I enjoyed this clip , both Bill Buckley and Ayn Rand were interesting , thought provoking intellectuals. I can't think of anyone like them in the public spotlight today.
This was filmed ages ago, at the time it was one of the best selling books of all time with 5 million copies sold. It was selling 500,000 copies a year which at the time was quite a lot.
I think that Mr. Buckley would have had a more engaging and enlightened interview with Pauly Shore rather than Charlie Rose. Rose makes Larry King seem positively brilliant.
Atlas Shrugged had an enormous impact on my life. I was living in Cairo Egypt working on my business and it provided English entertainment for me in the evening, so reading it wasn't too much of a chore. The first hundred or so pages was tedious but the story was engrossing past that. For ten years prior to that, I was struggling with the trauma Christian Fundamentalism imparted. John Galt's speech was my first introduction to a philosophical system. It changed my life and helped purge the delusional muck of religion from my mind, and inspired me to become a philosopher. In that, she remains a hero of mine. Eventually I became an "Ayn Rand Scholar" as I pursued the foundational elements of philosophy: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics and logic. I soon parted ways with objectivism once I realized that the monetary system that we have today is a system of institutionalized violence. I realized that money was not a tool of trade but a permission slip of survival corporate elitists controlled and manipulated through the government. A system that has no regard for compassion or empathy for individuals, or takes into consideration the differences in an individual's neurology that determines whether or not one can be "successful". She approached her philosophy with that same tired egalitarianism that in some mystical way all minds are equal and all humans are equally competent to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". We are not. Some can play they piano or the stock market to virtuosity but most can't no matter how hard they try. She never had the benefit of neuroscience to help shape her philosophy. Her fantasy of laissez fair capitalism is untenable. It would require a global philosophical shift for people to deal rationally with one. That is NOT EVER going to happen.
@@michaelsvoboda1024 Okay. That immediately implies the good life and the just city, which leads us to the nature of humankind and the optimal politico-economic system for an individual - any individual - to survive and thrive.
The works of an artist does not necessarily have to match their tragic lives. I am not a Michael Jackson fan, but I do remember a song "Man in the mirror" - a song conserning personal choices and morality. Artists personal lives seldom live up to the standards that they set in their work. Nobody can be rational 100% of the time. We all occasionally give into our whims.
Rand doesn't need an apologist. She took ideas seriously and lived up to her principles. She absolutely made mistakes about people, and she was attacked and smeared in exactly the ways she showed her characters being smeared in her books. But if you research the whole picture and don't just cherry-pick the stories of her detractors, quite a different picture from their claims emerges.
Tracy I agree with your sentiment that our economic principles should be balanced between the two possible extremes. Life is full of spectra (many spectrum) and to follow the middle path is almost always ideal. Ms Ran should be heralded only for delineating the callous extreme that human economic organization can take, JUST so we can steer clear of it. It is a breath of fresh air too see your comment. The object of development is to regulate the wild swings of a concept's pendulum.
Buckley was such a fascinating character - great style and a great command of English. "1,000 pages of fabulism" , his use of the word '"nominate" in its older sense
@@tooterooterville he didn't understand capitalism & hated rand who was a pro capitalist individual. Conservatives dont like change & want to conserve things like religion. That is incompatible with capitalism.
I read all of her non fiction too but I wouldn't call the first hand accounts of her friends "gossip." How she lived and the choices she made are a good indication about her philosophy in practice. And the fact is that she found ways to rationalise any desire she had.
Ayn Rand is the complete opposite of George Orwell. Orwell explained in his essay "Why I write": "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" Of Ayn Rand's work, it was the other way around.
@eparkison The whole reason corporations are outsourcing in the first place is because they would rather work in countries where the government is more friendly towards business, these "third world" countries are so hard up for business and work that they are willing to allow the corporations to operate freely as long as they will remain to create jobs. If you continue to do things like raise the minimum wage, create bossy unions etc. then the corporations are going to continue to outsource.
LexRex :: Do you really believe corporations outsource because of minimum wage increases & "bossy" unions ? Unions come into existence because of corporate maltreatment of employees / low wages / unsafe working conditions ... Even if employees were content, CEOs would still outsource to maximize profits. Wages are lower elsewhere / they don't have to trouble themselves w / regulation standards / occupational health & safety protocols / employee benefits / health benefits / seditious employee conversations about labor-organizing & tiresome lunch-breaks, after 5hrs. of working ... Workers are responsible for those profits because of their labor. There would be no corporations w / o the labor of workers.
