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

Source:CUNY-

Source:The New Democrat

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.

The Book Archive: Objectivism, Capitalism & Philosophy: James McConnell's Interview of Ayn Rand (1961)

Source:The Book Archive.

Source:The New Democrat 

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 than 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.

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

Source: NBC-

Source:The New Democrat

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.
Source:NBC

Ayn Rand Institute: Yaron Brook: 'Yaron Answers: Aren't Entitlements Part Of The Social Contract?'

Source:Ayn Rand Institute- President Yaron Brook.

"Yaron Brook answers a question from John: "Aren't entitlements part of the social contract? Laissez Fair Blog

FREE EBOOK: “ROOSEVELTCARE: HOW SOCIAL SECURITY IS SABOTAGING THE LAND OF SELF-RELIANCE” Ayn Rand Institute" 

From the Ayn Rand Institute

"an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each" 

According to Merriam Webster 

"a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties

especially : one legally enforceable" 

From Merriam Webster 

I'm more inline with Yaron Brook on the so-called so-contract, then I'm with Merriam Webster. No one ever officially signs up and agrees to pay into any government social contract. We're just required to by law, once we start working, which for most of us is in our teen years. 

As someone who believes in some form of the public safety net, the better way to look at lets say public social insurance, is to look at being a member of a society (in this case a country) as if you are the member of a social club. When you become a member of that club or society, you agree to the rules automatically. And just because you don't take advantage of all the services that the club offers, that doesn't mean generally your monthly fees are going to be smaller than someone who uses all the club's services.

What public social insurance is, (or the safety net) it's an insurance system that we all pay into, but like with private insurance, we only collect from it, when we actually need it. When we're out-of-work, can't afford our own health insurance plan, can't get affordable housing on our own, etc. 

When so-called Libertarians argue against the safety net or government in general, they're really arguing in favor of a society and country by how they argue against government, by saying that they never signed up to pay for that and never agree to pay for it, so why should they. The public sector is obviously different from the private sector. But one can't exist without the other. The public needs revenue from the private. The private needs security from the public.

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

Source:The Objective Standard- Craig Biddle speaking on Ayn Rand's objectivism.

"Craig Biddle addresses the question, "If an Objectivist is someone who accepts Ayn Rand's entire philosophy as true, how is Objectivism different from a cult?" In answering, Biddle discusses the essence of Objectivism, the nature of a cult, and the absurdity of positing that the former has anything to do with the latter. 

To explore more of these ideas visit:The Objective Standard." 

From The Objective Standard

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, then 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 (who are actually 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. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

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

Phil Donahue Show: Ayn Rand- Altruism (1979)

Source:Fully Booked Club- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand on altruism.

“Context: This article looks at the virtue of selfishness & the vice of altruism, according to Ayn Rand‘s philosophy – widely referred to as “objectivism”. Rand is a Russian-American writer and philosopher, best known for her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. She has also published two collections of essays: The Virtue of Selfishness and For The New Intellectual. She is a strong advocate for rationality and capitalism (while being a firm critic of mysticism and socialism).”

From the Fully Booked Club 

“Ayn Rand: Why Altruism is Wrong” 

Source:Common Sense Capitalism- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on The Phil Donahue Show, in 1979.

From Common Sense Capitalism 

Objectivist Philosopher Ayn Rand, on The Phil Donahue Show in either 1979 or 1980. They talked about Russia pre-Communist Revolution and after the Communist Revolution there. She lived in Russia pre-Soviet Union as a little girl and after the Communists took over a teenager and young woman. I think living through communism and left-wing collectivism and authoritarianism, explains a lot as far as why she became an Objectivist and wanted to get out of Russia and live in the free world.

Source:Phil Donahue Show- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on the Phil Donahue Show, in 1979 or 80.

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 main difference between authoritarianism and liberal democracy is, 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.

In an authoritarian state, 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.

This is the main 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 stat (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.

In a communist state, 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. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

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

The Phil Donahue Show: Ayn Rand Interview (1979)

Source:Phil Donahue Show- Author Ayn Rand, being interviewed by Phil Donahue in 1979.

Source:Real Life Journal

"Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview"

From the Phil Donahue Show

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: ‘Ayn Rand and the Rebirth of Liberty From (1991)’

Source:Libertarianism.Org- author David Kelley talking about Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, in 1991.

“David Kelley is a political philosopher, writer, and the executive director of the Atlas Society. Kelley is a strong proponent of Objectivism and has published a wide range of literature including A Life of One’s Own (1998) and The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand (2000).

In this lecture, which was given at the International Society for Individual Liberty’s 1991 conference, Kelley talks about Ayn Rand’s contribution to the free-market individualist movement. He says that as Aristotle defined metaphysical individualism, the Austrian economists defined methodological individualism, and John Locke and other Enlightenment philosophers defined political individualism, Ayn Rand defined ethical individualism and cognitive individualism through her philosophy, Objectivism. Kelley also answers an extensive list of questions from the audience about everything from epistemology to metaphysics.”

From Libertarianism.Org 

If your definition of individualism is a philosophy based on individuals and that individuals should not only act in their self-interest, but that there’s nothing immoral about that and that selfishness is actually a good thing and that people should believe in one’s self and hold that to their highest value (I get that this is a long definition) then Ayn Rand was perhaps the most individualist of individualists that we’ve ever had.

I’m willing to bet that most Americans are individualists at least to some extent (including Socialists and religious fundamentalists, at least privately) but what separates Ayn Rand and her followers from let’s say your everyday individualist, is that Randians take their individualism take it a step further. And argue that selfishness should always rule over everything else. And that selfishness is always a good thing and people who act in someone else’s interest, even at their own expense, is showing weakness.

