KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Link: NASA (foreign aid/welfare state) ......................................................................................... 3
Link: Asteroids (taxes) ........................................................................................................................ 5
Link: Colonization ................................................................................................................................. 6
Link: LEO (taxes) ................................................................................................................................... 7
Link: Defense (taxes) ........................................................................................................................... 8
Link: Taxes (slavery)............................................................................................................................ 9
Link: Scientists (Slavery/Coercion) .............................................................................................. 10
Link: Education/Taxes ...................................................................................................................... 11
Internal Link: Taxes (slavery) ........................................................................................................ 12
Internal Link: Taxes ........................................................................................................................... 13
Internal Link: Taxes ........................................................................................................................... 14
Impact: Collectivization (Dark Ages-V2L) .................................................................................. 16
Impact: V2L + Extinction ................................................................................................................... 17
Framework ............................................................................................................................................ 18
Alt: Capitalism ...................................................................................................................................... 19
Alt: Reject Altruism............................................................................................................................. 20
Anti-Conceptual Thinking Bad ....................................................................................................... 21
A2: Altruism Good (Selfishness) .................................................................................................... 22
A2: Collectivization Good ................................................................................................................. 24
A2: Objectivism Racist, Sexist, Xenophobic................................................................................ 26
A2: Cede the Political ......................................................................................................................... 27
A2: Alt Doesn’t Solve .......................................................................................................................... 28
A2: Alt Doesn’t Solve .......................................................................................................................... 29
A2: Statism Good.................................................................................................................................. 30
A2: Ayn Rand Hates Women ............................................................................................................ 31
A2: Perm/Regulation/Corruption................................................................................................. 33
A2: Capitalism Bad .............................................................................................................................. 34
A2: Capitalism Bad .............................................................................................................................. 35
A2: Postmodernism ............................................................................................................................ 36
****AFF ANSWERS**** ....................................................................................................................... 37
A2: Objectivism (‘Rights’) ................................................................................................................. 38
A2: Objectivism (Perms) ................................................................................................................... 39
A2: Objectivism (Altruism is Inev) ................................................................................................ 41
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
1
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Objectivism (Conflicts of Interest) ........................................................................................ 42
A2: Objectivism (Cap Bad) ............................................................................................................... 43
A2: Objectivism (Freedom Bad) ..................................................................................................... 44
A2: Objectivism (Fem) ....................................................................................................................... 45
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
2
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Link: NASA (foreign aid/welfare state)
NASA has become a tool of the welfare state; its only purpose is to show off America’s new
collectivization.
Hacker 98’ (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5318, Nasa's Flight
From Reason, Johannes M. Hacker, wenty years of professional experience in spacecraft systems
engineering, free lance writer, October 29, 1998)phol
Why has America's space program fallen from moon shots to malaise? Because
NASA has gone from an organization ruled by the concerns of science and
engineering to one dominated by the concerns of politics. The liberals began
complaining: "If we can land a man on the moon, why can't we feed the hungry, care
for the elderly, etc.?" Moreover, the successes of NASA undermined the liberals'
philosophic message. How were they to convince Americans that the individual is a
helpless victim, requiring constant nurturing by the government, when the nightly
news showed man walking on the moon? The astronauts had to be brought down from
the moon--figuratively and literally--to serve the agenda of the Great Society. NASA
gradually became just another cog in the welfare-state machinery. The manned space
program has now been transformed into what is essentially a foreign-aid program.
The Vehicle Assembly Building at Cape Kennedy is so massive that the United Nations
building could fit through any one of its four hangar doors onto its eight-acre shop floor.
NASA constructed it to enable America to go into space--alone. But NASA's flagship
project today is the International Space Station. Its original name was "Space Station
Freedom," but the Clinton administration, unwilling to offend any of its fifteen
"partner-nations," has steadfastly refused to rename it. Except that it added the
adjective "International" to destroy any notion that this is an America-led project.
(Even an innocuous, temporary moniker given by NASA engineers, "Alpha," was scrapped
because the Russians chafed at a name that hinted at America's pride at being first at
anything.) In keeping with the subordination of engineering to politics, the American and
Russian space programs are now joined at the hip. Later this year the first piece of the
International Space Station will be launched by the Russians. They have been given
critical responsibility for the station's attitude control and propulsion, making the Russians
indispensable. Should they renege on their end, as they have repeatedly threatened to
do unless given ever-more U.S. tax dollars, the entire program will be jeopardized.
What was the rationale for giving Russia such a vital role in the space station
program? It was supposed to be a "gesture of friendship" toward a former enemy to
enhance "global harmony." It also served the political purpose of sending welfare to the
Russian economy--which is collapsing anyway. It was also a subtle bribe to Russia, to
keep it from arming India--which has since gone nuclear anyway. NASA's flight rules list
the three worst possible emergencies on a spacecraft: an onboard fire, an internal
hazardous chemical leak and a cabin depressurization. During last year's joint ShuttleMir venture, American astronauts had to face all three. This was a result of the
suspension of NASA's safety standards--in the name of "social cooperation" with the
Russians. John Glenn may be the last hero ever to carry NASA's banner into space. It is
sad to note--as another sign of NASA's decline--that when Glenn was originally selected
to go into space, it was to advance science and engineering and because he was a
brilliant test pilot. Today, his selection is based on political patronage. His voyage
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
3
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
may once again spark public interest, but it will be NASA's swan song. After Glenn's
short flight, all NASA has left is the space station. Once it is built, the agency has no
serious plans for further exploration. As long as NASA remains a government entity, it
will continue to deteriorate. The only hope lies in commercial, non-political
sponsorship--which is, in fact, quietly growing (and is how space exploration should
have been launched from the start). Whoever does go back to the moon will be led not
by politicians and bureaucrats, but by visionaries and entrepreneurs. I just hope I'm
around to work on such a mission.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
4
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Link: Asteroids (taxes)
The threat of asteroids is a scam made by astronomers to steal taxpayer’s money.
Broad 1992 (William, staff writer. “Asteroid Defense: 'Risk Is Real,' Planners Say,” New York
Times, April 7, 1992, p. C1. Lexis-Nexis, http://bfi.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/moonmining-NEG.pdf)phol
Skeptics disagree, dismissing the asteroid hazard as ridiculously small and belittling
the NASA team as either laughably paranoid or, worse yet, conspiring for a lifetime of
entitlements for astronomers and would-be makers of interceptors. What could be
more suspicious, cynics ask, than astronomers offering to save the Earth from a
cosmic disaster with just a few new telescopes? In an editorial, The Washington Times
scorned the NASA team's plan as a "scam to make away with taxpayers' money,"
adding that "there's no evidence that anyone in all of human history has ever been
killed by an asteroid."
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
5
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Link: Colonization
Space colonization is just another way bureaucracy can justify its authoritarianism.
Stross 10 (http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/08/space-cadets.html, Charlie
Stross, fairly prominent author graduate in computer science, Space Cadets, August 2,
2010)phol
I postulate that the organization required for such exploration is utterly anathema to
the ideology of the space cadets, because the political roots of the space colonization
movement in the United States rise from taproots of nostalgia for the open frontier
that give rise to a false consciousness of the problem of space colonization. In
particular, the fetishization of autonomy, self-reliance, and progress through
mechanical engineering — echoing the desire to escape the suffocating social conditions
back east by simply running away — utterly undermine the program itself and are
incompatible with life in a space colony (which is likely to be at a minimum somewhat
more constrained than life in one of the more bureaucratically obsessive-compulsive
European social democracies, and at worst will tend towards the state of North Korea
in Space). In other words: space colonization is implicitly incompatible with both
libertarian ideology and the myth of the American frontier.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
6
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Link: LEO (taxes)
NASA cannot efficiently go into LEO without spending billions of unnecessary tax dollars.
Hudgins 98’ (Time to Privatize NASA, Baltimore Sun and Cato Institute, Jan 26, 1998,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5960)phol
One reaction to President Bush's plan for a permanent Moon base and a trip to Mars is
"Great! It's about time NASA stops going around in circles in low Earth orbit and returns
to real science and exploration." Unfortunately, there's not a snowball's chance in the
sun that the same agency that currently is constructing a down-sized version of its
originally planned space station, decades behind schedule, at ten times its original
budget, a few hundred miles up in orbit, will be able to build a station several
hundred thousand miles away on the Moon. If Americans are again to walk on the
Moon and make their way to Mars, NASA will actually need to be downsized and the
private sector allowed to lead the way to the next frontier. The lunar landings of over
three decades ago were among the greatest human achievements. Ayn Rand wrote that
Apollo 11 "was like a dramatist's emphasis on the dimension of reason's power." We were
inspired at the sight of humans at our best, traveling to another world. In announcing
NASA's new mission, President Bush echoed such sentiments, speaking of the American
values of "daring, discipline, ingenuity," and "the spirit of discovery." But after the
triumphs of Apollo, NASA failed to make space more accessible to mankind. There
was supposed to be one shuttle flight a week; instead, there have been about four per
year. The space station was projected to cost $8 billion, house a crew of twelve, and be
in orbit by the mid-1990s. Instead, its price tag will be $100 billion for only a crew of
three. Worse, neither the station nor the shuttle does much important science.
