MENU

The Default on Justice

By Sherwin Newman

May 6, 2025

SUBSCRIBE TO SAVVY STREET (It's Free)

 

Author’s Note

As a proponent of laissez-faire capitalism, I am—except in cases where the government must ensure national security against foreign threats—principally opposed to tariffs, as they contravene the laws of economics and undermine the benefits of a free market. However, my twelve items below listing Trump’s moral case address the root problem of systemic failures in politico-economic principles. As my abstract below highlights, pragmatism consistently fails—especially on fundamental issues—but its collapse is most glaring when core moral-political principles are ignored, as they causally drive economic outcomes. To truly resolve these issues, we must target the root cause and work hierarchically downward, a process Trump’s actions partially address, even if imperfectly: “Pragmatism consistently fails, whether the stakes are high or low, but its disastrous collapse is most evident when addressing fundamental issues. However, failing on politico-economic principles pales in comparison to failing on core moral-political principles, as the latter drives the former in the causal chain. To address this, one must target the root cause and work hierarchically downward from there.”

 

Introduction

Objectivism, Ayn Rand’s philosophy, places justice—the rational judgment of individuals based on their character and actions—at its core. Yet, prominent Objectivist thinkers like Craig Biddle, Yaron Brook, and Harry Binswanger have consistently condemned Donald Trump, often labeling him a “leftist” or a statist, while failing to apply the virtue of justice they claim to uphold. This article argues that their critique represents a default on justice, particularly when viewed through a moral case that aligns Trump with Objectivist principles. Ed Mazlish, an Objectivist who supports Trump, counters their view in his Facebook comment, stating:

I don’t feel or think that supporting Trump is at all a strain on my principles as an Objectivist. I view all the facts and circumstances of the current political moment; I see what DOGE is doing and trying to do; I see what the cultural meaning of America First and Make America Great is; I see the benefit of tariffs generally, and specifically as an alternative to domestic taxes and an Internal Revenue Service; I see a man who forthrightly stands for merit and opposes DEI; I see a man who is willing to morally condemn criminals and grant government sanction to the victims and the innocent; I see a man willing to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to assert civilizational self-confidence for America and the West generally; and I view those and other facts together with the alternatives today and I proudly affirm that my principles are best advanced by supporting Donald Trump, whatever other flaws he may have.

Mazlish’s assertion, particularly on tariffs as a functional alternative to domestic taxes, strengthens the moral case for Trump, exposing the malice in Biddle, Brook, and Binswanger’s rejection of him.

 

The Moral Case for Trump: A Foundation in Objectivist Principles

Trump’s positions, including his support for the Department of Government Efficiency and a streamlined Department of Health, consistently align with a moral framework valuing individual rights, national self-interest, and a limited government. He defends free speech, merit, and innovation against censorship, collectivism, and bureaucracy. He prioritizes national security and prosperity over altruism, grounding his policies in reality. His opponents often embrace thought control, identity politics, and global sacrifice—undermining reason and liberty. Trump’s leadership offers a vision where individuals are free to achieve, not forced to conform or sacrifice, making a compelling moral case for his approach.

  1. Mind vs. Thought Control (Free Speech vs. Censorship)

Trump’s advocacy for free speech defends the individual’s right to think and express ideas without coercion. Censorship, often supported by his opponents under the guise of curbing “misinformation,” suppresses independent thought and undermines reason. A moral society protects the mind’s freedom, as it’s the root of creativity, truth, and progress—values Trump champions by opposing thought control.

  1. Sex vs. Transgenderism (Biological Reality vs. Men in Women’s Sports)

Trump’s opposition to biological males competing in women’s sports reflects a commitment to reality and fairness. Biological differences are objective facts and ignoring them disadvantages women who’ve earned their place through merit. His critics’ push for transgender inclusion sacrifices fairness for ideology. A moral stance honors truth and individual achievement, aligning with Trump’s position.

  1. Defense vs. Surrender (National Security vs. Global Altruism)

Trump prioritizes national security, recognizing that a government’s primary moral duty is to protect its citizens’ rights. His opponents’ global altruism—pouring resources into foreign causes with little return—sacrifices American interests. A moral government defends its people first, which Trump upholds through a strong defense policy.

  1. Individualism vs. Racism (Merit vs. Identity Politics)

Trump’s emphasis on merit-based systems supports the moral principle that individuals should be judged by their actions, not their race or group identity. Identity politics fosters division, reducing people to their heritage rather than their character. By championing individualism, Trump aligns with a moral framework valuing personal responsibility.

