The most straw manned woman of all time. After reading some Ayn Rand I realized how desperate and pathetic so many people can be. All it took was a few minutes of genuine reading to see that Ayn Rand is nothing like liberals or even conservatives say. She truly is a remarkable woman.
I agree. I see it all the time. They have to claim she said things she never said in order to try to prove her wrong. Its almost like an admission that THEY think she was, in fact, right.
JEFF9K Nope. Liberals CONSTANTLY live up to her low opinion and evaluation of them. You are a case in point. Always misrepresenting anything she said, always demanding sacrifices from other people at the point of a gun (of course not touching the gun themselves, just having the government do it for them).
JEFF9K OK: You wrote: "She was BEHIND her time. She copied all her ideas from early business theory." If she copied anything from anyone, it was Aristotle. She gave him a lot of credit. But what do you mean by "early business theory"? Who ever described morality as coming from two things: the choice to live and the law of causality? Who came up with her theory of measurement omission in concept formation? Who did she get the subjective/objective/intrinsic tricotomy from? She made a LOT of unique, new contributions to the philosophy of liberty, and to philosophy in general. "Anyone who supports her writings after the most recent refutation of her philosophy, the economic meltdown of 2008, is a stupid person indeed." Wrong. 2008 was a brilliant CONFIRMATION of her philosophy. It was an Objectivist "I told you so" moment. If she had been alive to see it, that is what she would have been saying. She advocated a gold standard. We had been printing paper money backed by nothing but the government's guns for decades. She opposed the Federal Reserve, yet the Fed had lowered its interest rate to 1% in 2002 and kept it there for a coupel years, pumping a couple trillion dollars into the housing bubble. We had GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES, Fannie and Freddie, yet she advocated a separation of sate and economics. She was for limited government, and that means low government spending, but the US government had been running record deficits the whole decade. I could go on and on and on listing government meddling with the economy, all of which she opposed. Yet you blame the 2008 collapse on her ideas???? "Ayn Rand judged people by the content of their bank accounts. " I've already gone over this one ad nauseum. But you seem impervious to evidence on the subject.
I agree. I feel fighting racism with racism can be a natural response because when someone is genuinely racist towards you it upsets you, and what do humans like to do most when something upsets them? Well fight it back with the same bravado. The term "fight fire with fire" didn't originate from nothing after all. However, we must move past such kiddy responses and rise above injustices we see.
I think that the elites use "racism" as an excuse to perpetuate it. BLM is a Marxist collectivist group designed to keep black Americans at the bottom of the society and by telling them they can never get ahead so why try? So they have a handy angry group of uneducated and furious poor people they can call upon to continually break up a free country which is anything BUT racist. Critical Race Theory is all about oppression.
@Chris Schneider dumb she might be but there is no reason you should let her live in your head rent-free like that also I like her old music it remains me of car rides with my mom so she was good for something
+Yves Gomes She claims to be against collectivism, but opposes democracy-- which means that she doesn't think that the majority are equal, but rather her talk IMPLIES that SHE is the sole voice of reason and logic, and therefore she should rule. That's a contradiction.
I actually only disagree with what she's said in this video, genetics does hugely influence people's traits, biological determination is a legit thing.
So can you point to which genetic configuration makes a doctor? A lawyer? A drug dealer? Or is there a little more to it? The point is not that ancestry has no effect on a person's life, just that it is inconsequential in determining a person's future
When you have genetic predisposition for neurosis and laziness your chances to become drug dealer are higher than to become a doctor. People are consciously suppressing this fact while raising their children, or worse when the children raise themselves because parents don't have enough time. So it is not so inconsequential. It is a part of the bigger picture especially when you consider memetic theory can be atleast a little bit true.
