People who follow Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism may be interested in a recent video featuring Objectivist scholars discussing the protests. Of interest to me is a difference in emphasis between “second generation” Objectivist Peter Schwartz and “third generation” Objectivists Onkar Ghate and Gregory Salmieri. Schwartz argues that the Black Lives Matter movement is essentially bad because it promotes the overthrow of capitalism, a generalized “white guilt,” and the defunding of police. Ghate and Salmieri argue that some people sympathetic to the movement have legitimate concerns regarding police abuses. (With that I completely agree.) Ghate argues that an intellectual’s job is to help people sort out the good from the bad aspects of a given broad movement. The speakers use environmentalism as an analogy; Objectivist discussions of libertarianism and religion also are pertinent.
What should people do, rather than support the Black Lives Matter movement? The speakers say support individualism and capitalism, explain the proper purpose of government, support objective law, and promote sensible police reforms toward protecting people’s rights. Objectivists generally are on board with ending the war on drugs and reining in asset forfeiture, among other specific reforms.
Salmieri notes that a philosophic perspective integrates the more-concrete concerns of the day with abstract principles. Ghate notes that rising racism on both right and left is part of a general cultural trend toward collectivism, tribalism, and irrationalism. The speakers agree that intellectual intimidation is a growing problem in our culture. Toward the end the speakers delve into some of the problems of finding good research on particular issues such as police abuses.
Tags: criminal justice, george floyd, objectivism