Thanks, again, Joseph.  You always put a lot of work into these; and I am not alone in appreciating your effort.  

I wonder why you seem to have backpedaled on "conservatives."  Here you seem to embue them with virtues that you denied in your earlier essay, "Conservatives are not Friends of Freedom."  I came to that assumption because you did not offer equally fallacious claims by conservatives in opposition to liberal policy initiatives with which a consistent advocate of freedom would find consonance such as gay rights, gender issues, reproductive freedom, and freedom from religion.   

In The True Believer, Eric Hoffer wrote about the conspiracy of evil in broad terms. Once, we had a nearly-perfect world, but evil people stole it from us.  If we all band together, we can secure a perfect future for our descendents. That is the clarion call of all mass movements into which pathetic individuals lose themselves.  It is found among the communists, nazis, and libertarians alike.  For the libertarians and objectivists, it is Ayn Rand's claim that 19th century capitalism was not perfect, but indicative.  Coupled to that - and recommended by Ayn Rand - is the fine work of communist historian Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism, that demonstrated how special big business interests ("trusts") used government power to prevent competition.  The cartelization of railroads under the Interstate Commerce Commission is perhaps the paradigm. 

As you noted, we would have had a better world, but evil people had selfish reasons for preventing us from attaining it.  Among libertarians and objectivists, we denounce George Soros, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Davos, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderbergers, the World Trade Organization, and the International (Jewish) Debt Bankers.  (For a more consistently objective understanding, see "Debt: the Seed of Civilization" on my blog here.)

It would be a paradigm shift to view the sinusoidal waves of civilizations as beyond the control of individuals.  Objectivism is ambivalent on that point.  We have Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. Those provide ideal standards, but Ayn Rand actually counseled that in a mixed economy, it is perfectly acceptable to take a job with a government agency that usurped a market sector.  (That seems to be a fallacy of the practical-versus-ideal genre; but more on that later)  In other words (I think close to her actual example), you can teach piano at the State Agency of Music, but you must not work for the State Agency of Taxation.  (Of course, Ragnar Danneskjoeld did depend such moles to carry out his work.  So, you have to parse literature and reality to gain a complete understanding there.)

I do, personnally, believe in and accept that utopian paradigm.  I believe that if we continue to broadcast our message to the world, enough others who are similar to us will praxeologically act in our individual best interests to create the "Rebirth of Reason" in another renaissance.

So, your fundamental claim about "intentionalism" is broadly applicable.  I appreciate that.  

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/02, 4:33pm)

I don't think that this really qualifies as a critique of "leftism" per se, but rather just political naivete. In fact, I think that the vast majority of people view politics this way, all across the political spectrum (of course, with roles and a few details interchanged).

In my opinion, the key to understanding leftism is the idea of "karmic balance". According to this viewpoint, whenever someone exercises any form of power over somebody else, be that power political, economic, ideological, etc., they have, in some sense, disturbed the "moral balance" of the universe. The universe is then thought to have a natural tendency to return to balance. This is the origion of oth the idea of progressivism and the idea that socialism is inevitable. According to progressivist thought, the world started off as a barbaric place and is slowly settling down to an egalitarian and morally balanced state. According to socialist thought, the ruling classes have destroyed the natural harmony that existed under "primitive communism" and the "inherent contradictions" of capitalism will inevitably lead to its downfall and the establishment of communism, a balanced situation where everyone has equal economic power (which according to Marxist economic determinism, is the only source of power).

The other side of this coin is that the "oppressor" (say, capitalist) is always acting against nature and morality (regardless of their intentions, and this is very relevant to your thesis) while the "oppressed" (say, worker) is always acting with nature and morality. Hence, regardless of their intentions OR actions, the worker is always in the right and should be supported, while the capitalist is always in the wrong and should be condemned. This is why leftists don't find fault with things like Red Terror, but are quick to condemn even the smallest number of casualties incurred in a way by a capitalist country. It is also why even those capitalists who engage in philanthropic projects are seen as "class enemies", since their philanthropy is "propping up" capitalism artificially and extending its "unnatural" life.

(Edited by Naomi Ludenberg on 2/11, 10:36am)

Objectivism as the proposition of Laissez Faire Capitalism is also in the Progressive tradition.  Do not surrender Progress to the reactionaries of the village.

Thanks for the comments.

Michael asked "I wonder why you seem to have backpedaled on 'conservatives.' " 

I haven't.  This particular article was not about how each side is wrong about the beliefs of the other side.  It was focused specifically on the left's view of intentions.  Conservatives don't share that view.  Their beliefs would be different.  Typically, they'll view liberals as mistaken or ignorant.  For the topics you mention, they might view the left as intentionally destroying moral institutions with the goal of reshaping society.  Of course, we all believe that there is a such thing as intentions.  And we can choose to believe our enemies are dastardly or foolish.  But that's not the focus of the article.  I'm not trying to point out that they are less charitable with their view of intentions.  It's wider than that.  They look at things that were never explicitly intended, like the market wage for teachers, and consider that someone must have intentionally decided that.  We've long known that some people think that an employer determines the wage, and so they can set it to near zero (although amusingly, they don't give moral credit to employers who pay more than near-zero wage).  Similarly, if a university has a smaller percentage of minorities than the population, they see intentions and assume it must be racism by the admissions board.

And with this view of intentions, the left goes the next step and says if all of these results are intended and someone decided them, why not make those decisions democratic?  Why continue to allow evil results to be chosen by what must be evil people?   Why allow individuals out there to make these important choices?  Why allow these pockets of private control?  And if those pockets of control are allowed to exist, who has decided that?  Who intended it?

Shane, I wouldn't say there is a lack of reason or philosophical underpinnings. At least here, I tried to describe that there is a reason behind their choices.  It may be a mistaken reason, but it exists.  But there's a lot more to their belief system.  The focus on intentions is part of it, but that may be a symptom of the large belief that if you want some moral result, direct action is the way to do it.  Conservatives might think incentives for moral behavior should be set up that will eventually lead to the results.  If you want people to be charitable, you can give them incentives to do it.  But the left is more straightforward.  If you want poor people to be better off, why not just give them the money directly.  Why try to do things indirectly, unless you don't really want it.  So there's a focus on direct action.  But even this is confused because the direct action is ultimately to prove the moral worth of the actor.  And if that direct action leads to unintended consequences, those are ignored as unrelated.  So on one hand, the left is more focused on results than incentives.  But on the other hand, they don't really care about the results. They uphold a standard that says if you want something done, you should just do it.  But the action is not really meant to get the result.  It's meant to prove the intention.  They don't care if minimum wage leads to poverty.  They care about making a law increase minimum wage in order to prove that they care about poverty.