@MMODoubter Surely not when you watch these interviews, her philosophy is essentially Artstotle-Classical Liberal and elucidated clearly in these videos?
I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.
I agree with you. I think that Randroid philosophy is rooted in Calvinisme, where believers practise material wealth as sign of God chosen.Since they are not allowed to show any form of "primitive" gestures, as singing, dancing etc. (resembles a business persone) This in return, pushes the focus into the real world, "objectively" as she said. But Kant was right all along; every choice is subjective and is not determent by the objective rational. Since "rational" is variable in cultures.
@manmachine30 Ok, now I don't know where the fuck you got that idea, but that's wrong. Other than the fact that Mrs. Rand was a Capitalist, like me, she was also an atheist, also like me, So she had a complete understanding of homosexuals, also the fact that racism is a primative form of collectivism and you can penalize racism with the use of capitalism.
@manmachine30 She was from Russia, but she came to America because she realized that in a Capitalist society, you have the right to choose what you want to do in a career.
@Barry62152 That may be true. But after reading her statements in regard to native american ( the true Americans) she claims that taking their land that was the right thing to do ,for living like savages. And homosexuality is wrong and unnatural, and such and such. Is the iron fist that rules under the power of money. And if you don't follow the rules you pay the price. Savage Capitalism will gut you like a pig. So much for Freedom and Liberty.
Freedomain Radio - best place to find the continuation of her philosophy. Still strange to me that she knew how taking man's products by force is immoral, but couldn't get her head around not doing it for national defense. Such a glaring contradiction. It's such an obvious question - if capitalism is the best means of improving any industry and the only moral way to live, why would it not also work for national defense, roads, postal service, and dispute resolution courts? Check your premises!
because it is inefficient to charge people for national defence proportionally to their use of it. Impossible to protect one person and not the other. The same with all welfare products. Privatte industry is generated towards profit maximization and not welfare maximization-medicine is best example of private industry NOT working well for public.I personally believe, that products such as health-care, education and other welfare products, should be competed for both by private
and public industry. Products such as, law enforcement, courts and national defense are in a different league(although there is place for both private and public police imho).
@BeYouAndSmile Inefficiency is not a valid reason to use violence. Even though you are completely incorrect in your logic...national defense would likely be extrememly cheap if run privately-would likely only cost maybe a dollar a year to have some nukes maintained. We don't need an army or bases all over the world. All we need are nukes. But regardless, inefficiency or expense, or maximization of welfare are not valid reasons to advocate the use of violence to fund them.
@BeYouAndSmile and our healthcare is not private...is is mostly public. Prescriptions are controlled publicly...medicines are regulated by FDA. Who can become a doctor is controlled by the AMA. This is a mostly public system. A free market system would be nothing like it. It would not take 8 years to become a frickin pediatrician in a free market system. Any nurse could do the job of a pediatrician...
3)You need to maintain law and order for a society to function properly. That costs money. How taxing people for living in a safe environment is immoral?
@BeYouAndSmile Because theft is immoral, it doesn't matter if the stolen money is used to end world hunger. Theft is immoral, and consequently will never lead to a safe environment. If you stole someone's wallet and then claimed that you were doing it to hire a body guard for them as your justification, would you say it's ok for the thief to have taken the wallet?
@BeYouAndSmile theft is immoral. It doesn't matter what it's used for. If a guy steals someone wallet and then tries to justify taking it by saying he stole it to hire a body guard for the original owner, wouldn't you think that guy is a bit nutty? Taxes are taken by threat of imprisonment, and death if you try to escape prison. That is theft of the worst kind.
@BeYouAndSmile The main difference between me and you is that I'd allow voluntary taxation on a state level not individual level-we need courts and military and police at least regardless of you moral/political standing simply because you live in real world and not a fairytale. We still would have representatives and a president who would propose regulations on a federal level, but it would be up to people whether or not to keep them or disregard them.
@BeYouAndSmile My personal belief, is that those regulations should be geared towards promotion of equality of opportunity and thus concentrating on education and health care as well as providing reasonable level of infrastructure. For these welfare goods, I'd let private market compete with government, and let the consumer decide.
But that's just my personal opinion and it's up to people to decide.(meaning people should have opportunity to change federal level regulations as well.)
1)Military run by private corporations...cmon...are you serious? I don't even want to start about all the implications in case of actual conflict...but think for a moment about benefits of a strong military and bases all ever the world(costs of which are mostly covered by countries they're in). Having strong military creates a demand for your currency, government securities etc. Why do you think china buys US bonds and not some wealthy western European country bonds?
2) Health care. Government regulates the health care industry but it doesn't run it as in many other countries. As a result you have oligopoly in healthcare industry which benefits from selling overpriced and outdated medicine, that only causes you to buy more medicine. Compare prices of medicine in Cuba and USA. Without exaggeration, many types of medicine are 100+ times that of those in Cuba.
@BeYouAndSmile you didn't respond to the main point. You cannot justify the initiation of force against citizens to collect taxes, just because you think it is more efficient or practical. The initiation of force is immoral.
People vote for president/representatives. They in turn vote for laws, social welfare projects etc. on behalf of voters. Those projects require money. Government's main source of income is taxes. People know that. People know that if they ask for some welfare project, it'll cost them money. Then they decide whether its worth their money or not. I don't see anything immoral.
I think the main question is whether rule of majority is moral.
That's a complicated question, but as the old saying goes "No man is an island." You live in a society. You can't alienate yourself. What do you suggest? Individually-based taxes, which in turn will provide you exclusive rights to a welfare service? Get real. Things like national defense is impossible to individualize. That's why we have democracy.
You seem to have a negative attitude towards efficiency. I don't see why.
@BeYouAndSmile Just because people vote for elected officials doesn't make theft-taxation moral. There is no choice to not get taxed no matter who you vote for. You and I never signed the declaration of independance agreeing to any social contract. People you don't know cannot sign contracts for you over 200 years ago. Being born onto a particular piece of land does not lock a baby into a contract either. I understand that it's hard to go against everything we were taught
@BeYouAndSmile saying something is impossible does not mean it is. That's like saying it's impossible to have more than one cell phone company in the USA. Of course it's possible. You give people options so that the companies have to INNOVATE to provide better defense. Right now we have the WORST possible defense because we are actively poking at hornets nests all over the world. You think private companies would keep their customers if they were initiating aggressive wars?
@BeYouAndSmile If you were the owner of AT&T and you had a legal monopoly in the USA enforced by the state, would you ever bother investing in research and development of new and better cell phones? What would be the purpose? You already have everyone stuck paying you every month regardless. Why would the military be any different. If the government sucks at education, post office, DMV, road maintenance, traffic management why would they be good at running a military???
There are 2 questions to me when deciding on whether or not I support a specific regulation or tax policy or whatever.
1)Does it work? If not- then there is no point in further discussing it.
If it works, then there is question:
2) Is it moral?
I personally am not a fan of the regulatory system in US today. I'd rather get more people involvement in decision making, as well as limit existing government. But taxation is necessary, until government finds a way of making
@BeYouAndSmile sorry I meant the Constitution, not Dec of Indep. When did you sign this contract that gave the government the right to take part of your income? I guarantee you, you never signed anything like it. And don't tell me you tacitly agreed to it by staying in this country. By that logic, I could get together with a few old white wigged men and set up my own government right in my neighborhood and demand taxes or else everyone has to move somewhere else
@errorspending money to support peoples' will in other way.
I personally support more referendum type activity on a state level, as well as having flat federal taxes and voluntary state taxes, spending of which will also be decided by people. Let's say government has some flat tax rate. It spends money on military, law enforcement, courts, administrative expenses as well as social welfare projects and etc.
@errorspending If people in some state are unhappy with level of education, they have an option of moving into private schooling, or creating/increasing a state-level tax, which will have financing public education in that state as a sole reason for its existence. That way, people will have control of how much they want to spend and on what they wnt their money to be spent on.
