WDonway has written an incisive article.
It occurs to me that many critics of Objectivism do not understand it and are really finding fault with Libertarianism. To me, government is important in Objectivism in establishing and preserving the level of stability and rules essential for human flourishing. Such government tho' essential is to be strictly limited. An Objectivist society is not about voting but on requiring compliance with the fundamentals.
There could be a lot of voting, not for government as it should not do much or have much power, but in voluntary associations in, say, charity, sport, culture, business and housing. Voting could set rules which members much obey. Members have choices of complying, rationalizing, or leaving.

The problem that jbrenner describes of mobs gaining power by force is (should be) dealt with by government carrying out its proper role of stopping the use of force by mobs against individuals.

The issue I have is, exactly what are the fundamentals? Who sets them and how? To say- by reason, is not enough, humans are rational but are (more often) rationalizers- making up supposed reasons to justify feelings.

Altogether intelligent, insightful, and civil comments, which is why this is my favorite site for posts.

My essential point in reviving Burke is to ask: Can a government founded on the realities of both human nature and human experience/history be derived essentially deductively to arrive at two or three (at most) principles to be applied absolutely in defining and bringing into existence a government. Are there additional principles or generalizations about man and society--beyond those in the logical structure suggested by Ayn Rand--that are relevant to government? I try to illustrate this toward the end of Part II of the article with the principle that man's reason must be protected in its freedom of action in society and, since initiation of force is the only way to violate that freedom, the only job of government is to ban the initiation of force from human relations. Is that indeed the only foundational principle we require to define and implement government?

With all due respect, I think labeling Burke's ideas as conservative is folly. Conservatism stems from the Judeo-Christian philosophy. I'd bet less than .01% of self-titled conservatives could even tell who Edmund Burke was. Attributing conservativism to Burke is a stretch to say the least, especially when one looks at the proposed three pillars.

1. Rejection of abstract philosophical principles. I don't think this is it at all. It comes down to how one derives those principles in the first place, because in the end, both libertarians and conservatives both believe strongly in individual rights and freedom from overbearing government. The existence and nature of God is quite an abstract principle - just one that libertarians and conservatives (especially among themselves) happen to disagree on.

2. Appeal to traditions. This is an argument of perspective rather than principle. Atheists see what theists believe and attribute it to tradition instead of looking at the underlying principles involved. When one gets down to brass tacks, derivation - while important - should be secondary to the actual principle itself. Much of this devolves into an argument of chocolate over vanilla rather than "is it ice cream?"

3. I'm not really sure why this is argued to be a separate point, because its a rehash of #2.

In regard to revolutions, the French Revolution was anarchy and chaos. It was the extreme frustration which comes from a people who were ignored by their government leaders. If it began with "conservative" principles as the author claims, it turned away from those to anarchy and chaos and unnecessary bloodshed (via the guillotine). Amidst the naming of an impressive list of other conflicts, the one most pertinent was rather obviously missing: the American Revolution. If one wants to point at a classically conservative revolution, I can think of no better example.


"Does conservative rejection of Objectivism—in some instances, a consciously articulated rejection of Objectivism’s “extremism” (insistence that principles be held with total consistency)—proceed from conservative abhorrence of rationalistic utopianism (Ayn Rand fashioned Galt’s Gulch as “the Utopia of Greed”)?"

I'd actually argue that - specific principles aside - the reason that Objectivism has failed to sweep the world (let alone conservatives) is that it lacks a great story with an inspiring ending. While they are absolutely critical, principles are cold, dry things which only a small fraction of the masses are willing to delve into for any amount of time. One doesn't attract the masses with principles; even Christ had little success here which is why he predominantly taught in parables and stories. It is absolutely critical for an ideology's perpetuation and growth to have a great story with a happy ending. I hate using Hollywood, but take the movie "Titanic" for example: horrible principles, but a box office smash because it appealed to the masses with its end vision of love winning out - even over death. Take other wildly successful movies and similar themes arise.

Remember, you are proselytizing and change takes energy of conviction. Only a rare handful develop the necessary energy of conviction based on principle alone. There has to be hope for a brighter future. What is the value proposition brought by Objectivism to the conservative? Sure there are principles, but is there an end game of the soul that makes adherence to those principles meaningful (heaven)? Is there a hero to emulate? Is there a local support group (congregation)? I think that if there is any single principle (pun intended) upon which "Objectivism's extremism" is unappealing to conservatives, it would be in its extreme individualistic focus - a focus which pointedly eschews family. Regardless one's disagreement with the various theist religions, they are at least self-perpetuating to a large degree. One is free to criticize tradition, but one does so inherently recognizing that it is that inertia of tradition which provides the first significant opposition to cultural change.

If you want three actual pillars of conservatism, I would suggest the following:

1) Mankind's shared heritage as common creations of a single Supreme Being underpin a belief in equality and freedom of choice.
2) Governments are instituted by men so as to promote individual choice and accountability, but ultimate accountability and reckoning is not to be had in this life.
3) It is the vision of the afterlife and its dependence upon defined, unalterable principles which drives one to action in both one's personal life and governance.

I'll accept that challenge, WDonway. My philosophy is somewhere between Rand's and Burke's. I am the "libertarian conservative" that Rand despised. I am personally conservative, yet do not think that others should be required to live as I do. Consequently, in a past role as a faculty senate president, I governed in a libertarian fashion, even once passing an idea that I was philosophically in disagreement with but realizing that the only way to not violate others' rights to live their lives as they chose was to pass the idea anyhow.

My main objection to Objectivism is that, in order for it to survive, everyone in a society must agree to it. I will argue that, while reason should be the basis for any proper society, looters and moochers see no reason at all why they cannot and should not trample all over us. As such, Objectivism is an inherently unstable situation. The American Constitution provides a more stable framework for meeting many of Objectivism's goals other than atheism, but even the American Constitution's system of checks and balances has proven an insufficient barrier against looters and moochers over the past 100 years.

The government is no longer a rational entity and far from Ayn Rands "Objectivism". Many agencies have become irrational and emotional. The bureaucrats have become enthralled with political power. Some news reports state that the bureaucrats say that they run the country, not the congress or president. They have become the mob! Or should I say that they have become like the Russian Oligarchs? In fact, they are influenced by the Russian machine (watched biography about Vladimir Putin on VICE cable channel the other night). what I gather from the program is that Putin hates this country and has the communications outlets along with Russian hackers to spread misinformation in the US. Putin views the discord in the US is in his favor. While many Americans don't understand what is happening to our gov't and country. Objectivism will never gain a foothold in the gov't or congress. Putin would love to see our country emotionally fractured. I see this happening the closer we get to November!

Ayn Rand did not have a “'rationalistic utopian' ideology". She developed an entire philosophy of reason and individualism on which the basic principles of a proper government must be morally based as the last step in reform. She did not advocate any "utopia" let alone try to "deduce" one. "Rationalistic utopian ideologies" are not relevant and there is no reason to "try to market" a philosophy of reason and egoism to a-philosophical religious conservatives who can't get beyond an irrelevant Edmund Burke and "faith, family and tradition".

Ayn Rand made her position on conservatives very clear, as well as her position on anyone who tries to promote a politics while ignoring philosophy. At the time the conservatives were Buckleyites. Anyone, whether conservative or not, who is willing to think independently can consider her philosophy on its own terms. Those who who already have some substantial elements of individualism and a respect for reason have the best motive to do so.