What are the virtues required from being an Objectivist?

Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Virtues&oldid=9256"


“The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics ... are: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride.”
   ~ Ayn Rand



The virtues on which the primary values depend are rationality, productivity, and independence. The man who is successful in living is able to derive the values necessary for his life and to translate them into the virtues necessary to gain and keep them. Some skeptics might say that this is a "cold, unemotional, and rationalistic" way to go about life, but nothing can be further from the truth. The man who confidently acts to achieve the values necessary for his life knows that it is his life he is acting to further, and that it is his values that he is achieving. The emotional state of knowing that one is an effectual, capable, productive individual, who is master of his own destiny, is self-esteem. Self-esteem is the confidence one has in his own worth as a human being and his ability to achieve his values. When a man makes the achievement of his values a way of life, happiness is the state of consciousness that results. Thus, the rational, productive, and self-confident man knows the values of their life and takes pride in their achievements.

List of Objectivist Virtues

• Rationality - this is the cardinal virtue, which leads to all other virtues. Rationality means using reason (and rejecting emotions) to identify reality.

• Honesty is the refusal to fake reality.

• Integrity is consistency in the application of reason.

• Productivity means working to create one's values.

• Independence means being first-handed, or refusing to leave one's thinking to others.

• Pride is the pursuit of moral perfection. Pride is related to self-esteem - the belief that one is capable of gaining and keeping one's values--and that one deserves them.

• Justice is the principle of applying reason to the actions of other men, or giving other people what they deserve.

The New Atlantis vilified for nothing and raked over the coals due to a crass assumption of hate

In  2016 two different reports containing their sources and a huge bibliography of primary sources on Gender Identity and Sexual Identity/Orientation were released. Both pointed to a lot of the same documentation and both came to the same conclusion. One was written by Lesbian Psychologist Dr. Lisa Diamond and was simply ignored and buried in the dustbin of 2016 history. The other one saying basically the same thing that orientation/identity is not stable for most same sex behaving in humans was vilified. Both of these studies again used a lot of the same sources and came to the same conclusions, but, one was not misscharacterized and called a hate study. 

I am referring to The New Atlantis report on Sexual and Gender Identity. Which was lambasted as being a hate screed by people whom never even read the study and did not even know what it said. Things like that it supported the ex-gay movement were stated which is patently false. No where in the entire study does it say people should attempt to will the changes it finds in peoples orientations/identities and fluidity. In fact, it goes out of its way to say there is no evidence any of the changes were willed through external use of therapy. Only that it happens and it is not talked about by sexuality scientists among the popular press. 

It links in its bibliography the works of openly non-heterosexuals whose studies they take from in their work. It is not taken from studies from people like NARTH or the likes of Exodus International. It is taken from the actual data on hand for both sexuality and gender identity. The fact is that sexuality for many people changes over time. Most same sex behavior is not the same as same sex identity. Most people whom were with same sex individuals when younger are not in fact homosexual in the exclusive definition. Most people are not gay, even if they engage in same sex behavior. Most people do have some capacity to go either way and bat for either team without any sort of mental incongruity whom experience same sex desires. 

The vast majority of humans are some form of heterosexual from somewhat to exclusive. Most humans do not exclusively get aroused only by the same sex. Bisexuality is this very phenomenon in action. It is the combination of some form of heterosexual reproductive possibility combined with a differing level of homosexual non-reproductive possibility under differing environmental conditions, cultures, and, relationship prospects. Most LGBTQ people are in fact this sort of human and not exclusively LG or Q if Q means same sex desiring. In fact, most people that inhibit the B are mostly Straight as well. It is unlikely even if one identifies as Bisexual to really be as homosexual tending as heterosexual tending. Most bisexuals are not 50/50 at all in this regard. Again this does not excuse people whom support Conversion Therapies. It is simply a matter of human demographics and facts/data. 

