The Republican Party is no longer a "conservative" party and is, in fact and practice, an "objectivist" party. The Republican Party is no longer a party based on the theories of Hobbes and Locke, no longer constrained by the acceptance of Kant's "categorical imperatives" or the Founder’s concepts of "tyranny constrained by rule of law" or "checks and balances." The Republican Party is no longer concerned with balancing private interests against the public interest, as apparently, there is no public interest that has sufficient weight on their scales.
Objectivists base their "philosophy" on the tenets that all society’s reality can be known by empirical demonstration and "objective" observation. That all reality therefore is not complex but governed by the simple rules of self-interest, the sanctity of persons and "market" based transactions. Therefore, no person intentionally harms their own self interests and all human interaction has a price, what's beneficial can be determined on these two principles and anything that is detrimental contravenes them.
The underlying cause of all human misery according to the "objectivist" is to ignore the inherent interest all people have in the "ownership" of their persons. Therefore, all collective activity should be subject to a strict test, a "rule of self," if anything abridges a person's choice to act in their own self interest, then it is inherently an attack on that individual's person.
Government is therefore "bad" because it modifies these constructs by defining "good" outside of the personal sphere and interferes with the governing transactional relationships (personal, economic and political) by introducing "arbitrary" standards of societal interests. These "arbitrary" standards, even though enacted by "due process" and agreement, do not stand the test of the "rule of self" and are therefore oppression.
According to the objectivist, no social construct is beneficial unless it can pass this test of "rule of self"; therefore, general standards of morality, religion in all its forms, even rules to create standards of industrial hygiene or safety, or any proscriptive or prescriptive regime of law or regulation is suspect as tyranny.
This system of belief is what allows Ayn Rand to object to the codification of societal interests into law by government as tyranny. This construct is the basis of Rand Paul's objection to the Civil Rights Act and is what drives his apparent belief that corporations are "associations of persons" that should not be subjected to regulation of their beings or actions. It also seems to ignite Joe Barton's ire at President Obama, who in his view, used the tyrannical powers of his office to "shake down" BP. It is also the basis for Grover Norquist’s positions on government spending and taxation, and Alan Greenspan’s position on economic regulation as interference with the natural functions of markets.
Is taxing one group, industry, corporation or segment of society for the benefit of others fair? Is there a "producer society" being held hostage by the "non-producers"? Is there an "objective" standard of morality we can all empirically see demonstrated in society? Is compulsory military service a duty or the "enslavement" of free citizens for the benefit of a government whose aims in war or peace a person may not agree with? Do people have the right to do with their property whatever they wish? Do persons have the right to conduct their businesses activities in whatever manner they please? What is a "person", is an association a "person," is a corporation, a union, a family? What collective duties and responsibilities to each other do "persons" have? Is a person’s safety, health, education or "general welfare" a societal concern? These questions and many more, resulting from "objectivism" pervade the debate currently being held in the public domain. They are there in some ways because they are by their nature divisive and used to create divisions for political gain, but in all cases because Republican politicians and their supporters generally have embraced "obectivism."
What both Republicans and "objectivism" in general believe is inherently flawed by these assumptions: 1) that market places are "natural," that market mechanisms govern all economic, intellectual, political and personal interactions and the processes of the market place are transparent and fair; 2) that all "persons" self interest balance in a general societal equation where each "persons" interests are equally weighted; 3) that all human interaction is based on an "objective" rational decision process that puts self interest above all other interests.
If "objectivists" were truly objective and observant they would realize that all these assumptions can be refuted by their own tests of empiricism and objective rationalism.
Concerning markets, it is clear that all modern markets are artificial constructs with deep legal underpinnings, that all markets to a greater or lesser extent suffer from asymmetry of information and that all markets are subject to external forces of risk and internal forces of comparative advantage that hardly make them transparent or "fair."
Regarding "self interest", the equality of participants in any social, political or economic transaction is clearly affected by the social position, relative political strength and personal or organizational wealth of the "persons" involved. To posit that a wealthy, politically strong, and socially well positioned "person" is treated equally in a transaction with a "person" who has fewer or none of these advantages is purely nonsense.
The "objective" rational decision making process is most notable in human interaction by its absence, not its over-riding predominance, if this were not the case all law, government and religion, the social constructs created by practice and tradition in all cultures would be unnecessary. It is clear that "objectivism" ignores the cultural, social and political history of humanity in this assertion and it is, on its face, demonstrably false.
Why have Republicans embraced such a demonstrably false and socially destructive "philosophy" that inherently contradicts many of the underlying principles of traditional conservatism? Because it works to their political advantage and some Democrats have also succumbed to the siren song of "self interest" low tax, "efficient government" rhetoric that appeals to the basest instincts of the electorate. If all social interaction is fair because it is assigned value in an unbiased and "free" market, then government is absolved of any responsibility for expensive intervention in society because the markets in ideas, social justice and economic opportunity will inexorably determine the best solution through their inherent function. Domestic policy is thereby left to the effects of "fair markets" and only in international relations and security does the government have a necessary role. The Republican Party seems to be shouting, "traditional conservatism is dead long live objectivism!"