Only a proper understanding of the Enlightenment concept can resolve the perennial moral and political controversy.

On the fifty-second anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are pleased to release this essay which will be part of a new, expanded edition of Ben Bayer’s book Why the Right to Abortion Is Sacrosanct, forthcoming from the Ayn Rand Institute Press.

https://newideal.aynrand.org/individual-rights-and-the-right-to-abortion/

Somehow this subreddit has become home to a lot of far right wingers, Trump supporters, anti abortionists, and racists (although the last three are redundant, I could have just said far right wingers).

That ends today. You aren’t welcome here. This is private property and we choose not to associate with you.

Just leave.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism champions reason, individual rights, and the pursuit of justice. Yet her controversial views on Native Americans are not only inconsistent with these principles but also reveal an unjustifiable strain of racism. As Objectivists committed to the application of reason and individualism, we must confront and reject Rand’s statements on this issue to uphold the true moral foundation of her philosophy.

Rand’s Racist Views on Native Americans

Rand argued that Native Americans had no rightful claim to the land they inhabited because their societies lacked property rights, industrial progress, and reason-based institutions. She further justified European settlers’ conquest on the grounds that they brought a superior civilization. These views reflect a collectivist dismissal of Native Americans as individuals and a deeply flawed perspective that Objectivists must reject as racist and immoral.

Why Rand’s Views Constitute Racism

Racism, as defined by Objectivism, is the irrational elevation of race or culture above the recognition of individual rights and abilities. Rand’s sweeping condemnation of Native Americans, based solely on their cultural and societal practices, disregards their status as individuals with the same inherent rights as anyone else. By judging Native Americans collectively and denying their moral worth as individuals, Rand failed to apply the principle of individualism she so fervently championed.

The Objectivist Critique of Rand’s Position

1. The Inviolability of Individual Rights

Objectivism holds that rights belong to individuals, not groups, and cannot be contingent on cultural, technological, or societal advancement. Native Americans, as individuals, had a right to life, liberty, and property. Rand’s dismissal of these rights based on their societal structures or lack of industrialization contradicts Objectivism’s core tenet of universal individualism.

2. Misrepresentation of Property Rights

Rand’s assertion that Native Americans did not establish property rights is both inaccurate and irrelevant. Indigenous societies had complex systems of land use and ownership suited to their way of life. Even if their systems differed from European norms, that does not invalidate their claims. Objectivism recognizes the legitimacy of property arising from productive effort—an argument that applies equally to Native Americans who hunted, cultivated, and managed their lands.

3. Rejection of Force as a Moral Means

Objectivism condemns the use of force as a violation of individual rights. The European settlers’ conquest of Native lands, through violence, deceit, and coercion, cannot be morally justified. Rand’s endorsement of such actions betrays Objectivism’s principled rejection of force as a means of achieving any end, however laudable.

4. Cultural Superiority Does Not Excuse Injustice

While Objectivism celebrates Western civilization’s achievements, it does not permit the moral dismissal of other cultures or individuals. Rand’s view that Native Americans were “savages” ignores the rich complexity of their societies and reduces them to stereotypes unworthy of respect or rights. This is not only factually incorrect but also a profoundly racist judgment that Objectivists must repudiate.

Why Objectivists Must Confront Rand’s Racism

Objectivism stands for reason, justice, and individualism. Rand’s views on Native Americans undermine these values and reflect the kind of collectivist thinking she otherwise opposed. To preserve the integrity of Objectivism, we must acknowledge and denounce the racism inherent in her position. By doing so, we demonstrate that Objectivism is not a dogma but a living philosophy, open to reasoned self-correction.

A Consistent Objectivist Approach

A proper Objectivist perspective on the history of Native Americans would: • Condemn the use of force and violation of individual rights during the European conquest. • Recognize the legitimacy of indigenous property systems within their societal context. • Advocate for voluntary trade and cultural exchange as the moral means of spreading ideas and progress. • Oppose the collectivist dismissal of any group or culture, affirming the individuality of every human being.

Conclusion

Ayn Rand’s views on Native Americans were not only morally wrong but also a betrayal of her own philosophical principles. They represent a form of racism incompatible with Objectivism’s emphasis on reason, justice, and individual rights. By rejecting these views, we affirm Objectivism’s commitment to the ethical and rational treatment of all individuals, regardless of their cultural or societal background.

/r/Objectivism Policy on Inclusion and Respectful Discourse

Purpose: /r/Objectivism exists to foster rational discourse and exploration of Objectivist ideas. To ensure this environment remains conducive to reasoned discussion, we uphold the following principles for inclusion and respectful engagement.

1. Focus on Ideas, Not Identity • Debates and discussions must center on ideas, concepts, and arguments, not on personal characteristics or identities. • Any form of harassment, discrimination, or derogatory language targeting individuals or groups based on immutable characteristics (e.g., race, gender, sexuality) is not allowed.

2. Respectful Engagement • Critique of ideas, including Objectivism itself, is welcome; ad hominem attacks, insults, or inflammatory remarks are not. • Discussions should aim to persuade through reason and evidence, not hostility or intimidation.

3. No Hate Speech or Incitement • Content promoting hatred, violence, or dehumanization of individuals or groups will be removed. • While Objectivism critiques collectivist ideologies, this critique must remain focused on ideas and not devolve into hostility toward individuals.

4. Moderation of Discussions • Moderators may remove posts or comments that violate this policy to preserve a space for rational discourse. • Decisions will prioritize protecting the subreddit as a space for reasoned, respectful debate.

5. Voluntary Participation • Participation in /r/Objectivism is voluntary. By engaging with the subreddit, users agree to adhere to these guidelines. • Moderators are not arbiters of truth but stewards of the forum’s integrity. If you disagree with moderation decisions, appeals can be made through appropriate channels.

Rationale: This policy is consistent with Objectivism’s principles of individual rights, reason, and voluntary association. It ensures a space where individuals can engage with Objectivist ideas without fear of personal attack, allowing reason and evidence to prevail.

Enforcement: Violations of this policy may result in warnings, removal of content, or bans, depending on severity. Moderators aim for consistency and transparency in enforcement.

Thank you for helping make /r/Objectivism a place for rational and respectful discourse.

I love objectivism and i watch a lot of content on youtube but I rarely encounter objecitivists speaking about mental health or how to overcome stuff like addictions, lack of motivation or loneliness.

Besides i think that speaking about these topics could draw a lot of new audience into the group.

Anyways, what are your guys opinion? What advice would an objectivist give to a depressed person?

They are a German party tha