Mictlantecuhtli Chances. Not predestination. And all dependent on the rationale of the subject. If you approach laziness as simply high reward for little work, drug dealing might be a reasonable choice. But if someone is lazy in risk-taking they are less likely to deal drugs because it's too high risk for them to justify. Im not saying genes dont matter period, just that they are inconclusive in the grand scheme of things. Way too many other factors. Great people come from mediocre familes all the time.
"Racism is not a legal but moral issue." I wish that are modern politicians would realize this. I have met several racist people in my life and I know for a fact that no amount of litigation would change them.
sheparddog, (Is that how you see yourself?): Rand said we fall in love, (real love), because we meet with the minds and respect each others values, much like the way we pick friends. But for a intimate relationship, we celebrate the respect of each others values with sex. With friends, we celebrate our friendship with a beer over a ball game, (or some other activity we do and enjoy together). Race has nothing to do with Rand's definition of love. Put the race card down. It's dirty. Hey sheparddog---your sheep are leaping the fence to get away from you. Freedom means, freedom from people like you. collectivism is anti-human, and best left for farm animals because they can not "reason". Now how is it a wild animal can live with out a ruler, with out a baby sitter, but the most intelligent living entity on earth, humans, can not? OK, collectivist can not survive on their own. obama and bernie never even had a job.
Sheparddog: You are not smart enough to kill a lion on your own? May be not. It was some other individual human being who developed the gun. Enjoy your collective primitive brain dead slavery. You beg for it. Go work in a tribe, and eat from the dirt. All of Western culture, when collectivism was minimized---advanced past you, and the rest of the collectivist history of mankind. You can desire to be treated like a farm animal by other human beings who developed nothing. I have no such desire.
Ayn Rand really needs to check her privilege. ;) On a more serious note, it's amazing how relevant this essay is to today's political turmoil around collectivist identity politics.
Yep, She wants to rule everyone else, on the grounds that nobody should rule anybody. Standard Jew-hypocrisy: "all are equal, but the Chosen." She's against collectivism, but wants to rule everyone else because she's RIGHT.... an oxymoron. She thinks she should just be able to claim to be more logical than anyone else, and that therefore everyone should bow to her word.
It's funny how she seems to be talking not only about radical left wing collectivist but unfortunately smalls strains of the alt right and the cultural libertarian movement today.
+Andrew Letke To explain that, we would first have to define words like "left" and "right", because they really don't have any definition. Any time we use words and phrases like that (conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, left, right, extremest, change; for examples) we are using words that have different meanings in our individual minds, so the conversation is actually unintelligible, and that is the reason why 95% of us are walking around, talking in a political fog that we think we can see through. But what does have definition are the terms (which have basically been expunged from our vocabulary), "collectivism" vs "individualism". Our nation was based on the philosophies of individualism, but those philosophies are ignored in almost every think tank, mode of academia, media, art and hollywood. If you want to live in freedom,---we now have to educate ourselves about it first. Ayn Rand knew the difference between individualism and communism very well, and realized both parties are based in collectivism. Now--our whole way of life is based in collectivism, and with that, man can never be great again, by using their own brain. Can we "change" that? "Yes we can", if we demand our "individual rights protected by law" back, and our "citizen owned capitalism back" (business belongs to us as a product of our minds---not to government people who are to stupid to produce things.
A LeRoux I don't give credit for virtue signalling there A. Rand has nothing in common with modern dems. For example, she advocated the complete separate of government and economy.
the problem with believing in the idea of racial superiority and oppression is that if it turns out that the ones deemed inferior are in fact superior then you have just successfully and systematically defended their right to oppress you.
+WarWolf x26 wow you are very confused, you actually used the terms "corporatist" and "Marxist elite" even though Karl Marx himself shunned corporations, capitalism, the state and all elites. He advocated a moneyless, stateless, classless society and advocated direct workers control over the means of production - for this to happen, you would need direct consensus democracy. Also, yes it may be true that those discriminated against can get special privileges, however this is to make up for the discrimination they suffer from. How would you like it if ever time you walked out of your house that almost everyone constantly discriminated against you? Also, how the actual fuck, is the far right populist?? I mean I know people generally aren't well eductaed in society, but they aren't THAT fucking stupid! Socialism is in the interests of the general population because most of the population is in fact working class, and socialism (including Marxism) is an ideology based on the concept of a worker's controlled society (where the working class control society rather than some elite).