@@cliffgaither The issue is that these corporations are allowed to outsource in th first place. We need nationalistic and protectionist policies to make sure that these massive globalist corporations are loyal to the American people.
@@WorshipInTruth :: Sounds good ! How do we regulate nationalistic feelings from the globalists ? It's like trying to eradicate national racism ( sounds good, but impossible ). Greed will always "trump" nationalism. When it comes to economics, it's Capitalism Without Borders. "Protectionism" ? We already have that to protect the domestic industries from foreign competition. We need New, Progressive Policies that bring about Nationalism & Domestic Protection & especially, New Politicians !
@@cliffgaither "How do we regulate nationalistic feelings from the globalists ?"..."Greed will always "trump" nationalism. When it comes to economics, it's Capitalism Without Borders."..."New Politicians !".... You are answering your own question. What we need to do is replace the people in power with actual idealists and populists. This democracy with competing interests does not work, a national "strongman" is necessary to reign in the wolves and protect the flock. I think a lot of Nationalists had hoped that Trump could potentially be that "strongman" (at least to the extent that Putin is in Russia) and the leftists always hysterically feared Trump knowing what he could have been..... but alas Trump was no savior and never made any serious attempt to drain any swamp.
@@WorshipInTruth :: Well ... maybe I did answer my own question, but you put the thoughts in my head. I blame this on you 😂 ! Don't you think a "strongman" of any kind is dangerous ? We don't have any guarantees. How long would a strongman, guarding the flock, last w / o being assassinated ? Democracy "has too many competing interests" is very true, but I know you've heard about democracy being "messy". We have enough common interests to over-come the messiness. 70% of the public supports Bernie's programs ; 52% of Republicans. That's a great start for a coalition, I think. We definitely have to turn things around at the polls. I'm just afraid of strongmen. What happens when "his" policies start to mess w / you 😄 ?
"The highest tribute to Ayn Rand is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individuals rights to freedom of action, speech,& association; self responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; & a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas & say. "...and that's what I reject?" --Barbara Branden
There are zero intellectual debates on TV these days like Buckley had. he had people he agreed with and those he opposed but all debates were very informative. Maybe Tucker carlson comes close.
haha that's the best knock on Ayn Rand I've ever heard--that she had a COLLECTIVE of people FOLLOWING HER to discuss how you should be anti-collective. Reminds me of the Steve Martin individualist creed. Repeat after me: I promise to be different! I promise to be unique! I promise not to repeat things other people say!
@current_interest I had a teacher in college who said the moment you decide whether you will be an intellectual is the moment you stop thinking Ayn Rand is intellectual.
current_interest Hello! I have been going the same way for over a year at this point. Have you been reading the non-fiction? And I know of a couple yt channels by Objectivists going over current events if you are interested
I consider myself too cool to have a philosophy. Also...my extremely low I.Q. allows me to react to all situations "instinctively" devoid of all thought.
i agree you have an obvious low intelligence based on the contradiction of what you think is a clever statement. and that is the point aint it dumb-bell? LOL
@eparkison DUDE!! Do you know what the friggin word "coerced" means, it means FORCED!!. The free market system is the very opposite of force, in the free market system nobody is FORCING anybody to work as a doctor, the individual decides ON HIS OWN if he wants to pursue that as a career.
Buckley was - gloriously - what would now be called an old-school conservative. He was distinguished by being fiercely intelligent, well-read, and beyond all, THOUGHTFUL. This enabled him to fathom more than one side of an argument.
@MaryJo1950 Also Michael O'Donnell wrote an excellent article about Rand. I'll PM you the link. Two things in that are good is his point that it is an individualsim so extreme her followers do not just ignore other people but spit in their faces. HIs closing line is great too - and very true - "...biographers have shown the devastation she brought upon those around her,the lesson is painfully clear: behold the ruins of a completely selfish life."
I agree with your first comment: "Anthem" is a dystopian novel on a par with "1984," "Animal Farm," and "Brave New World," and should be read in tandem with them.
Don't forget the Russian dystopia "We" (not to be confused with Rand's semi-autobiography "We The Living"), "The Iron Heel", "Fahrenheit 451", "The Space Merchants", and "Player Piano".
