• You are using the old High Contrast theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Ayn Rand vs Mike Wallace

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lucky

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
2,919
Location
Calgary, near Rocky Mountains - Canada
.30 ;)

Justin I figured it was applicable because it deals specifically with gov't impositions, and even more specifically with force, which is sort of related to guns. And I'd never heard her speak before.
 
Rand had absolutely no problem with guns or the use of force for polititical goals when called upon.


---Tin Foil hat time---
Who is John Galt? For a while the primary suspect was Allen Greenspan. Good choice considering the background. When Ron Paul retires we will know for sure...
 
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q5.2.5

5.2.5 Gun Control
Rand never published a written statement about gun control, but her comments about it in response to questions suggest that she was skeptical of the idea but not strongly opposed to it. In a question and answer session in 1971, she stated:

I do not know enough about it to have an opinion, except to say that it's not of primary importance. Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, noncriminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun. It's not an important issue, unless you're ready to begin a private uprising right now, which isn't very practical.

In a similar session in 1973, she said:

It's a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law. Handguns are instruments for killing people -- they are not carried for hunting animals -- and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I dno't know how the issue is to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim.[*]

Finally, an interview in 1979 contained the following exchange:

Raymond Newman: You have stated that the government ought to be the exclusive agent for the use of force under objective rules of law and justice --

Ayn Rand: That's right.

Newman: -- and yet at the same time today we see an alarming rise in violent crimes in this country and more and more people applying for gun permits and wanting to protect themselves. Do you see this as a dangerous trend, number one; and number two, do you favor any form of gun control laws?

Rand: I have given it no thought at all and, off-hand, I would say, no, the government shouldn't control guns except in very marginal forms. I don't think it's very important because I don't think it is in physical terms that the decisions and the fate of this country will be determined. If this country falls apart altogether, if the government collapses bankrupt, your having a handgun in your pocket isn't going to save your life. What you would need is ideas and other people who share those ideas and fighting towards a proper civilized government, not handguns for personal protection.[*]

An article published in The Intellectual Activist during Rand's lifetime was squarely opposed to gun control. This article presumably had Rand's approval.[*]
Click to expand...
 
Guns, bombs, artillery, super weapons... Also peaceful means, pacifist resistance in a way that many people do not understand...

As a utilitarian; guns were only tools to her. She understood the true nature of evil not this liberal garbage of ''evil'' guns ''evil'' drugs... Of course she grew up in a different era. One of the last philosopher advocates for logic.

My signature line is a theft from her on her statement of her life's work. A tribute if you will.
 
I found 30 cal slob's post quite interesting. I took some time read part of the website referenced.

I hear a lot about Ayn Rand here on THR, though I've never read her stuff. I guess I was under the impression she would have been a big supporter of the RKBA. It seems like she thought of it as "not of primary importance".
 
She was a gal, and not a gun gal at that. I just don't think she ever gave it that much thought, she was concerned with more with how man's mind's operate, or the lack thereof. Go to www.amazon.com and pick up some of her books, especially Atlas Shrugged. Every kid in high school should be advised to read it to help offset all the liberal drivel heaped upon them. I'd start with "Anthem" first to get an idea of her philosophy and then go on to Atlas Shrugged and others, AS is an epic in every form, including length.:D
 
If you listen to her philosophy she believes we each should put our own self interest first. Carrying a gun for self defense, is in the interest of self preservation. I could not imagine her wanting people to be disarmed victims to be sacrificed as were the VT students and staff, for example.
 
She understood the true nature of evil
Click to expand...

Yeah. To her, evil is caring about people other than yourself :rolleyes:

As for her quotes on gun control, I'm a bit surprised. I'd have thought that she'd be very strongly against gun control. Although I suppose it makes sense to a certain degree, what with the "government is the only legitimate user of force in society" and everything. Still, though, she didn't believe that self-defense qualified as the use of force. Interesting, regardless.

Durruti
(a recovering Objectivist)
 
Wrong, she didn't believe that you shouldn't care for others, just that one must find their own happiness first. Which makes sense, those we see in life that are unhappy with how their life is going rarely bring any happiness to others. Remember, Selfishness IS a virtue.;)
 
Every kid in high school should be advised to read it to help offset all the liberal drivel heaped upon them.
Click to expand...

Eh. An ardent leftist Democrat I know, who helped Tom Daschle during his most recent (losing) campaign for reelection has told me that Atlas Shrugged is his favorite book.