  1. Health vs. Disease and Drugs (Managing the Department of Health)

Trump’s approach to managing the government’s Department of Health prioritizes individual responsibility and practical outcomes over bureaucratic overreach. For instance, his administration’s focus on streamlining healthcare policies, like expanding telehealth or reducing drug prices through competition, respects personal choice while addressing public health needs. His opponents often push for expansive mandates or socialized systems, which erode individual freedom. A moral society allows individuals to manage their health without coercive intervention—a principle Trump supports by emphasizing efficiency and liberty in health policy.

  1. Liberty vs. Bureaucracy (Department of Government Efficiency vs. NGO Scams)

Trump’s support for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a proposed initiative to reduce waste and streamline federal operations, reflects a commitment to liberty by minimizing bureaucratic overreach. NGOs, often aligned with his opponents, can perpetuate inefficiency and centralized power through unaccountable programs. A moral system reduces interference in individuals’ lives, favoring freedom and self-reliance—values Trump advances by championing DOGE to cut government bloat and enhance accountability.

  1. Technology vs. Monopoly (Tesla/SpaceX vs. NASA)

Trump’s backing of private companies like Tesla and SpaceX celebrates innovation driven by competition. NASA, as a government monopoly, often lacks the dynamism of the private sector. A moral economy rewards creators, not state-controlled entities, aligning with Trump’s preference for free-market technological progress.

  1. Economic Production vs. Printing Money (Productivity vs. Federal Abuse)

Trump’s support for oil drilling underscores the moral virtue of creating real value through work. Printing money, tolerated by his opponents, devalues wealth through inflation, punishing the productive. A moral society honors those who produce—Trump’s focus on tangible output reflects this ethic.

  1. Pro-Business vs. Anti-Business Regulation (Relieving Startups from Unrealized Capital Gains Taxes)

By advocating for reduced regulations—like relieving startups from unrealized capital gains taxes—Trump defends entrepreneurship. His opponents’ regulatory zeal stifles new businesses, punishing innovation. Morally, rewarding value creation fosters prosperity, a principle Trump upholds.

  1. Public Safety vs. Crime (Pro-Police vs. Defund Police)

Trump’s support for funding law enforcement fulfills the moral role of government: protecting individual rights by ensuring safety. The “defund police” movement risks chaos, abandoning citizens to crime. A moral society upholds order as a prerequisite for freedom, making Trump’s pro-police stance a defense of civilized life.

  1. Education vs. Indoctrination (Ending DEI and Marxism in Schools)

Trump’s opposition to DEI and Marxist teachings in schools champions education rooted in reason. His opponents’ support for these ideologies turns learning into propaganda. A moral educational system equips students to think independently—Trump’s stance preserves this integrity.

  1. Peace vs. War (Refusing to Fund Foreign Conflicts like Ukraine)

Trump’s reluctance to fund foreign wars, such as in Ukraine, reflects a moral foreign policy focused on national self-interest. His critics’ willingness to entangle America in conflicts sacrifices resources for altruistic posturing. True peace comes from restraint—Trump’s approach prioritizes American welfare.

Mazlish specifically defends Trump’s tariffs, viewing them as a functional alternative to domestic taxes and the Internal Revenue Service. Tariffs, in this context, shift the tax burden away from American individuals and businesses, reducing domestic coercion while pressuring foreign nations to lower their own tariffs—a pragmatic tool to protect economic freedom in a non-ideal world. However, it’s critical to recognize that there is no such thing as laissez-faire in the global economy, where government interventions, subsidies, and trade barriers are pervasive across nations. Given this reality, the leadership of the United States should take the initiative to negotiate tariffs in every country down to zero for each and every participant, fostering a global trade environment that minimizes distortions and maximizes economic freedom. This aligns with Objectivism’s emphasis on reducing government overreach, even if it deviates from (Yaron Brook’s anarcho-tyranny1 version of) “pure” laissez-faire.

 

The Objectivist Condemnation of Trump

Despite America grappling with $33 trillion in debt, Craig Biddle, Yaron Brook, and Harry Binswanger vehemently oppose Trump. Biddle calls him a “leftist,” Brook labels him a statist, and Binswanger critiques his tariffs as anti-capitalist2—tariffs that, in part, aim to generate revenue to address this massive debt while protecting domestic interests. Their broader condemnation, however, ignores Trump’s moral virtues, as Mazlish articulates, such as his defense of merit, his condemnation of criminals, and his assertion of civilizational self-confidence for America and the West.