Governments simply cannot commercialize goods and services. Only private
entrepreneurs can improve their quality, bring down prices, and make them
accessible to all individuals—including cars, airline trips, computers, the Internet, you
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
7
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Link: Defense (taxes)
Defense spending is unnecessary and only takes more money away from taxpayers for the
spread of bureaucracy.
Sullum 11’ (No Military Immunity: America’s Bloated Defense Budget is Ripe for Cutting,
Jacob Sullum, senior editor at Reason Magazine, http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/02/nomilitary-immunity, Feb 2, 2011)phol
But that does not mean anything labeled "defense" should get a free pass. Consider the two
wars Hartzler mentioned, which so far have cost something like $1.3 trillion, not to
mention thousands of lives. Is forcibly replacing dictatorships with liberal
democracies a sensible, cost-effective way to protect Americans from foreign
invaders? If not, Hartzler is citing an egregious waste of money and lives in the name
of defense as a reason not to cut military spending. A view of defense that requires
reshaping the world in America's image is a blank check for the Pentagon. If it
justifies $700 billion a year—about as much as the military spending of all other
nations combined—why not twice or three times that amount? There will always be
another hostile regime to replace or failed state to rebuild. If conservatives applied to
military spending the same skepticism they bring to misbegotten or obsolete domestic
programs, they would ask whether making the world safe through democracy is a viable
defense strategy. They might also wonder why we have 47,000 military personnel in Japan
66 years after the end of World War II, 28,500 in South Korea 58 years after its war with
the North ended, and more than 80,000 in Europe 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet
Union. These affluent countries are perfectly capable of defending themselves from
whatever threats they still face. "The Pentagon presently spends more in constant
dollars than it did at any time during the Cold War," notes Andrew Bacevich, a
professor of international relations at Boston University. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), whose
proposal for reducing this year's federal spending by $500 billion includes $48 billion in
defense cuts, notes that "military expenditure has increased by nearly 120 percent"
since 2001. In a 2010 Cato Institute paper, Benjamin Friedman and Christopher
Preble calculate that a narrower understanding of national defense—one that does
not require the U.S. to police the world—would allow savings of at least $1.2 trillion
over 10 years. "We spend too much because we choose too little," they write. "The
United States needs a defense budget worthy of its name, one that protects Americans
rather than wasting vast sums embroiling us in controversies remote from our
interests."
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
8
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Link: Taxes (slavery)
The state makes claim to partial ownership of us, which is not morally permissible, we are
self-owners so we must reject taxes.
Feser 2k (Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft , Edward Feser, Edward Feser is Associate
Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College,
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_05_2_feser.pdf, VOLUME V, NUMBER 2, FALL
2000)phol
Nozick’s second argument (1974, 171–72) is essentially that each individual owns
himself—his body and its parts—and his labor. He is entitled to do with them
anything he wishes and (unless bound by contract) to refrain from doing with them
anything anyone else wishes that he do with them. In G. A. Cohen’s words, he
“possesses over himself, as a matter of moral right, all those rights that a slaveholder
has over a complete chattel slave as a matter of legal right” (1995, 68). This
declaration is the thesis of self-ownership. But taxation of earnings from labor is
inconsistent with the thesis, especially when that taxation is justified by moral
principles requiring that a certain distribution of wealth obtain or that the state
provide certain services to its citizens. In granting citizens an entitlement to certain
services or to a certain share of “society’s” wealth, such principles in effect require that
any time you labor, you must labor in part for the purposes of the state or for the
purposes of those who benefit from the state’s largesse because the state must
redistribute part of the product of your labor to meet those entitlements. In other
words, such principles entail that the state and its beneficiaries have an entitlement or
enforceable claim to and thus at least a partial property right in your labor and
therefore in you. They are part owners of you. But no one can be even the partial owner
of anyone else. We are self-owners, and, as such, we must reject taxation as deeply
immoral
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
9
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Link: Scientists (Slavery/Coercion)
Government monopolies on space exploration only serve to coerce and enslave scientists to
the whims of politicians.
Provenzo 04’ (Nicholas Provenzo, founder and Chairman of the Center for the Advancement of
Capitalism, http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/space/3467-spaced-out-george-w-bushs-mission-to-mars.html, Spaced Out: George W. Bush's Mission to Mars, Capitalism Magazine,
23 January 2004)phol
The space program is funded by tax dollars--the redistribution of wealth from one
person to another. While space research is perhaps the least offensive recipient of
government funding, the fundamental problem remains: space research has nothing to
do with the legitimate function of government. And while it is often argued that the
value of technological spin-offs justifies government involvement in space, it must not
be forgotten that those spin-offs are the fruit of a poisonous tree. It’s also interesting
that for all the prattling about competition being so important and antitrust being the
Magna Charta of free enterprise, few take issue with the government's monopoly in space.
What businessman could hope to compete with the government lifting payloads into
space? How high is the regulatory burden placed on vehicles built and launched by private
enterprise? Where the justice in a tax-fed government agency deciding what is to be
the priority in mankind's development of space? But perhaps the cruelest aspect of
the government's involvement in space is the fate of the scientists and engineers who
do produce incredible technological achievements. The men and women who make
spaceflight possible are heroic. Yet as the Apollo space program showed, when these
engineers and scientists achieve all that is asked of them, they will see their budgets
slashed and their achievements ignored. I say the work of these heroes ought not to
hinge on the political whims of the day. And today's space program does look like an
exercise in whim worship. What value comes from re-landing men on the moon, or landing
men on Mars, when robotic probes can more efficiently carry out the mission? Why do we
have a space station that is more a platform for giving idle ex-Soviet space engineers
something to do with themselves than a means for engaging in groundbreaking
scientific research? Freedom in space--freedom from government funding, control and
prioritization--would put the best minds where they would bring the most value, and
not subject these minds to the misbegotten whims of their political masters. The
pioneering of space is an incredible achievement of mankind and of the United States in
particular. It is said that this renewed interest in space comes off the heels of the Columbia
disaster, and is meant to serve as a tribute to their memory. Perhaps, but I say the best
tribute to the heroes of space exploration, both living and dead, would be bring to
wilds of space the same level of freedom that once made it possible for men to settle
the wilds of the American continent.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
10
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Link: Education/Taxes
Forcing anyone to pay for something they are against is morally wrong.
Rand 82’ (Ayn Rand, founder of objectivism, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, compiled by Leonard
Peikoff, Signet, New York, 1982)phol
As in the case of governmental grants to science, it is viciously wrong to force an
individual to pay for the teaching of ideas diametrically opposed to his own; it is a
profound violation of this rights. This violation because monstrous if his ideas are
excluded from such public teaching: this means that he is forced to pay for the
propagation of that which he regards as false. If there is a viler form of injustice, I
challenge any resident of Washington D.C., to name it.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
11
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Internal Link: Taxes (slavery)
Taxation is slavery.
Feser 2k (Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft , Edward Feser, Edward Feser is Associate
Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College,
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_05_2_feser.pdf, VOLUME V, NUMBER 2, FALL
2000)phol
Nozick’s first argument (1974, 169–71) can be summarized as follows: when you are
forced to pay in taxes a percentage of what you earn from laboring, you are in effect
forced to labor for someone else because the fruit of part of your labor is taken from
you against your will and used for someone else’s purposes. Of course, the taxpayer is
not forced to perform a specific kind of labor and, in fact, is more or less allowed to
perform any kind of labor he likes, but that is not relevant: despite the fact that you may
love pumping gas, if you pump gas for three hours for someone else’s purposes and
do so involuntarily, your labor has been forced. A slave told by his master that he can
choose between chopping wood, breaking rocks, painting the house, or even painting a
picture, but that he must do one or the other of these chores, would not be any less a slave.
Nor is it relevant that someone could (unlike a typical slave) choose not to work at all, or at
least not to work beyond what is required to meet his basic needs, and is taxed only on the
income produced beyond that point. The basic condition remains: if you work at all, or
at least if you work beyond the point required to meet your basic needs, you will be
forced to work part of the time for someone else. The part of your labor that
generates the money paid as taxes is labor you would not have performed voluntarily.