This is not a condemnation of people whom are exclusively gay at all. This is simply stating the facts and data as they exist. A certain percentage albeit quite small of the LGBTQ are indeed lifelong no heterosexuality possible homosexuals. However, those are the vast minority of the LGBTQ group. This does not mean one should be forced to change if one COULD play for either team and ends up playing for the same sex due to something stopping them from acting on their heterosexual possibility if they go both ways either. This is simply a report of all the data and comes to the same conclusion that Lisa Diamond does. The "Born This Way" argument and "Gay Gene" argument is flawed because most LGBTQ people are not "determined to be gay or lesbian or even bisexual.. some form of heterosexuality is the most stable form of identity or orientation over time in a range." Again, this is not something willed through therapy it is a natural change and the precise mechanisms are as yet unknown. 

I am not here saying because some form of of heterosexual ranging from equally as much as homosexual all the way up to completely heterosexual is the norm for people that have dabbled on the same sex team one should go out there and persuade their favorite gay to try being straight for a while. No, you should ABSOLUTELY NOT pressure anyone into a manipulated sex act for sake of a possible thing that might be for them. However, if your favorite gay decides completely without pressure in a very much not anti-gay open society to try on the vag and actually get off on it more than the D and switches teams out of nowhere due to a discovered locked away hetero-possibility of sexual flexibility you should equally not pressure him to rejoin the gay team. I am arguing for a which team you are on and why does not fucking matter worldview. Nature or Nurture or both. 

I am arguing for a my bedroom is my business and why are you even assuming anything about what makes my junk tingle based on stereotypes view. I am arguing for a it does not matter if genes play a role when it comes to freedom of sexual activity between consenting adults view. It could come to pass a Gay Gene does not even exist and that Womb environment plays a role in biological sex differences, but, not really lack of heterosexuality as such. This would make no difference on the underlying moral argument for same sex equality of rights or at least it should not. This report is not anti gay at all and I present the Preface as proof quoted below. 

Readers wondering about this report’s synthesis of research from so many different fields may wish to know a little about its lead author. I am a full-time academic involved in all aspects of teaching, research, and professional service. I am a biostatistician and epidemiologist who focuses on the design, analysis, and interpretation of experimental and observational data in public health and medicine, particularly when the data are complex in terms of underlying scientific issues. I am a research physician, having trained in medicine and psychiatry in the U.K. and received the British equivalent (M.B.) to the American M.D. I have never practiced medicine (including psychiatry) in the United States or abroad. I have testified in dozens of federal and state legal proceedings and regulatory hearings, in most cases reviewing scientific literature to clarify the issues under examination. I strongly support equality and oppose discrimination for the LGBT community, and I have testified on their behalf as a statistical expert.

I have been published in many top-tier peer-reviewed journals (including The Annals of Statistics, Biometrics, and American Journal of Political Science) and have reviewed hundreds of manuscripts submitted for publication to many of the major medical, statistical, and epidemiological journals (including The New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Statistical Association, and American Journal of Public Health).

I am currently a scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University. Up until July 1, 2016, I also held part-time faculty appointments at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and School of Medicine, and at the Mayo Clinic.

A

n undertaking as ambitious as this report would not be possible without the counsel and advice of many gifted scholars and editors. I am grateful for the generous help of Laura E. Harrington, M.D., M.S., a psychiatrist with extensive training in internal medicine and neuroimmunology, whose clinical practice focuses on women in life transition, including affirmative treatment and therapy for the LGBT community. She contributed to the entire report, particularly lending her expertise to the sections on endocrinology and brain research. I am indebted also to Bentley J. Hanish, B.S., a young geneticist who expects to graduate medical school in 2021 with an M.D./Ph.D. in psychiatric epidemiology. He contributed to the entire report, particularly to those sections that concern genetics. 

 

I

 dedicate my work on this report, first, to the LGBT community, which bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole. We must find ways to relieve their suffering.

As citizens, scholars, and clinicians concerned with the problems facing LGBT people, we should not be dogmatically committed to any particular views about the nature of sexuality or gender identity; rather, we should be guided first and foremost by the needs of struggling patients, and we should seek with open minds for ways to help them lead meaningful, dignified lives.

For more from the report showing how not ant-LGBTQ it really is one need only look at what the FAQ says on these matters.

