Unity is like any other value — it’s contextual. Most authoritarian countries have political unity. It depends on what you’re unifying around.
It would be great to be unified over liberty and universal rights.
Unity in our political climate now, which is a mixed bag of statism with some freedoms, is probably the worst idea you could throw down our political throats. Right now we need dissent. We need debate. The most rational aspects of these ideas need to rise to the top and become policy.
The right has coalesced around internal paradoxes, and they cannot stand up to the inexorable drive of the left.
The right is the embodiment of what a mixed economy is, and the left is the embodiment of what a full authoritarian principle looks like. As Rand said, in a battle between the two, the least contradictory principles win. And that’s why the left is winning.
At one time America was called a melting pot because all these disparate cultures could come together under one idea — individual rights. Now, with intersectionality, the identity can’t “melt away” in favour of individual rights.
For an objectivist, Americanism is this moral concept of individualism, which the right doesn’t embrace.
You are your moral centre. You have a right to your life. And nobody has a right to take it from you or to impede you in the progress towards your rational goals.
They believe in principled opposition. Force doesn’t work to change people’s perspectives.
Capitalism evolved differently in America than in Europe. The American take on individualism and right is a bit different than Locke’s take on natural right.
People should read objectivist literature on what is the difference between an objectivist’s point of view on individual rights and the concept of natural right? Is there a difference, and if so, what? And let’s start defining our social systems on this new elaboration of individual rights.