If the taxes on eight hours of labor amount to three hours worth of wages, then for those
three hours you worked involuntarily for another’s purposes. By working only five hours,
you could not have avoided paying the taxes and thus have avoided working for
another’s purposes, for then the state would simply have taken instead the same
percentage of the earnings from five hours labor and likewise for any lesser number
of hours
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
12
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Internal Link: Taxes
Taxes enforce altruism on the rich and make the most productive members of society slaves
to the poor.
Locke 04’ (15 April 2004, Edwin Locke, Edwin A. Locke is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand
Institute, Tax Injustice Day: Altruism vs. Americanism,
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/politics/taxation/2692-tax-injustice-day-altruism-vsamericanism.html)phol
The opponents of tax cuts do not want justice. They want redistribution of wealth. They
want to confiscate the income earned by the wealthy and give it to people who have not
earned it. On Tax Day consider some basic facts. The wealthiest 1% of the taxpayers pay
34% of all federal income taxes. The top 50% pay 96% of the total bill. This means that the
least wealthy 50% pay almost nothing. In short, the income tax system soaks the rich. In the
name of justice, the President, Congress and the American public should be demanding a tax
cut that lowers the tax bill of the wealthy. But the opponents of tax cuts do not want justice.
They want redistribution of wealth. They want to confiscate the income earned by the
wealthy and give it to people who have not earned it. They want the rich--which includes the
most productive people in society--to be the servants of the poor. The moral principle used to
justify income redistribution is altruism. Altruism does not mean generosity or benevolent
concern for the less fortunate. Altruism means: other-ism. It is the doctrine that it is your
moral duty to live for others and to sacrifice your life, property and well-being for theirs. It is
the code of self-sacrifice. Under altruism the productive are the ones who must give and the
non-productive are those who receive. The inability or unwillingness of the non-productive to
create wealth gives them a moral claim upon those who do. The tax code enforces altruism
through coercion. Earning money through voluntary trade is replaced by getting money by
force in order to achieve the altruistic goal the government desires. But when the property of
some people is seized and given to others, it is an injustice. The doctrine of altruism induces
(and is meant to induce) guilt. It makes the successful feel that they have no right to their
achievements. The goal of altruism is to disarm the producers morally so that they will not
defend their right to their lives and property. Thus the rich often support higher taxes for
themselves. Remember in recent years, just as one example, billionaires Bill Gates and Warren
Buffett attacking a repeal of the estate tax. Most Americans would be shocked to learn that
altruism is the moral code that underlies Marxism (and thus Communism). Marx's credo was:
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Man has no right to exist
for himself in this view; he is a servant of the state or society, to be disposed of as they see
fit. No, we have not gone all the way down that road yet, though the progressive income tax has
been a step in that direction. Altruism is the opposite of Americanism. Americanism means
you have the inalienable right "to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," which includes
property rights. It means that your life and property belong to you, not to the state or to society. It
means that the government's proper job is to protect, not to violate, rights. Acting in one's own
self-interest (while respecting the rights of others) is fully moral--it is the fundamental
requirement of a successful and happy life. It means that you are not an object of sacrifice but a
sovereign being. It means that your property belongs to you. It means that every individual,
whether rich or poor, has the same rights. Self-reliance, not self-sacrifice, is the American
ideal. On Tax Day support tax cuts by promoting the idea of a truly just society: where each man
keeps what he earns and has no claim upon the life and property of others.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
13
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Internal Link: Taxes
Taxation is slavery
Williams 08’ (Walter Williams, Doctorate from UCLA in economics, Capitalism magazine, Are
Americans Pro-Slavery?, June 11, 2008,
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/index.php?news=5199)phol
Let's do a thought experiment asking whether Americans are for or against slavery. You
might say, "What are you talking about, Williams? We fought a war that cost over 600,000
lives to end slavery!" To get started, we might find a description that captures the essence
of slavery. A good working description is: slavery is a set of circumstances whereby
one person is forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person and has no legal
claim to the fruits of his labor. The average American worker toils from January 1st
to the end of April, and has no legal claim to the fruits of his labor for that period.
Federal, state and local governments, through the tax code, take what he produces. A
small portion of the fruits of his labor is used to provide for the constitutional functions of
government. Most of what's taken, up to two-thirds, is given to some other American
in the forms of farm and business subsidies, Social Security, Medicare, welfare and
hundreds of other government handout programs. As in slavery, one person is being
forcibly used to serve the purposes of another person. You might ask, "Williams, aren't
you a bit off base? Slavery means that you are owned by another person." Who owns a
person is not nearly important as who has the rights to use that person. In other
words, a plantation owner having the power to force a black to work for him would have
been just as well off, and possibly better off, not owning him. Not owning him means not
having to bear medical expenses and loss of wealth if the slave died. During World War II,
Nazis didn't own Jews, but they had the power to force them to labor for them. Not owning
Jews meant that working and starving them to death had little cost to the Nazis. The fact
that American slaves were owned, with prices sometimes ranging from $800 to $1,300,
meant that owners had a financial stake in the slave's well-being and they were not worked
and starved to death. You might argue that my analogy is irrelevant because unlike
American slaves and Nazi concentration camp inmates, we can come and go as we please,
live where we want, buy a car, clothes and other things with the money left over after the
government gets four months' worth of our earnings. But, does that make much of a
difference? During slavery, visitors to the South often observed "a great many loose
negroes about." Officials in Savannah, Mobile and Charleston and other cities complained
about "nominal slaves," "virtually free negroes," and "quasi free negroes" who were
seemingly oblivious to any law or regulation. Frederick Douglass, a slave, explained this
phenomenon when he was employed as a Baltimore ship's caulker: "I was to be allowed all
my time; to make bargains for work; to find my own employment, and to collect my own
wages; and in return for this liberty, I was … to pay him (Douglass' master) three dollars at
the end of each week, and to board and clothe myself, and buy my own caulking tools.
“There are some benefits to being a quasi free person such as Frederick Douglass.
There are two ways U.S. Congress might force me to serve the purposes of another
American. They might force me spend a couple of hours each day actually working,
without compensation, for another American. Or, they might forcibly take a portion
of my earnings so that American can hire someone. I see myself as being better off
with Congress doing the latter -- taking a portion of my earnings and giving it away.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
14
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Some might be put off by my thought experiment and consider it an illegitimate use
of the term "slavery." At what point should we consider ourselves a quasi free
American -- when government takes two-thirds or three-quarters of our earnings?
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
15
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Impact: Collectivization (Dark Ages-V2L)
Collectivization and the welfare state will make us fall further then ever before, back into
the dark ages.
Rand 46’ (Anthem, Ayn Rand, creator of objectivism, ISBN 978-0-525-94015-9 )phol
These are the things before me. And as I stand here at the door of glory, I look behind me
for the last time. I look upon the history of men, which I have learned from the books,
and I wonder. It was a long story, and the spirit which moved it was the spirit of man's
freedom. But what is freedom? Freedom from what? There is nothing to take a man's
freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his
brothers. That is freedom. That and nothing else. At first, man was enslaved by the gods.
But he broke their chains. Then he was enslaved by the kings. But he broke their
chains. He was enslaved by his birth, by his kin, by his race. But he broke their
chains. He declared to all his brothers that a man has rights which neither god nor king nor
other men can take away from him, no matter what their number, for his is the right of
man, and there is no right on earth above this right. And he stood on the threshold of the
freedom for which the blood of the centuries behind him had been spilled. But then
he gave up all he had won, and fell lower than his savage beginning. What brought it
to pass? What disaster took their reason away from men? What whip lashed them to their
knees in shame and submission? The worship of the word "We." When men accepted
that worship, the structure of centuries collapsed about them, the structure whose
every beam had come from the thought of some one man, each in his day down the ages,
from the depth of some one spirit, such spirit as existed but for its own sake. Those men
who survived those eager to obey, eager to live for one another, since they had
nothing else to vindicate them--those men could neither carry on, nor preserve what
they had received. Thus did all thought, all science, all wisdom perish on earth. Thus
did men-- men with nothing to offer save their great number-- lost the steel towers, the
flying ships, the power wires, all the things they had not created and could never keep.
Perhaps, later, some men had been born with the mind and the courage to recover these
things which were lost; perhaps these men came before the Councils of Scholars. They
were answered as I have been answered-- and for the same reasons.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
16
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Impact: V2L + Extinction
Slavery by society destroys any value to life and offers the deadliest threat to human
survival.
Rand 61’ (The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, founder of
objectivism, 1961, Dutton Signet)phol
A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or
attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own
rational judgment-a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements
of man’s nature—is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by
institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human
coexistence, has no possible justification and represents, not a source of benefits, but
the deadliest threat to man’s survival. Life on a desert island is safer than and
incomparably preferable to existence in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. If men are to
live together in a peaceful, productive, rational society and deal with one another to
mutual benefit, they must accept the basic social principle without which no moral or
civilized society is possible: the principle of individual rights. To recognize individual
rights means to recognize and accept the conditions required by man’s nature for his proper
survival.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
17
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Framework
Before we can debate about anything we need to fight for the supremacy of reason. The K
is a prior question to the case.