Yea, didnt get that either. In that interview with Mike Wallace she said that charity should be from individuals not co-erced and not by govt.WFB twisted her views on charity for a good laugh with Charlie the Molester.
Touted as one of the best modern age classic Atlas Shrugged is one of the most controversial and bold books written by anyone . I completed reading Atlas Shrugged yesterday. It took me 5 years and 4 month to complete this book. You can imagine I am not much a reader but mostly, read for pleasure. The plot is laden with subterfuge on the part of Government which is wanting to nationalise everything, a lady is fighting this system along with an lathario Business man and another astute one who all, eventually seems to congregate with others in a world of "purpose". I love the idea, but I felt the book was more of an idealist, ramble than a realist roadmap for the future. Like most authors, Ayn was able to identify the problem but her solution was a mere figment of imagination of a fancy world, devoid of any subterfuge and chicanery. Thus is perhaps, why the books appeals to a teenage and mid twenties group, than it does to, more mature men. I also found the plot to be really devoid of any real meat. Dagny the protagonist seemed to be a "slut" who doesn't mind sleeping around with married men or otherwise. She dated all the leading men in the book and slept with all of them. What surprised me the most, was how they were so happy and devoid of any envy for the each other despite the fact that all three loved her, which was a little too much to begin with, and further they all go on to live "together" happily ever after. It seemed to me that Ayn Rand was visualizing herself as Dagny and living her fantasises through this character. Being somewhat of a misogynist myself, I simply find this behaviour, very typical of most young girls or even some older woman, who want several intelligent and handsome to love them, from where they can cherry pick one. What blew my lid off was the portrayal of "John Galt" the main protagonist. She goes to a great extend describing his physical features presenting him as greek God, who happens to be a great engineer, and a great orator and a leader, all in one, package. That's the most ludicrous description of a character and clearly a figment of her imagination which perhaps will savour to the taste of the impressionable whippersnapper, who wants to change the world. I would have had no trouble if the book was presented as a fictional piece of work in its entirety. However it was a portrayed almost as contemporary evolution of events around the world. She was cleverly using the word USA but what she actually meant was USSR. Perhaps she should have candid about the society which she was portraying. This was almost list perching to the choir - Americans love capitalism and free market and Laissez-faire, and this books preaches the demonisation of govt. controls and socialism. Never mind the length of the book, or the soliloquy which each character incessantly falls into so darn frequently, that it almost feels like a pattern. I had to pretty much skip several parts, though I never lost track of the plot or key words which would typically be spoken at the end of a chapter, yet the book is long and takes and age to complete. However, the book, ends so abruptly that you almost don't expect it to, was actually picking up the pace, though i honestly didn't mind as exhausted reading so far. A new world is created by perhaps a magic wand which Rand was always carrying in her arsenal. She had to end it and she decided, all right here comes the "new" world and don't ask me how. The book talks about reason all through, but I couldn't find a reason here, where she uses her magical skills more than her reasoning ability to lay foundations of a NEW world. Anyways, on a lighter note I managed to learn several new words which I realised, were her favourite perhaps - "Brusquely" was one of them, "Insolence" was another and "recalcitrant" was another. There were many others of course, but I seem to remember these, quite distinctly. All in all I think, you should read this book not for the love of it but for the fact that you can always use it to stir up intellectual debates and play along in any so called intellectual clubs. Perhaps, its is also a good book for those of you who want to connect with the younger generation, who will definitely have strong association with the concepts mentioned in this book. I am now planning to read "The fountain Head" which was more of prologue to this book. Perhaps, I can approach the second one with a lesser expectation and feel happier about. All in all its a good read if you can manage to complete it.
Good man ! AS disingenuously, paints a black and white view of the world, which might appeal to the romantic views of a recalcitrant teenager. Life is much more shades of grey :)
Yes! Preach it brother! The book not only pushed the characters to the extremes of their personas but also the 'villains'. It was like a work of fiction! We need MORE government controls and MORE socialism in the US! Who needs individualism anyhow, right? I will not sleep until we have FULL socialism/communism in the US! ALL HAIL BIG BROTHER! or else!
