Ayn Rand Institute: 'Ayn Rand - Her Philosophy in Two Minutes'

Source:Ayn Rand Institute- The philosophy of objectivism. 

"Learn more about Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism—a philosophy for living on earth."

From the Ayn Rand Institute

Source:Amazon- "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Ayn Rand Library): Leonard Peikoff: 9780452011014: Amazon.com: Books"

From The Atlas Society

"Objectivism is the philosophy of rational individualism founded by Ayn Rand (1905-1982). In novels such as The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged , Rand dramatized her ideal man, the producer who lives by his own effort and does not give or receive the undeserved, who honors achievement and rejects envy. Rand laid out the details of her world-view in nonfiction books such as The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal."

If you look at Ayn Rand's objectivism, it's the least romantic and idealist of any political or social philosophy known to man, because it's all about reason and the individual.

It's also the least flattering, because you wouldn't hear Ayn or one of her followers say something nice to someone just to be nice: you're not going to hear a Randian say: "this is the best meal that I've ever had in my life." Especially when you only served them meatloaf and mashed potatoes. No offense to meatloaf and mashed potatoes, a meal I'm a big fan of, but if you had dinner at a great Italian or French restaurant, or a great American steakhouse or some place like that, you're not going to say under oath at least: "that meatloaf and mashed potato meal, is the best meal I've ever had in my life." If you're trying to kiss your boss's wife ass or something like that, then maybe you would do that. Or you might say that was the best meal that if you ever had in jail or in a hospital, or some cafeteria. And you might sound like you're joking, but you would be honest and even truthful.

What you get from a Randian like Ayn or anyone else, is their best view or opinion based on what they know based on the best available evidence in front of them. Not what's the nicest, or harshest, or politically correct thing to say, but exactly what they're thinking based on what they know at the time, because again their philosophy is based on reason, not kindness or harshness. They're not flatterers and then they're not assholes: they say what they think based on what they know and then make all of their decisions in life based on what they know at the time. So if you're looking for a great romance novel, don't expect to get that from a Randian. But if you want a good fiction based off of a true story ( political or otherwise ) a Randian might be a good author for you.

So objectivism like liberalism, ( in the classic and real sense ) or conservative-libertarianism, or  left-libertarianism, anarcho-libertarianism, are all based around the individual and that people should be in charge of themselves and accountable to themselves. That people should make their own decisions and then be held accountable ( for good and bad ) for their own decisions. Not talking about an anarcbo society where there are no rules and people are free to abuse innocent people, but where people are free to make their own decisions in life, ( short of hurting innocent people with what they're doing ) where  individualism, freedom, and even selfishness aren't just tolerated, but even encouraged under objectivism.

So why do Leftists and Rightists hate Ayn Rand?

I'm not gong to get into Far-Left or Far-Right here even in an American political spectrum sense, because people who are Far-Left in America, would be called Center-Left in a lot of European states. And people who could be called Far-Right in America, would be considered Center-Right in most of if not the entire Middle East, but I'll explain why Socialists ( regardless of the Socialist faction ) and why let's call them Christian-Conservatives or Religious-Conservatives, people who in America are now called Christian-Nationalists and in the Middle East would be Islamists, hate Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism.

If you're a Socialist, objectivism or Randianism is like the Devil to you: ( assuming you're not a Communist ) because it represents everything that you hate about individualism and individual freedom, especially economic freedom with the belief that people who make a lot of money, should not only be allowed to make a lot of money, but then be able to keep most of that money to spend as they please, even while you have people in poverty.

If you're on the Christian-Right or you're a Nationalist, Ayn Rand is the Devil to you because of her social philosophy that people should be free to make their own decisions in life and not be forced to conform to someone else's view of morality. And that government shouldn't be able to force people to live a certain way and that people should live any lifestyle that they want and not be forced to live a certain way. And that women shouldn't be forced too served under men and be servants to men, that everyone is equal regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or religion. If you're a Christian-Nationalist, ( let's say ) you obviously have big issues not with this hardcore individualism, but that no one is superior or inferior to anyone based on their social class or culture.

What Socialists, Christian-Nationalists. and Islamists have in common is that they're all collectivists: right-collectivists come at their view of collectivism from a fundamentalist ( if not warped view ( of their religion. Socialists, come at their collectivism based on their view of government and have a very romantic or idealist ( if not warped ) view of what government can do for people, if it just has the money and resources provide those services for everyone.