Rand 82’ (Ayn Rand, founder of objectivism, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, compiled by Leonard
Peikoff, Signet, New York, 1982)phol
We cannot fight against Collectivism, unless we fight against its moral base: altruism.
We cannot fight against altruism, unless we fight against its epistemological base:
irrationalism. We cannot fight against anything, unless we fight for something—and
what we must fight for is the supremacy of reason, and a view of man as a rational
being. These are philosophical issues. The philosophy we need is a conceptual
equivalent of america’s sense of life. To propagate it, would require the hardest
intellectual battle. But isn’t that a magnificent goal to fight for?
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
18
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Alt: Capitalism
Laissez-faire capitalism is the alternative; it solves all instances of war and gives, those
subjugated by the state, freedom.
Rand 67’ (Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Signet Publishing, November 1967)phol
Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of
individual rights and, therefore the only system that bans force from social
relationships. By the nature of its basic principles and interests, is the only system
fundamentally opposed to war. Men who are free to produce, have no incentive to
loot; they have nothing to gain from war and a great deal to lose. Ideologically, the
principle of individual rights doe not permit a man to seek his livelihood at the point of a
gun, inside or outside his country. Economically, wars cost money; in a free economy,
where wealth is privately owned, the costs of war come out of the income of private
citizens-there is no overblown treasury to hide that fact- and a citizen cannot hope to
recoup his financial losses (such as taxes or business dislocations or property destruction)
by winning the war. Thus his economic interests are on the side of peace.
In a statist economy, where wealth is “publicly owned,” a citizen has no economic
interests to protect be preserving peace- he is only a drop in the common bucketwhile war gives him the (fallacious) hope of larger handouts from his masters.
Ideologically, he is trained to regard men as sacrificial animals; he is one himself; he can
have no concept of why foreigners should not be sacrificed on the same public altar for the
benefit of the same state.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
19
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Alt: Reject Altruism
We must swear by our life and our love of it that we will never live for the sake of another
man, nor ask another man to live for ours.
Rand 60’ (Ayn Rand, founder of objectivism, Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern
World, May 5, 1960, Philosophy: Who Needs it?,
http://authenticunlimited.com/files/excerpts_from_faith_and_force.pdf)phol
The three values which men held for centuries and which have now collapsed are:
mysticism, collectivism, altruism. Mysticism -- as a cultural power -- died at the time
of the Renaissance. Collectivism -- as a political ideal -- died in World War II. As to
altruism -- it has never been alive. It is the poison of death in the blood of Western
civilization, and men survived it only to the extent to which they neither believed nor
practiced it. But it has caught up with them -- and that is the killer, which they now
have to face and to defeat. That is the basic choice they have to make. If any civilization
is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.... Yes, this is an age
of moral crisis. ... Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind alley at the end of
its course. And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to
morality, but to discover it.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
20
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
Anti-Conceptual Thinking Bad
Anti-Conceptual thinking is vacuous and only leads to the inability to reason and defend
the ideas necessary to perceive the future.
Rand 82’ (Ayn Rand, founder of objectivism, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, compiled by Leonard
Peikoff, Signet, New York, 1982)phol
The two cardinal questions, the prime movers of a human mind -- “Why?” and
“What for?” -- are alien to an anti-conceptual mentality. If asked, they elicit nothing
beyond the conventionally accepted answers. The answers are usually some equivalent
of “Such is life” or “One is supposed to.” ... The absence of concern with the “Why?”
eliminates the concept of causality and cuts off the past. The absence of concern with
the “What for?” eliminates long-range purpose and cuts off the future. Thus only the
present is fully real to an anti-conceptual mentality. Something of the past remains
with it, in the form of stagnant bits of a random chronicle, like a kind of small talk of
memory, without goal or meaning. But the future is a blank; the future cannot be
grasped perceptually. ...In the brain of an anti-conceptual person, the process of
integration is largely replaced by a process of association. What his subconscious stores
and automatizes is not ideas, but an indiscriminate accumulation of sundry concretes,
random facts, and unidentified feelings, piled into unlabeled mental file folders. This
works, up to a certain point -- i.e., so long as such a person deals with other persons
whose folders are stuffed similarly, and thus no search through the entire filing
system is ever required. ... A person of this mentality may uphold some abstract
principles or profess some intellectual convictions (without remembering where or how he
picked them up). But if one asks him what he means by a given idea, he will not be able to
answer. If one asks him the reasons of his convictions, one will discover that his
convictions are a thin, fragile film floating over a vacuum, like an oil slick in empty
space -- and one will be shocked by the number of questions it had never occurred to
him to ask. This kind of psycho-epistemology works so long as no part of it is
challenged. But all hell breaks loose when it is -- because what is threatened then is not a
particular idea, but that mind’s whole structure. The hell ranges from fear to resentment to
stubborn evasion to hostility to panic to malice to hatred. ... It is the fundamentals of
philosophy (particularly, of ethics) that an anti-conceptual person dreads above all else. To
understand and to apply them requires a long conceptual chain, which he has made
his mind incapable of holding beyond the first, rudimentary links. If his professed
beliefs -- i.e., the rules and slogans of his group -- are challenged, he feels his
consciousness dissolving in fog.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
21
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Altruism Good (Selfishness)
The self should only have to serve itself. Using the word selfish is in itself a contradiction. It
is also used as a form of coercion through unearned guilt.
Hurd 11’ (The fallacy of “selfish”, Michael Hurd, Psychotherapist/life coach, 24 June, 2011,
http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/living/6452-the-fallacy-of-selfish.html)phol
Human beings are capable of many contradictions. One of the most stunning of these
contradictions involves use of the concept "selfishness." Think about it. Many people are
ready to call you "selfish." It's the greatest, most intimidating and most
condemnatory phrase they can ever utter against you. The context for this phrase is,
"You won't do what I want. You won't do this for me. You're selfish. How awful you
are!" But if selfishness is so bad, then why is it acceptable for the person accusing you
of it to want you to do something? Nobody calls you selfish unless they want
something from you, something they consider the better option. This elevates the
other person’s evaluation, want or need above your own. It’s selfish of them to not
want you to be selfish, according to their own definition and standards. The moment
somebody says you're selfish, and therefore bad or wrong, is the moment the person
making this accusation contradicts him- or herself. This should discredit the
complaint upon arrival. Let's say I want you to come to my house, drop what you're
doing and listen to me complain about something. When you decline to do so, I call you
"selfish." You bow your head in humility. "How awful!" you think. "I'm putting myself
before another person." But isn't that what I'm doing to you? Aren't I demanding that you
give up what's important to you in my favor, merely because I feel I need it or want it? If
I’m entitled to be selfish enough to make a demand on you, aren’t you at least equally
entitled to decline it? Much is made about how we live in the glorious new era of selfesteem. Psychologists and psychotherapists everywhere tell us to have self-esteem. But I
encounter very few people who are either able or willing to stand up to the self-refuting,
contradictory accusation of "selfish," even in this newfound era of self-esteem. I know of
virtually no psychotherapists, aside from myself, who even raise the issue, much less take
the position I do on the subject. How can this be? Part of the problem may be that
mothers and fathers, not to mention teachers or anyone else considered moral
authorities, indoctrinate this idea into children at a very young age. Not every single
person in every single instance who's trying to motivate a child with this idea
necessarily means harm. But in every single case it's taught or encouraged, harm is being
done. If you teach your child that it's bad to be selfish, then you're putting into the
hands of other people a weapon to use against your child's self-esteem, for the rest of
his or her life. To be "selfish" means nothing more than to have a self. To condemn
someone for having a self is the psychological and moral equivalent of condemning
someone for breathing. You don't say to somebody, "You're breathing. You're taking up
air. How selfish of you!" So why would you say to someone, "You care about your life.
You care about your time, your needs and your goals. How terrible and selfish of you!
Many will reply, "To call someone selfish isn't to condemn them for having a self. It's just
to tell them not to be inconsiderate." Well, that's what you should say then. If your
neighbor is throwing trash into your yard, you don't condemn him for breathing, or for
having trash. You criticize him for being inconsiderate, refusing to respect your property,
and you insist that he stop. Be specific, and say what it is that you're really criticizing. The
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
22
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
number one flaw among human beings is an unhealthy and improper desire to
control others. The primary means of controlling others is not force (although some
resort to force); the primary means for controlling others is through unearned guilt.