@errorspending But in the end, you'll need taxation to promote interests of the majority and professionals to deal with economy/military and other highly specialized fields' issues
Sorry for making this so ling and messy, but I hope I answered all your questions as well as question you might have left..
@luigiperso Not at all. Rand had just expressed how highly she valued the expression 'God bless you' and 'Thank God', because she understands that those who say those phrases use them as 'the highest possible' (her words). Snyder's use of the phrase therefore was an act of the highest respect for Rand, the highest possible.
Interesting interview. Rand seems to have had a very limited perspective; clinging to false conclusions about the Universe. She's a stone cold materialist, and quantum science has blown materialism away. She lacked imagination, in my opinion.
@northstar789 l: Uh, you're a moron, and not because you disagree with Ayn Rand. Just based on what you said and the context within which you said it. You may want to pull your head out of your ass. Just two factual errors, Objectivism is not materialism, so no, she is not a materialist. Assertions to the contrary, based on ignorance, can't alter this fact. Second, quantum theory is about physical reality and nothing else. Physics. Duh!
@northstar789 By blindly asserting that she is a philosophical materialist -- you are showing your complete non-comprehension of her position.
Man's nature is an integrated being of consciousness (non-material; ideas, as such, do not exist) and a physical body. One does not exist w/o the other. Man's mind is his primary means of survival. Her system is derived from the tradition of Aristotle w/crucial innovations. Her epistemology and ethics were important and major advances.
ok.. I can respect Ayn's beliefs, but I think anyone can see the failure of her reasoning. In her opinion... If I believe I must kill my wife because of some reason.. ("she is not not the best mom to my kids, etc) and then I kill her her and make sure my kids and I are actually better off, then in Ayn Rands' opinion it is within my right... That is totally f**d up.
@rolson0 Right, except that the wife is also a human being with a right to her life and you cannot ignore that in order to pursue your self-interest. In Ayn's world, the initiation of force is never justified so no, you cannot kill your wife, sorry.
Yea that's way off man, and comes from a shallow understanding of her writings. To argue effectively and convincingly against someone requires that you understand their position fully, and you clearly don't understand hers.
According to objectivism it would be moral to help a stranger provided the help was given by choice and not seen as a duty or as something owed to that person above one's rational self interest. Objectivism holds life as it's standard of value and your own life as your highest moral purpose. You must not sacrifice for others or expect others to sacrifice for you.
The human being is a "Robot-slave of a selfish machine." [Dawkins]. Ayn Rand's philosophy of ' Objectivism', is the complete surrender of the human being to the dictates of this machine. It is interesting that this [unspoken] philosophy first arose in her at the age of 2, and she has never doubted it since. This , as every parent knows, is when the child begins to 'want' this and that. Tantrums, greed. The 'terrible Two's. Rand was certainly not free. She was a slave, to the very end.
So let me get this straight. According to Rand it is immoral to help a total stranger in need because you have nothing to gain by it? She already said she doesn't accept gifts from strangers. Imagine all the fans who wanted to show her some kindness. What a cold cunt.
@sigurjong Not True. If helping the stranger brings you some sort of satisfaction and fulfills some value in your moral code, then you should do it because by saving the stranger you are also making yourself "happy" and your "happiness" is what Ayn Rand says should guide your actions.
@sigurjong She's a philosopher, I'd imagine she didn't accept gifts from strangers because they didn't know her to respect her, thus the present is more for the giver than Rand herself.
I know, it's crazy. Having to think things out instead of lashing out with an emotional, venomous reply.
@TheColdTruth What happened to kindness? What happened to the ability of putting yourself in other people's shoes? Ayn Rand was a sharp lady, but did she choose that? Hell no. Almost everything in life is luck and it is this factor she fails to take into consideration and the reason why her philosophy falls short. The ability of putting yourself in the shoes of the less fortunate is the ability that raises our consciousness about who we are and why we should care about our fellow man. If Ayn..
@sigurjong Almost everything in life is luck... that's quite a slap in the face to people like Helen Keller, who turned the worst of luck into something great. We can't put ourselves in anyone else's shoes, not in any meaningful way to be honest, because we can't borrow anyone else's mind, which is the basis for everything else. If you could put yourself into the "shoes" of Ayn Rand, you'd be able to see why she believes what she believes and you'd really have no criticism to offer.
@ScionAscendant The fact that she was able to do that had everything to do with luck. She could've been born with a brain defect. Did she choose her brilliant mind? Try telling this to someone who can't formulate a thought. You guys are stilling missing the point. It is very easy to put yourself in someone else shoes. You just did that yourself without even realizing it lol.
@sigurjong Our minds aren't predefined. Why do you think such a thing as education exists? What we have initially is defined by chance; what we choose to do with what we have is not. If you really believe that our outcomes are defined by pure luck (a typical view of unhappy people who are resentful of the circumstances of others; bums, addicts, criminals etc. etc.), then what's the point of trying to help others? Your actions will not have any effect on their pre-ordained luck or karma.
@sigurjong You are free to take care of all the people you want to. Just don't assume you have a right to make ME do it because YOU think it's correct. I am not your slave. I will take care of those I value. You take care of the ones YOU value. People often forget that INDIVIDUAL choice is MUCH more preferable to majority rule. Majority rule means a large minority loses. It's better than dictatorship but less government means less situations that erode individual freedoms.
@TheColdTruth Rand had been born blind and legless with no family and friends she would have to rely on the kind nature of total strangers. This is where she would have no option, but to accept gifts from total strangers, the ones who are lucky. This is why we, the ones who are fortunate, need to understand the importance of seeing the world from other views than our own.
@Kleinfurkon If "only she has a true grasp of what she is talking about " then what she is talking about is so intellectually exclusive it's reasoning so obscure no one else has the ability to understand. In that case her ideas are worthless. Or her ideas are so easy too understand so simple and basic they belong in the library under the section "unworkable political/economic theories for dummies" and so still worthless. Personally I'ii go for the latter.
@davijeph precisely. I wish her writings were some kind of satire, but I really don't think they are. I wasn't advocating esoterism, although I don't think 'reasoning so obscure no one else has the ability to understand' actually exists. Although, as the great Richard Feynman once said, 'Anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics, does not understand quantum mechanics.' So, that's daunting, but not impossible. Certainly not worthless.
"If anyone destroys this country, it will be the conservatives" About the only intelligent, rational and correct statement she made during the entire interview !!!!! HAHAHAHAHA
Here is the thing the hardest thing to do in life is to love those who don't love you she is basically saying its to hard and i give up i will be selfish about my being,,,,Why do republicans love her again lol
@melskilove Maybe there is a reason why it is hard to love someone who does not hate you. Like, i mean, It is hard to keep my hand inside a fire and it would be really hard even if people said it was the right thing to do.
@manmachine30 she's american in spirit...her ideas represent what america should stand for (freedom) instead of what it does stand for: lies and imperialism
@mk181818 I wouldn't say that. She wasn't deluded. But she was optimistic. She'd be very disappointed to see how things have gone since her death but I think even now she'd be optimistic about the future. That was her nature.
@WalterLiddy Optimistic? My foot... She knew that hussin obama is one of the options for America evolving into ugly "statetism" based upon America's enemies ideology of collectivism and private citizen's life state control. In the matter of fact her "Atlas Shrugged" is her very pessimistic expression of America's future.
@mk181818 because level of idiotism in America exceeded anything imaginable. This country of parasitic socialist consumption and state distribution of unearned benefits is doomed. But if you read carefully her books you will see that she DID suspected that this is one of the ways for America dilapidation.
And you morons need to shut the fuck up, I think she knows a little bit more about life and philosophy than you teenage morons with skid marks in your undies. Stop thinking you're enlightened. Stop thinking you have it all "figured out". Stop thinking you know shit. Stop arguing on YouTube, the space of lifeless nobodies. Stop your arrogance.