I finished it actually about 5 hours ago. And quite frankly I disagree. It is a pitiful attempt at literature. The characters are largely bland. Especially John Galt. And the idea of John Galt is amazing. Just some guy who became a god-like figure purely through word of mouth. But then she actually makes him godlike. That defeats the purpose. The idea that a man can achieve godlike notoriety is worth noting. the idea that a god can achieve godlike notoriety isnt. And the fact that she tries to make all her characters perfect. Its stupid. Ragnar is a superior character precisely because he isnt perfect. Hank is better because of his whole internalize opresion. But it is wasted. and finally, she misses the chance to discuss the issues with capitalism that are actually worth discussing. I am a capitalist. But ive still got some problems. Some percentage of the population will never be able to produce. What do we do about those people. And that is a problem worth talking about.
I understand the Idea that if you make something it should not automatically belong to every one which is what I think she was trying to say but the idea that the wealth of the world should belong to a select few is also wrong. Reality is somewhere in the middle. There should be an opportunity for everyone to make their lives better if they worked at it.
@TheSilverSurpher You're right and I am in error about the time sequence of Puzo's novel and the films based on it. My error is especially odd in light of the fact that I have both seen the movies--many times, as well as read the novel. Anyway, thankyou for your correction. As for the influence of Atlas Shrugged,it certainly has influenced the Tea Party(which isn't a small thing by the way),but is has also influenced the libertarian movement and some parts of conservatism.
12/16/11: Christopher Hitchens died last night, and after visiting with him in various moments of his televised life, thanks to RU-vid, I realized that I was missing my other most-favored public thinker, WFB, so I came here. They both loathe "Atlas Shrugged," which, given their fealty to individual liberty (Hitch's, post 9/11/01) is inexplicable; and, as I have often observed, their vocal cadences, to say nothing of their protean erudition, are eerily similar. randy95023 I agree with your first comment: "Anthem" is a dystopian novel on a par with "1984," "Animal Farm," and "Brave New World," and should be read in tandem with them. @Bellantoni Meaning, she was for totalitarianism and against "democratic" socialism (an oxymoron if ever there was one)? You've got to read "Atlas" over again, you have misread her completely: The simple construct "the Individual against the Collective," infusing everything she wrote, refutes that silly, ill-informed assertion. althmanne I believe I admire you for your last three sentences.
Was that the debate where Chomsky defended Mao and the Communist Party of China? I cringe when think of how anyone could be that wrong. Certainly you don't defend Mr. Mao - do you?
@@cringlator You're wrong. Chomsky even referred to it in a subsequent interview when he was belittling Firing Line as a, "television show". Of course he was willing to discuss because the crimes committed by his friend Mao were not so widely known at the time. Frankly, I wish we could "chat' some more, but I simply don't have the time nor the patience. You're initial note was frankly ridiculous, and mean spirited - right out of the Chomsky playbook.
@@cliffgaither She provides an idealized ethos that gives Organized Crime a flag to rally around. Ever notice how philosophical the bad guys have gotten in movies, etc with a goal of stealing unfathomable amounts of money and then go hide in a hole and laugh at people who aren't gluttons.
Some comments about Ayn Rand; she wasn't against charity, she was against government welfare. Also, if you read her novels with an open mind, you will discover that there are many acts of kindness in them.
@@luxxinterior5200 Clearly we see things differently but your insulting comment is anything but intellectual and rather rude and cruel to say the least.
Wow, you just revealed your great ignorance. Buckley, like a true conservative, did not despise humans as you evidently do. Your not conservative, your just a bigot. It's going to be hard to accept, but like Buckley I will pray for your soul.
Thanks very much. I do know a bit more than my post lead you to believe. In fact, I'm writing a graduate-level paper on The Romantic Manifesto. I had just never come across anything like what slybuster was referring to. And I appreciate your warnings. It would have been very clear to me, just from TRM, that Rand is both superficial and potentially dangerous, but it's always good to see others who've got her number and are looking out for their fellow citizens. Peace.
i would really like to clear something up: the speaker says "her scorn of charity and altruism." this is not a correct estimation. she had no problems with charity as a premise. her problem was with charity, by force, or charity as your highest value. end of story. how this continuously becomes misunderstood, eludes me. to reiterate: its only when someone holds a gun to your head and says "because you have so much, give some to John, its only right and fair... or else ill shoot." that is wrong.
She believed it wasn't in her self-interest to have Social Security taken from her in the first place because she believed she got in return less than what she exchanged to receive it.
