies was founded by David Kelley. Later called The Objectivist Center, and now called The Atlas Society.
1990 - Truth and Toleration by David Kelley was published, expanding on the issues raised in "A Question of Sanction" that were criticized by Peikoff and Schwartz.
1990 - Kristi Minsass wrote an open letter to Harry Binswanger of ARI:
"A point on which I sympathize with Kelley is in his appeal to independent thought. As I see it, independent thought is the mark of the creative thinker and hence of the true Objectivist. In his article, Peikoff states that the authentic Objectivist is a 'valuer' - a statement I readily support. But, again, I take exception to his interpretation. In Peikoff's view, the valuer is primarily a moralist; in my view, he is primarily a creator. This view is derived from my interpretation of Ayn Rand's heroes. Invariably, the passionate dedication to values we find in the Randian hero is expressed through his single-minded pursuit of a productive or creative goal, not through constant preoccupation with moral judgment; his overriding concern is with his work, his own self-fulfillment, not to fight a moral crusade to change other people or the world. To the extent he spends time and effort judging, fighting or persuading people, it's of secondary importance, a part of his struggle to attain his creative goals."
"I have often wondered why it's so rare to find such dedication among Objectivists, why, indeed, Objectivism seems to inspire so little true independence and creativity, which to my mind is what Objectivism is all about. One reason, no doubt, is the stifling effect of rationalism and dogmatism on all creative impulse. However loyal to Ayn Rand's ideas the dogmatic Objectivist might be, he will, in a deeper sense, betray the spirit of her philosophy by closing his mind shut to any first-hand knowledge of reality; he will become a second-hander, living through and for Objectivism, making it an end rather than a guide and inspiration to become a thinker, producer, creator in his own right."
"I agree with Peikoff that the essence of the philosophy, its basic principles, is immutable and cannot be changed. The problem is that this essence tends to branch out so that every statement ever uttered by Ayn Rand is held up as indisputable truth, stifling any urge to question, develop or correct the philosophy in its wider implications and applications. If it's this kind of closed system Kelley wishes to oppose, I sympathize with him on this point as well."
"For this reason, I'm a little dubious about the implications of Peikoff's statement that 'a proper philosophy is an integrated whole, any change in any element of which would destroy the entire system'. If what he means is that a philosophy, as defined by its author, is not changed by its interpreters, I agree. If, however, the implication is that a philosophy has to be accepted or rejected in toto, I disagree. It's perfectly legitimate to take a selective approach to a philosophy, to extract from it what's good and to use that as a basis for new integrations - as Aristotle did with Plato and Ayn Rand did with Aristotle. It's true that in the process one may change the philosophy, even develop a new one, but if these changes are for the better, this is the approach to take. In the long run, any philosopher, however great his achievement, is best served by such discrimination. This goes for Ayn Rand, too. Revolutionary as her philosophy is in its scope of truth, it is neither exhaustive nor infallible; it needs systematization and expansion, as well as correction - although not in its basic principles, where it stands firm and should be left intact. But it is meaningless, even dangerous, to demand complete adherence to the whole system, to not only its fundamental base but to all aspects touched upon by Ayn Rand concerning its wider implications and consequences, the way Peikoff seems to be doing. This is to invite a dogmatic approach to Objectivism - an approach that will freeze the philosophy into rigid dogma and stifle creative independence."
"I hope that in writing this letter I have not excluded myself from the Objectivist movement. As Objectivists and advocates of reason we should try to solve the issues raised in this dispute, not let them split us into irreconcilable factions. Let us leave that kind of thing to our enemies, to those who advocate irrational philosophies. Let us show that reason works in solving conflicts and disputes. If we cannot show it, how can we preach it?"
1994 - Diana Hsieh, writing about Bob Stubblefield, who runs a mailing list known as OSG (Objectivism Study Group), and others, who responded on a thread about being anti-Objectivist:
"Members of the list are under contract to refuse sanction to any 'anti-Objectivist' activity, where 'anti-Objectivist' is used to describe anyone who disagrees with Peikoff's Fact and Value. I recently disassociated myself from OSG because there was no value to be gained from it, and to continue my subscription would have been sanctioning evil. Since I have so recently seen (and felt) the effects of Peikoff's anti-toleration stance through those who support and practice his view of moral judgment, I thought my experiences might shed some light on these issues."
"I started my subscription to OSG with a most humble and diffident attitude (quite unusual behavior for me to say the least). It was the first time that I had come into contact with any Objectivists, and I assumed that most would be quite rational and reasonable people. It never crossed my mind that any Objectivists would be more concerned with the Written Word of Rand (or Peikoff) than with the facts of reality."