If you listen to her philosophy she believes we each should put our own self interest first.
Click to expand...

yep, which is probably why he likes it. It sums up his worldview quite well (he's an "actor").
 
I don't thing anyone shoudl comment on Ayn Rand

Unless they have actually read her works....not the Cliff Notes, not the internet ravings, not the rumors

Actually, that could be applied to any internet opinions:neener:
 
I just mentioned Ayn Rand to my son last night. Quite often I catch myself thinking, "what would Ayn Rand do?" I like her way of sorting out life and the more I read her writings, the more I find I agree with most everything she says.
 
From my reading, she believes that an individual should only value others to the extent that others benefit that individual. On love, Leonard Peikoff writes:
By their nature, all such responses to others are selfish. They are selfish because they rest ultimately on self-preservation--on the value to one's own life of other men who share one's values.
Click to expand...
In her essay, The Objectivist Ethics, Ayn Rand writes:
An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.
Click to expand...
[all emphasis original]

And yes, I've read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, The Virtue of Selfishness, and parts of Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, Return of the Primitive, and Peikoff's Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

I hope this isn't dragging the thread off topic :)
 
A friend just gave me a copy of Atlas Shrugged as a gift today.

I've read it before and had been talking with her about it. When she found out that I didn't own a copy of my own, she bought two and we are going to read it together (from 1200 miles apart). Should make for many interesting conversations in the coming weeks.
 
Durrute
"Yeah. To her, evil is caring about people other than yourself"

I think her point is that when caring about others server you because it brings you joy than it is good. If you are forced to give up yourself for others against your own self interest that is evil.

There may be some relationships where there is a fine line, but clearly having your wealth extracted by a rigged economic system for the benefit of strangers against your own best interest is evil. When it comes to personal relationships, like between your spouse and yourself or your children and yourself, there are fuzzy lines. Giving up your last $20 for the week to your daughter to have a fun night out while you watch the boob tube is not an abnegation of yourself because you get pleasure from seeing her joy greater than what the $20 would have given you.
 
I just recall reading that book, The Fountainhead, with the architect who blew up a building that he had designed (but that was owned by someone else), because he didn't like how they had changed the design. He was the hero of the book. Seemed like she was advocating some sort of extreme sociopathic narcissism to me.
 
Yeah. To her, evil is caring about people other than yourself
Click to expand...

I take it you have not read her works or attempted to study her philosophy as an integrated system, or you wouldn't make that glib statement. See if you can dig up a copy of "The Virtue of Selfishness."

Every progressive, liberal precept, including "give up your guns for the greater good," is based on the idea that you *must* care about others more than yourself, regardless of their virtue or their worth to you. That's the immorality of altruism.

I think you also misunderstand the issues regarding her beliefs about government and the use of force. In a rational system, no person has the right to *initiate* force against others to meet his/her needs at the expense of the rights of others, and society institutes laws against such action.

Suppose you are accosted and robbed at knifepoint in a parking lot. You think you recognize the perp as Don, the guy who hangs out at the bowling alley. Instead of going to the police, you wait until the next day and jump Don at the bowling alley. You beat him up and take his gold necklace to recover the value of the property you believe he stole.

While, such actions may satisfy our desire for swift justice, it's not a way to deal with conflicts in a rational society. We use the legal system to address violation of our rights and criminal acts. Instead, you report the robbery to the police. They investigate, question Don, find out he had an airtight alibi, and arrest another suspect. Your property is recovered and the perp sent to jail. It's the government, through the police, as part of the legal system, that legitimately used force to arrest the perp and punish him.

That's what Rand meant by government having the monopoly on the use of force. She would have totally endorsed your right to have resisted the robbery with force, had that been necessary. The right of self defense, in her view, is a basic human right because your life is, or ought to be, your main value.

You must constantly keep in mind what she said in that interview about the nature of government--that it is to be severely limited in scope and the rights of individuals protected from government infringement. It is that idealized concept of government, obligated to respect the rights of citizens, that is given the monopoly on the initiation of force to enforce legitimate laws and contracts.

K
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

P
  • Locked
Columbine Rampart Range Video
Replies
12
Views
1K
geekWithA.45
G
S
  • Locked
Brigitte Gabriel
Replies
8
Views
866
hso
hso
P
  • Locked
Mythbusters: bullet proof water
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
TimboKhan
TimboKhan
P
  • Locked
Tales of the gun: Guns of Israel
Replies
8
Views
838
Sam Adams
S
0
  • Locked
Serious threat to our nation/world
Replies
11
Views
723
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top