I believe your everyday American tends to believe that self-sacrifice (at least up to a point) are actually good things. Which is why most Americans aren’t Randians or Libertarians, but people who believe in both the individual, as well as the greater good. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Mike Wallace Interview: Ayn Rand (1959)

Source:Open Culture- pre-CBS News 60 Minutes, Mike Wallace had his own interview talk show on ABC.

Source:Real Life Journal

“Yesterday we featured Alain de Botton’s television broadcast on the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Today, we feature another, earlier television broadcast on a much more recently active philosopher: Mike Wallace’s 1959 interview of Ayn Rand, writer and founder of the school of thought known as Objectivism. But should we really call Rand, who achieved most of her fame with novels like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, a philosopher? Most of us come to know her through her fiction, and many of us form our opinions of her based on the divisive, capitalism-loving, religion-hating public persona she carefully crafted. Just as Nietzsche had his ideas about how individual human beings could realize their potential by enduring hardship, Rand has hers, all to do with using applied reason to pursue one’s own interests.

Mainstream, CBS-watching America got quite an introduction to this and other tenets of Objectivism from this installment in what Mike Wallace calls a “gallery of colorful people.” The interviewer, in the allotted half-hour, probes as many Randian principles as possible, especially those against altruism and self-sacrifice. “What’s wrong with loving your fellow man?” Wallace asks, and Rand responds with arguments the likes of which viewers may never have heard before: “When you are asked to love everybody indiscriminately, that is to love people without any standard, to love them regardless of whether they have any value or virtue, you are asked to love nobody.” Does Ayn Rand still offer the bracing cure for a rudderless, mealy-mouthed America which has forgotten what’s what? Or does her philosophy ultimately turn out to be too simple — too simple to engage with, and too simple to improve our society? The debate continues today, with no sign of resolution.” 

From Open Culture 

“In 1957, a 1,168 page book by Ayn Rand, called Atlas Shrugged, was published. According to one source, Rand was alleged to be a mistress to Philippe Rothschild, who instructed her to write the book in order to show that through the raising of oil prices, then destroying the oil fields and shutting down the coal mines, the Illuminati would take over the world. It also related how they would blow up grain mills, derail trains, bankrupt and destroy their own companies, till they had destroyed the economy of the entire world; and yet, they would be so wealthy, that it would not substantially affect their vast holdings. The novel is about a man who stops the motor of the world, of what happens when “the men of the mind, the intellectuals of the world, the originators and innovators in every line of industry go on strike; when the men of creative ability in every profession, in protest against regulation, quit and disappear.”

If we are to believe that the book represents the Illuminati’s plans for the future, then the following excerpts may provide some insight to the mentality of the elitists who are preparing us for one-world government.” 

Source:Open Culture- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on The Mike Wallace Interview in 1959.

From Truth Tube 

This photo is from the Mike Wallace Interview with Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand in 1959. But that video is apparently not available online right now.

Source:Truth Tube- Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, on The Mike Wallace Interview in 1959.

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 President’s, and even mobster Mickey Cohen back in the 1950s on the Mike Wallace Interview.

Mike Wallace 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.

Mike Wallace interviewed 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 let’s say Social Democrat 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, Wallace instead questioned  Rand’s 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.

Ayn Rand Institute: Don Watkins- 'What's Really Wrong with Entitlements'

Source:Ayn Rand Institute- ARI Fellow Don Watkins.

"It's an open secret that America's entitlement state is in disarray, and that the United States faces a crushing debt, thanks to programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But according to Don Watkins, ARI fellow, that's not the biggest problem with entitlements.

In this talk, you will discover the unknown history of life in America before the entitlement state, and discover the surprising reason why the United States went from a limited government to an entitlement nation. In the process, you will find out why all of the usual solutions to our entitlement crisis cannot work — and what kind of solution can work. (Recorded February 21, 2012.)" 

From the Ayn Rand Institute

Greece represents exactly what it means and what can happen when a countries government doesn't pay its bills. Or allows its population to become so dependent on social insurance programs for their daily survival, that when you get into a fiscal crisis (which is exactly what Greece is going through right now) then not only does your economy tank, but you pile up so much debt that you become dependent on other countries to bail you out.

A reason why the European Union has been so reluctant so far in bailing out Greece is because they are facing the same issues that Greece is: like Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, and others, all social democracies that spend a lot of their public resources and their economy's. Providing all of these public services, all of these social insurance programs. And when their economy's go down like they have, their welfare states struggle as a result because thats where the money is. 

What Europe is going through right now, could definitely happen to the United States as well, if we don't move to get our own fiscal house in order (so to speak) we could making these same drastic cuts as well in the future. Cutting people's Social Security and Medicare benefits, as well as Unemployment Insurance benefits, all cuts that could do a lot of damage to out economy, especially if people have to have these benefits in order to pay their bills. 

When you create a welfare state thats so big and you tax at such a high rate to finance it, you make people dependent on it in order to survive, because so much of the money in the economy is in the welfare state. But when you empower to finance their own well-being health care, health insurance, Unemployment Insurance, retirement and so forth, but then have a safety net to catch people who fall through the cracks, especially when the economy goes down, but then its there not only to help sustain people in the short- term, but also empowers them to get themselves back on their feet, you have a strong economy with a lot of economic freedom in it. 

When you create an economic system where the people have the individual liberty to take care of themselves instead, with individual liberty the people are expected to take care of themselves. And then you have a safety net to catch people who fall but then helps them back up.