1. Does the report argue that being gay or transgender is a choice?

No. The report explicitly states that “sexual orientation is not a choice,” but demonstrates that, according to currently available scientific research, “biological factors cannot provide a complete explanation” for sexual orientation and argues that “environmental and experiential factors may also play an important role.” The report does not argue that gender identity is chosen, but notes that “almost nothing is well understood when we seek biological explanations for what causes some individuals to state that their gender does not match their biological sex.”

2. Does the report prove that the “born that way” hypothesis is false?

No. The report shows that the “born that way” hypothesis is not supported by scientific evidence. Observing that something has not been proved true is not the same as demonstrating that it is false. What is false is the claim that the “born that way” hypothesis is supported by science.

3. Does the report argue that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed through therapy?

No. The report argues that “sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people” and observes that “only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.” The report does not advocate trying to change — or confirm — a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through therapy. The report’s authors are especially wary of medical interventions directed at children.

The report argues strongly for better addressing the mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide) and behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence) that non-heterosexual and transgender populations experience at much higher rates than the general population. 

4. The report questions the meaning of “sexual orientation” and related terms. Doesn’t the American Psychological Association provide a definition?

The report includes an extensive discussion (see pages 15 to 25) of the APA’s definition of “sexual orientation” and the lack of consistency in the way this and related terms have been used in scientific studies. Reading a range of studies in this field will show that this ambiguity presents a significant challenge for research design and interpretation. The report quotes two respected scholars, Lisa M. Diamond and Ritch C. Savin-Williams, on this point:

The more carefully researchers map these constellations — differentiating, for example, between gender identity and sexual identity, desire and behavior, sexual versus affectionate feelings, early-appearing versus late-appearing attractions and fantasies, or social identifications and sexual profiles — the more complicated the picture becomes because few individuals report uniform inter-correlations among these domains.

Lisa Diamond has also observed that “there is currently no scientific or popular consensus on the exact constellation of experiences that definitively ‘qualify’ an individual as lesbian, gay, or bisexual.”

5. Did the authors simply pick the studies that would support their conclusions?

No. Throughout the report, Drs. Mayer and McHugh take care to describe and explain the evidence on all sides of the questions they discuss. At the beginning of Part Two, they explain their methodology in reviewing the scientific literature related to mental health outcomes and social stress:

[E]ach section begins by summarizing the most extensive and reliable meta-analyses — papers that compile and analyze the statistical data from the published research literature. For some areas of research, no comprehensive meta-analyses have been conducted, and in these areas we rely on review articles that summarize the research literature without going into quantitative analyses of published data.... [W]e also discuss a few select studies that are of particular value because of their methodology, sample size, controls for confounding factors, or ways in which concepts such as heterosexuality or homosexuality are operationalized; and we discuss key studies published after the meta-analyses or review articles were published.

“Sexuality and Gender” is 143 pages long and cites nearly 200 peer-reviewed studies in 373 notes. Nevertheless, no scientific paper can address every previous study in its field, and no methodology for selecting studies is beyond criticism. Drs. Mayer and McHugh “readily acknowledge that this report is neither an exhaustive analysis of the subjects it addresses nor the last word on them.” Readers who are able to cite specific studies not examined in the report, and to explain why those studies should have been included, will make positive contributions to the public discourse.

6. Haven’t several critics cited a recent paper by J. Michael Bailey that should have been included?

The authors of “Sexuality and Gender” sought to offer an up-to-date review of the scientific literature, and included seven papers from 2015 and four from 2016. The paper by Professor Bailey and his colleagues, the publication date of which is September 2016, became available online on April 25, 2016, and reached the authors and editors of The New Atlantis report too late to be included.

One critic has asserted that the publication of “Sexuality and Gender” should have been delayed to allow time to include the Bailey paper. But any fair-minded scholar will acknowledge that to pause in the preparation of a scientific paper, especially at the end, every time another relevant article becomes available, would mean never finishing. (The Bailey paper, for instance, cites no peer-reviewed articles from 2016, and only four from 2015. Ritch Savin-Williams, in a commentary that accompanies Professor Bailey’s paper, cites three 2015 papers and four 2016 or “in press” papers that Bailey left out.)