@ZialusPT i agree. i learned a lot from kant. heck because of him i was led to rand and can appreciate her more. he breaks it down categorically and structurally. makes it easier to digest a more prescriptive philosopher like rand. covers a lot of gaps skipped by rand.
@babayabadabadu What the hell. No, I don't think you understand. I meant 'how so' as in explain to me as to why you think I'm not paying attention, because I most certainly am paying attention. I'm not sure what you expected to prove with that last comment.
Wow. I'm in awe of her intelligence, ideals, and ability to have such strong confidence in herself. It showed so much when she never danced around a question, but answered it fully and understandably. We need more people like her in the world to talk some sense into a lot of people in a lot of ways.
"When all the lights go out." When I discovered that Ayn Rand had died (in 1982) - I posted a notice in a local newspaper that read, "God speed, Ayn Rand. The world has lost a great mind." And while I still (and shall always) think that way. I (now) realize that as long as her books remain, and are read by highly intelligent individuals, who (not only have the ability; but also choose and exercise their inalienable right and responsibility to) 'think for themselves.' Her LIGHT will never go out.
She is Right! I could not find one thing wrong with what she said. You don't have to be a Republican to agree with her, just think for yourself for a change. Forget all that garbage we learned in College, and think clearly. We live in the best country in the world but I am sorry to say most people will not appreciate it until it gone as we know it and the extreme Left has taken over, running all aspects of our lives.
Every Sovereign State's NAT'L GUARD IS OVERSEAS. When Obama executes FEMA's plans "For Continuity of Government and Martial Law" 20k Troops are stationed on US Soil,"Posse Comitatus" is suspended by "the PATRIOT Act". Military controls the Police."Treaties" w/ the UN, the US has lost Sovereignty. UN, NATO, XE, TROOPS in US. Inter'l Law TRUMPS the US CON, our FUNDAMENTAL LAW and greatest in World History next to the D of I. on YT: Republic of Missouri, The CHANGE Your Founders Believed In
@jnick1980 Why are you so hung up on her private life as opposed to the philosophy itself? That's an immature position to take in my opinion. I just acknowledged that there are things she said in this very interview that I don't approve of, however that's not enough for me to abandon what she had to say in it's entirety as she pretty clearly makes some valuable points. Unless you believe that all humans should be enslaved into supposedly pleasing one another at the barrel of a gun
@jnick1980 Why would your judgement about what actions they choose to take in their lives be more valuable than their own? A person can choose not to associate with someone and that's their right, though it may be considered unfortunate by the person whom they're leaving. But what's worse would be a world where we are coerced into associating with people we don't want to.
I don't know she's like 2/3 right on the money and 1/3 cold blooded and ignorant ('dope' as in cannabis does not harm the brain. Harder drugs that are also sometimes called dope like heroin do). Or calling that seamstress girl stupid, I mean that's just mean. But the 2/3 or so that's right is important!
@HUMANSAREBENEATHME I love the taste of hatetrolls in the morning. Wait, no I don't. I respect all opinions, except those based on hate. Sorry, no respect for your comment. Try again later once you've simmered down and thought it over.
@HUMANSAREBENEATHME Hmmm, no, I am not a 'republican'. I'm just a human being, as are you. I do not feel the need to classify myself as something in order to feel acceptance. I just feel that Ayn Rand is a woman with a wonderful theory on life that I subscribe to. You can disagree with her, of course, but to say such hateful things are unnecessary.
@HUMANSAREBENEATHME I feel no need to pursue this conversation any further. You appear unable to respect other opinions and are ignorantly set in your own ways. So until the time you are ready to have a respectable debate, I wish you the best.
@AlexWearsHatsArt So let me ask you, since you seem to think her thoughts have merit.
How is it that she can claim epistemological consistency while throwing out ideas like "naked savages are envious of you"? Do you believe this woman has actually challenged her own emotionality? Is her viewpoint purely rational?
@AlexWearsHatsArt Actually I misquoted, but the issue is the same. At 7:53 of Part 2 in this series, she starts out with "Today you're supposed to apologize to every naked savage everywhere on the globe..."
@AlexWearsHatsArt It really is a shame that people can;t grasp how right she is. Truth is not always pleasing and this is the downfall of objectivism but not what invalidates it. She was a real woman and i admire her
With this she puts me on mental defense... how is it justifiable to tax the rich. Attack them for their values. Should they be putting more into our national welfare because they have more? Hmm....
This evil woman was the female Mephistopheles. It's not about politics, It's about having a heart. And she had none. She had the cold personality of a snake or a reptile.
@goodoldazed Curious that you put that comment on one of the most heartwarming interviews I've ever seen. Great work on the part of the interviewer, too, btw!
I have to laugh at the way the term "self-esteem" has been perverted by schools and the general population to mean something other than self-respect. Rand, as usual, has it right. This was done back in the '70's. It took the education system awhile but they finally managed to undermine even this bit of rational perception.
@klrdotorg It's like when a little kid scribbles some picture and the parents ohh and ahh all over the place. The kid wonders what the heck is wrong with them - if he has half a brain, that is. It's an incredible disservice to the kid. The parents are only contributing to the kid's confusion.
Dostoevsky's first marriage had nothing to do with altruism! His first wife was a 'conquest girl,' a woman whose innate appeal to him was in her unattainability. This could be seen as an emotional decision, but it served his own egoism and could therefore be seen as in compliance with Rand's philosophy. She only really became a liability later, and it is the perogative of history to denounce him for it.
I liked these clips very much because they showed me something I have always most appreciated about Ayn Rand. That is, that she has always been someone who speaks straight from her heart (for lack of a better word), and that dishonesty is something that has no place in any discourse.
Ayn Rand thought that America was headed to collapse, and she was right on the money. Unfortunately, she was wrong in thinking that the people would correct the insidious path of global hegemony we're on; I suppose she underestimated the power of mind control, bad schools, and TV in keeping the masses stupefied with trivial nonsense.
To be honest, this combined with milton friedman make a good philosophical underlay with an economic system to help compensate. If this is instilled people would actually have incentive to learn AND the economy would allow you to practice your ideas... that's incentive.
Summary: Interview didn't hit deep deep fundamentals but societal issues were covered. I'm glad she spoke. I have no scoff at this... it compliments America too!
@TheWitchOvAgnesi We could easily fall into semantics here, but a part of her lives on in our worlds, because here we are watching this. She's still causing changes in the world I mean.
@killer3596 But not clearly enough. Her works should be required reading, but they aren't. Whole classes in political science should be dedicated to her ideologies, but they're not.
But yes, if nothing more than one mind is won over at a time... well, that's better than nothing.
@killer3596 I disagree. James Taggart was a wealthy tycoon with an inordinate level of influence; Dostoevsky was, at the time that he married his first wife, a conscripted soldier on the tail end of his Siberian exile. James married Cherryl out of a sense of duty; Dostoevsky married his first wife mainly because he was smitten with her and because pursuing something that seemed unattainable heightened her value in his eyes.
@mouseofcards89 Maybe you're right, but it seems similar that neither married for what Rand would consider a proper value. They married only to make their spouses happy and not themselves. Neither of the females could ultimately accept anything less than that. Both committed suicide. The moral being, to only love or value for strength rather than weakness or out of a sense of duty. It just struck me as a similarity. I've heard that writers often incorporate things like that into their writing.
@killer3596 Taggart's marriage was all about egoism. Cherryl remarks later on in their relationship, shortly prior to her suicide, that she initially believed that she was marrying someone of Dagny's character. Taggart was gratified in the relationship because the discrepancy in social values, because he had found someone who was willing to worship him in accordance with a preconceived image. Hence he was getting something from her, which means that this was not an altruistic situation.
@mouseofcards89 Yes but Dostoevsky probably got something from his marriage as well. Altruism isn't the question. Proper value is the question. Both wanted to help the poor and ended up hurting the poor. The moral being, you don't help others by degrading yourself. You only help for value, not for need. Giving, with no thought of gaining something in return often has its own reward. The giver gains a feeling that they've done something worthwhile, but this does not mean it will work out well.