"One member of OSG, William Wilkinson, asserted that the exclusion of glue as a medium does not follow logically from Rand's definition of art, and thus the whole debate began. King Wiemann responded, '[OSG] is not a place where the validity, truth, or logic of Objectivism is debated or challenged. If you do not understand something Ayn Rand said or wrote, OSG provides a medium to ask for help in understanding...' and then dared to assert that his view was not an issue of 'faith, appeal to authority, or dogmatism.' "
"Bob Stubblefield: 'Consider, for example, a student of Objectivism who tells others a statement in one of Ayn Rand's articles is 'illogical.' He has ignored the difference between the effort he took to utter his accusation and the effort it takes to create a publishable article. He has ignored the difference between his mind, with its particular psycho-epistemology, and hers, which had a lifetime of never using a concept without identifying the facts of reality that gave rise to it. He has ignored what that careless accusation tells others about his attitude towards ideas. He has taken his context as not-to-be-questioned and does not check his premises.' "
"Jay Allen: 'As long as they are left alone to their own fraud, and are denied the name of Objectivists, then the Kelleyites will simply perish in obscurity.' "
"As soon as I had gotten over my shock at how ludicrous these assertions actually were, I wrote up an article to OSG quite harshly criticizing these posts for their blatant misrepresentations of Kelley, psychologizing, and lack of evidence to support their claims. I wanted to hear some good arguments against his actual position. The reaction that I got was astounding. Jay Allen called my criticism of his post 'hysterical judgements on the basis of so little evidence' and demanded a 'WHOPPING apology.' He stated that if he did not get an apology and if I continued my 'outrageous behavior,' he would attempt to get my removed from OSG. When I did not apologize, he threatened to quit OSG. (Allen recently apologized for this knee-jerk reaction.)"
"Dave Mehul: 'Your objections against Jay [Allen] and Robert [LeChevalier] are essentially objections to Dr. Peikoff's arguments. If you have any objections to make, I would request the following:
1. State your axioms - clearly
2. State your position on the issues of truth, nature of man, nature and meaning of values, man's relationship to reality, basis of morality and moral judgement in a way from which you can demonstrate your conclusions.
3. With these, show where and why, according to you, Dr. Peikoff is wrong.
4. Show which principles of Objectivism has Dr. Peikoff violated.
5. Do all this without resorting to rudeness. When you have done this, you have an argument worthy of consideration. Dr. Peikoff has done all this in his article simply because the context of the issue *demands* that much.' "
"It seems that a philosophical treatise was required for any objection to even be considered! This request completely drops the context of every human's time constraints and thus manages to circumvent all discussion of the issues at hand. Since there was no way that I could comply with this request (nor did I have a desire to), I would never produce an argument or criticism that would be 'worthy of consideration' and nor would anyone else. (Apparently Truth and Toleration is not necessarily worthy of consideration either, for some OSGers proudly proclaim that they have not, and do not need to read it.)"
"The next day I got the following message from Bob Stubblefield: 'Do you subscribe to Jimmy Wales list? If so, you are in violation of the OSG contract and will have to choose between OSG and his list.' (Since the official rule is that one cannot subscribe to OSG and *post* to Jimbo's list, Stubblefield later retracted his ultimatum.)"
"Stubblefield then posted a disturbing 'clarification' of OSG's anti-toleration policy (1/26/94). He writes: 'It is certainly not a sanction of Kelley to read what he has written. And I am not going to ostracize you if contribute to his royalties by buying one of his books - even though I think it would be obscene for me to do so. But if you recommend him or his ilk as being capable of teaching someone Objectivism, that is an 'explicit sanction of anti-Objectivist activities' and I will cease dealing with you... In the OSG contract, I gave an example of intolerable sanction as 'posting to mailing lists run by libertarians who 'tolerate' Objectivists.' "
1994 - David Kelley writes in Better Things to Do:
"Sal Durante, executive director of the Objectivist Health Care Professionals Network, argued that any gain in freedom which might result from my efforts was more than offset by the long-term 'damage caused by distorting Ayn Rand's philosophy'; and that the Institute for Objectivist Studies 'takes much needed funds from contributors who might otherwise support the Ayn Rand Institute."
"I received a solicitation to join the Association of Objectivist Businessmen in 1992. In 1994, Richard Salsman sent a letter to AOB members, apologizing for the fact that Nathaniel Branden, Jeff Scott, and I were listed among them. We are not eligible for membership, Mr. Salsman said, because we had 'denounced' ARI. Claiming that we had never been solicited, and had joined 'for [their] own unknown purposes,' Mr. Salsman removed our names from the Association's mailing list and refunded our membership contributions."
