An AnarchObjectivist's Guide to Atlas Shrugged

[Marcus]

A bit off topic: Is'nt an "anarcho-objectivist" an oxymoron?

[Selene]

A bit off topic: Is'nt an "anarcho-objectivist" an oxymoron?

Excellent. Precisely what I thought.

[Francisco Ferrer]

A bit off topic: Is'nt an "anarcho-objectivist" an oxymoron?

Only if you believe that Objectivism is a closed system, i.e. that the philosophy of Ayn Rand, including her views on, say, homosexuality and electing a woman president, cannot be revised post-Rand, for "any change in any element of which would destroy the entire system."

[Brant Gaede]

A bit off topic: Is'nt an "anarcho-objectivist" an oxymoron?

Only if you believe that Objectivism is a closed system, i.e. that the philosophy of Ayn Rand, including her views on, say, homosexuality and electing a woman president, cannot be revised post-Rand, for "any change in any element of which would destroy the entire system."

In the linked article Peikoff goes immediately off the track with "value." Yes there are objective values respecting a human being qua human being, but there are other, additional, subjective values, respecting a human being qua his own personal human-valuing being. The implicit idea that an objective value means no subjective ones results in a jumble of philosophical garbage except for the ruling philosophical elite--i.e., him and his accepted and designated minions. He has to do this to kick Kelley in the ass and out of "Objectivism." Peikoff has ruined formal Objectivism, but he's standing on Rand's shoulders and is 100% consistent with her that way. The problem for him while she was alive is he was always in danger of being kicked out by her as had been done to others already, so he protected himself by sucking up to her* thus denying himself his self. If one agrees with "value requires a valuer" (is that a Rand quote?) then it's true that subjective valuing can throw you off the tracks leading to peace, happiness, productivity, etc., so you need to rationally, objectively evaluate what's best for you for that and whether your subjective is serving the objective.

--Brant

*I was there in NYC when he took her side in her dispute with the Brandens and that's my estimation of his conduct--all considered I gave him a pass then and even now on that (I felt for Rand), but not subsequently with Kelley--it took me, after all, over three years to start seeking moral normal and right, aka, a proper (objective!!) self-orientation (I was always growing, longing for virtue [and integrity], and falling short--still. [When I get sick of thinking about virtue I get relief by seeking integrity. When that comes a cropper I switch back to virtue. Feels good; avoids depression.] This is a great technique for building up your ruthlessness. Ruthlessness is an objective value if you don't overdo it. It's better to overdo it a bit so a loved or interested one can see or feel it ["Ouch!!"] and call you out on it so you can tamp it down as needed, but if you underdo it you'll not get any feedback so you won't know you're under doing it except for the implication of that fact [which may escape you] and your cooking will come up short. Living is a shake-and-bake, after all. In fact, ruthlessness may be a primary [objective value] virtue [after consciousness (FOCUS!!!)], and life itself, with rationality the necessary tool. This is the lazy man's way to ruthlessness. In my experience ruthlessness comes more easily to women--at least they're less obvious and smarter about it. Men tend to stumble and fail and get drunk at parties [bull shit alert!].)

Both an idea and its advocates--further along in Peikoff's article, skipping a lot of verbiage--getting morally evaluated ties everything up in a Gordian Knot waiting for the sword of truth to reveal a lie(?): Kelley is immoral and morality beats truth to the ground for righteousness is more important for the King of Objectivism or his rule will not be accepted.

What would Ayn Rand have said? "Kelley lied to me. He exploited me financially. He only pretended to be an Objectivist. Objectivism is dangerous to screw around with. It will rip you up and throw you out, screw up your sex lift. Etc." Much more dramatic.