If the main claim of Ayn Rand's objectivism is that those who are successful are necessarily smarter (more reasonable) and that those who fail to succeed at the same level as the wealthy are personally at fault because they failed to reason properly or "live heroically," then she is simply promoting social Darwinism by a different name.
First time i heard her i thought she was an evil woman and i was sceptical about her but now i think she seems like a compassionate and good person with very intresting ideas
This is very sad to me...it is sad that with such a well reasoned message the mainstream mindset disregards her and her philosophy. Thank "GOD" for you Ayn Rand, and I will eternally hold optimism in my heart and my mind that your philosophy will one day reach this earth before it destroys itself.
@hannaheesaa I know, but if you watch the end of the interview at 8:40 she acknowledges the word "god" as "the highest possible" and that is all I was referring to. Did you even watch the whole clip?
The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, abundantly in evidence here, is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; and 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 and say, " . . .and that's what I reject"?
Rest in Peace Ayn... God Bless you ... whether you believe HIM the higher power or not...thank you for sharing your philosophy and leaving us your legacy..
I have listened to this woman and I even have a copy of Atlas Shrugged and I think she was a very cold blooded athiest, communistic individual. If she had given birth to a child, she would have to re-evaluate most of the crap she said and wrote about!! Yea, I know, I will probably make a few folks upset because I am NOT being politically correct, BUT I guess that is the chance I have to take.
@mtfune You won't make me upset by not being politically correct, but you will upset me if you think that Ayn Rand was a supporter of communism. She was just the opposite. She opposed any collectivist governments and strongly supported the individual.
@ImTestingSleeping MY aploogy-- You are correct about her not being communist- BUT she came from that and it shaped the way she saw the world in her own eyes. I still have to stand by my origional opinions about her and her philosophy on life. She and Anto LeVay , the guy from the Church of Satan have a LOT of similarities in the way they think- DON"T take MY word- look it up for yourself.
@mtfune Oh I definitely agree that communism affected her greatly. It is the reason she came to the US in 1926, no doubt. If anything that only made her oppose communism more. I could see how someone would call her cold blooded too. You could point out all the suffering in the world and Rand would say you don't have to try to help because it isn't your fault.
Are you trying to dissuade people to study her philosophy by painting her in the dark corner with the Church of Satan? Any Satanist would take this is a great compliment. How brilliantly lucky we are to have not only the philosophy of Dr. LaVey, but also Ayn Rand as a great backbone to our "Church". And any true believer of her philosophy isn't going to scream and shrink away based solely on your statement. They use their rational study of reality to reaffirm her truth, not your fear.
I misspoke. I meant, your attempt to make others "fear" via your comparison. Surely you meant to dissuade Ayn enthusiasts by comparing her to the big and scary Church of Satan. Or at least that is how I viewed your comment. If it wasnt, then my apologies.
She was a sociopath monster.
MMODoubter 1 week ago
@MMODoubter Surely not when you watch these interviews, her philosophy is essentially Artstotle-Classical Liberal and elucidated clearly in these videos?
jontycampbell 1 week ago
I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.
SwordOfApollo 1 week ago
I agree with you. I think that Randroid philosophy is rooted in Calvinisme, where believers practise material wealth as sign of God chosen.Since they are not allowed to show any form of "primitive" gestures, as singing, dancing etc. (resembles a business persone) This in return, pushes the focus into the real world, "objectively" as she said. But Kant was right all along; every choice is subjective and is not determent by the objective rational. Since "rational" is variable in cultures.
cphstreet 1 day ago
@manmachine30 Ok, now I don't know where the fuck you got that idea, but that's wrong. Other than the fact that Mrs. Rand was a Capitalist, like me, she was also an atheist, also like me, So she had a complete understanding of homosexuals, also the fact that racism is a primative form of collectivism and you can penalize racism with the use of capitalism.
Barry62152 2 weeks ago
Her emotions are very honest and Intense.
ChasingCharles 2 weeks ago
@manmachine30 She was from Russia, but she came to America because she realized that in a Capitalist society, you have the right to choose what you want to do in a career.
Barry62152 2 weeks ago
@Barry62152 That may be true. But after reading her statements in regard to native american ( the true Americans) she claims that taking their land that was the right thing to do ,for living like savages. And homosexuality is wrong and unnatural, and such and such. Is the iron fist that rules under the power of money. And if you don't follow the rules you pay the price. Savage Capitalism will gut you like a pig. So much for Freedom and Liberty.
manmachine30 2 weeks ago
Fascinating woman. From one atheist to another, God bless you Ayn Rand.
40gabe 1 month ago
Freedomain Radio - best place to find the continuation of her philosophy. Still strange to me that she knew how taking man's products by force is immoral, but couldn't get her head around not doing it for national defense. Such a glaring contradiction. It's such an obvious question - if capitalism is the best means of improving any industry and the only moral way to live, why would it not also work for national defense, roads, postal service, and dispute resolution courts? Check your premises!
errorspending 1 month ago
@errorspending
because it is inefficient to charge people for national defence proportionally to their use of it. Impossible to protect one person and not the other. The same with all welfare products. Privatte industry is generated towards profit maximization and not welfare maximization-medicine is best example of private industry NOT working well for public.I personally believe, that products such as health-care, education and other welfare products, should be competed for both by private
BeYouAndSmile 3 weeks ago
@errorspending
and public industry. Products such as, law enforcement, courts and national defense are in a different league(although there is place for both private and public police imho).
BeYouAndSmile 3 weeks ago
@BeYouAndSmile Inefficiency is not a valid reason to use violence. Even though you are completely incorrect in your logic...national defense would likely be extrememly cheap if run privately-would likely only cost maybe a dollar a year to have some nukes maintained. We don't need an army or bases all over the world. All we need are nukes. But regardless, inefficiency or expense, or maximization of welfare are not valid reasons to advocate the use of violence to fund them.
errorspending 3 weeks ago
@BeYouAndSmile and our healthcare is not private...is is mostly public. Prescriptions are controlled publicly...medicines are regulated by FDA. Who can become a doctor is controlled by the AMA. This is a mostly public system. A free market system would be nothing like it. It would not take 8 years to become a frickin pediatrician in a free market system. Any nurse could do the job of a pediatrician...
errorspending 3 weeks ago
@errorspending
3)You need to maintain law and order for a society to function properly. That costs money. How taxing people for living in a safe environment is immoral?
BeYouAndSmile 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeYouAndSmile Because theft is immoral, it doesn't matter if the stolen money is used to end world hunger. Theft is immoral, and consequently will never lead to a safe environment. If you stole someone's wallet and then claimed that you were doing it to hire a body guard for them as your justification, would you say it's ok for the thief to have taken the wallet?
errorspending 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeYouAndSmile theft is immoral. It doesn't matter what it's used for. If a guy steals someone wallet and then tries to justify taking it by saying he stole it to hire a body guard for the original owner, wouldn't you think that guy is a bit nutty? Taxes are taken by threat of imprisonment, and death if you try to escape prison. That is theft of the worst kind.
errorspending 3 weeks ago
@BeYouAndSmile The main difference between me and you is that I'd allow voluntary taxation on a state level not individual level-we need courts and military and police at least regardless of you moral/political standing simply because you live in real world and not a fairytale. We still would have representatives and a president who would propose regulations on a federal level, but it would be up to people whether or not to keep them or disregard them.
BeYouAndSmile 3 weeks ago
@BeYouAndSmile My personal belief, is that those regulations should be geared towards promotion of equality of opportunity and thus concentrating on education and health care as well as providing reasonable level of infrastructure. For these welfare goods, I'd let private market compete with government, and let the consumer decide.
But that's just my personal opinion and it's up to people to decide.(meaning people should have opportunity to change federal level regulations as well.)