***** "In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state." - This is the definition of Communism. Communism means the functions of capital are abolished, when they are undertaken by the State, it is called State Capitalism, because the state acts to serve the interests of capital and undertakes it's functions. And in a actual socialist (communist) economic system, there is NO elite. It is controlled directly by the workers, meaning that the general public are the ones who debate, discuss, choose and undertake the control of the means of production and directly own it as a community. Also, what the fuck does regulation have to do with Communism?? The Soviet Union was State Capitalist since the working class weren't the ones controlling it, Stalin was. Dictatorship and Elitism are incompatible with Socialism/Communism. I think you reaaly need to properly look into what socialism is rather than just making poor assumptions.
***** I think you need to listen to Gabor Mate, Bakunin, Robert Sapolsky, Kropoktin and Jacque Fresco. You have a lot to learn about a lot opf things, especially economics, human behavior, sociology and psychology.
Religion doesn't fit the same categorization of race or caste (what is often called class), since it is a fundamentally philosophical matter in nature (religion is defined as the relationship between men and what they consider sacred, divine, or absolute truth about the universe) and thus is about ideals and principles. Principles about morality are one of the things the divide good people from evil people, since evil people espouse vice-justifying principles like "Might makes Right" or "Do whatever you want/makes you feel good".
I've examined Ayan Rand's work for about five years and I have to confess, I'm starting to agree with her point of view, even though I still consider her to be a bit of a hypocrite in some ways, but we are all hypocrites to some degree, if someone were to lay our lives open for a thorough examination. However, when I look at cities like Detroit, Michigan and if I look "honestly" at the over reach of many Government programs that have lowered the standards bars in education and the hiring practices of many companies, just to be more inclusive, it becomes obvious, why nothing works properly. Even though I consider her literary work and skills to be far inadequate to her philosophical insights, she has managed to win me over and coming from a Black man, that was not something I'm finding easy to explain to other Blacks.
@@channelmerchdontleavecasho4420 Cracks me up that people think we're all irrational animals incapable of reasoning or abstract concepts. If that was the case we wouldn't have any qualms with negative or differential treatment.
You don't owe anyone an "explanation". Everyone should put in the work on their own. You have already made a contribution just by being an independent thinker. FWIW I'm Black & see things similarly.
To be able to abandon comforting (but false) observations for uncomfortable (but accurate) ones is difficult for one of any race to do. You will be confronted again and again with raw emotional bias rather than logic. Just hold on to the certainty that your embrace of reason has you on the right path, and will ultimately prove you right.
I really enjoyed some of the 80's rock growing up as a teen and young 20's. The stuff I listened to, like Boston, Journey, Styx, ("why must you be such an angry young man, when your future looks so bright to me", example), were inspiring to me as a young low self esteem individual, and it helped prompt me to go to college, (something productive, not like today's colleges). I just recently found out that "Rush" dedicated 2112, (or parts of it),--"to the genius of Ayn Rand". No matter what happens to mankind, her spirit will exist in some minds, so there will always be hope for mankind. She was a "Hero", who will never be forgotten.
She died in 1982, 36 years ago. There was a part of one of her books that said, "When a hollywood actor or sports icon dies, the news is on the front pages for weeks. But when a good philosopher dies, almost nobody notices". Her reply, "They will eventually". Can you name one other philosopher who remains in the minds of man as she has?
The reason Ayn Rand is so great in my mind is that she can take even complex concepts, pull them apart layer by layer, and ruthlessly analyse each of their premises. And all throughout my thinking is almost invariably, this is how I've always felt about it from early boyhood, except I didn't have the words to express it. This extract I think is from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and is the greatest indictment of racism I have ever heard.