"Subscribers to Objectivist Study Group (OSG) refused an invitation from Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy (MDOP) to defend Dr. Peikoff's position. On February 19, Mr. Stubblefield said that he had been unable to come up with an accurate name for those who inclined to my view rather than Dr. Peikoff's; after considering and rejecting various labels, he suggested that 'snarling wimps' best described our alleged 'fear of objective moral judgments and ...hatred of those who [pass such judgments].' "
"I am certainly willing to entertain criticism of my position, and to change it if proven wrong. To my knowledge, however, no such criticism has been offered in the three years since that work was published. Indeed, many of my opponents have declared that, lest they sanction me, they will not even read Truth and Toleration - thereby forgoing the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the views for which they denounce me."
"It seems clear that these attacks do not reflect an honest philosophical dispute. They reflect the syndrome that I described (in the final chapter of Truth and Toleration) as 'intellectual tribalism': an effort to create an orthodoxy as a substitute for independent thought, placing loyalty to the group above loyalty to the truth. The clearest, and most offensive, illustration of the tribal approach is Dr. Durante's assumption that if the Institute did not exist, its members and their contributions would flow to ARI - as if our supporters could not think for themselves and would follow any leader who called."
"Some of our members have asked us whether the breach in the Objectivist movement can be healed. Our policy is comparable to the one that Israel long adopted toward its Arab foes. We prefer to live in peace with our intellectual neighbors, but we see no basis for a civil relationship with those who deny the legitimacy of our existence as an independent Objectivist organization, and who launch unprovoked and irrational attacks on us."
2001 - Yaron Brook, Executive Director of ARI, responding to Damian Moskovitz, student at ARI, who had written an Open Letter to ARI:
"Until and unless you decide to cut off association with [David Kelley's] group, we cannot admit you into other classes in the OAC [Objectivist Academic Center]."
2006 - Bidinotto wrote The Anatomy of Cooperation: Rational Cooperation vs Moral Compromise:
"We must also consider another crucial contributing factor to the turmoil: a tragically mistaken application of the virtue of integrity."
"Why 'crucial'? Because it is fundamental not just to the divisions within the Objectivist movement, undermining the ability of many people to cooperate with each other; it is also fundamental to problems that many Objectivists have in cooperating with non-Objectivists, as well."
"How can one lead a life of moral integrity in a world filled with people who do not accept one's own virtues and values?"
"But not all compromises are moral compromises."
"Those members or participants who disagree with the group's official stand on any of these issues face a moral dilemma. Should they continue to participate, lending their money and support to propagate views they think are wrong? Or should they try to weigh and balance the overall good they think the group does, against the bad? Or should they try to take over the group, kicking out the present leadership and then imposing their interpretations on everyone else?"
"It's easy to see why philosophical advocacy groups are so unstable, and characterized by chronic purges and palace coups. The underlying problem is that such groups are rooted in the following principle: that some people are to serve as philosophical spokespersons for others."
"The principle here is: the broader the agenda, the smaller the number of people who will agree to it; the narrower the agenda, the larger the number of people who will agree to it."
"We all know too well that the Objectivist movement has a checkered history of denunciations, disagreement, and discord. In one respect, it is a tribute to individuals that they take their convictions so seriously that they will not compromise them. You can hardly blame people for being concerned about their integrity."
"But regarding the factionalism and feuds - it doesn't have to be this way. When individuals agree on 95 percent of their philosophical views and conclusions, there is no good reason for them to conduct jihads against each other over the five percent of issues on which they disagree. What makes these disputes so common and acrimonious are often their endless contentions for a proprietary status in the organs of the movement - a contentiousness born of misapplication of the virtue of integrity."
"The movement will have to adopt organizational structures congruent with its own stated virtues of reason, independence, and integrity - structures that will allow admission to a broader range of people who admire and agree with the key, distinguishing essentials of Objectivism."
"If we do that, who knows? We may at last have the grounds for a convergence of warring factions, and an end to the bitter divisions that have hampered the spread of our ideas, and undermined their reputation with the broader public.
2008 - David Kelley in A Note To Our Members About Open Objectivism:
"People need to think for themselves, to reach conclusions they grasp first-hand through their own individual process of thought. That's true by the very nature of objective knowledge, and it's the reason why rationality and independence are moral virtues."
"There's a natural tendency for movements and organizations to try to short-circuit the process by appealing to the authority of leaders or demanding total agreement. But that's not right. We know it's not right because it contradicts the Objectivist philosophy. But the Objectivist movement has sometimes succumbed to the tendency, with harmful results. If your experience is anything like mine, you have probably met people who might sympathize with our ideas but still keep their distance under the impression that Objectivism is some kind of sect."