BeYouAndSmile 3 weeks ago
@BeYouAndSmile taxes = threats violence against citizens. You can never have a successful and sustainable society built on such an immoral foundation
errorspending 3 weeks ago
@errorspending
1)Military run by private corporations...cmon...are you serious? I don't even want to start about all the implications in case of actual conflict...but think for a moment about benefits of a strong military and bases all ever the world(costs of which are mostly covered by countries they're in). Having strong military creates a demand for your currency, government securities etc. Why do you think china buys US bonds and not some wealthy western European country bonds?
BeYouAndSmile 3 weeks ago
@BeYouAndSmile
Those are certainly safer investments.
2) Health care. Government regulates the health care industry but it doesn't run it as in many other countries. As a result you have oligopoly in healthcare industry which benefits from selling overpriced and outdated medicine, that only causes you to buy more medicine. Compare prices of medicine in Cuba and USA. Without exaggeration, many types of medicine are 100+ times that of those in Cuba.
BeYouAndSmile 3 weeks ago
@BeYouAndSmile you didn't respond to the main point. You cannot justify the initiation of force against citizens to collect taxes, just because you think it is more efficient or practical. The initiation of force is immoral.
errorspending 3 weeks ago
@errorspending
that's why you have voting.
People vote for president/representatives. They in turn vote for laws, social welfare projects etc. on behalf of voters. Those projects require money. Government's main source of income is taxes. People know that. People know that if they ask for some welfare project, it'll cost them money. Then they decide whether its worth their money or not. I don't see anything immoral.
I think the main question is whether rule of majority is moral.
BeYouAndSmile 3 weeks ago
@errorspending
That's a complicated question, but as the old saying goes "No man is an island." You live in a society. You can't alienate yourself. What do you suggest? Individually-based taxes, which in turn will provide you exclusive rights to a welfare service? Get real. Things like national defense is impossible to individualize. That's why we have democracy.
You seem to have a negative attitude towards efficiency. I don't see why.
BeYouAndSmile 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeYouAndSmile Just because people vote for elected officials doesn't make theft-taxation moral. There is no choice to not get taxed no matter who you vote for. You and I never signed the declaration of independance agreeing to any social contract. People you don't know cannot sign contracts for you over 200 years ago. Being born onto a particular piece of land does not lock a baby into a contract either. I understand that it's hard to go against everything we were taught
errorspending 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeYouAndSmile saying something is impossible does not mean it is. That's like saying it's impossible to have more than one cell phone company in the USA. Of course it's possible. You give people options so that the companies have to INNOVATE to provide better defense. Right now we have the WORST possible defense because we are actively poking at hornets nests all over the world. You think private companies would keep their customers if they were initiating aggressive wars?
errorspending 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeYouAndSmile If you were the owner of AT&T and you had a legal monopoly in the USA enforced by the state, would you ever bother investing in research and development of new and better cell phones? What would be the purpose? You already have everyone stuck paying you every month regardless. Why would the military be any different. If the government sucks at education, post office, DMV, road maintenance, traffic management why would they be good at running a military???
errorspending 3 weeks ago
@errorspending
There are 2 questions to me when deciding on whether or not I support a specific regulation or tax policy or whatever.
1)Does it work? If not- then there is no point in further discussing it.
If it works, then there is question:
2) Is it moral?
I personally am not a fan of the regulatory system in US today. I'd rather get more people involvement in decision making, as well as limit existing government. But taxation is necessary, until government finds a way of making
BeYouAndSmile 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BeYouAndSmile sorry I meant the Constitution, not Dec of Indep. When did you sign this contract that gave the government the right to take part of your income? I guarantee you, you never signed anything like it. And don't tell me you tacitly agreed to it by staying in this country. By that logic, I could get together with a few old white wigged men and set up my own government right in my neighborhood and demand taxes or else everyone has to move somewhere else
errorspending 3 weeks ago
@errorspending money to support peoples' will in other way.
I personally support more referendum type activity on a state level, as well as having flat federal taxes and voluntary state taxes, spending of which will also be decided by people. Let's say government has some flat tax rate. It spends money on military, law enforcement, courts, administrative expenses as well as social welfare projects and etc.
BeYouAndSmile 3 weeks ago
@errorspending
@errorspending If people in some state are unhappy with level of education, they have an option of moving into private schooling, or creating/increasing a state-level tax, which will have financing public education in that state as a sole reason for its existence. That way, people will have control of how much they want to spend and on what they wnt their money to be spent on.
BeYouAndSmile 3 weeks ago
@errorspending But in the end, you'll need taxation to promote interests of the majority and professionals to deal with economy/military and other highly specialized fields' issues
Sorry for making this so ling and messy, but I hope I answered all your questions as well as question you might have left..
BeYouAndSmile 3 weeks ago
Smoke 'em if you got 'em Tom
jonesey5168 1 month ago
"G.d bless you"
domkratic 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Michael Prescott: Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman
michaelprescottDOTnet/hickmanDOThtm
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
Read "Atlas Shrugged"
backlighting 2 months ago
at the end, he was doing it on purpose with all his god bullshit. Problem is, Snyder.....being a smart ass is different than being a great mind
luigiperso 2 months ago
@luigiperso Not at all. Rand had just expressed how highly she valued the expression 'God bless you' and 'Thank God', because she understands that those who say those phrases use them as 'the highest possible' (her words). Snyder's use of the phrase therefore was an act of the highest respect for Rand, the highest possible.
MrBoolyman 1 month ago
shut the hell up and let her talk, Snyder.
luigiperso 2 months ago
9.21 to 9.40 i love it
TruthWithinRange 2 months ago
@TruthWithinRange i meant 6.21 to 6.40
TruthWithinRange 2 months ago
Dixon.
Plop nooqkiisi
&889@&-&&&/&
Arosenbloommd 3 months ago
Edffgc bcc.
Arosenbloommd 3 months ago
Interesting interview. Rand seems to have had a very limited perspective; clinging to false conclusions about the Universe. She's a stone cold materialist, and quantum science has blown materialism away. She lacked imagination, in my opinion.
northstar789 3 months ago
@northstar789 How has quantum science blown away materialism? And what qualification do you have to even mention the work on quantum physics?
Pabloandpablo 3 months ago
@northstar789 l: Uh, you're a moron, and not because you disagree with Ayn Rand. Just based on what you said and the context within which you said it. You may want to pull your head out of your ass. Just two factual errors, Objectivism is not materialism, so no, she is not a materialist. Assertions to the contrary, based on ignorance, can't alter this fact. Second, quantum theory is about physical reality and nothing else. Physics. Duh!
MagisterPridgen 2 months ago
@northstar789 By blindly asserting that she is a philosophical materialist -- you are showing your complete non-comprehension of her position.
Man's nature is an integrated being of consciousness (non-material; ideas, as such, do not exist) and a physical body. One does not exist w/o the other. Man's mind is his primary means of survival. Her system is derived from the tradition of Aristotle w/crucial innovations. Her epistemology and ethics were important and major advances.
ryckoffr 2 months ago
very true.
codkiller100 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Sarrisan98
He says "there are many people in this country who, forgive me think you are daft" All of the interviewers are so polite to this boring moron.
TomiF100 4 months ago
6:50 All the blood should drain from your face after watching this part!
batfly 4 months ago
This is by far the best interview I have ever viewed.
jfcrow1 4 months ago
ok.. I can respect Ayn's beliefs, but I think anyone can see the failure of her reasoning. In her opinion... If I believe I must kill my wife because of some reason.. ("she is not not the best mom to my kids, etc) and then I kill her her and make sure my kids and I are actually better off, then in Ayn Rands' opinion it is within my right... That is totally f**d up.
rolson0 5 months ago
@rolson0 Right, except that the wife is also a human being with a right to her life and you cannot ignore that in order to pursue your self-interest. In Ayn's world, the initiation of force is never justified so no, you cannot kill your wife, sorry.
notadirector 5 months ago
@rolson0
Yea that's way off man, and comes from a shallow understanding of her writings. To argue effectively and convincingly against someone requires that you understand their position fully, and you clearly don't understand hers.