The way to foster and encourage unearned guilt, if you’re sick enough to wish to do
so, is to condemn people merely for having and wanting a self. The next time someone
accuses you of being "selfish," for not doing what they want, then say this: "Aren't you
being selfish for wanting me to do things YOUR way, in a way that suits YOU?" The
reaction will not be friendly, but it will end the intimidation once and for all. Nobody can
intimidate you without your consent.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
23
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Collectivization Good
Collectivization and the passive man is the root cause of all authoritarianism, and suffering
in the world.
Rand 44’(The Only Path To Tomorrow, Ayn Rand, Founder of objectivism, Readers Digest,
January 1944, http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/toptt.html)phol
The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian
philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its
enemies. To fight it, we must understand it. Totalitarianism is collectivism.
Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race,
class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to
collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called ``the common
good.´´ Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of
representing ``the common good.´´ Napoleon ``served the common good´´ of France.
Hitler is ``serving the common good´´ of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare
consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by
``altruists´´ who justify themselves by-the common good. No tyrant has ever lasted long
by force of arms alone. Men have been enslaved primarily by spiritual weapons. And the
greatest of these is the collectivist doctrine that the supremacy of the state over the
individual constitutes the common good. No dictator could rise if men held as a
sacred faith the conviction that they have inalienable rights of which they cannot be
deprived for any cause whatsoever, by any man whatsoever, neither by evildoer nor
supposed benefactor. This is the basic tenet of individualism, as opposed to
collectivism. Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an
inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society where men deal with
one another as equals. The American system is founded on individualism. If it is to
survive, we must understand the principles of individualism and hold them as our
standard in any public question, in every issue we face. We must have a positive credo, a
clear consistent faith. We must learn to reject as total evil the conception that the
common good is served by the abolition of individual rights. General happiness cannot
be created out of general suffering and self-immolation. The only happy society is one of
happy individuals. One cannot have a healthy forest made up of rotten trees. The power of
society must always be limited by the basic, inalienable rights of the individual. The
right of liberty means man's right to individual action, individual choice, individual
initiative and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent
action is possible. The right to the pursuit of happiness means man's right to live for
himself, to choose what constitutes his own, private, personal happiness and to work for its
achievement. Each individual is the sole and final judge in this choice. A man's
happiness cannot be prescribed to him by another man or by any number of other
men. These rights are the unconditional, personal, private, individual possession of
every man, granted to him by the fact of his birth and requiring no other sanction.
Such was the conception of the founders of our country, who placed individual rights
above any and all collective claims. Society can only be a traffic policeman in the
intercourse of men with one another. From the beginning of history, two antagonists
have stood face to face, two opposite types of men: the Active and the Passive. The
Active Man is the producer, the creator, the originator, the individualist. His basic
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
24
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
need is independence — in order to think and work. He neither needs nor seeks
power over other men — nor can he be made to work under any form of compulsion.
Every type of good work — from laying bricks to writing a symphony — is done by
the Active Man. Degrees of human ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same:
the degree of a man's independence and initiative determines his talent as a worker
and his worth as a man. The Passive Man is found on every level of society, in
mansions and in slums, and his identification mark is his dread of independence. He
is a parasite who expects to be taken care of by others, who wishes to be given
directives, to obey, to submit, to be regulated, to be told. He welcomes collectivism, which
eliminates any chance that he might have to think or act on his own initiative. When a
society is based on the needs of the Passive Man it destroys the Active; but when the
Active is destroyed, the Passive can no longer be cared for. When a society is based on
the needs of the Active Man, he carries the Passive ones along on his energy and
raises them as he rises, as the whole society rises. This has been the pattern of all human
progress. Some humanitarians demand a collective state because of their pity for the
incompetent or Passive Man. For his sake they wish to harness the Active. But the
Active Man cannot function in harness. And once he is destroyed, the destruction of
the Passive Man follows automatically. So if pity is the humanitarians' first
consideration, then in the name of pity, if nothing else, they should leave the Active Man
free to function, in order to help the Passive. There is no other way to help him in the long
run. The history of mankind is the history of the struggle between the Active Man and the
Passive, between the individual and the collective. The countries which have produced
the happiest men, the highest standards of living and the greatest cultural advances
have been the countries where the power of the collective — of the government, of the
state — was limited and the individual was given freedom of independent action. As
examples: The rise of Rome, with its conception of law based on a citizen's rights, over the
collectivist barbarism of its time. The rise of England, with a system of government based
on the Magna Carta, over collectivist, totalitarian Spain. The rise of the United States to a
degree of achievement unequaled in history — by grace of the individual freedom and
independence which our Constitution gave each citizen against the collective. While men
are still pondering upon the causes of the rise and fall of civilizations, every page of
history cries to us that there is but one source of progress: Individual Man in
independent action. Collectivism is the ancient principle of savagery. A savage's
whole existence is ruled by the leaders of his tribe. Civilization is the process of
setting man free from men. We are now facing a choice: to go forward or to go back.
Collectivism is not the ``New Order of Tomorrow.´´ It is the order of a very dark
yesterday. But there is a New Order of Tomorrow. It belongs to Individual Man — the
only creator of any tomorrows humanity has ever been granted.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
25
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Objectivism Racist, Sexist, Xenophobic
Any subjugation of peoples is a result of anti-conceptual mentality. Only the Alt can solve.
Rand 82’ (Ayn Rand, founder of objectivism, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, compiled by Leonard
Peikoff, Signet, New York, 1982)phol
Racism is an obvious manifestation of the anti-conceptual mentality. So is
xenophobia—the fear or hatred of foreigners (“outsiders”). So is any caste system, which
prescribes a man’s status (i.e., assigning him to a tribe) according to his birth; a caste
system is perpetuated by a special kind of snobbishness (i.e. group loyalty) not merely
among the aristocrats, but, perhaps more fiercely, among the commoners or even serfs,
who like to “know their place” and to guard it jealously against the outsiders from above or
from below. So is guild socialism. So is any kind of ancestor worship or of family
“solidarity” (the family including uncles, aunts and third cousins). So is any criminal
gang. Tribalism (which is the best name to give to all the group manifestations of the
anti-conceptual mentality) is a dominant element in Europe, as a reciprocally reinforcing
cause and result of Europe’s long history of the caste systems, of national and local
(provincial) chauvinism, of rule by brute force and endless bloody wars. As an example,
observe the Balkan nations, which are perennially bent upon exterminating one
another over minuscule differences of tradition or language.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
26
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Cede the Political
Identifying the nature of problems philosophically comes prior to policy making. It’s the
only way decisions can be made.
Rand 82’ (Ayn Rand, founder of objectivism, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, compiled by Leonard
Peikoff, Signet, New York, 1982)phol
If you are seriously interested in fighting for a better world, begin by identifying the
nature of the problem. The battle is primarily intellectual (philosophical), not
political. Politics is the last consequence, the practical implementation of the
fundamental (metaphysical-epistemological-ethical) ideas that dominate a given nation’s
culture. You cannot fight or change the consequences without fighting and changing
the cause; nor can you attempt any practical implementation without knowing what
you want to implement.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
27
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Alt Doesn’t Solve
Bringing order to one’s ideas and taking responsibility for them in intellectual discourse
leads to changes in intellectual trends
Rand 82’ (Ayn Rand, founder of objectivism, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, compiled by Leonard
Peikoff, Signet, New York, 1982)phol
If you want to influence a country’s intellectual trend, the first step is to bring order
to your own ideas and integrate them into a consistent case, to the best of your
knowledge and ability. This does not mean memorizing and reciting slogans and
principles, objectivist or otherwise: knowledge necessarily includes the ability to apply
abstract principles to concrete problem, to recognize the principles in specific issues,
to demonstrate them, and to advocate a consistent course of action. This does not
require automatic omniscience in oneself and in others that defeats would-be crusaders
(and serves as an excuse for doing nothing). What is required is honesty—intellectual
honesty, which consists in knowing what one does know, constantly expanding one’s
knowledge, and never evading or failing to correct a contradiction, the means: the
development of an active mind as a permanent attribute.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
28
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Alt Doesn’t Solve
History is made by intellectual minorities, the alt solves by spreading the words of
objectivism and forming an intellectual movement of people who understand them.
Rand 82’ (Ayn Rand, founder of objectivism, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, compiled by Leonard
Peikoff, Signet, New York, 1982)phol
In an intellectual battle, you do not need to convert everyone. History is made by
minorities—or, more precisely, history is made by intellectual movement, which are
created by minorities. Who belongs to these minorities? Anyone who is able and willing
actively to concern himself with intellectual issues. Here, it is not quantity, but
quality, that counts (the quality—and consistency—of the ideas one is advocating). An
intellectual movement does not start with organized action. Whom would organize? A
philosophical battle is a battle for men’s minds, not an attempt to enlist blind
followers. Ideas can be propagated only by men who understand them. An organized
movement has to be preceded by an education campaign, which requires trained-self
trained- teachers (self-trained in the sense that a philosopher can offer you the material of
knowledge, but it is your own mind that has to absorb it). Such training is the first
requirement for being a doctor during an ideological epidemic—and the precondition of
any attempt to “change the world.”
