The Moral Bankruptcy of the Ayn Rand Institute’s Defense of “Big Tech”

Despite posting my condemnation of the Ayn Rand Institute a few years ago for their wretched tirades against President Donald Trump, and ARI’s de-facto alliance with the Left, it is necessary to condemn them once again.

In light of recent events surrounding the activities of technology corporations (such as YouTube, Facebook, Google, and Paypal), a.k.a. Big Tech, to un-person, restrict, and outright ban their political opponents, ARI’s leadership, intellectuals, and scholars have defended said technology company’s purges citing their alleged private property rights.

This is not surprising, and, in many ways, it is revolting and sad. Since the 2016 election, by default, those associated with ARI have, essentially, ripped out or ignored Objectivism’s morality in order to fit their bias. Their defense of this obvious purge demonstrates how revoltingly deranged and evil these Obleftivists truly are.

The best way to demonstrate how wrong they are would be to cite Ayn Rand’s heir and Ayn Rand Institute founder: Dr. Leonard Peikoff. During 2010, Dr. Peikoff posted a well articulated podcast explaining how the Ground Zero Mosque was not an issue of private property rights despite what some Objectivists and libertarians claimed.

In his podcast, Dr. Peikoff said: Property rights are limited and they are contextual. Even though property is yours, he said, you cannot use it if your activities objectively result in a threat to the rights of others (emphasis mine). Property rights, Dr. Peikoff also says, are a derivative of life as the standard of value and, in situations where metaphysical survival is at stake when someone’s life is threatened, all property rights are out.

Dr. Peikoff’s logic certainly apples to Big Tech since, by their actions and statements, they are now jeopardizing people’s metaphysical survival using their products and services to destroy the lives, reputations, and well-being of personalities and websites owned and operated by conservatives and libertarians in an attempt to silence them. In the process their spokespersons lie to Congress and regulators about their being (in the words of Mark Zuckerberg) forums for all ideas.

Most likely, tech companies are trying to lay the groundwork to defeat President Donald Trump for the upcoming 2020 election. However, their purge campaigns, in the end, represents a threat to us all down the line.

Big Tech and other websites that have joined the fray are now strong arms of the Left. They and their collaborators (such as Reddit, Pinterest, and Vimeo) have essentially joined a political movement (the Left) that seeks the destruction of the West and they are using the resources at their disposal to do so. Therefore, any assertions on their part of property or free speech protections are null and void. Any lawsuits, antitrust investigations, and new requirements placed on them resulting from their actions are appropriate retaliation for Big Tech‘s blatant acts of force and fraud.

Dr. Peikoff’s declaration also applies to payment processing companies such as PayPal and Patreon. They also follow the Left’s script, and have conducted their own political purges usually in in consultation with Leftist organizations (such as the Southern Poverty Law Center).

Said payment processing companies have not only invalidated their rights, but their doing so demonstrates that the claim to start your own or go elsewhere is demonstrably false. The example of Gab and VDARE shows the Left will not allow their rivals to construct alternative or new media outlets since they will target projects their opponents attempt to create.

The Ayn Rand Institute can no longer claim to be the official organ of Objectivism. Not only due to their incorrect conclusions but also resulting from their insidious and intentional efforts to misrepresent Objectivism and stain the memory and good name of Ayn Rand. The best thing that has happened since their alliance with the Left, is that Objectivism is shown to be independent of fraudulent groups like ARI. Objectivism will live on after ARI (rightly) shrivels and dies, and its demise can’t happen soon enough.

NOTE 07/02/2016: Since being posted, this essay has had some minor edits done for the sake of clarity.