SomeUsefulIdiot 2 months ago
According to objectivism it would be moral to help a stranger provided the help was given by choice and not seen as a duty or as something owed to that person above one's rational self interest. Objectivism holds life as it's standard of value and your own life as your highest moral purpose. You must not sacrifice for others or expect others to sacrifice for you.
Natarichan13 5 months ago
The human being is a "Robot-slave of a selfish machine." [Dawkins]. Ayn Rand's philosophy of ' Objectivism', is the complete surrender of the human being to the dictates of this machine. It is interesting that this [unspoken] philosophy first arose in her at the age of 2, and she has never doubted it since. This , as every parent knows, is when the child begins to 'want' this and that. Tantrums, greed. The 'terrible Two's. Rand was certainly not free. She was a slave, to the very end.
brianjsmith1895 5 months ago
So let me get this straight. According to Rand it is immoral to help a total stranger in need because you have nothing to gain by it? She already said she doesn't accept gifts from strangers. Imagine all the fans who wanted to show her some kindness. What a cold cunt.
sigurjong 5 months ago
@sigurjong Not True. If helping the stranger brings you some sort of satisfaction and fulfills some value in your moral code, then you should do it because by saving the stranger you are also making yourself "happy" and your "happiness" is what Ayn Rand says should guide your actions.
Unhatched 5 months ago
@sigurjong She's a philosopher, I'd imagine she didn't accept gifts from strangers because they didn't know her to respect her, thus the present is more for the giver than Rand herself.
I know, it's crazy. Having to think things out instead of lashing out with an emotional, venomous reply.
TheColdTruth 5 months ago
@TheColdTruth What happened to kindness? What happened to the ability of putting yourself in other people's shoes? Ayn Rand was a sharp lady, but did she choose that? Hell no. Almost everything in life is luck and it is this factor she fails to take into consideration and the reason why her philosophy falls short. The ability of putting yourself in the shoes of the less fortunate is the ability that raises our consciousness about who we are and why we should care about our fellow man. If Ayn..
sigurjong 5 months ago
@sigurjong Almost everything in life is luck... that's quite a slap in the face to people like Helen Keller, who turned the worst of luck into something great. We can't put ourselves in anyone else's shoes, not in any meaningful way to be honest, because we can't borrow anyone else's mind, which is the basis for everything else. If you could put yourself into the "shoes" of Ayn Rand, you'd be able to see why she believes what she believes and you'd really have no criticism to offer.
ScionAscendant 3 months ago
@ScionAscendant The fact that she was able to do that had everything to do with luck. She could've been born with a brain defect. Did she choose her brilliant mind? Try telling this to someone who can't formulate a thought. You guys are stilling missing the point. It is very easy to put yourself in someone else shoes. You just did that yourself without even realizing it lol.
sigurjong 3 months ago
@sigurjong Our minds aren't predefined. Why do you think such a thing as education exists? What we have initially is defined by chance; what we choose to do with what we have is not. If you really believe that our outcomes are defined by pure luck (a typical view of unhappy people who are resentful of the circumstances of others; bums, addicts, criminals etc. etc.), then what's the point of trying to help others? Your actions will not have any effect on their pre-ordained luck or karma.
ScionAscendant 3 months ago
@sigurjong You are free to take care of all the people you want to. Just don't assume you have a right to make ME do it because YOU think it's correct. I am not your slave. I will take care of those I value. You take care of the ones YOU value. People often forget that INDIVIDUAL choice is MUCH more preferable to majority rule. Majority rule means a large minority loses. It's better than dictatorship but less government means less situations that erode individual freedoms.
A1Video2008 2 months ago
@TheColdTruth Rand had been born blind and legless with no family and friends she would have to rely on the kind nature of total strangers. This is where she would have no option, but to accept gifts from total strangers, the ones who are lucky. This is why we, the ones who are fortunate, need to understand the importance of seeing the world from other views than our own.
sigurjong 5 months ago
She does deserve to be counted as an American Intellect, but I think only she has a true grasp of what she's talking about.
Kleinfurkon 6 months ago
@Kleinfurkon If "only she has a true grasp of what she is talking about " then what she is talking about is so intellectually exclusive it's reasoning so obscure no one else has the ability to understand. In that case her ideas are worthless. Or her ideas are so easy too understand so simple and basic they belong in the library under the section "unworkable political/economic theories for dummies" and so still worthless. Personally I'ii go for the latter.
davijeph 5 months ago
@davijeph precisely. I wish her writings were some kind of satire, but I really don't think they are. I wasn't advocating esoterism, although I don't think 'reasoning so obscure no one else has the ability to understand' actually exists. Although, as the great Richard Feynman once said, 'Anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics, does not understand quantum mechanics.' So, that's daunting, but not impossible. Certainly not worthless.
Kleinfurkon 3 months ago
"If anyone destroys this country, it will be the conservatives" About the only intelligent, rational and correct statement she made during the entire interview !!!!! HAHAHAHAHA
Sharky165 6 months ago
Here is the thing the hardest thing to do in life is to love those who don't love you she is basically saying its to hard and i give up i will be selfish about my being,,,,Why do republicans love her again lol
melskilove 6 months ago in playlist HISTORY
@melskilove Maybe there is a reason why it is hard to love someone who does not hate you. Like, i mean, It is hard to keep my hand inside a fire and it would be really hard even if people said it was the right thing to do.
MrMiriland 5 months ago
@MrMiriland does not *love you. i meant. "Maybe there is a reason why it is hard to love someone who does not *LOVE you".
MrMiriland 5 months ago
Ayn Rand was a great American.
Barry62152 6 months ago 4
@Barry62152 with that accent ????
manmachine30 2 weeks ago
@manmachine30 she's american in spirit...her ideas represent what america should stand for (freedom) instead of what it does stand for: lies and imperialism
mrdenisfly 2 weeks ago 2
what an amazing woman
orbital92hotmail 6 months ago 10
Snyder was very good.
wetlazer 6 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul will save this country. Ron Paul 2012.
Zimnyification 6 months ago
She didn't estimate properly the level of idiotism of contemporary America.
mk181818 8 months ago 7
@mk181818 I wouldn't say that. She wasn't deluded. But she was optimistic. She'd be very disappointed to see how things have gone since her death but I think even now she'd be optimistic about the future. That was her nature.
WalterLiddy 3 weeks ago
@WalterLiddy Optimistic? My foot... She knew that hussin obama is one of the options for America evolving into ugly "statetism" based upon America's enemies ideology of collectivism and private citizen's life state control. In the matter of fact her "Atlas Shrugged" is her very pessimistic expression of America's future.
mk181818 2 weeks ago
@mk181818 because level of idiotism in America exceeded anything imaginable. This country of parasitic socialist consumption and state distribution of unearned benefits is doomed. But if you read carefully her books you will see that she DID suspected that this is one of the ways for America dilapidation.
mk181818 2 weeks ago
I'm not the biggest fan of Kant. But boy oh boy, is she wrong about him...
ZialusPT 8 months ago
Fuck Immanuel Cunt
And you morons need to shut the fuck up, I think she knows a little bit more about life and philosophy than you teenage morons with skid marks in your undies. Stop thinking you're enlightened. Stop thinking you have it all "figured out". Stop thinking you know shit. Stop arguing on YouTube, the space of lifeless nobodies. Stop your arrogance.
NRock2404 8 months ago
@NRock2404 gee, u sound really enlightened..
reg12269 7 months ago
@NRock2404 -Stated a bit roughly bloke, but spot on.
MrDavearama 4 months ago
@ZialusPT i agree. i learned a lot from kant. heck because of him i was led to rand and can appreciate her more. he breaks it down categorically and structurally. makes it easier to digest a more prescriptive philosopher like rand. covers a lot of gaps skipped by rand.
reg12269 7 months ago
@babayabadabadu If that's how you feel. Have a good day (:
AlexWearsHatsArt 8 months ago
@babayabadabadu What the hell. No, I don't think you understand. I meant 'how so' as in explain to me as to why you think I'm not paying attention, because I most certainly am paying attention. I'm not sure what you expected to prove with that last comment.