She didn't have kids. She said it wasn't in her self interest to have any. Now, you say her life was sad. Consider this: she was happy, wealthy and wielded considerable political power due to her philosophy. In short, her ideas actually worked. She had a great life. That's the test of any philosophy. Now as yourself the following question: are you powerful? Are you wealthy? Are you happy? And if not, why is it that your philosophy is not as effective as hers for making you a success in the world?
I actually read her novel for the first time when I was 12 and didn't agree at all, but then I was just a kid; I read it again a few years ago (I'm 46 now) and still didn't agree with all her points. I understand that the middle ground is rarely held or even gained; but I think to move forward we must try harder, otherwise certain events will only be doomed to repeat themselves; from the recent financial collapse to people being raised to think the world owes them a living.
Hobbs may have used the term "rational self interest" but he only built the concept as a castle in the sand to be eventually washed away by a sea of social interaction. His idea of self interest sprung from man's inclination to self-preservation, which in his mind included the compromise of principal as a means to that end (or lack of one). Nothing could be further from Ayn Rand's idea of self-interest.
Incorrect: This oft repeated urban legend was spawned by a book club survey, where members of the book club (meaning readers too dense to figure out to read on their own) voted it a distant second to the Bible as most influential book of their lives. It has been outsold by every Harry Potter book and each book in the Twilight Series. Randites Awake, Your emperor wears no clothes.
Please help. Doesn't Buckley say that he didn't read Atlas Shurgged in 1:13 and at the end he also said that she was mad at him because of a review of Atlas Shurgged?
+Guillermo Malvicino A review of Atlas Shrugged by Whittaker Chambers published by William Buckley's National review is the review in question: www.nationalreview.com/article/213298/big-sister-watching-you-whittaker-chambers
@SuperPythagore Of course, now that I think about it, most of these kids in high school have trouble reading "A Cat in a Hat", much less "Atlas Shrugged". Shame, I loved "Atlas Shrugged" at 14, and since I read it at such a young age, it truly influenced my life positively.
For non-fiction, I recommend: A Universe From Nothing; Why There is Something Rather than Nothing" - Lawrence M. Krauss. If you don't like reading, then you can watch the lecture on RU-vid.
12/16/11: Christopher Hitchens died last night, and after visiting with him in various moments of his televised life, thanks to RU-vid, I realized that I was missing my other most-favored public thinker, WFB, so I came here. They both loathe "Atlas Shrugged," which, given their fealty to individual liberty (Hitch's post 9/11) is inexplicable; and, as I have so often observed, their vocal cadences, to say nothing of their protean erudition, is eerily similar.
I was not talking about super hero films. Your question is off topic. No, I do not cheer for anyone, not even the hero. I was suggesting that those who have a hard time reading or understand Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, might enjoy Batman comics instead. John Galt was considered the hero in Atlas Shrugged - not the villian. People with the opposite political view as Ayn Rand should be able to read the book and understand that much.
@@bettersteps Devlin a far more skilled writer than Rand this is true. Always enjoyed Hitchens destroying Rand, not to mention Wolff’s account of her in ‘old school.’
"She liked me up until I published a review of her book by Whitaker Chambers." A review that was factually incorrect on details that would have been incredibly hard to mistake and that basically accused her of being pro-genocide. Would you really expect someone to like you after you publish lies about her that vicious? Really?
Expect Rand to like Buckley? No, but I would expect YOU to stay assiduously away from parties where that rotten publisher was planning to show up. Don't forget to check with the host before showing your face.
You noticed how Buckley also mentions another hack reviewer who bascially accuses her ideology of leading to genocide? That wasn't accidental, this man's a clown, and his National Reivew has become the Laughing Stock of the Right!
As much as I dislike Buckley's political ideology, and philosophy, at least the man had a likable sense of graciousness and charm. Conservatives in our current era, are like rubes from the hills.
I watched the documentary about him and Vidal thinking I was going to be "Team Vidal". I immediately liked Buckley more. He had values, reason, and logic and stood up for. Vidal literally said nothing and was pure fluff. Vidal was prettier but that was it.
there's an old saying: 'a liberal will stab you in the back, but with a conservative you will see the knife coming.' To say conservatives in the current era are rubes from the hills speaks to what a twat you are and to bemoan the elitism for which the left is known. A philosophy devoid of empirical evidence to support itself relies on other tactics, typically in our age, the art of character assassination and belittling the other as "rubes."