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
29
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Statism Good
The aff only contributes to statism, the current course we are on leads to the dark ages
Rand 82’ (Ayn Rand, founder of objectivism, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, compiled by Leonard
Peikoff, Signet, New York, 1982)phol
If America is to be saved from destruction—specifically, from dictatorship—she will be
saved by her sense of life. As to the two other elements that determine a nation’s
future, one (our political trend) is speeding straight to disaster, the other (culture) is
virtually nonexistent. The political trend is pure statism and is moving toward a
totalitarian dictatorship at a speed, which, in any other country, would have reached that
goal long ago. The culture is worse than nonexistent: it is operating below zero, i.e.,
performing the opposite of its function. A culture provides a natation’s intellectual
leadership; it’s idea, its education, its moral code. Today, the concerted effort of our
cultural “establishment” is directed at the obliteration of man’s rational extolling the
“superior power” of irrationality, fostering the rule of incoherent emotions, attacking
science, glorifying the stupor of drugged hippies, delivering apologies for the use of brute
force, urging mankind’s return to a life of rolling in primeval muck, with grunts and
groans as means of communication, physical sensations as means of inspiration, and a
club as means of argumentation.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
30
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Ayn Rand Hates Women
Objectivism is the only framework in which real equality for women can be reached.
Anything else just leads to a collectivization of rights.
Schwartz 91’ (http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5216, Feminism's
War on Objectivity, Peter Schwartz, He is the former chairman of the board of directors of the
Ayn Rand Institute, December 28, 1991)phol
While feminists claim to be pursuing justice for women, it is becoming ever more
apparent that their actual goal is the obliteration of justice. More precisely, their aim
is to eliminate that which makes justice possible: objective standards. Instead of urging
employers, for example, to adopt objective standards of merit in hiring and to apply them
consistently to all candidates, irrespective of the (irrelevant) fact of gender, feminists call
for the very opposite. They demand the lowering or the suspension of standards, in
order to accommodate certain women. They no longer argue that women who meet
objective qualifications ought not to be rejected solely on account of their sex (an
argument which would merit moral, though not legislative, backing); rather, they declare
that females who fail to qualify should be accepted solely on account of their sex.
When faced with the fact that most female applicants were unable to meet the New
York City Fire Department's strength requirements, feminists successfully sued to
have the standards changed so that a "sufficient" number of women could pass. They
did not care that there is an objective need for stringent physical standards for firefighters.
To feminists, gender transcends everything, including reality and logic. This attitude
is evident in the response of women's groups to two recent news events. Feminists
championed the just-enacted Civil Rights Act of 1991. This law creates a legal
presumption of wrongdoing whenever a company's practices--such as employment tests-have a "disparate impact" by sex (or race or other collectivist criteria). Thus, if
proportionately fewer women than men pass a truck-driving test (or if fewer Eskimos
than non-Eskimos meet a high school diploma requirement), the employer can be
charged with "discrimination." And while the legislation nominally exempts practices
that are "job-related," this amounts to mere lip-service. For how many employers
would risk the time and money to mount a defense, when the legal burden is on them to
prove "non-discrimination"--to prove it, that is, to the satisfaction of the same mentality
that considers it unjust discrimination to test a prospective firefighter's ability to lift heavy
weights? A similar disregard for objective standards was manifested during the Anita
Hill-Clarence Thomas confrontation. There, feminists instantly flocked to Hill's side,
accepting her testimony as undeniably true and condemning those who subjected her
to cross-examination in a quest for facts. The feminist complaint was not that Hill was
being judged by different stndards than men are--but that she wasn't, i.e., that
because she was a woman accusing a man of an archetypically "male-chauvinist"
crime, her veracity should have been indisputable. These feminists are indifferent to
the principle that a process of justice requires objective judicial standards; positive
evidence supporting the charges must exist even before the convening of any hearing or
trial; the burden of proof must lie with the accuser, since a negative cannot be proved; the
accused must be considered inocent unless proven guilty; and the accuser must
consequently be intensely scrutinized, doubted and challenged. But feminists maintain
that objective standards are immaterial, and objective facts non-existent. To them,
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
31
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
the respective genders of accuser and accused in this case reveal who is the victimizer
and who is the victim. This approach represents not a search for "better" standards, but a
jettisoning of standards as such--and of objectivity. According to Marxist ideology, there is
no objectivity in human reasoning, but only "proletarian logic" and "bourgeois logic," with
one's economic class determining the contents of one's mind. Feminism likewise contends
that objectivity is impossible. Feminists believe that standards--in jurisprudence, in
employment, in any sphere--are the products of a "male power structure." They
maintain that the "class interests" of men compel them to perceive reality from a
distorted, prejudiced perspective--that men, by biological necessity, "just don't get
it." If there is no objectivity, then the basis for deciding who is entitled to what is not
the standards of justice, but the whims of any collective (enforced by the politics of
pressure-group warfare). This is why feminists do not insist that one hire a female
worker who deserves the job, or believe a female witness because she has earned
credibility, or include in a university's curriculum a female author whose works merit
study. Feminism's essential message--a message demeaning to all rational, conscientious
women -- is that the female gender needs to be granted the unearned. Justice is the
objective evaluation of individuals. By embracing the non-objective, feminism can
pursue nothing but the unjust.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
32
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Perm/Regulation/Corruption
Any sort of government involvement with the plan is an irrevocable wrong leading to
enslavement. There can be no compromise.
Hochmann 10’ (http://objectivistvoice.com/2010/12/21/no-compromise-of-freedom/, December
21, 2010, Thomas Hochmann, Publisher of Objectivist Voice Daily, No Compromise on
Freedom, Objectivist Voice)phol
In the essay, “Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?”, Ayn Rand points out that
compromise — such as a buyer and seller coming to a mutual agreement on a price — is
only really possible when the essential principle holds true and is respected. If the
seller agrees to give the buyer a discount, that is a moral compromise. And if the buyer
agrees to give the seller more than he had originally expected to pay, that is a moral
compromise. However, if the buyer points a gun at the seller’s head and demands the
product, that is not a compromise — the principle (trade) has been violated by the
use of force. Ayn Rand hits the nail on the head with a prime example of just this problem
in America: business and regulation. There can be no compromise between freedom
and government controls; to accept “just a few controls” is to surrender the principle
of inalienable individual rights and to substitute for it the principle of the
government’s unlimited, arbitrary power, thus delivering oneself into gradual
enslavement. As an example of this process, observe the present domestic policy of the
United States.~ Ayn Rand, “Doesn’t Life Require Compromise?” In a society that fully
respects individual rights (which even America is not), government controls on
businesses or individuals cannot exist. The government could not, for example, regulate
my industry in the future and require us to perform ID checks when shipping packages.
With regard to individual rights, the government does not have the moral right to set
boundaries for “permission” to run our business. We could not be shut down or
penalized for not performing ID checks, because our right to use our property (e.g.
the store), to negotiate with customers and other businesses (the right to free association),
and to buy and sell services on mutually agreeable terms (the right to contract) — these
are rights that extend from the general rights to freedom and property. When
government regulation of private activities is accepted, the right to act on one’s
judgment is perverted into a mere permission of some bureaucrat, or some judge, or
some body of legal codes, or some panel that declares itself to represent “society’s”
interests.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
33
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Capitalism Bad
Capitalism has contributed to an unprecedented decline in poverty throughout much of the
world.
Saunders 07’ (http://www.insideronline.org/archives/2008/spring/chap3.pdf, Why Capitalism Is
Good for the soul, Peter Saunders, Social Research Director at the Centre for Independent
Studies, Policy magazine, Summer 2007)phol
We have known since the time of Adam Smith that capitalism harnesses self-interest
to generate outcomes that benefit others. This is obvious in the relationship between
producers and consumers, for profits generally flow to those who anticipate what other
people want and then deliver it at the least cost. But it also holds in the relationship
between employers and employees. One of Karl Marx’s most mischievous legacies
was to suggest that this relationship is inherently antagonistic: that for employers to
make profit, they must drive wages down. In reality, workers in the advanced
capitalist countries thrive when their companies increase profits. The pursuit of
profit thus results in higher living standards for workers, as well as cheaper and more
plentiful goods and services for consumers. The way this has enhanced people’s capacity
to lead a good life can be seen in the spectacular reduction in levels of global poverty,
brought about by the spread of capitalism on a world scale. In 1820, 85 percent of the
world’s population lived on today’s equivalent of less than a dollar per day. By 1950,
this proportion had fallen to 50 percent. Today it is down to 20 percent. World
poverty has fallen more in the last 50 years than it did in the previous 500. This
dramatic reduction in human misery and despair owes nothing to aging rock stars
demanding that we “make poverty history.” It is due to the spread of global
capitalism
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
34
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Capitalism Bad
All the evils of capitalism are results of government intervention.