AlexWearsHatsArt 8 months ago
Wow. I'm in awe of her intelligence, ideals, and ability to have such strong confidence in herself. It showed so much when she never danced around a question, but answered it fully and understandably. We need more people like her in the world to talk some sense into a lot of people in a lot of ways.
killingnatalie 8 months ago 17
@babayabadabadu How so?
AlexWearsHatsArt 8 months ago
god shes brilliant. i just want to listen to her all day
simal12345 8 months ago 3
"When all the lights go out." When I discovered that Ayn Rand had died (in 1982) - I posted a notice in a local newspaper that read, "God speed, Ayn Rand. The world has lost a great mind." And while I still (and shall always) think that way. I (now) realize that as long as her books remain, and are read by highly intelligent individuals, who (not only have the ability; but also choose and exercise their inalienable right and responsibility to) 'think for themselves.' Her LIGHT will never go out.
greenpeoplesa 8 months ago 11
She is Right! I could not find one thing wrong with what she said. You don't have to be a Republican to agree with her, just think for yourself for a change. Forget all that garbage we learned in College, and think clearly. We live in the best country in the world but I am sorry to say most people will not appreciate it until it gone as we know it and the extreme Left has taken over, running all aspects of our lives.
ldrchandler 8 months ago
Great video.
callofduty4eva 9 months ago
whats she say at 3:39?
tonygmilan7 10 months ago
@tonygmilan7 'seamstress'
thespian83 10 months ago
Every Sovereign State's NAT'L GUARD IS OVERSEAS. When Obama executes FEMA's plans "For Continuity of Government and Martial Law" 20k Troops are stationed on US Soil,"Posse Comitatus" is suspended by "the PATRIOT Act". Military controls the Police."Treaties" w/ the UN, the US has lost Sovereignty. UN, NATO, XE, TROOPS in US. Inter'l Law TRUMPS the US CON, our FUNDAMENTAL LAW and greatest in World History next to the D of I. on YT: Republic of Missouri, The CHANGE Your Founders Believed In
1tonykirk 10 months ago
@jnick1980 Why are you so hung up on her private life as opposed to the philosophy itself? That's an immature position to take in my opinion. I just acknowledged that there are things she said in this very interview that I don't approve of, however that's not enough for me to abandon what she had to say in it's entirety as she pretty clearly makes some valuable points. Unless you believe that all humans should be enslaved into supposedly pleasing one another at the barrel of a gun
dubified89 10 months ago
@jnick1980 Why would your judgement about what actions they choose to take in their lives be more valuable than their own? A person can choose not to associate with someone and that's their right, though it may be considered unfortunate by the person whom they're leaving. But what's worse would be a world where we are coerced into associating with people we don't want to.
dubified89 10 months ago
Which is basically what the public school system is
dubified89 10 months ago
I don't know she's like 2/3 right on the money and 1/3 cold blooded and ignorant ('dope' as in cannabis does not harm the brain. Harder drugs that are also sometimes called dope like heroin do). Or calling that seamstress girl stupid, I mean that's just mean. But the 2/3 or so that's right is important!
dubified89 10 months ago
@brifranc1421419 Yeah Tom Snyder, he was good cause he didn't patronize people like other hosts do
dubified89 10 months ago
Hulda Clark was Ayn Rand's alter ego / protege, like Tony Clifton was it for Andy Kaufman;-)
webmatros 10 months ago
John Gualt? You don't know him - like I know him.
KeithMcElwain 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Rand=Psychopath
HUMANSAREBENEATHME 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
RAND=ANTI-CHRISTIAN WHORE
HUMANSAREBENEATHME 10 months ago
@HUMANSAREBENEATHME I love the taste of hatetrolls in the morning. Wait, no I don't. I respect all opinions, except those based on hate. Sorry, no respect for your comment. Try again later once you've simmered down and thought it over.
AlexWearsHatsArt 10 months ago
@AlexWearsHatsArt You worship a psychopath(Rand), who turned a psychopathic child killer(Hickman), into a hero....Yup,you're definately a republican.
HUMANSAREBENEATHME 10 months ago
@HUMANSAREBENEATHME Hmmm, no, I am not a 'republican'. I'm just a human being, as are you. I do not feel the need to classify myself as something in order to feel acceptance. I just feel that Ayn Rand is a woman with a wonderful theory on life that I subscribe to. You can disagree with her, of course, but to say such hateful things are unnecessary.
AlexWearsHatsArt 10 months ago 38
@AlexWearsHatsArt Conservatism is an extended adolescence...GROW UP, FOOL!!
HUMANSAREBENEATHME 10 months ago
@HUMANSAREBENEATHME I feel no need to pursue this conversation any further. You appear unable to respect other opinions and are ignorantly set in your own ways. So until the time you are ready to have a respectable debate, I wish you the best.
AlexWearsHatsArt 10 months ago
@AlexWearsHatsArt So let me ask you, since you seem to think her thoughts have merit.
How is it that she can claim epistemological consistency while throwing out ideas like "naked savages are envious of you"? Do you believe this woman has actually challenged her own emotionality? Is her viewpoint purely rational?
Tanfeliz 10 months ago
@Tanfeliz Before I continue, where are you quoting from? (Referring to 'naked savages are envious of you')
AlexWearsHatsArt 10 months ago
@AlexWearsHatsArt Actually I misquoted, but the issue is the same. At 7:53 of Part 2 in this series, she starts out with "Today you're supposed to apologize to every naked savage everywhere on the globe..."
Tanfeliz 10 months ago
@AlexWearsHatsArt Well said!
preemptivestrike20 9 months ago
@AlexWearsHatsArt It really is a shame that people can;t grasp how right she is. Truth is not always pleasing and this is the downfall of objectivism but not what invalidates it. She was a real woman and i admire her
majikstranger 8 months ago
HEAR THAT? AYN RAND IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE.
polishlady94 10 months ago 4
Take care of yourself first, so you can take care of others. But do so because you choose to, and not because you are coerced to do so by governent.
robichard 10 months ago
Love your friends, and hate your enemies. Umm where have I heard this before. The old testament, perhaps?
mehandas 10 months ago
At base, no human does anything contrary to their desires. To try to argue otherwise is ridiculous. That seems the basis for her philosophy.
wlchase 11 months ago
@wlchase yes but there desires my be predicated from a faulty premise.
shortseller1992 10 months ago
With this she puts me on mental defense... how is it justifiable to tax the rich. Attack them for their values. Should they be putting more into our national welfare because they have more? Hmm....
Yrgul66 11 months ago
This evil woman was the female Mephistopheles. It's not about politics, It's about having a heart. And she had none. She had the cold personality of a snake or a reptile.
goodoldazed 11 months ago
@goodoldazed Curious that you put that comment on one of the most heartwarming interviews I've ever seen. Great work on the part of the interviewer, too, btw!
fab006 8 months ago
In the end all that matters to me - is me. And all that matters to you - is you. It's the nature of things.
brad10474 11 months ago
I have to laugh at the way the term "self-esteem" has been perverted by schools and the general population to mean something other than self-respect. Rand, as usual, has it right. This was done back in the '70's. It took the education system awhile but they finally managed to undermine even this bit of rational perception.
mikeyh0 11 months ago 4
@mikeyh0
Excellent post. The notion to pump kids full of self-esteem ... and disassociate it with achievement.