7. Does the Bailey paper differ in its conclusions from “Sexuality and Gender”?

Professor Bailey has written that he agrees with some, though not all, of the major findings of “Sexuality and Gender.” Importantly, he agrees that the social stress model alone does not account for the mental health problems experienced by LGBT populations, that the idea that gender identity is innate and fixed is not consistent with the scientific evidence, and that all of these issues should be studied more openly and rigorously by scientists.

Though the subject matter of “Sexuality and Gender” overlaps with that of the Bailey paper, one difference is that Bailey and his colleagues focus on criticizing environmental explanations for sexual orientation. Drs. Mayer and McHugh did not find that there were many plausible environmental explanations for sexual orientation, and so they focused on discussing the more prominent biological explanations and their shortcomings. As Ritch Savin-Williams observes in his commentary on the Bailey paper, “scholars disagree as to the prominence and interpretation they give to particular findings.”

8. Do contending papers and studies get us anywhere?

It is tempting to think not. It sometimes seems that, as one writer has put it, for every study there is an equal and opposite study. And in the accompanying commentary on the Bailey paper, Ritch Savin-Williams writes:

Although [Bailey’s] coverage is indeed wide-ranging, it is somewhat restricted in that an equally celebrated assemblage of scholars might have produced a different manuscript in terms of topics reviewed and conclusions reached.

Nevertheless, the presence of disagreement does not imply the absence of truth, only that debate between scholars is a necessary part of discovering the truth, even in the empirical sciences. For this reason, “Sexuality and Gender” does not claim to be the last word any more than the Bailey paper does.

9. Does “Sexuality and Gender” qualify as a “study,” since it presents no new data?

The report is not a study; it is a scientific review of the literature. It tells us what science, at this stage, does and does not support. And it clears away many false claims about what is allegedly known. 

10. If “Sexuality and Gender” is not a study, does that mean it contains nothing new?

Something that has been published previously may not necessarily be widely known or well understood. Drs. Mayer and McHugh believe there is a clear gap between the certainty with which beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity seem to be commonly held, and what the science actually shows. 

A large majority of articles in peer-reviewed journals are written for a small number of scholars and are available only through subscriptions that cost hundreds of dollars. Even lay readers who try to stay informed on scientific issues do not have easy access to most scientific journals, and usually do not have the background to draw independent conclusions from articles written by experts for other experts. “Sexuality and Gender” seeks to improve public understanding of the issues it addresses by analyzing a large body of research, explaining it clearly for non-experts, and making the explanation available free of charge. 

 Why publish this report now?

The publication of “Sexuality and Gender” follows three years of close study of the scientific literature and consultation with experts from the biological, psychological, and social sciences. Current events may make the report more or less timely, but its lengthy and thorough preparation was guided by enduring public health concerns and a wish to correctly depict the science.

Given the status of science in our society, political leaders, opinion-makers, medical practitioners, and the general public benefit from rigorous independent analyses of scientific findings. There is often a large gap between the certainty of our beliefs about these matters and what the science shows.

As stated above it is a scientific review of tons and tons of the scientifically peer-reviewed literature on sexuality and gender identity. It is taking what is already out there and making it easier to digest by essentially making an easy to understand meta-report or analysis of the data. Even if their interpretation was biased it links to all its sources all you need to do is be a first-handed independent thinker and click each link to see if they reported it correctly. I have actually done just that and I have clicked on their links. I have checked their sources and they are correct.

All of the sources point to sexual orientation being fluid and changing over time in most people towards some form of heterosexual. Whether a cross-orientation mix of high heterosexuality and some homosexuality AKA bisexual. Or to mostly heterosexual or to complete heterosexuality. Naturally over time by what mechanism we do not yet know. However, when openly unashamed both Lesbian and Feminist Psychologist Lisa Diamond says this too in her own work citing specifically heterosexual identifications of different kinds are the norm over the long range in human orientation she is just ignored. When she too says 85-90% of opposite-sex typical children grow up to be not trans and not to be dysphoric in the long term she is just ignored.