So of course collectivists ( left or right ) are going to have real issues with objectivism or any other philosophy that's based on individualism and individual freedom, because they believe individualism leads to inequality or immorality. And you need a central government big enough to prevent inequality and immorality from happening. Which is why collectivists ( left and right ) hate Ayn Rand, because of her belief in the individual, even over government.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CUNY-TV: Day at Night: James Day Interviewing Ayn Rand, Author, Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand, is the modern inspiration and philosopher of the libertarian movement in America. Whether it is Ron Paul, or a whole bunch of libertarian writers and bloggers like Walter Williams, Reason Magazine, the title Reason, should be a pretty good clue there, they all talk like and believe in the same things as Ayn Rand. "Taxation is theft, people shouldn't be forced to give their money through government to others", etc. This all comes from Ayn Rand's objectivism and what she believed and to a certain extent with the Tea Party she still inspires the Republican Party today. You don't have to put words in Ayn Rand's mouth whether you are a fan of hers, or not. She does that for you and has already so many of her thoughts on paper and in video.

So this and that we tend to agree on social issues and economic issues when it comes to choice, is what I respect about Ayn. Her consistency, she didn't take a position when she thought it was popular and then gradually moved into another direction when it became unpopular. And that extent she would have made a great public servant, but a bad politician, because she had a habit of telling people exactly what she thought and knew. Instead of what people wanted to hear. The complete opposite of Donald Trump, who takes his political positions based on which way the wind is blowing at Wrigley Field. Is the wind blowing in or out. (Sorry for the baseball analogy) If anything Ayn's political philosophy became well-known at the height of the collectivist Progressive Era from the 1940s through the 1960s. So based on the fact she had principles gives people a lot to respect about her.

Ayn Rand Institute: 'James McConnell- Interviews Ayn Rand About the New Intellectual (1961)'

Source:Ayn Rand Institute- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, being interviewed by James McConnell, in 1961.

"In this interview, which took place upon publication of For the New Intellectual, Ayn Rand discusses the nature of cultural leadership, the influence of Plato, Aquinas and Kant, the creeping mysticism infecting science and the lengthy process by which individuals become the “new intellectuals” of tomorrow.

Recorded May 15, 1961."  

From the Ayn Rand Institute

One thing I would give Ayn Rand credit for is her consistency. She believed the same things when she became well-known in the 1940s or so all the way up until she died. We agree when it comes to individual freedom that people should have the power to live their own lives and not be interfered with government as long as they aren't hurting any innocent person. This is something that Liberals have in common with Libertarians and Objectivists. 

But I guess the reason why objectivism has never caught on anywhere in the world and why libertarianism has just become  a major movement in America and Canada in the last ten years or so is because even though a lot of people tend to believe in both personal economic freedom now, we also tend at least in America believe in a public safety net for people who truly need it.

Canada and Europe, are a bit different where they don't believe that individuals should be left to take care of themselves and go further than just a social insurance system, which is what a safety net is. And have welfare states there to meet the basic needs of the people. Mixed in with private enterprise to fund those social programs and a good deal of personal freedom as well. As least for a social democracy. 

I like to call Americans Classical Liberals, or Social Liberals at least in the sense that we go further when it comes to both personal and economic freedom then Social Democrats. But one thing that separates us from Libertarians is that again we want a safety net for people who truly need it. Not a welfare state to manage people's economic affairs for them. But social insurance for people who truly hit hard times.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger.

The Tomorrow Show With Tom Snyder: Ayn Rand (1979)

Source:The Tomorrow Show With Tom Snyder- Objectivist author Ayn Rand, on The Tomorrow Show with Tom Snyder in 1979.

"Ayn Rand Interview with Tom Snyder" 

From Mens Business Education

Tom Snyder trying to learn about Ayn Rand’s objectivism and in this interview they are getting into religion. And Ayn telling Tom that “religion is wrong and not for people who base their beliefs on religion”. And that is probably putting it nicely. 

Snyder was a lifelong Catholic, so probably hearing Ayn Rand who was what I would call a fundamentalist Atheist talking about why she doesn’t like religion is probably hard for him to hear. But that is why Snyder did these interviews to learn about how others think even when he disagrees with them. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger.

The Objective Standard: Craig Biddle: Is Objectivism a Cult?

Source:FreeState Now

I don't see Randianism as a cult, but the inspirational leader for American libertarianism. Even though Ayn Rand wasn't an official Libertarian. Just like John F. Kennedy is the inspirational leader for Liberals such as myself and Ronald Reagan is the inspirational leader of Conservatives. And Franklin Roosevelt in an inspirational Leader for Progressives. Now, some of the followers of Ayn Rand at times do seem like cult followers with some of their conspiracy theories that government is out to get them and that type of thing. But the movement by itself I don't see as some type of cult.