What could be more counterintuitive?
klrdotorg 10 months ago 5
@klrdotorg It's like when a little kid scribbles some picture and the parents ohh and ahh all over the place. The kid wonders what the heck is wrong with them - if he has half a brain, that is. It's an incredible disservice to the kid. The parents are only contributing to the kid's confusion.
mikeyh0 10 months ago 12
Dostoevsky's first marriage had nothing to do with altruism! His first wife was a 'conquest girl,' a woman whose innate appeal to him was in her unattainability. This could be seen as an emotional decision, but it served his own egoism and could therefore be seen as in compliance with Rand's philosophy. She only really became a liability later, and it is the perogative of history to denounce him for it.
mouseofcards89 11 months ago
I liked these clips very much because they showed me something I have always most appreciated about Ayn Rand. That is, that she has always been someone who speaks straight from her heart (for lack of a better word), and that dishonesty is something that has no place in any discourse.
PreCodeMovies 11 months ago
Ayn Rand thought that America was headed to collapse, and she was right on the money. Unfortunately, she was wrong in thinking that the people would correct the insidious path of global hegemony we're on; I suppose she underestimated the power of mind control, bad schools, and TV in keeping the masses stupefied with trivial nonsense.
GregDiablo 11 months ago 2
1:08--"They are terribly unselfish because they haven't got one independent idea in the world." The best quote here.
dedbusted 11 months ago
Holy crap it's Immanuel Kant!
To be honest, this combined with milton friedman make a good philosophical underlay with an economic system to help compensate. If this is instilled people would actually have incentive to learn AND the economy would allow you to practice your ideas... that's incentive.
Summary: Interview didn't hit deep deep fundamentals but societal issues were covered. I'm glad she spoke. I have no scoff at this... it compliments America too!
Shrunkenhead61 11 months ago 2
Thirty years have passed and we have learned nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
I can hear Ayn Rand spinning in her grave right now.
TheWitchOvAgnesi 1 year ago
@TheWitchOvAgnesi No she's not there. When we die we aren't corpses in graves, remember?
dedbusted 11 months ago
@dedbusted LOL... yeah, OK, I guess I stand corrected.
TheWitchOvAgnesi 11 months ago
@TheWitchOvAgnesi We could easily fall into semantics here, but a part of her lives on in our worlds, because here we are watching this. She's still causing changes in the world I mean.
killer3596 11 months ago
@killer3596 But not clearly enough. Her works should be required reading, but they aren't. Whole classes in political science should be dedicated to her ideologies, but they're not.
But yes, if nothing more than one mind is won over at a time... well, that's better than nothing.
TheWitchOvAgnesi 11 months ago
@TheWitchOvAgnesi I agree.
killer3596 11 months ago
I think that story of Dostoevsky and his wife's suicide is in Atlas Shrugged. It's similar to James Taggart and Cherryl Brooks.
killer3596 1 year ago
@killer3596 I disagree. James Taggart was a wealthy tycoon with an inordinate level of influence; Dostoevsky was, at the time that he married his first wife, a conscripted soldier on the tail end of his Siberian exile. James married Cherryl out of a sense of duty; Dostoevsky married his first wife mainly because he was smitten with her and because pursuing something that seemed unattainable heightened her value in his eyes.
mouseofcards89 11 months ago
@mouseofcards89 Maybe you're right, but it seems similar that neither married for what Rand would consider a proper value. They married only to make their spouses happy and not themselves. Neither of the females could ultimately accept anything less than that. Both committed suicide. The moral being, to only love or value for strength rather than weakness or out of a sense of duty. It just struck me as a similarity. I've heard that writers often incorporate things like that into their writing.
killer3596 11 months ago
@killer3596 Taggart's marriage was all about egoism. Cherryl remarks later on in their relationship, shortly prior to her suicide, that she initially believed that she was marrying someone of Dagny's character. Taggart was gratified in the relationship because the discrepancy in social values, because he had found someone who was willing to worship him in accordance with a preconceived image. Hence he was getting something from her, which means that this was not an altruistic situation.
mouseofcards89 11 months ago
@mouseofcards89 Yes but Dostoevsky probably got something from his marriage as well. Altruism isn't the question. Proper value is the question. Both wanted to help the poor and ended up hurting the poor. The moral being, you don't help others by degrading yourself. You only help for value, not for need. Giving, with no thought of gaining something in return often has its own reward. The giver gains a feeling that they've done something worthwhile, but this does not mean it will work out well.
killer3596 11 months ago
If the main claim of Ayn Rand's objectivism is that those who are successful are necessarily smarter (more reasonable) and that those who fail to succeed at the same level as the wealthy are personally at fault because they failed to reason properly or "live heroically," then she is simply promoting social Darwinism by a different name.
Mortonc3 1 year ago
@Mortonc3
No shes not, theres many difeernces beeween objectivism and socialdarwinism.
For example a socialdarwinist would say that letting weak peopel suffer is moral.
An objectivist would say that its moral to let them suffer unless you place a value in helping them.
Huge difeerence. (if i have understood rands ideas correct)
Id say her ideas are like a combiantion of existentialism and socialdarwinism
unfad1ng 1 year ago
First time i heard her i thought she was an evil woman and i was sceptical about her but now i think she seems like a compassionate and good person with very intresting ideas
unfad1ng 1 year ago
This is very sad to me...it is sad that with such a well reasoned message the mainstream mindset disregards her and her philosophy. Thank "GOD" for you Ayn Rand, and I will eternally hold optimism in my heart and my mind that your philosophy will one day reach this earth before it destroys itself.
thaiblacky 1 year ago
@thaiblacky she didnt believe in god or she new there was such thing as a god but was against him
hannaheesaa 1 year ago
@hannaheesaa I know, but if you watch the end of the interview at 8:40 she acknowledges the word "god" as "the highest possible" and that is all I was referring to. Did you even watch the whole clip?
thaiblacky 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, abundantly in evidence here, is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; and 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 and say, " . . .and that's what I reject"?
notbestfriends 1 year ago
Rest in Peace Ayn... God Bless you ... whether you believe HIM the higher power or not...thank you for sharing your philosophy and leaving us your legacy..
aslanlela 1 year ago
Ron Paul 2012
operaknitter 1 year ago
I have listened to this woman and I even have a copy of Atlas Shrugged and I think she was a very cold blooded athiest, communistic individual. If she had given birth to a child, she would have to re-evaluate most of the crap she said and wrote about!! Yea, I know, I will probably make a few folks upset because I am NOT being politically correct, BUT I guess that is the chance I have to take.
mtfune 1 year ago
@mtfune You won't make me upset by not being politically correct, but you will upset me if you think that Ayn Rand was a supporter of communism. She was just the opposite. She opposed any collectivist governments and strongly supported the individual.
ImTestingSleeping 1 year ago
@ImTestingSleeping MY aploogy-- You are correct about her not being communist- BUT she came from that and it shaped the way she saw the world in her own eyes. I still have to stand by my origional opinions about her and her philosophy on life. She and Anto LeVay , the guy from the Church of Satan have a LOT of similarities in the way they think- DON"T take MY word- look it up for yourself.
mtfune 1 year ago
@mtfune Oh I definitely agree that communism affected her greatly. It is the reason she came to the US in 1926, no doubt. If anything that only made her oppose communism more. I could see how someone would call her cold blooded too. You could point out all the suffering in the world and Rand would say you don't have to try to help because it isn't your fault.
ImTestingSleeping 1 year ago
@mtfune
Are you trying to dissuade people to study her philosophy by painting her in the dark corner with the Church of Satan? Any Satanist would take this is a great compliment. How brilliantly lucky we are to have not only the philosophy of Dr. LaVey, but also Ayn Rand as a great backbone to our "Church". And any true believer of her philosophy isn't going to scream and shrink away based solely on your statement. They use their rational study of reality to reaffirm her truth, not your fear.
CzarriaAfdemaur 1 year ago
@CzarriaAfdemaur I have no fear- I am making a comparison.
mtfune 1 year ago
@mtfune
I misspoke. I meant, your attempt to make others "fear" via your comparison. Surely you meant to dissuade Ayn enthusiasts by comparing her to the big and scary Church of Satan. Or at least that is how I viewed your comment. If it wasnt, then my apologies.
CzarriaAfdemaur 1 year ago
Comment removed
mtfune 1 year ago