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

Imagine a community where people trade and sell goods among themselves. Naturally, conflicts and crimes arise, prompting the need for a solution. In response, individuals band together to create an arbitration and security agency to handle disputes and maintain order.

This agency, however, needs to sustain itself. It demands a fee of 10 bags of flour per month as payment for its services. But when some people are unable to pay, the agency issues a note stating that the individual owes 10 bags of flour to the agency. This note becomes the first "10-dollar" community currency.

what gives this "10-dollar" note its intrinsic value? What is it truly backed by?

At first glance, one might say it's backed by 10 bags of flour, which is partially true. However, I believe its true value is determined by a more important factor:

• Whether there are competing agencies offering better arbitration and security services.

Thus, the intrinsic value (backing) of the dollar or any currency is ultimately a reflection of the people’s trust in the third party arbitrators (govts) in protecting their individual rights that issues it.

On the flipside bitcoin represents peoples mistrust in third party arbitrators (govts) themselves in securing their rights.

The gold standard was essentially a mechanism to keep the security agency in check, preventing them from issuing excessive "I owe you" or "you owe me" notes. Although we are no longer on the gold standard today, that doesn’t mean fiat currency is worthless. Its value is now determined primarily by the ratio of the total goods and services available within its jurisdiction to the total number of notes issued in that region.

To be clear: this is a question about whether the experiments were moral and a virtuous thing to pursue, not whether the government should interfere with it or not.

The Polgár experiment was essentially this: raise your children with the explicit intent of them to become Chess grandmasters. Don't necessarily coerce or force them to participate in Chess if they don't want to, but homeschool them and restrictively design the environment so that your children will naturally want to play Chess and enjoy it.

The result is that the 3 daughters became Chess masters, with two of them being the strongest female players of all time. They had a restrictive, somewhat socially isolated childhood, but the children themselves were happy and not dysfunctional.

A summary from Wikipedia:

The experiment began in 1970 "with a simple premise: that any child has the innate capacity to become a genius in any chosen field, as long as education starts before their third birthday and they begin to specialize at six."Polgár "battled Hungarian authorities for permission" to home-school the girls. "We didn't go to school, which was very unusual at the time," his youngest daughter Judit recalled in 2008. "People would say, 'The parents are destroying them, they have to work all day, they have no childhood'. I became defensive, and not very sociable."

In 2012, Judit told an interviewer about the "very special atmosphere" in which she had grown up. "In the beginning, it was a game. My father and mother are exceptional pedagogues who can motivate and tell it from all different angles. Later, chess for me became a sport, an art, a science, everything together. I was very focused on chess and happy with that world. I was not the rebelling and going out type. I was happy that at home we were in a closed circle and then we went out playing chess and saw the world. It's a very difficult life and you have to be very careful, especially the parents, who need to know the limits of what you can and can't do with your child. My parents spent most of their time with us; they traveled with us [when we played abroad], and were in control of what was going on. With other prodigies, it might be different. It is very fragile. But I'm happy that with me and my sisters it didn't turn out in a bad way." A reporter for The Guardian noted that while "top chess players can be dysfunctional", Judit was "relaxed, approachable and alarmingly well balanced," having managed "to juggle a career in competitive chess with having two young children, running a chess foundation in Hungary, writing books and developing educational programs based on chess."

View Poll