The sorry state of the vanguards of Objectivism

After life and work had kept me away for a few years from reading Objectivist-authored material in any quantity, I finally returned to a site I used to frequent which syndicated articles by Objectivist writers, among others. I won't name the site for fear of adding to its readership. But upon pulling up the front page, I saw an article discussing whether or not the government should deprive a group of people of their rights to property by forbidding them to build a mosque in NYC. The article argued in favor of government action, and linked to this podcast by Ayn Rand's official heir and present guardian of Objectivism, Leonard Peikoff.

Therein, Mr. Peikoff lays out a hypothetical situation regarding property rights:

In any situation where metaphysical survival is at stake all property rights are out. You have no obligation to respect property rights. The obvious, classic example of this is, which I've been asked a hundred times, you swim to a desert island – you know, you had a shipwreck – and when you get to the shore, the guy comes to you and says, ‘I've got a fence all around this island. I found it. It's legitimately mine. You can't step onto the beach.' Now, in that situation you are in a literal position of being metaphysically helpless. Since life is the standard of rights, if you no longer can survive this way, rights are out. And it becomes dog-eat-dog or force-against-force.

I was quite shocked to hear the heir of Ayn Rand say this. I find it rather incredible and contradictory seeing as how this is precisely the moral justification for government-provided health care. I don't know of a single Objectivist who would approve of a government program that provided "necessary" life-saving treatment to those who could otherwise not afford it, at the public expense. Yet with such a statement as Peikoff's above, the necessary moral foundation for just such a program is laid. When someone's need is vital, according to Peikoff, your "rights are out". In other words, the needs of one individual can trump the rights of another.

I never thought I would hear an Objectivist say that. But here we have it.

Moving on to the main topic - the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" (the Cordoba House, which actually isn't a mosque, but that's another matter) - Peikoff proceeded to call for the US Government to deprive the owners of the Cordoba House of their rights to property. Peikoff insists that the government must prevent adherents of Islam from building mosques in NYC (and presumably elsewhere) on the grounds that failing to abridge their property rights would be a "sign of our weakness" to the outside world.

Peikoff attempts to shore up his argument with another analogy:

Now, let me give you an analogy if it’s not self-evident. Japanese strike pearl Harbor. We declare war. Japan, the Japanese, are then given a large spread of land in Pearl Harbor to build a temple celebrating — I don’t care what. The Japanese superiority or Shinto peacefulness or — I don’t care what. Now, if you can even conceive of that as justified because of ‘property rights,’ then I say you haven’t a clue what property rights, or individualism, or Objectivism is saying. Because what permitting that amounts to is ‘Roll over. Kick me. Kill me. I have nothing to say.

Now first, the owners of Cordoba House were not "given" the land or building in question, they purchased it. Nor are the owners of Cordoba House in any way (as far as I can tell) affiliated with any state or organization with whom we are at (undeclared) war. But neither of these aren Peikoff's point - his point here (when taken in context of the rest of his comments in the podcast) is that the thing which negates the owner's property rights is what they are saying with his property. This is presumably because allowing someone to say something which, by the government allowing it to be said, would be seen as, "an objective sign of our weakness," and thereby allegedly embolden the enemy. This raises the legitimate question: if one's rights of property are negated because the use thereof for speech is a "sign of our weakness", then does this not imperil the very right of speech? If applied consistently, Peikoff's principle would likewise prohibit individuals from expressing such opinions regardless of means.

Interestingly, Peikoff admits in the course of the podcast that there are some innocent Muslims, but goes on to say that, "even if there were innocent Muslims involved in this mosque, the alternative we have is their right to property versus our right to survive as the only property defender left in the West." Setting aside the absurd suggestion that the property rights of innocent Muslims present a clear and present threat to our survival, he is simply presenting a hyperbolic dichotomy to obscure the fact that he is calling for the abridgment of the rights of an entire group of people without regard to their individual innocence or guilt. That's collectivism, folks! Collectivism from a supposed champion of individualism.

Mr. Peikoff is apparently aware of the collectivist hue of his assertions because toward the end of the podcast he attempts to deny it by saying, "Here we have to go by probability which is not collective judgment". He then clarifies this "probability" comment by cursorily referencing the argument that NYC cab drivers are not being racist (and thereby not being collectivist) when they decide not to accept fares to Harlem on the grounds that there is a statistically higher probability that they will fall victim to a crime there. There are only two problems with this: first, it is unclear how it relates to the situation under consideration, and second, the cab drivers are making a non-aggressive choice for themselves. By contrast, the government in this situation would be committing aggression against an entire group of unconvicted (or charged) individuals, many of whom are doubtless innocent, and depriving them of their rights, all because, according to Peikoff, there is a high probability that any given individual within their ideological group is guilty. That sounds collectivism in statistical garb to me.

To be clear, Peikoff never once suggests that the owners or operators of Cordoba House are guilty of terrorism, but merely that they deny that Hamas is a terrorist organization. Yes, Peikoff is suggesting that these people's right to property is lost because they, in his opinion, lack an ideology that is sufficiently hostile to Islamic terrorism.

Bear in mind, this is the same Peikoff who in another podcast claimed that, "any ideology is outside the province of the state. If you say the State defines which ideologies are permissible and which ones are criminal, that is the end of free thought. ... abstractions, true or false, whatever you think their implications are, are outside the province of government."

You are caught in a contradiction, Mr. Peikoff. Check your premises.