Ayn Rand objectivism, is that the individual should always be that. "That the individual is always first. And when people start concerning themselves with the affairs and worries of others, than somehow collectivism would sink in." Again, Ayn Rand, is not a Libertarian. Even Libertarians believe in private charity. And some Conservative Libertarians, even though they wouldn't have created the New Deal, or Great Society, aren't looking to eliminate it. For practical reasons mostly, but would like to see it run a lot better with private options for people who receive social services.

So when you talk about Ayn Rand and objectivism, you shouldn't try to link it with libertarianism, or conservatism. Even though so-called Progressives and Socialists will aways do that. Because libertarianism and objectivism are two different things. Libertarians, believe in a minimal government, at least classical Libertarians. And that the safety net and charity should only be run by the private sector and with no government involvement. Objectivists, aren't even fans of private charity. And that individuals should always be left to solve their own problems.

Phil Donahue Show: Ayn Rand- The Altruism of the Soviet Union (1979)

Source:FreeState Now

Ayn Rand on Russian communism on the Phil Donahue Show from 1979, saying that Russian Communists believed that people weren’t people. But collections of the state, subjected to whatever the state wanted them to do. The difference between authoritarianism and liberal democracy. With authoritarianism depending on what type of authoritarianism we are talking about, it’s all about the state. A big centralized government, where all power is centralized in one political party generally.

And the people are there not to live their lives, but to serve the state. And once they get out of line, decide to live their own lives, or speak out against the state, they do that at their own risk. And risk severe harm to not only them, but their families as well. Just one of many difference between living in an authoritarian state which is what Soviet Russia was, or living in a liberal democracy like the United States. In a liberal democracy and free society, people tend to control their own lives. And then have to deal with the consequences of their decisions for good and bad.

In a communist state, to use as an example, individuals don’t exist. It is all about the state and the state is the society. Meaning the big central government decides what everyone needs and what everyone can do and use and just about everything else. Everyone in the country, is there to serve the state and especially the Communist Party and communism. Not there to make the best out of life that they can for themselves and their families. If freedom scares you and you don’t think you would be able to manage your own life, trying doing time in jail, or prison. Or living in a communist society, because freedom won’t be something that you would ever have to deal with.

Phil Donahue Show: Ayn Rand Interview (1979)

Source:Real Life Journal

This is a classic interview, because you had two very intelligent people with lots of followers, who both had a message to deliver. But came from very different sides of the political spectrum. Ayn Rand, being a Libertarian/Objectivist and Phil Donahue being a Progressive/Socialist even. Two people with very different beliefs on what the role of government is. Especially the role of the Federal Government. Ayn, whose see government’s role as basically doing nothing more, than to basically protecting our freedom and constitutional rights. And Phil Donahue, believing that government should be doing a lot for its people. That there’s only so much we can expect that the private enterprise can do for the people.

The Phil Donahue belief I guess, is when people have a lot of economic freedom, we see too much income inequality, that we should tolerate in a democracy. And that we need a strong Federal Government to provide the human services, that we shouldn’t trust private enterprise to do for the people. And if that means having high taxes to pay for these human services, so be it. If that means we get good public services from all of these taxes. So this was a discussion between two people, who have very different views in what the role of government is and what it should be doing for its people. But two people who are very intelligent and can make their case very well in how they look at the world ideologically.

The best thing that I could probably compare this interview with today, it would be like Ralph Nader interviewing Ron Paul, or vice-versa. Two men that are actually pretty similar when it comes to social freedom and civil liberties. But are very different in what they see the role for the Federal Government as it relates to the economy. Ron Paul basically believing that people should be able to keep and spend as much money as they make and be able to spend it as they see it, as long as they aren’t spending that money hurting people. Ordering hits and that sort of thing. And Ralph Nader, believing that a country is a community and to be a member of this community, we should all have to pay a price for it. To make this community as strong as it can be. Similar to Rand-Donahue.

David Kelley On Ayn Rand & the Rebirth of Liberty (1991)

Source:FreeState Now

In the last ten years or so, we’ve both lost and gained freedom in America. We lost some of our privacy rights during the Bush Administration. With the Patriot Act and indefinite detention, but have gained some of those rights back, as it relates to same-sex marriage, homosexuality in general, where anti-homosexual laws have lost steam and popularity in the country. Same-sex Marriage has become legal in some states. Even some Republicans now believe that employers shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against people based on their sexuality. Sodomy laws have been struck down, the country is now split on marijuana and it may win legalization in some states in 2012.

Free Speech continues to be defended and upheld in the Supreme Court, as much as Neoconservatives and Progressives have tried to weaken it. So we’ve seen a mix bag when it comes to freedom in America the last ten years. But the last ten years or so the country has moved towards individual freedom and embracing it, as well as non discriminatory policies. And we are becoming even more of a nation at least as how Americans looks at politics, that wants government out of our homes and wallets.

