From Ayn Rand's appearance on the Johnny Carson show (1967). www.LibertyPen.com Also: The Objectivist Philosophy (Rand on the Carson show) • Ayn Rand - The Objecti...
I'd like to think that people in general were much more open to intellectual debate in the past than they are now, but there's a danger in waxing too nostalgic....
Awesome video, LibertyPen. So many people don't really grasp Ayn Rand. Even today, in 2013, she's labeled as heartless. I can understand why since it's easy to see her in a certain light, but what people don't understand is the deeper progression of history. Ignorance is bliss.
This is a non-rhetorical question. Do any of you know whether she believed in such thing as "love?" and if so, how did she define it? Reason I ask is, as you may guess, from her personal history and love triangle in which she lost with someone at Rand Institute in the 60s
***** You are wrong about the rise of the "right wing" parties across Europe. They are "right wing" in the conception of the leftists. But in actuality these right wing groups are almost always nationalistic and would support statism if it were their people running the state. Often these people are xenophobic. In some way I cannot blame them, but when they defend not simply classic liberal positions but nationalism with militarism they are going off entirely different track. This is especially true of Eastern European "right wing" groups.
I have to admit when I first heard her say that that the draft is wrong,,I was in disagreement, but after a moment of reflection on the meaning of the Dec. of Ind.. and the right to Life.. I have to say I agree with her that it is unconstitutional, in that our military is a volunteer one , is one of the reasons why our military is the best in the world.
I am absolutely against the draft as well. Was before hearing Rand say it. But I also hold pro-life views. I wonder whether she was pro-life, but somehow I doubt it. By "pro-life" I do not mean the State enforcing pro-life laws or banning abortions. I mean pro-life and against abortion in personal convictions.
I think it's more important to emphasize the fact that it's "immoral" (an ethical argument), as opposed to unconstitutional (a legal argument). One is are argument based off right and wrong and thus is universal, whereas the other one is a fallacious argument based off an appeal to tradition.
We have been moving to a “statist” state since the creation of the the Federal Reserve. With each passing year, states and individuals have been loose autonomy and liberties. Ending the Fed and returning to sound money would return the US to capitalism and individual rights.
She said that America could not succumb to statism. Yet, we have been in the process of transforming into a statist nation for near on forty years now, at least. And we are approaching that level more and more. I don't know how we can avoid it, cut it completely so that we can remain free, or rather, go back to being as free as we once were.
I do believe she is fundamentally wrong on the idea of Statism never being able to take hold of American politics and minds. The ideas, values, and principles of the people have changed, it is a foreign notion to the average man that his rights are his own. Excellent video btw L.P., always look forward to them each time I see them in my list of videos for the day. keep pumping them out.
PolakFury explain socialism is theft. if i walk up to someone, stick a gun in their ribs and demand their money, they usually recognize this as theft. why do they think it is different if I have the means to deploy a politician instead of a gun?
fzqlcs Your analogy is correct, but the Leftist will say that "oh, but this is the sacrifice you make for the common good. It is your dues for living in this wonderful society. Look at the roads the government paved!"
Many of the innovations that allow us to use technology that is increasingly environmentally-friendly come from the market. Another benefit to the environment from laissez-faire principles would be the lack of subsidy for, or conversely, the institution of fair market value for, environmental commodities or resources. This would force people and businesses, in being more conscious of their expenditures, to be as conservative of resources as they could be.
lol, yes. A lot of people do not mention this for obvious reason. If she said there may be something like 'true morality and wrong morality but I do not know what it is" it would make more sense. If she knows what the true moral way is then what logic would dictate she shouldn't advocate use of force to prove it to others? In that case , if she is against any violence or force, then what would be the foundational basis for that claim?
If there is a moral law that is binding on Man, there must be an authority higher than Man. If no such authority exists, then she can reason all she wants and it is still just her subjective opinion. Furthermore, in order for an arbiter of justice to be fair, he must not have a stake in the outcome of the case. Since we as humans always have some skin in the game, we cannot have any credibility as the final judge of right and wrong.
Tim Lebsack God, by definition, has no needs. There is nothing he can be threatened with or offered that could sway His judgment. Plus, He has perfect knowledge, which no human being can claim.
+dragknuckle God by definition, has no definition. If something is beyond the reasoning capability of man, then it cannot be defined, since to define something is to explain it with the use of reason.
+Jevioso Orishas For the purposes of this discussion, God is the Creator of all things. If He created all things, then there was a time that nothing existed but Him. Therefore, God doesn't have any needs. It is possible to apply logic and reason to Him. If God is irrational, then He wouldn't make a very good Moral Authority, would he?
Not too long ago, I was was a libertarian who thought Ayn Rand was a genius. What a change 2 years of college can do for you. An interest with Ayn Rand is a footnote in one's political/philosophical development, not the culmination of it.
I pity you and the violence wrought upon you that you now seek to destroy the spirit of others. It is really too bad that you never truly understood objectivism as is unfortunately true of most who claim to. I can only imagine the sort of immoral nonsense you now believe yourself educated enough to inflict upon others.
Johnson Rice yeah you'd be surprised how many people read the book and still think it's all about selfishness in the form of screwing over other people.
Ali Adeeb I'm unfortunately not surprised at all. Statists and the religious, being enemies of reason and rationality, don't really have the desire nor put the effort into understanding the benefits of peace, voluntary interactions, or enlightened selfishness. They don't see "doing something good" as selfish, because altruists deal only in pain, sacrifice, and suffering as standards of morality.
***** Oh, look at you now , how objective of you to call someone a "cretin" when the person didn't even give you the reasons why. Almost sounds like you have a lot of faith in Ayn Rand, doesn't it. Why would take it so personally?
Johnson Rice Why? He did not state his reasons for his change of opinion on Ayn Rand. Maybe he'd respond of you asked, I don't know, but you automatically assume his perspective is a result of some kind of either violence wrought upon him, or he never understood objectivism, or that he believes immoral "nonsense". That is at least three assumptions without any evidence for it. Is this consistent with philosophy of objectivism? Similarly how you claim he is seeking to "destroy the spirit of others" (whatever that means) you are destroying his spirit under the assumption he is wrong by default.
I really don't like the woman. She has some views which we as libertarians respect but the other 80% is some really crazy stuff. She is very contradictory. Uses right or wrong no foundation why, claims absolutes, and relativist principles at once.
Those of us who can grasp the totality of her philosophy (Objectivism) understand that contradictions of any kind are simply the result of holding false premises. There are no contradictions to her philosophy. Was she a flawed human being? There is nothing easier than finding fault in humans. Take your pick. If you want to understand the philosophy, read "Virtue of Selfishness." Until then, your comments contain no nutritional value.
***** The contradiction is in your mind. She held it is the proper role of government to provide for a domestic police force to protect individual rights as well as an army and a justice system. In fact, she basically envisioned the federal government as the founders did. Now, with that knowledge in your back pocket, where is the contradiction?
***** Ayn Rand supports the protection of individual rights so, in your mind that translates to outlawing third party arbitration and defense agencies? Really. She would ban hiring armed guards and prohibit two parties from agreeing to settle their civil dispute by third party? What causes you to conclude that she advocates that nonsense?