 

Defaulting on Justice: A Failure to Judge Trump Fairly

Ayn Rand defined justice as recognizing reality in human interactions—judging individuals as they are and treating them accordingly. In Atlas Shrugged, she wrote that withholding admiration from the virtuous or contempt from the vicious is a moral crime. Yet, Biddle, Brook, and Binswanger fail to apply this standard to Trump:

Withholding Admiration for Virtues: Trump’s defense of free speech, merit, and national self-interest reflects Objectivist values, yet these thinkers rarely acknowledge these virtues. Mazlish sees Trump’s opposition to DEI and his use of the presidency to assert civilizational self-confidence as morally significant, but Biddle and Brook focus on tariffs, ignoring these alignments. This selective focus withholds the admiration Trump deserves.

Exaggerating Vices: While tariffs may deviate from laissez-faire, Mazlish argues they are beneficial in the current context, serving as an alternative to domestic taxes. Biddle’s label of Trump as a “leftist” mischaracterizes a leader who opposes collectivism and global altruism—far from leftist ideals. This distortion violates Objectivism’s commitment to truth.

Ignoring Context: Justice requires judging within context. Trump operates in a political landscape where pure laissez-faire is unfeasible, yet he advances individual liberty through DOGE, pro-police policies, and economic nationalism. Mazlish recognizes these circumstances, but Biddle, Brook, and Binswanger judge Trump against an idealized standard, neglecting the moral trade-offs he navigates.

By failing to judge Trump with the rational vision Rand demands, these Objectivists default on justice, devaluing their moral currency and defrauding the good (Trump’s virtues) in favor of the evil (their exaggerated critique).

 

Biddle’s Subordination of Justice: A Philosophical Betrayal

Craig Biddle’s exclusion of justice from his framework on issues like citizenship, national security, illegal immigration, and American sovereignty—deferring to the “philosophy of law”—compounds this failure by handing over the moral responsibility of the philosopher to bureaucrats. Justice, for Rand, is integral to all domains, including politics, and its omission undermines the philosopher’s role in providing a moral framework for these complex issues. By subordinating it, Biddle avoids morally evaluating individuals involved in these issues, leaving such judgments to legal technocrats instead of grounding them in philosophical principles.

Abdicating Moral Responsibility: A justice-centered approach to illegal immigration might assess each immigrant’s character—deporting criminals while allowing productive individuals to stay. In The Virtue of Selfishness, Rand limits government to the military, police, and courts—functions that imply sovereignty and borders. Her rejection of welfare statism, detailed in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, precludes using national resources to support noncitizens. Her anti-altruism stance is key. She would oppose open borders if they compromised citizens’ rights, a position clashing with global altruists who prioritize the needs of outsiders over a nation’s own. Her “American sense of life”—individualism and ambition—welcomes immigrants who embody it, but only through a rational process: vetting to exclude criminals or collectivists, ensuring entrants align with the state’s purpose. Biddle’s delegation to legal philosophy evades this responsibility, undermining Objectivism’s insistence on rational judgment.

Inconsistency with Objectivism: Rand applied the principle of justice—judging individuals rationally based on their actions and character and treating them accordingly—to several political issues beyond individual rights.

  1. Individual Rights and Government Role:

Rand argued that justice in politics requires a government to protect individual rights consistently, without favoritism or coercion, asserting that a just political system is one where the government’s sole role is to safeguard rights (life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness) through objective laws, applied equally to all citizens. She saw any deviation—like the state granting privileges to some groups (e.g., through welfare programs, NGO’s or corporate subsidies) while penalizing others (e.g., through taxation or regulation)—as an injustice.

  1. Foreign Policy and War:

Rand’s philosophy emphasized that nations and individuals should be judged by their actions. She supported retaliatory force against aggressors—like totalitarian regimes that initiate force—but opposed unprincipled interventions or appeasement. Justice, for Rand, meant holding nations accountable for their actions: rewarding rational, rights-respecting societies with trade and diplomacy, while condemning and, if necessary, defending against those that violate rights through aggression or tyranny.

  1. Individual Achievement and Merit in Society:

Rand emphasized justice in recognizing and rewarding individual merit, particularly in cultural contexts. She argued that justice requires acknowledging people for their achievements based on objective standards, not on arbitrary or collectivist criteria. Objectivists who mock Trump, accusing him of following his whims on tariffs, overlook his decades-long stance on trade, where he has consistently argued that America is being exploited by other countries through trade manipulation and intimidation. Rand criticized cultural trends that celebrated mediocrity or vilified success, viewing them as unjust inversions of moral evaluation, a perspective that could challenge these dismissals of Trump’s trade policies as mere whims rather than a response to global injustices.