He said that he had to "flog himself to read it, that it was a thousand words of- a thousand pages... That slip is an indication that he skimmed it at best. He goes on to say that he hadn't read "Atlas Shrugged" and that he had read "the Fountianhead" which was "an engaging book. Perhaps he ment, at the time that he hadn't read it. At any rate, he clearly didn't understand it.
"Ideological fabulism" is how the unprincipled describe idealism. He published a dishonest assassination by the unprincipled Whittaker Chambers without having himself read the book at that time. His low point.
@Spillers72 "...She also opposed altruism and charity..." She wasn't opposed to charity per se, she was opposed to the idea that one has a moral obligation to put others above oneself.
How could characterization of a fictional figure in a novel NOT be "manipulated"? A fictional figure can't do anything unless the author directs it so. Exactly what do you mean? That she made the horror and evil of altruism, statism and mysticism unmistakably clear? That's very true, and a strong virtue.
@LucisFerre1 Actually,Rand was initially unsure as to where she belonged. She did not call herself an objectivitist..That term came later. Early on she was perfectly willing to associate with conservatives and many conservatives praised the procapitalism/anticommunism of her works--especially the Fountainhead,and were willing to place her within a wing of the conservative movement. That changed after NR's scathing review of Atlas Shrugged--she & conservatism went their own seperate ways.
Always amazed by the number (any over zero) of people who champion government dependence, as if standing up and being a man was something to be avoided at all cost.
octopibingo I'm puzzled by your complete omission of the other stages of life, not to mention conditions under which it's impossible to 'stand up' and make money for oneself.
Cheyenne Sage At which "stages of life" in life is it "impossible to 'stand up' and make money for oneself"? You could argue of you over simplify 0 years to 3 years or so... but after that once one can toddler around, or roll around, or what ever... past that point when can one NOT?
octopibingo The truth is to take responsibly for one's own problems and hardships is just that. If there is some around who will tell you that you do not have to ,MOST would do just that. Those in the Voluntarism camp need to accept: that a valid choice is choosing to be a dependent. While those who make that choice need to accept that it is not one they can force on others to make them self feel better about making that choice and the limitations that go with it.
"The only people who have to worry about not eating are those who do not work." -- Liberty, as you defined it: "freedom from external... restraint, compulsion, or interference in engaging in the pursuits or conduct of one's choice..." It sounds to me as if the market dictates how people experience their liberty, rather than there being any intrinsic value in liberty itself. So what you want is NOT liberty, but the tyranny of the market where those who don't work must "worry about not eating."
Full of lies, as is common with all the Rand-haters. Lol, this makes me love Leonard Peikoff's comment from the 1984 debate even more: "As far as William Buckley is concerned, please do not confuse us with that entity."
You say Rand believed banks needed regulation. I am not terribly familiar with most of her work, so would you mind giving the exact source for that? Thanks.
"You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis. You have said it yourself, half in fear, half in hope that the words had no meaning. You have cried that man's sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demanded. Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster."
No, Venezuela is an example of what happens to a 3rd World country which succeeded in making its citizens prosperous, until the global economic system cut off its legs by manipulating the price of its main export, oil.
@WorshipInTruth Two objections: A person interested in being a doctor is probably not interested in the sort of repetitive work one would find in a fast food environment. The incentive is that people still have some desire to feel fulfilled by their labor. Second, your point about downsizing reflects the comment I made: international corporations have legally outsourced the exploited labor that made them profitable in the first place, and use that possibility as leverage to get their way, here.
When I was young I read everything by Ayn Rand and was devoted to her ideas. Then I became more mature, got a college education, traveled the world and, having grown up, I set aside those simple, childish ideas, realizing that the world is a much more complex place. Her ideas grow out of her anger at what she lost resulting from the revolutions of 1917 in Russia. If you read her non-fiction her shrill anger and hate are quite evident. For someone who champions something called "Objectivism" she was not very objective. Reason is a tool that can be used to justify all sorts of atrocities. It also depends on the premises that you start out with. If you reason from false premises you will not make any sense as Ayn Rand does fail to make sense, except within the fictional world and false premises contained in her limited thinking. She paints a pretty picture in her novels for the gullible and foolish. See also how in her non-fiction she uses her fictional character's dialogue as "evidence" for her ideas. Such self referencing is not evidence of anything except narcissism.