Individual freedom, is something that has to continue to be spoken up for and defended. Or like anything else once its taken for granted, it will be taken away, from people on the right and left that believe that individual freedom is dangerous. And we need the state to lay down what’s acceptable. Even when it comes to how Americans live their own lives, because once they have individual freedom, we may end up making what statists on the right and left see as mistakes that are bad for the country. “And that cannot be allowed to exist, so we need restrictions on how people live their lives, so government can protect people from themselves at their expense.” Not my point of view, but a statist point of view.

The Mike Wallace Interview: Ayn Rand 1959 Full Interview

Source:Real Life Journal

Mike Wallace, the famous CBS News journalist who made his mark on CBS 60 Minutes, to me is the best TV interviewer of all-time, or least what I’ve heard. Because he could interview anyone, because of his knowledge and the research he did. He was truly dedicated to his craft. Which is how he was able interview athletes, entertainers, politicians including Presidents and even mobster Mickey Cohen back in the 1950s on the Mike Wallace Interview. But he could also interview people who were in politics, but people who didn’t currently hold office. People who were outside in the sense that they weren’t public officials, but sill influential to the point that they could influence people in how they think.

People like columnists and other writers like authors. People who made a living telling others what they know and what they think about things. Professors and other intellectuals. People like Ayn Rand, one of the most if not the most influential people on libertarianism today. Meaning Ayn Rand, who a lot of Libertarian Americans, people like Ron Paul and others and would bring attention to people who had political beliefs that weren’t popular at the time, or even commonly known. So when Mike Wallace interviewed Ayn Rand in 1959 and interviewing one of the most influential intellectuals on Libertarians and some Conservatives, he wasn’t out of his element. This is no offense to Larry King, but this wasn’t Larry King interviewing Milton Friedman, or someone else with a lot of stature.

Mike Wallace, knew what he was getting into and took the Devils Advocate approach to interviewing Ayn. She was the Objectivist, or Libertarian and he took the side of the Progressive in doing this interview. Self-reliance and self-sufficiency, vs collectivism. Not that Mike Wallace was a Progressive, or a Collectivist. I’m not sure what his politics was, but that’s the role he was playing in this interview as the Devils Advocate. Instead of taking a softball approach and blindly agreeing with everything that Ayn said, but questioning her philosophy. Not a better interviewer to select from than Mike Wallace to select to give Ayn Rand her first national TV interview. Someone who could interview anyone across the media spectrum, including someone like Ayn Rand.

US News & World Report: Video: Simon Owens & Lauren Fox: The Differences Between Paul Ryan & Ayn Rand

Source:The FreeState

I’m not going to say that Representative Paul Ryan is a Culture Warrior Big Government Republican, At least not in the mold of a Rick Santorum. I don’t believe he is and I don’t know enough about him to say that anyway. But Paul Ryan’s respect for Ayn Rand has to do with her beliefs as it relates to economics. Ayn Rand was a Objectivist/Libertarian. Didn’t want government involved in the economy at all and didn’t believe that government had the right to force people to do anything with their money. Which is kinda where Paul Ryan is on economics, but not quite that libertarian, but they both believe that government shouldn’t be regulating the economy, but they probably differ on every key Social Issue.

You can imagine and if Ayn Rand were alive today and looking to run for office or was an elected official, she probably wouldn’t be a Republican. She wouldn’t fit into today’s GOP. She would be seen like an outcast like how they now treat Barry Goldwater, or Ron Paul. Maybe she would be a Republican just to hold office. And live in an area, or State with a large libertarian population, where she didn’t need the support of Neoconservatives in order to get elected and reelected. Representative Ryan, fits in very well with today’s GOP, except that he doesn’t push social issues very much if at all. Neither does Mitt Romney, which could hurt this ticket with Neoconservatives in the fall, in States like Virginia, Ohio and Florida.

But Mitt, pretty much votes the party line. Republicans like talking about Ayn Rand and telling people how much they respect her. But its only economics they talk about when it comes to Ayn Rand. They don’t believe in her philosophy of Freedom of Choice essentially. That people have the right to live their own lives as they see fit. That government shouldn’t interfere with how people live their own lives. Instead they believe that government should establish some type of moral code in how Americans should live. And live up to their ideals of what Americans should be and all of that. And that’s just not Ayn Rand and hopefully not Paul Ryan either.

I wish even as a Liberal Democrat that people like Barry Goldwater and Ayn Rand had more influence on today’s Republican Party. Then they would be a real party of ideas, that didn’t believe it needed to prevent people from voting, just because they believe they wouldn’t vote Republican. Which is what Voter ID is all about. But this is still Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson’s GOP, a Neoconservative Big Government party.