Rand 67’ (Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Signet Publishing, November 1967)phol
If a detailed, factual study were made of all those instances in the history of American
industry which have been used by the statists as an indictment of free enterprise and
as an argument in favor of a government-controlled economy, it would be found that
the actions blamed on businessmen were caused, necessitated, and made possible only
by government intervention in business. The evils, popularly ascribed to big
industrialists, were not the result of an unregulated industry, but of government power
over industry. The villain in the picture was not the businessman, but the legislator, not
free enterprise, but government controls. Businessmen were the victims, yet the victims
have taken the blame (and are still taking it), while the guilty parties have used their
own guilt as an argument for the extension of their power, for wider and wider
opportunities to commit the same crime on a greater and greater scale. Public opinion has
been so misinformed about the true facts that we have now reached a stage where, as
a cure for the country’s problems, people are asking for more and more of the poison
which made them sick in the first place.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
35
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Postmodernism
Postmodernism has been leading humanity to abandon reason which destroys the self’s
ability to be independent. Links to all our impacts.
Rand 82’ (Ayn Rand, founder of objectivism, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, compiled by Leonard
Peikoff, Signet, New York, 1982)phol
The men who are not interested in philosophy absorb its principles from the cultural
atmosphere around them--from schools, colleges, books, magazines, newspapers,
movies, television, etc. Who sets the tone of a culture? A small handful of men: the
philosophers. Others follow their lead, either by conviction or by default. For some
two hundred years, under the influence of Immanuel Kant, the dominant trend of
philosophy has been directed to a single goal: the destruction of man's mind, of his
confidence in the power of reason. Today, we are seeing the climax of that trend.
When men abandon reason, they find not only that their emotions cannot guide them,
but that they can experience no emotions save one: terror. The spread of drug addiction
among young people brought up on today's intellectual fashions, demonstrates the
unbearable inner state of men who are deprived of their means of cognition and who
seek escape from reality--from the terror of their impotence to deal with existence.
Observe these young people's dread of independence and their frantic desire to
"belong," to attach themselves to some group, clique or gang. Most of them have
never heard of philosophy, but they sense that they need some fundamental answers
to questions they dare not ask--and they hope that the tribe will tell them how to live.
They are ready to be taken over by any witch doctor, guru, or dictator. One of the
most dangerous things a man can do is to surrender his moral autonomy to others:
like the astronaut in my story, he does not know whether they are human, even though they
walk on two feet.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
36
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
****AFF ANSWERS****
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
37
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Objectivism (‘Rights’)
Rand’s arguments about man’s “rights” are an endless contradiction that only leads to
inaction.
Robbins 74’(Answer to Ayn Rand ,Pg 118, John W. Robbins, Doctorate in Philosophy and
Political Theory at johns Hopkins, 1974, Mount Vernon publishing, Washington D.C.)phol
However, the question immediately arises, cannot a man violate his own rights? If it is
right for him to work for his values and to keep the product of his work, is it not
wrong and therefore a violation of his rights if he refuses to work or works and gives
away his income? If it is right for him to act on his own free judgment, is he not violating
his own right by allowing his judgment to become un-free? If it is right for him to use
his mind is it not wrong and therefore a violation of his rights for him to live on a
subhuman level? If one is inclined to object that these questions make nonsense of Rand’s
theory of rights, I can only reply that, if they do, it is only because the concept “right” as
developed by rand is nonsensical. If proper function of government is “to secure these
rights” then does it not follow that iti is the proper function of government to see that
every man uses his mind, his free judgment, and forces him to work and to keep the
product of his work, i.e., to do those things that objectivism says are right? If one
finds these consequences distasteful, one should re-read the argument and find where the
train of thought has derailed. Petulance is not an argument. In short, if the source of
man’ rights is himself, then he also becomes the source of those rights. Rights may
then be violated by Robinson Crusoe—his own—simply because he may act against
his own best interests.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
38
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Objectivism (Perms)
Perm-do the plan and reject all other instances.
Perm-do the plan and adopt a mixed economy. Mixed economies are more efficient and
they solve for personal freedom.
Ewins 08’ (Imagining ‘The Good Society’, Tristan Ewins, freelance writer,
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7315&page=4, May 6, 2008)
So while there are sometimes significant benefits to competitive markets, there are
strong arguments for co-operative enterprise as well. Co-operation, including
strategic and public monopoly can provide economies of scale and pooled research
and development. Competitive and collaborative efforts could imaginably give rise to
landmark developments in such crucial areas as pharmaceutical and medical research. And
without the profit motive (i.e. instead spurred only by public interest) there is no
rationale for “built in obsolescence”, “staggered development” and “phased” release
of technology in order to maximise sales. Finally: strategic but strong state
intervention could give rise to revolutionary economic developments that otherwise
could be stymied as a consequence of vested interest. Surely state intervention could
herald in a state of “critical mass” in the development and provision of renewable energy.
“Clean coal” is mainly hypothetical and unproven, but powerful vested interests in the
energy industry demand preference regardless of science or cost. As the world confronts
the spectre of “peak oil”, for example, who is going to provide and maintain the new
infrastructure and new car models as drivers look increasingly to electric and hybrid
vehicles? Deep, structural changes will require “transitional” arrangements and public
subsidies to maintain transport infrastructure such as petrol stations as a competitive
market simply ceases to be profitable. The “market” does not always supply a
“spontaneous” and “organic” solution to every economic challenge. Such scenarios
can warrant more direct public intervention. A “mixed democratic economy” might
provide the right mix between planning and market forces, placing human need
ahead of the imperative of share value maximisation. The “democratic” component,
here, ought not to be under played either. Citizens and workers should have due
influence over their own productive lives, and over the economic imperatives of the
nation. Strategies for economic democracy and justice could include: subsidies, low
interest loans, support and tax breaks for co-operative enterprise, mutual societies
and similar bodies; renewed emphasis on the public sector - managed by democratic
government: including public infrastructure such as transport services, water, public
housing, communications and energy; health, education, community child care services,
and aged care; dedicated pure and applied scientific research; competitive GBEs
(Government Business Enterprises) - which work to counter collusion and oligopoly - in
fields such as banking and insurance; further GBEs could imaginably be established in
critical industries such as mining - under the assumption that such pubic enterprise can
perform as well if not better than private enterprise - especially when operating within a
competitive global and domestic market (and thus subject to the corrective rigors of market
forces). Note: Regardless of this - a public monopoly is preferable to a private monopoly:
such enterprise is accountable to the public and is a bulwark against exploitation - profits
are returned to “the people” and can, in turn, subsidise public services, welfare and
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
39
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
infrastructure. Provision of democratic channels for collective capital formation and
management: “citizens investment” or “community development” funds - provided for
through a levy upon the profits of businesses, with revenue flowing to the broader welfare
system and social wage … Without the imperative of share value maximisation, such funds
would be managed on the basis of real social utility and need. Importantly, the opportunity
of citizens to invest their savings is a genuine liberal right. Regardless, though: even
pension funds might technically be in a position of expropriating surplus value from
workers. Exploitation as understood by Marx, thus, is in some ways a “Gordian knot”
which cannot be severed - or eliminated entirely. On the other hand, progressive
taxation, redistribution of wealth, economic democracy and collective capital
mobilisation, maintenance of a strong and strategic public sector - including a
progressive welfare state and social wage - could well displace the traditional
bourgeoisie in its position as “ruling class”: perceived and real. In its place it is to be
hoped that ordinary citizens (including pensioners, the unemployed, students - i.e.: not
just workers) will organise so as to “win the battle of democracy” and secure
sweeping economic, political and social change. The right economic and democratic
mix is essential for us all: and is an essential part both of imagining - and achieving “The Good Society”.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
40
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Objectivism (Altruism is Inev)
The alt can’t solve because humanity’s altruism is inevitable.
