"The riches of successful entrepreneurs is not the cause of anybody's poverty; it is the consequence of the fact that the consumers are better supplied than they would have been in the absence of the entrepreneur's efforts."

~ Ludwig von Mises from his 1952 collection Planning for Freedom, and sixteen other Essays and Addresses 

"Resentment is at work when one so hates somebody for his more favourable circumstances that one is prepared to bear heavy losses if only the hated one might also come to harm. Many of those who attack capitalism know very well that their situation under any other economic system will be less favourable."

~ Ludwig von Mises, from his 1962 book Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition

Bosch Fawstin has shown real courage. He endured threats, harassment, and even an attempt on his life for exercising his right to speak—most notably in his defiance of Islamic totalitarianism. That kind of moral courage is rare. It’s why I invited him to speak at my law school and supported his drawing of Mohammad in the face of credible threats. I also reviewed his book Peaceful Death Threats in The Objective Standard, calling it essential reading for anyone who values freedom of speech in the West—because Fawstin embodied the defiance and integrity that reality demanded, and because defending him was inseparable from defending my own right to speak. To abandon him then—to abandon that principle—would have been a capitulation to fear, and a surrender to violence.

One must never surrender the right to speak freely. Ever.

But adherence to rational principles is not a part-time virtue.

Fawstin continues to show courage in the face of ongoing threats. His defiance of religious tyranny remains morally significant, and he deserves credit (and support) for refusing to yield. But in recent years, a troubling shift has taken place. His commentary has grown increasingly hostile, tribal, and unmoored from the method of rational persuasion that once gave his defiance its full moral weight.

Nowhere is the shift more apparent than in Fawstin’s attacks on fellow Objectivists—not with reasoned arguments, but with insults, tribal smears, and moral denunciations. In doing so, he undercuts the very ground he stands on. A quick glance at his public Facebook feed reveals a stream of angry posts accusing dissenters of being “communazis,” “useful idiots,” and “morally repugnant”—simply for criticizing Donald Trump or refusing to embrace him as the last line of defense against the left.

In one recent post, Fawstin demanded a “goddamn purge” of Objectivism to remove alleged communists—because some Objectivists had the audacity to criticize Donald Trump’s authoritarian posture in response to the current riots in Los Angeles. These Objectivists, myself presumably included, largely condemned the rioters while warning against using disorder as a pretext for expanding state power. Bosch, instead of addressing these arguments, chose to smear dissenters as traitors to liberty.

This is an evasion of facts—and an inversion of justice.

Let me be clear: I oppose the rioting underway in Los Angeles. The initiation of force is morally indefensible—whether by mobs in the street or by politicians who excuse it. But justice requires us to judge causes as well as actions. These protests—some peaceful, others violent—arise in reaction to a real and urgent grievance: the Trump administration’s campaign to close America’s borders and expel illegal immigrants, regardless of individual context, character, or circumstance.

Condemning lawless violence does not require sanctioning authoritarianism. And yet Trump’s reflexive response to any disorder is always the same: unleash state force, concentrate executive power, ignore individual rights, and demand personal loyalty above constitutional constraint. His instinct is not to restore the rule of law—it is to replace it with rule by decree. That is not justice. It is not order. It is not America. And Objectivists must be the first to say so.

To point this out is not to “join the left.” It is to judge facts by principle and to recognize that no man—not even one who occasionally speaks hard truths—is above objective moral judgment. The standard of reason and rights applies universally, or it is not a standard at all.

Fawstin’s framing collapses everything into a familiar false alternative: either you support Trump, or you support the left. That is not Objectivist thinking. It’s the package-deal fallacy—conflating all dissent into a single smear, and demanding uncritical loyalty to one faction over another.

No credible Objectivist supports the modern collectivist left—let alone violent mobs, race-based tribalism, or statism. But we also do not excuse authoritarianism from the right merely because it wears a flag and speaks the language of “law and order.” Objectivism requires that we judge individuals and movements by the full context of their ideas and actions—not by tribal affiliation.

This is not merely a political disagreement. It is a philosophical divide—about method.

Objectivism demands that we uphold reason, facts, and individual moral judgment. It requires that we treat disagreement as an opportunity to clarify, not as a pretext to defame and excommunicate. If you cannot distinguish between someone who wants constitutional government and someone who wants collectivist revolution, you have abandoned the very principle of justice.

Fawstin’s bravery in defying religious tyranny deserves continued respect. But that virtue must be matched by intellectual integrity. As Ayn Rand wrote, “Integrity does not permit conflicts, contradictions, evasions—or acts of injustice.” The standard she laid out applies to everyone—friend and foe alike.

To fail in that consistency is not to uphold Objectivism—but to betray it.