Yet, when the same sources including her own research is re-cited in The New Atlantis by a person and main editor whom admits to supporting LGBTQ equality it is deemed hatred or pseudo-science. It shows a lack of want to believe in the existence of sexual fluidity, changes in any form even not brainwashed, forced or compelled/pressured. The lack of want to believe that opposite sex couplings are very, very much the most common even if the facts bare it out. Or do they also think Lesbian Psychologist Lisa Diamond whom testified to legalize same sex marriage whom has found this same pattern is a self-hating Dyke?

The truth is there are way more opposite sex attracted people than there is exclusively same sex attracted people. The truly 100% no budging, not even a little bi, gay community needs to admit they are a very small minority. Their having rights does not depend at all upon them being a majority. After all the individual is the smallest minority in the world and each one of us has individualized human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as they say in the US Constitution and damn right they are!

   

Even if Therapy could hasten or assist heterosexual potential for people capable of playing on either team. That still would not mean it should be pressured on people to take on board such therapy. You have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness regardless of whom you sleep with or love. 

No, Jennifer Objectivism does not endorse taxation in any forms

Recently I watched a video on Facebook entitled "Objectivism and Libertarianism better together." It was a plea that libertarianism and objectivism were not counter one another and could work together. For the most part I found it a somewhat interesting stream, but, ultimately I found it wanting to say the least. In fact, I found some parts of it downright deceptive. Which is nothing new for the current head of The Atlas Society.

It was not that long ago that Jennifer G. was making a plea to reach out to the religious for support in spreading Ayn Rand's ideas to the masses. A pure contradiction as Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy and more even than that is a reason/reality based philosophy with no room at all for the supernatural period. It is a departure from Objectivism itself and turns her philosophy away from being Objectivism as such at all.

This was the worry for those whom argued against David Kelley and his selling of Objectivism as an open system decades ago. It was not just that he talked to libertarian audiences, but, also that he argued Objectivism was an open system like a complete school of thought. However, this is incorrect Objectivism is Objectivism as A is A. Objectivism is the philosophy discovered and named by Ayn Rand as it was discovered and given said name. You cannot add to it nor subtract from it as switching A to B makes it B and not A. It is closed and was closed with Ayn Rand's death and cannot be altered while maintaining the name she gave it.

This is not dogmatic, insular or intolerant it simply says you can be an Objectivist and believe anything extra you want on top of it. However, the other things you support outside of the virtues, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology and politics of your Objectivism is not Objectivism it is your additional views built on top of your Objectivism. This does not make these extra things wrong it can be totally in accordance with reality, but, it is not the philosophy that you used to get there. Objectivism is the philosophy the actual outcome of its application is not Objectivism it is the outcome.

Objectivism is Objectivism and because of this it cannot be allied with anyone on the Religious Right period. Objectivism is also against all forced confiscation of wealth AKA all taxation. In replacement there are a ton of different voluntary forms of payment and fees possible outside of confiscating peoples income for use for the government. However, Jennifer G. specifically said Objectivism was not against taxation in her interview. This is dead wrong Objectivists are against taxation all taxation and wish to replace it with voluntary payment systems. If you support taxation as an end as opposed to the least offensive forms as a band-aid towards a gradual removal of all taxation you are not an Objectivist.

In doing the interview Jennifer was revealed to be actually not an Objectivist at all. Instead a libertarian already and one of the more vicious kind that says taxation is not to turn people into surfs. That says taxation is not exploitation, expropriation, theft, extortion and also a form of social engineering. Instead that forcing a gun to peoples head at the end of a long sting of attempts to get their money by force and throw you in a prison for tax evasion is a just act. While it is anything, but, and taxation is anti-Objectivist and anti-Objectivism.

However, there is even more as she failed to denounce in the highest degree Jefferey Tucker whom is an anarchist for presenting an immoral and unjust worldview as legitimate. Anarchism is not a liberty ideal it is a no holds barred, no laws, no rules chaos ideal. It is the creed of those whom think that in a state of nature others will all just take stock and refuse to infringe peoples rights. It is the blank out and evasion of a people whom cannot tell a bottle from a jar. Government is a necessity in a civilized society. To quote Paul McKeever, "to be pro-reason is to be pro- (rights respecting) government." Anarchism is an unreasonable and irrational callback to a time of animals playing a dangerous game of might makes right and winner takes all. Anarcho-Capitalism is the doctrine of the uncivilized brute.