Could it be that she did not like the murderous Communist dictatorship that took over Russia? Have you ever lived through something like that? Or maybe you're OK with it?
@@chilidogg2047 You're missing my point. Certainly it was traumatic and tragic to have lost so much because of such an experience. My point is that the understandable anger she took away feeds her intellectual rationalizations to the extent that her ideas often fail to make sense. She often contradicts herself or uses fallacious arguments with weak or non-existent evidence to make her point. She paints the world in very black and white simplistic terms that fail to address the complexity of the issues she attempts to address. For a so-called "Objectivist" she is not very objective and I believe her understandable hate and anger fatally colors her perspective. She champions reason but fails to see the dubious assumptions that underlay her thinking and her reasoning is quite often faulty as a result. I got a lot from Ayn Rand when I was young but as I matured I grew past the puerile positions that at my young age did make a difference because they got me started on an intellectual path that became richer and allowed me to see the fallacies and falsehoods driven by her anger. I advise you to read her non-fiction and you may notice much of what I am stating. Then again if your are, like so many of her adherents, slavishly "convinced" no amount of evidence will change your mind.
Atlas Shrugged was popular with one half of politics precisely because it promoted what they wanted to believe - selfishness is a virtue and altruism evil.
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice-which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction-which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good. Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.” “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61 Now there is one word-a single word-which can blast the morality of altruism out of existence and which it cannot withstand-the word: “Why?” Why must man live for the sake of others? Why must he be a sacrificial animal? Why is that the good? There is no earthly reason for it-and, ladies and gentlemen, in the whole history of philosophy no earthly reason has ever been given. It is only mysticism that can permit moralists to get away with it. It was mysticism, the unearthly, the supernatural, the irrational that has always been called upon to justify it-or, to be exact, to escape the necessity of justification. One does not justify the irrational, one just takes it on faith. What most moralists-and few of their victims-realize is that reason and altruism are incompatible. “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61
Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil? The answer you evade, the monstrous answer is: No, the takers are not evil, provided they did not earn the value you gave them. It is not immoral for them to accept it, provided they are unable to produce it, unable to deserve it, unable to give you any value in return. It is not immoral for them to enjoy it, provided they do not obtain it by right. Such is the secret core of your creed, the other half of your double standard: it is immoral to live by your own effort, but moral to live by the effort of others-it is immoral to consume your own product, but moral to consume the products of others-it is immoral to earn, but moral to mooch-it is the parasites who are the moral justification for the existence of the producers, but the existence of the parasites is an end in itself-it is evil to profit by achievement, but good to profit by sacrifice-it is evil to create your own happiness, but good to enjoy it at the price of the blood of others. Your code divides mankind into two castes and commands them to live by opposite rules: those who may desire anything and those who may desire nothing, the chosen and the damned, the riders and the carriers, the eaters and the eaten. What standard determines your caste? What passkey admits you to the moral elite? The passkey is lack of value. Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who don’t lack it. It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards. If you are able to satisfy your need, your ability annuls your right to satisfy it. But a need you are unable to satisfy gives you first right to the lives of mankind. If you succeed, any man who fails is your master; if you fail, any man who succeeds is your serf. Whether your failure is just or not, whether your wishes are rational or not, whether your misfortune is undeserved or the result of your vices, it is misfortune that gives you a right to rewards. It is pain, regardless of its nature or cause, pain as a primary absolute, that gives you a mortgage on all of existence. If you heal your pain by your own effort, you receive no moral credit: your code regards it scornfully as an act of self-interest. Whatever value you seek to acquire, be it wealth or food or love or rights, if you acquire it by means of your virtue, your code does not regard it as a moral acquisition: you occasion no loss to anyone, it is a trade, not alms; a payment, not a sacrifice. The deserved belongs in the selfish, commercial realm of mutual profit; it is only the undeserved that calls for that moral transaction which consists of profit to one at the price of disaster to the other. To demand rewards for your virtue is selfish and immoral; it is your lack of virtue that transforms your demand into a moral right. A morality that holds need as a claim, holds emptiness-non-existence-as its standard of value; it rewards an absence, a defect: weakness, inability, incompetence, suffering, disease, disaster, the lack, the fault, the flaw-the zero. Galt’s Speech For the New Intellectual, 144
