Some Questions Regarding ARI’s Claims and Alleged Principles

Because the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) is again contacting young people who work with me, Objective Standard Institute (OSI), or The Objective Standard (TOS) and saying or insinuating that we are somehow immoral and that people should not work with us—and because ARI managers recently held an invitational conference call with a broader group of young people in which they alluded to OSI being akin to The Atlas Society—and because ARI managers have said they will hold another such conference call soon, I’d like to pose some questions for independent thinkers to ask themselves, and ARI, regarding its claims and principles.

In ARI’s article “Of Schisms, Public and Private” (which I’ve addressed at some length on Discord), Onkar Ghate and Harry Binswanger claim that it was morally and epistemologically “deplorable” for me to have “gone public” regarding their private behavior and that, “As a rule, one should be suspicious of the first side that goes public in a private dispute.”

A few questions about this:

What is the principle here? “Thou shalt never go public first”? Or “It’s wrong to go public first”? Or “Going public first suggests you are somehow guilty”? Who benefits from such a “principle”? The victim of sexual assault or the perpetrator? The defrauded or the defrauder? The defamed or the defamer?

Exactly.

Notably, in the process of invoking this alleged principle, Ghate and Binswanger cite Ayn Rand’s article “To Whom It May Concern” (The Objectivist, May 1968)—which is precisely an instance of Rand going public first about a private dispute. Not only did Rand go public first with what she called a “public repudiation” of Nathaniel Branden; she also asked outsiders to draw conclusions and to act accordingly based on her public statements about private matters regarding Branden’s moral character, conscious deceptions, psychological conflicts, and self-exemption from principles. Have Ghate or Binswanger expressed suspicion of Rand for violating their alleged rule? Have they said her public repudiation of Branden was morally and epistemologically deplorable? If not, why not?

Similarly, Alex Epstein went public first to preempt a hit piece by the Washington Post. He cited private communications he had with a reporter and content from her unpublished article. Have Ghate or Binswanger—or any ARI people—criticized Epstein for this breach of their rule? If not, why not?

Ghate and Binswanger further claim that anyone who publicly reveals the facts of a private dispute to outsiders must answer two questions: “(1) Why is it objective for them to have gone public in the way that they have? (2) Why do they think outsiders are now in a position logically to judge the dispute?” Did Rand answer those questions? Did Epstein? If not, have Ghate or Binswanger explained why Rand and Epstein are exempt from this alleged standard?

Is ARI applying its rules and standards objectively—or selectively?

Further, ARI managers and representatives claim (on podcasts, on the Harry Binswanger Letter [HBL], and on conference calls) that by debating Stephen Hicks and discussing ideas with Dennis Prager, I “sanctioned” their bad ideas and was an “embarrassment” to Objectivism. What is the principle here? Is it that debating or discussing ideas with people who hold bad ideas constitutes a sanction of those ideas or an embarrassment to Objectivism? If so, what does ARI say about the following:

• Yaron Brook and Greg Salmieri had a friendly public discussion with Kantian-mystic Jordan Peterson at OCON 2018.
• Brook teaches at Peterson Academy.
• Brook publicly debated or had friendly discussions with:
  • academic Marxist Richard Wolff
  • socialist YouTuber Vaush
  • rabid religionist Yoram Hazony
  • arch-anarchist Michael Malice
  • devout Mormon Glenn Beck
  • extra-rabid religionist Jay Dyer
  • Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro, of whom Brook says: “Ben knows me. He’s interviewed me. We’ve exchanged emails here and there . . . Certainly on certain issues we are allies, and certainly on certain issues we disagree fundamentally.”
• Leonard Peikoff and John Ridpath publicly debated ardent socialists Jill Vickers and Gerald Caplan about capitalism vs. socialism.
• John Ridpath and Harry Binswanger publicly debated then-Marxist Christopher Hitchens and socialist John Judis.
• Alex Epstein publicly engaged twice with devout Catholic Peter Thiel, whom Epstein says is an “ideal person” that he feels “particularly aligned with.”
• Robert Mayhew has been a professor for more than three decades at the staunchly Catholic university Seton Hall, which has an explicitly Catholic mission:

Given that all of these ARI affiliates have engaged in such ways with such people (and organizations), why has ARI never condemned or even criticized any of them for sanctioning such false and deadly ideas or being an embarrassment to Objectivism? And why have they said it was “horrible,” “disgusting,” “embarrassing,” “a massive sanction,” and the like for me to debate Objectivism vs. so-called “open Objectivism” with Hicks and to discuss Rand’s ideas vs. religion with Prager?

What is up with all these double standards? Are they expressions of Objectivism—or of tribalism?

Relatedly, Brook, Ghate, Binswanger, and other ARI managers and affiliates claim (on HBL, in private conversations, and on conference calls) that I have attacked them and ARI. I have not. I have responded to their attacks. For instance, Ghate defamed me to seventy students on a conference call, and I responded; Ghate and Brook lied about me from the stage at OCON 2016, and Mayhew falsely claimed that I “trafficked in stolen goods,” so I responded; Ghate and Binswanger launched a multifaceted smear campaign consisting of package-deals, made-up rules, fabricated evidence, and an argument from intimidation—so I responded. But responding to attacks and countering them with facts is not the same as initiating attacks.

Given ARI management’s and affiliates’ many claims that I’ve attacked them, why don’t they present evidence of my having done so? Why don’t they cite even a single instance of me initiating some kind of unprovoked “attack” against them? Further, when they are asked for evidence in support of their claims, why do they say, in effect, “The evidence is out there for you to see. If you can’t see it, that’s on you”?

Which is reasonable: for them to send you searching for an alleged needle in a haystack—or for them to point to the evidence they claim exists?

More pointedly, what are evidence-free derogatory claims called? They’re called smears. And what do they say about the claimants’ regard for the minds of those whom they expect to accept the unsupported assertions? As Rand explained:

All smears are Arguments from Intimidation: they consist of derogatory assertions without any evidence or proof, offered as a substitute for evidence or proof, aimed at the moral cowardice or unthinking credulity of the hearers. . . .

When one gives reasons for one’s verdict, one assumes responsibility for it and lays oneself open to objective judgment: if one’s reasons are wrong or false, one suffers the consequences. But to condemn without giving reasons is an act of irresponsibility, a kind of moral “hit-and-run” driving, which is the essence of the Argument from Intimidation.¹

ARI managers and representatives are counting on you not to demand evidence in support of their claims—or, if you do demand evidence, to accept instead cryptic comments, vagueness, and claims to the effect that “the evidence is out there—if only you will look.”

What does that say about them?

What does it say about their regard for your mind?

1. Ayn Rand, “The Argument from Intimidation,” in The Virtue of Selfishness (New York: Signet, 1964), 162–168.