Jennifer Grossman is not an Objectivist at all from what I can see. She is an anarchist and theist neutral libertarian scoundrel of the highest order. Whom has no right to use that term for defining her own views that are not part of Objectivism at all. She refuses to denounce mystics and she refuses to denounce brutes whom would cause the world to go to hell in a hand-basket if their views ever got power among the mainstream. She praises the likes of Laura Ingram as being an A-OK Gal. Someone whom would have a Theocracy if she could. A Fundamentalist Christian nutcase of the highest order. Whatever The Atlas Society is peddling under Jennifer it is not Objectivism it is Grossmanism in disguise and it is disgusting.

The Libertarian Party of Ontario VS The Freedom Party of Ontario; A Matter of Philosophy and misunderstandings

Currently Ontario, Canada is in the middle of a local election cycle for their area and there is two competing parties that share politically more or less my views. Those two parties are The Libertarian Party of Ontario and The Freedom Party of Ontario. However, despite their similarities the members of The Freedom Party denounce the Libertarian Party and even claim they are not for liberty at all. So, how come there is this split and hatred when both parties are for limited government?

The answer lies in philosophy and the fact that Libertarians are not signed into agreeing constitutionally to Objectivism or at least Objectivish philosophy. The Party itself is basically an Objectivism party, but, they have some people whom are members that agree with the Objectivism based constitution while not considering themselves Objectivists. I recently listened to Paul McKeever the leader of the party speaking on Diana Brickell's old Podcast Philosophy in Action.

The long and short of it is that it comes down to the Objectivism argument against the lack of reasonable rigger underlying libertarian politics. Due to this they think that the Libertarian Party of Ontario is too open and big tent. That they will accept too many people of too many backgrounds as long as they support less government in their lives. However, Paul McKeever seems to have turned this difference in philosophy into something personal. Which reminds me of how the Ayn Rand Institute treats David Kelley and his Atlas Society organization as if they are of the Devil.

First off let me say once again I am not philosophically libertarian with a small l. I am Objectivist as well myself philosophically. I am not a libertarian with a small l and would never say I was one. However, I do support the Capital L Libertarian Party of Ontario in the running for the election. Part of the reason for my supporting the party is due to a cardinal Objectivist virtue of integrity. An acquaintance of mine is in a leading position in the Ontario Libertarians. In addition, I have in the passed volunteered with the Libertarian Party of Ontario to assist said leader with maintaining their Facebook presence while they were away.

For this reason I cannot in good conscious just turn my back on them and be not in favor of them in the running in the Province. In addition, I am finding Paul is the one that is fanning the flames of discontent constantly going on radio programs and dissing the local Libertarians as being not truly for liberty. Despite knowing full well that the leader of the Libertarians is himself an Objectivist in Ontario and they both share the exact same worldview. For this reason I would vote for the Ontario Libertarians if I was in that province. If the Libertarians were not running and/or was not principled I would have voted for Paul and his Freedom Party though.

I think there is a misunderstanding in this whole situation as if Paul does not realize the similarities between his party and the local Libertarians. The platforms of both parties are going in the very same direction and incredibly similar. There is next to no policy differences between the two and the Libertarian leader Allen admits there is very little difference. It is the Freedom Party of Ontario and their people that keeps this turf war up between the two parties. As well as continuing to not be able to differentiate between the libertarian movement broader and the local Libertarians.

The Local party is not anarchism supporting and is not a nihilistic stew. Truth be told one in fact has two local Objectivism parties in spirit as Allen is himself an Objectivist. The two parties should if anything be in alliance with one another. However, Paul keeps fanning the flames and continuing the turf war on every broadcast and Bob Metz does the same on Just Right Radio. I do not blame Bob for bashing the broader libertarian movement with its lack of premises and underlying philosophy, but, he should be making a by the way mention that not all Libertarians are understanding small l libertarians.

