One of my fellow BPR colleagues ‘outed’ all libertarians as masturbatory Objectivist in a spectacularly erudite, strawman-less and fact-based article, which you can see here.

Conflating objectivism and libertarianism, the author went on to claim that the fundamental tenet of objectivism was that free markets were ‘outside of subjective contestation’ and that objectivism was the philosophy that attempted to assert its monopoly over the definition of what reality is.

Needless to say, this author’s argument’s could use a bit of research to back up its ludicrous claims.

First of all, does Objectivism == Libertarianism? A simple refutation would come from the site of the Ayn Rand Institute, in which Ayn Rand is quoted as calling Libertarians and their party “hippies of the right” and “a cheap attempt at publicity” (and not in a good way). But what could possibly be the difference between Randian philosophy, and its apparent moniker, Libertarianism?

One difference would be that Objectivism does not even center around politics as its main assertion. Again, as described by the Ayn Rand Institute (which can probably serve as a pretty good source on what Ayn Rand believes) , Objectivism goes through three stages – Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics – before arriving at its more famous assertions about capitalism as a political necessity. Surely a philosophy that views capitalism as arising from basic metaphysical tenets may be at times at odds with a political group that often attracts people concerned with the effects of government actions on the general well-being of a nation (i.e. utilitarianism) rather than moral absolutes.

On the point of Objectivism asserting a monopoly on reality, first of all, realize that its claims on objectivity originate not from its political assertions, but from fundamental metaphysical and moral ones (things the author chose not to counter). Also, just to easily quote from Utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill, his philosophy is supposed to contain the fundamental “test of right and wrong.” What a bold, self-righteous claim! Apparently when people advocate vociferously for something, they usually believe it is, you know, the truth.

The rest of the article is not really worth contradicting. The assertion that male adolescents compose most of Ayn Rand’s fan base – though a fact famously asserted by Obama in Rolling Stone – is not even backed up by a simple Google search on “Ayn Rand, demography.” And if Ron Paul is any indication, the Ayn-Rand-is-for-teenagers rule certainly has its exceptions.

Finally, the assertion that Ayn Rand’s followers contain an exceptional level of religiosity, power-thirst and hubris– especially coming from an author who clearly considered himself a master on a philosophy while blatantly ignoring its most fundamental tenets – is laughable at best. The link at the end of the article tries to connect libertarian philosophy of voluntary charity and free trade with poor-hating and not wanting people to have healthcare. Let’s have these discussions in a reasonable and fact-based manner, not as pithy tossed-away claims at the end of an article.

Funnily enough, this article paints Objectivism and libertarians as the left would crave them to be in their wet dreams. If we were what this article made us out to be it would be impossible to not hate us.

Too bad intellectual inconsistency, self-aggrandizing writing and claims to moral superiority aren’t exclusive to our camp.