  1. Intellectual Honesty and Cultural Discourse:

Rand applied justice to the realm of ideas, particularly in how individuals engage in cultural and intellectual discourse. She believed that justice requires giving credit to those who uphold reason and honesty while condemning those who evade reality or spread irrationality. In The Virtue of Selfishness, she argues that justice involves judging ideas and their proponents based on their alignment with reality—praising those who advance reason (like scientists or rational philosophers) and condemning those who promote mysticism or collectivism (like religious leaders or socialists). She saw cultural movements that distorted truth—such as postmodernism or egalitarianism—as violations of justice, because they failed to evaluate ideas and individuals by objective standards. This extended to her critique of societal norms that rewarded conformity over independent thought, which she viewed as an injustice to rational minds.

Biddle’s exclusion of the principle of judgement contradicts an integrated approach to philosophy, weakening Objectivism’s moral foundation.

Enabling Misjudgment of Trump: By sidelining justice, Biddle sets a precedent for ignoring moral context, enabling his unfair condemnation of Trump. This avoids the judgment that would reveal Trump’s alignment with Objectivist values.

Biddle’s approach suggests a pragmatic retreat, possibly to make Objectivism more palatable. However, it compromises the principles he claims to uphold, making his critique of Trump suspect.

 

Mazlish’s Affirmation: A Contrast in Objectivist Integrity

Mazlish judges Trump fairly, affirming that his principles are best advanced by supporting Trump despite his flaws.

Ed Mazlish’s support for Trump exemplifies the application of justice these leaders lack. He evaluates Trump within the current political context, recognizing the virtues of DOGE, the cultural significance of “America First,” and the function of tariffs as an alternative to domestic taxes. Mazlish sees Trump’s stand for merit, his condemnation of criminals, and his civilizational self-confidence as morally aligned with Objectivism. Unlike Biddle, Brook, and Binswanger, Mazlish judges Trump fairly, affirming that his principles are best advanced by supporting Trump despite his flaws. This approach honors justice by acknowledging both virtues and context, offering a model for how Objectivists should engage with political figures.

 

The Broader Implications

Brook and Binswanger, while not explicitly subordinating justice, share Biddle’s failure to apply it consistently. Their focus on Trump’s tariffs—despite Mazlish’s defense of their motive—ignores his broader defense of individual rights. This selective judgment mirrors the moral counterfeiting Rand warned against, where the good is punished and the evil (irrationalist ideologies Trump opposes) is indirectly enabled. If Objectivists reject Trump without acknowledging his virtues, they risk alienating a leader who advances their values more than his opponents do.

 

Conclusion

Craig Biddle, Yaron Brook, and Harry Binswanger default on the virtue of justice in their condemnation of Donald Trump by failing to judge him rationally and contextually. They withhold admiration for his virtues—such as defending free speech, merit, and national self-interest—while exaggerating his vices, ignoring the function of tariffs as Ed Mazlish articulates. Biddle’s subordination of justice to the “philosophy of law” further reveals a philosophical inconsistency that undermines their critique.

Mazlish’s affirmation of Trump, grounded in a contextual application of Objectivist principles, highlights the moral case for Trump.

Mazlish’s affirmation of Trump, grounded in a contextual application of Objectivist principles, highlights the moral case for Trump and exposes the failure of these leaders to uphold justice. Their misjudgment not only distorts Trump’s record but also weakens the moral integrity of Objectivism, proving Rand’s warning: to place any concern above justice is to defraud the good in favor of the evil. Objectivists must follow Mazlish’s example, reevaluating Trump with the justice he deserves.
 

Notes:

1The term “anarcho-tyranny” was coined by Samuel Francis in 1992 to describe a paradoxical state where a government fails to enforce laws against serious crimes (leading to anarchy-like conditions) while simultaneously overregulating law-abiding citizens (exerting tyrannical control).
2 Craig Biddle calls Trump a leftist: Biddle explicitly labels Trump as a leftist in his article “America’s Next Leftist President: Donald Trump,” published on The Objective Standard website. You can find this article at: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/p/americas-next-leftist-president-donald-trump

Yaron Brook labels Trump a statist: Brook describes Trump as a statist in a detailed critique on ARI Watch, within the article “Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump.” The specific section references Brook’s BlogTalkRadio show from July 20, 2015, titled “Is America Ready for Socialism,” where he states, “Donald Trump is a statist.”

Harry Binswanger critiques Trump’s tariffs as anti-capitalist. While Binswanger’s direct critique of Trump’s tariffs as anti-capitalist isn’t explicitly quoted in the provided web sources, his broader views on Trump align with this perspective. In “Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump” on ARI Watch, Binswanger is noted for his general criticism of Trump’s economic policies, which would include tariffs, as inconsistent with capitalism. Binswanger’s views on free markets, as expressed in his other works, imply that tariffs are anti-capitalist, as they interfere with free trade—a core tenet of capitalism.
 
 

This was originally published on the author’s Substack on April 24, 2025, and is republished with permission.
 

(Visited 18 times, 3 visits today)