He should be taking more of an individualistic view as I do and acknowledging that not all Libertarians are without premises. Not all Libertarians are small l libertarians in the sense of being subjectivistic in nature. There are quite a few principled Libertarians out there that do not fall into the trap of being small l libertarians and believing in subjective, anarchistic nonsense. In fact, there are quite a few Objectivists in Libertarian Parties that would not really be philosophically libertarian at all.

Objectivism VS The Objectivist and libertarian movements

The philosophy of Objectivism is separate from a movement based on the namesake. In addition Objectivism is also not the libertarian movement and is in fact quite different from it. This does not mean that one cannot be an Objectivist and support a Capital L Libertarian Party Candidate or even be a member of said party. (Although Diana Brickell from Philosophy In Action whom I greatly admire presents the counter case on her podcast.) One needs to distinct movements from people in order do understand why I say this. As well as movements from individual parties or party members.

I fully agree with Diana Brickell that Objectivism and the libertarian movement are not inherently allies. In fact, there is a fair portion of the broader libertarian movement that is filled with relativistic and subjectivistic types of people. It is also filled to the brim with Anarcho-Capitalists and anarchy supporting factions. 

I also agree with Diana that anarchism is a majority in the broader libertarian movement and has been since the movement began. I, in addition agree that anarchism in any form leads to a world just as bad if not worse than the tyrannies of the various overbearing governments on the world stage. However, it is the libertarian movement that I feel Objectivists need to stay away from or any rational person. Not anything with the label Libertarian on it persay. There is a difference between a Capital L Libertarian Party member or supporter and agreeing with the broader small l libertarian movement as a whole. 

I agree with Ayn Rand actually that the lower l libertarian movement is basically the hippies of the right. However, I also do not think this is the same as Capital L Libertarian support at all. One denotes supporting a specific political Party and its platforms. While the lower case l is to agree with the idea that all that matters is a Non-Aggression Axiom devoid of any foundation or reason to support it. It also may or may not consist of a view that acknowledges protection of rights due to this mistake in primary premises. 

However, the various Libertarian Parties all over the world are all very different. Some do condone and even support the disaster that is anarchism. As well as supporting subjectivism and nihilism on top of that. While other Libertarian Parties are fully for limited government and go out of there way to provide evidence for their limited government stances. I know one leader of a Party that is specifically anti-anarchist in his platform as it calls for very moderate proposals. He also too like me is an Objectivist as well. 

There are some Libertarian Parties and institutes people of reason and reality should not associate with or support. These would be any Parties endorsing unreason or even non-reason. Any Parties that fully support, endorse or fail to call out the anti-rights view of anarchism. These Parties one should not provide support and cover for. This would also be institutions of "liberty" that support or push anarchism as the ideal. Or any institutions which proclaim reality does not exist as a primary value or view. 

However, one needs to take an individualistic stance when dealing with libertarians, Libertarians and Libertarian Parties. Some are part of the broader lower case intellectual movement and are supportive of very bad ideas and others are just fine. Also, one should never judge individual libertarians as less than good just because they are libertarians as you might be speaking to someone just as anti-anarchist and pro-reason as you are. It needs to be taken on a case by case basis in regards to this specific rule of thumb.

I want to also mention something else as well this time to do with The Objectivist Movement as well. Not everyone that claims to be an Objectivist is going to be fully using reason either. There are a sizable amount of people that become Objectivist in label, but, use it as an easy justification for being a dickhead or even abusive. Diana Bickell calls these people Predatory Egoists. People whom claim the mantel of Objectivist or Rational Egoism only to fully ignore the need for being ethical or rational. Essentially using the "movement" and involvement in it as a way of controlling others or becoming Pseudo-Authorities of Objecrtivism to laud over people.

Being an Objectivist is no indication on whether someone will be fully understanding of the need for virtues to gain values. Nor understand what the virtues mean nor understand that mistreatment is not being egoistic, but, instead is being a bully, dogmatists, insular and a horrible human being. Once again one needs to take an individualistic treatment and acknowledge Objectivism is not a collective of its own. Some people will be claiming to be so and not even understand the philosophy they claim to represent. Others will know the philosophy, but, misuse it. Some are just plain toxic people and would be toxic without the philosophy. If someone is already toxic becoming self loving even more would push them to be even more toxic. People can be evil with any label. 

