By the way, I _hope_ that this post provokes Objectivists because we seriously need to reconsider our tactics. Broadly, nothing much is changing... at all. Look at the evidence: We're starting to (once again) ask who would make good Presidential candidates. We occasionally take pride in ARI's book donation drive. Maybe we are even asking more advanced questions which reflect greater consideration and philosophical knowledge. These are good and promising symptoms of a generally static trend.
I think that it's time to push for more dynamic thought. I even run the risk of making much of my past thinking less relevant, but if it means being more realistic about the future, then it is worthwhile to cast past work aside. Very few people are even bothering to be both challenging and broad-minded. I believe that John Lewis and Leonard Peikoff are among those few Objectivists who are thinking far ahead. I am _not_ writing to simply cheerlead though. If someone wants to know what those two think, then they can find online resources for their writing.
I believe that we need to be cognizant of certain standing orders. For one thing, Objectivism has never been exclusively or primarily concerned with politics. We aren't tied to a group. We don't live in terms of what other people expect. Laws are there for everyone's protection not for obedience. That is, the law is not supposed to be a matter of socialization. For example, it's a total misstep to look to any political authority for leadership. Individuals are obligated to be self-responsible.
Andrew Bernstein has said repeatedly that Objectivists can and should do things to encourage the wider adoption of Objectivism. First, we need to practice our beliefs. Second, we need to tell people about the work of experts to put people on notice. I don't believe that we can afford to stop with only those directives. The world is substantially different than it was even 10 years ago. We now have a recent history of Presidents who formally seek United Nations approval. They also callously neglect what used to be common-sense morality. Sadly, many people do implicitly refer to politicians for moral references, so we can't completely ignore the repercussions of what major political figures do.
What I'm starting to suggest is that we need to operate in a more parallel and self-aware manner. It's wrong to look at Objectivist communications in terms of _just_ the inside/outside question. That way of thinking is quickly becoming antiquated. We can't sequester ourselves from the world. We can't continue to ping-pong discourse amongst ourselves while ignoring vital evidence of impending mega trends.
Simply put, if we are seriously interested in making practical differences in the culture, then we had better start outlining some new paradigms for dealing with the new trends. (Peter Schwartz's foreign policy white paper is a positive step.) It's not enough to pat ourselves on the back for starting to understand first-level implications of applied philosophy. Those days are over.
I'm not expecting anyone to offer specifics as assured requirements of cultural change. I'm offering a suggestion as to what is at stake. I tentatively think that Objectivists will have to engage in the following:
- Form or join committees that strive to outline broad policy. (This is just starting to happen now.)
- There is also the start of more professional publications e.g. _The Objective Standard_, but certainly this is just the tip of the iceberg.
- Do more testing. This could involve surveys, role-playing, debates, and blind tours.
To jump ahead and backtrack at the same time, I would like to see more evidence that Objectivists are even aware that what I'm discussing is at issue. Beyond this, I would like to see less rehashing of old debates. That expended energy could be targeted towards completely new considerations and developments.
For example, we don't have to settle for being strapped to a false alternative of 1) arguing how government can better handle legal matters vs. 2) arguing how to scrap government in ways that are bordering on anarchism. Instead we _could_ discuss the specifics of how to engage government representatives as a collected force. Objectivists have barely even attempted to utilize the idea of writing campaigns. Surely, we can agree on enough details to offer a cohesive and principled solution to many common social problems.
There is much, much more to brainstorm about, and there's much more substantiation to offer for these and related ideas. In the meantime, I want to simply encourage people to think in these terms on occasion.
Posts