Kohn 88’ (Psychology Today, Oct, 1988 by Alfie Kohn, twelve books on human behavior,
prominent,http://www.altruists.org/static/files/Beyond%20Selfishness%20%28Alfie%20Kohn%
29.htm)phol
New research describes how we feel when helping someone (see "Helper's High," this
issue), but that doesn't mean we came to that person's aid in order to feel good. We
may have acted out of a simple desire to help. In fact, there is good evidence for the
existence of genuine altruism. Consider: * Do we help just to impress others? "If looking
good were the motive, you'd be more likely to help with others watching," says Latane. His
experiments showed just the opposite. More evidence comes from an experiment Staub did
in 1970: Children who voluntarily shared their candy turned out to have a lower need
for approval than those who didn't share. "If I'm feeling good about myself, I can
respond to the needs of others," Staub explains. So helping needn't be motivated by a
desire for approval.* Do we help just to ease our own distress? Sometimes our motivation
is undoubtedly like that of Hobbes. But the easiest way to stop feeling bad about
someone else's suffering is "just to ignore it or leave," says Arizona State University
psychologist Nancy Eisenberg. Instead we often stay and help, and "there's no reason
to believe we do that just to make ourselves feel better." When people are distressed
over another person's pain they may help -- for selfish reasons. But if they have the chance
simply to turn away from the cause of their distress, they'll gladly do that instead. People
who choose to help when they have the opportunity to pass by, like the biblical Good
Samaritan, aren't motivated by their own discomfort. And these people, according to C.
Daniel Batson, a psychologist at the University of Kansas, describe their feelings as
compassionate and sympathetic rather than anxious and apprehensive. Batson
explored this behavior by having students listen to a radio news broadcast about a college
senior whose parents had just been killed in a car accident. The students who responded
most empathically to her problem also offered the most help, even though it would have
been easy for them to say no and put the whole thing out of their minds. * Do we help just
to feel pleased with ourselves or to avoid guilt? The obvious way to test this, Batson
argues, is to see how we feel after learning that "someone else" has come to a victim's
aid. If we really cared only about patting ourselves on the back (or escaping twinges of
guilt), we would insist on being the rescuer. But sometimes we are concerned only to
make sure that the person who needs help gets it, regardless of who does the helping.
That suggests a truly altruistic motivation.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
41
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Objectivism (Conflicts of Interest)
Conflicts of interest make it impossible for the world of the alt to exist.
Bass no date (The Rights (and Wrongs) of Ayn Rand, writer, No Date, Robert Bass,
http://www.oocities.org/athens/Olympus/2178/rand.html)phol
The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and
cannot be achieved by the sacrifices of anyone to anyone. It holds that
the rational interests of men do not clash -- that there is no conflict of interests among
men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices or accept them, who deal
with one another as traders, giving value for value.[49]The response is more thoroughly
worked out and more richly textured than can be indicated by a single quote. Apparent
conflicts of interest are explored in her fiction and considered, both directly and by
implication, in her non-fiction. The central argumentative maneuvers in its defense appear
to be two: the appeal to objectivity of interests and the appeal to context. And there is a
third maneuver which she could have employed but did not. All three deserve examination
and, though we will find that they do much to support the general correctness of the
harmony-of-interests thesis (hereafter, the Harmony Thesis), they fail to show that
there is never a conflict. More precisely, they could only show that there is never a
conflict at the price of reducing the thesis to tautology.[50 The appeal to objectivity
notes that there would arise no question of conflicts of interest if there were no
conflicts between or among the different things that people want. But wants are not to
be identified with interests. If they were, we would have to admit that there is no such
thing as a bad habit, i. e., something someone wants to do which is not in his interests.
We would also have to countenance the possibility that there may be a conflict
between a persons own interests -- no reference to the interests or wants of others would
be needed to generate conflict. Rand, of course, has her own more detailed account of
what it is for some action or state of affairs to be in a persons interests, but the formal
point made here is quite adequate to dismiss perhaps the majority of proposed
criticisms of and counterexamples to the Harmony Thesis. For many such arguments
simply postulate -- without any reference to the history or circumstances of parties to a
conflict of wants -- that there is a conflict of interests. If, as almost everyone agrees, it
is not true that wants are identical to interests,
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
42
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Objectivism (Cap Bad)
Capitalism is all consuming, there is no way to have any V2L when the world is purely
driven by greed.
Onesto 10’ (Socialism Versus Capitalism, Li Onesto, Nepali reporter for Revolution newspaper,
05 Mar 2010, http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/88/socialism-versus-capitalism.html)phol
I always had a purpose. That was what education was about. And we didn’t have to
worry about the financial crises that capitalism will always have periodically. We
never had that much – two sets of clothes – but we never felt we should have more. You
don’t have that kind of crazy desire for everything, like the need to go shopping all
the time. I feel that capitalism is very good at creating a void in people’s psyches. It
will teach you that the only way to feel okay is to want more. It is so consuming. When
I grew up, I did not put much time at all in material stuff. So we had energy to do other
things for the greater good. We studied all kinds of subjects, and we thought our presence
was very much a part of the future. Yes, we were very future oriented and our focus was
also wider than only China. It was about the whole of humankind. It is what inspired
us. That’s what I feel education has to be about. Some people believe in individualism.
But if you think that you are the most important, then that really is a boring life
because your existence is irrelevant to others; that is how I feel. You can’t survive that
long. You have to put yourself into human history. Then your life, your existence, will
carry some meaning. That is what Chairman Mao said. In his memorial to Doctor Norman
Bethune he said everyone has to die. But the meaning of death is different. Somebody dies
a worthy death so that death is as weighty as Mount Tai. Some other’s death is as light as a
feather. And because Bethune put his life into this communist cause, we all remember him
– his death was weighty. We were all trained this way. You feel that you become part
of something. And this makes your life and death more meaningful. Now to think
about it, we were pretty profound as teenagers. We were already coping with the
existential questions for all humankind: life and death. I had never lived in a
capitalist society then so I didn’t know how to compare it to socialism. But looking at
things now both in China and the US, I feel that back then there was an optimism
always in the air. We were always optimistic. People didn’t complain. Right now
everyone is complaining even though they already have so much. Under capitalism
there is desire for all kinds of things. Right now when I go back to China everyone is
complaining and it’s just money, money, money. But back under socialism, the
purpose in life was not money. As Lei Feng said succinctly: “We cannot live without
food, but our lives are not for food. It is for making a better society.” That pretty much
sums up the spirit. Lei Feng was an ordinary soldier in the People’s Liberation Army and
died manning his post. He spent his short 22 years of life helping other people. And
Chairman Mao called on the whole nation to “Learn from Comrade Lei Feng” in 1964
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
43
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Objectivism (Freedom Bad)
We must resist all invasions of freedom
Petro 74’ (Sylvester Petro, professor of law, Wake Forest University, Spring 1974, TOLEDO
LAW REVIEW, p. 480.)phol
However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway, “I believe in only one thing:
liberty.” And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume’s observation: “It is seldom
that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the
invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of
so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all
human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in
freedom as a supreme value, and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming
to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be
emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
44
KNDI 2011
Patrick Holland
Objectivism K
Kritik Lab
A2: Objectivism (Fem)
Rand’s Fountainhead indicates her anti-feminist ideas by advocating the idea of “welcomed
rape”
North 10’ ("A Welcomed Rape:" Sex And Ayn Rand, Anna North, staff writer, Mar 10, 2010,
http://jezebel.com/5490207/a-welcomed-rape-sex-and-ayn-rand, Jezebel: Objectivist
Objectification)phol
Huynh's concept of "internal agreement" jibes with how many Randians view the scene.
Hess writes that Rand herself once said, "If it was rape, it was rape by engraved
invitation." And Joshua Zader, founder of objectivist social network and dating site
the Atlasphere (which we wrote about in 2008), says, “It was a welcomed rape is what it
was. It was a rape where both people wanted that sort of contact.…Now, one hopes
that not too many people would actually go out and treat a woman that way.” Of
course, "welcomed rape" and "rape by invitation" are both contradictions in terms,
but it's worth asking whether Rand's books inculcate teens with a view of sexuality
based on violent male domination. Kate, now a 22-year-old college student and exRandian, says, “[I]t's a little disconcerting that at 12, 13 years old, I was stamping
myself with this complete and total interest in submission, when I didn't have any
experience with sex at all. It's an interesting seed to plant in a teenager's mind that
that's how sex operates.” Kate says she now dislikes Rand's philosophy and those who
believe in it — but that she might return to the books "just purely for the pornographic
effect." And 24-year-old Angela Huynh felt lasting effects from The Fountainhead: “It
changed the way I viewed men. The way they are supposed to be. Their motivations.
It also made me look for raw dynamics when it comes to relationships.” Everything we
read at an early age affects us, and sexual material probably doubly so, and it's no surprise
that Rand's words have stuck with their readers well into adulthood. The question is, are
their effects damaging? If Randians really believe there's such a thing as "welcomed
rape," the answer is obvious. But what if The Fountainhead merely "plants a seed" in
readers' minds, much as any other book might? Should we worry if that seed is a
rape fantasy?
“Don’t tell me where Ayn Rand is buried because I’d probably defile her grave.”
45