In short, Objectivism is not libertarianism and is not libertarian it is Objectivism. However, one can be supportive of the better Libertarians and love/admire and even associate with individual libertarians just like any other individual that is not an Objectivst. If Objectivists judged all other people as being worthy of benevolence and good will on the basis of sharing our same philosophy Objectivism would indeed be the very cult its detractors claim it is. If this were true I would flee from it as I do from Religion which IS a cult. 

Morals are real and although contextual they are universal and for all mankind qua mankind.

Morals are contextual absolutes and not relative.

It is often times assumed that secularism and atheism leads to a subjective form of morals that is not consistent with living a good life. However, this would be mistaken for the lack of the non-existent does not mean morals are subjective and not concretes within a given context. A moral code is a code of ethics that guide ones actions within existence. The fact that there is not some non-existent God or Supernatural dimension to existence does not mean there is no moral codes that are both secular and objective in nature.

The lack of existence of a God does not make murder, rape and so forth OK or moral. However, that is simply skimming the surface for there are laws against such things in a proper society. The fact that there are laws means that this is an area where individual rights are being infringed and not just a matter of morality, but, also of legality as well. Morals while encompassing these acts does not simply consist only of such acts either.

A moral code is not forced and cannot be forced on you by the threat of a gun to your head. That itself would be in fact immoral itself as well as illegal. Morals are neither to be forced on you and neither are they up to subjective whim of whatever you want either. It is immoral for example to not be honest with people. It is immoral to fake reality and to cut off your ability to live in the real world for the sake of living in delusion. Honesty is a commit within yourself to the integrity of your sense of reason and to living in the world as it is.

It is immoral to cheat other people irregardless of if it would be considered theft or an infringement of ones rights. It is immoral to mistreat other people and to not treat them justly. It would be immoral to be engaging in activity that is self-destructive and to not stop said activity if you are able to do so. It is immoral to be doing drugs on a regular basis and to be clouding your mind harming your rational faculties. Essentially if it is harmful to your life it is evil and if it nurtures your life it is good.

Morals are absolutes, but, also contextual. Which means that one needs to take into account a lot of things when deciding if something is immoral or moral. For example; right now I am on medication for depression. My depression could affect my sense of thinking, but, this does not make me immoral for having such an issue. This is because one has to take everything into context; Plus, the depression does not take away my ability to be as reasonable as possible. I still understand existence exists and objective reality is outside my head no matter how down I might get.

If someone was so far gone that they were not able to be reasonable that still would not make that person immoral. As one does not get judged because of an illness they might have they get judged based on their content of character. You need to put everything into context when you are talking about morals. This is the main thing to remember when discussing ethical codes the context.of what options you have at hand and those which you do not. As well as the circumstances surrounding the ethical choice or choices one can make.

The argument that a lack of the supernatural means no morals or whisy washy morals is incorrect. It simply means you get your morals from something other than the non-existent supernatural. In the end though what is most important is that no one is forcing morals on the immoral. For that would itself be an act of which it is immoral and be an act of circular logic.

  

Myles Powers Debunks Aids Denial

Myles Powers Debunks 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Yaron Brook and Dave Rubin: Objectivism, Religion, and the Role of Government (Full Interview)

Yaron Brook (Exec Chairman-Ayn Rand Institute) joins Dave Rubin to discuss objectivism, free speech, changing the world through discussion and reason, Ayn Rand’s ideas, morality, religion, civil discourse and how to agree to disagree, criticism of the education system in the U.S., the role of government, and more.

Ayn Rand: Philosophy, Objectivism, Self Interest (full interview with Yaron Brook from The Rubin Report)

Yaron Brook (President, Ayn Rand Institute) joins Dave Rubin, discussing Ayn Rand's overall philosophy, objectivism, social safety nets, capitalism, human nature and more.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales on Ayn Rand, art, and making money

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales addresses how Objectivist philosophy guides his nonprofit work. (November 1, 2008)