Wow they cut a lot out of this from the corresponding chapter in The Virtue of Selfishness. Not that this video was bad, but the fullness of her point and her ingenious articulation in her book was incomparable to this. Check it out if you get the chance
I think the mind of a true genius is vibrating on such a different plane of existence, it's almost impossible for some to get in synch with it. They can only see things the way they have been taught to believe true. Creators with new and original thoughts in art, philosophy, music. architecture, etc. are ordinarily misunderstood, certainly at first.
The actual Nazis (Hitler's Germany) were about a lot of things, but not about brute force. They were not pure materialists, they were idealist a lot. Collectivist they are for sure...
No racial differences mean nothing when discussing the individual. Gathering statistics on any group can only talk about a trend in that group. It cannot correctly identify or diagnose any of the features of the individual in his totality.
Again for the slow people The racial differences say NOTHING of the "individual" A moron is a moron regardless of the amount of genius he belongs to A genius is a genius regardless of the amount of morons he belongs to If you can't comprehend that then your social IQ is just too low to comprehend the the rest of her points
I've spent 50 years on this Earth and this is the most cogent, extensive and logical opinion on racism that I've ever 'heard' from a white person or any person for that matter.(can you remember any others?, you can't). That's sad. It's because she is an individualist and free from your peer pressure. I came here wanting to hate her thinking that she was 'the enemy'. She's not. All rational, logical, thinking people are my friends...and I think that's part of what she's trying to say here.
Being proud of your race is like being proud of your body's ability in being able to defecate after a big meal...Taking pride in your accomplishments shouldn't be derived from simple biological/physical attributes, that's just plain absurd. An outstanding essay! ..Saved to desktop..
Really? Do you have something deeper, or just an unfounded insult? I don't think you love Ayn Rand. I think you lie. Please prove me wrong with your deeper thoughts of racism.
Wow I agreed with 85% of what she was saying until she stared using the United States as an example. I guess she forgot about the South and all that free African labor, and how Northern companies got rich from bonding and insuring such free African labor force as the property was treated. That is the Capitalism she loves. Now I know Ayn Rand was Russian Born and there was not a lot is any Russians who owned Slaves in the American South but to over look how the basis of American Capitalism was entrenched in racism almost negates this entire essay.
Your comments about capitalism and slavery lack all historical perspective. Until the 19th century, slavery was the norm throughout the world, not just the USA. The USA was one of the early countries to cast off the practice. Remember the historical lesson Milton Friedman likes to teach. Capitalism is not a sufficient condition for freedom, but it is a necessary one.
fzqlcs Your response doesn’t shed any light on the fact that Miss Rand overlooked an entire chapter of American history that took a group of people that looked different from the European citizenry and made them slaves, not voluntary indentured servants. I mean dehumanized, beaten, raped, and bought chattel slavery. It wasn’t an anomaly in the south it was an institution. That is the very basis of racism and someone as smart as Ayn Rand does not accidently look over.
Clint G. All of these terrible things began before the USA existed. The Atlantic slave trade was started by greedy, violent, collectivist Monarchists. Benjamin Franklin, the primary capitalist among the founding fathers started American abolitionism because it was an affront to his capitalist views. No capitalist has ever denied a person their natural rights, and if a business used slaves; they weren't being run by a capitalist.
Slavery wasn't taking place only in the south nor was slavery a uniquely American ideal. Considering that America was one of the first to truly abolish slavery shows that everything she said is true. She was speaking against racism in all forms including slavery. Also, blacks were not the only race to be enslaved in America, though they were the majority. Either way, I dont see how anyone can dispute what Ayn Rand was stating here. Those that seek to separate people into groups (blacks, whites, gay, straight, etc) instead of celebrating individualism and personal freedom are only looking to gain power over said groups. And to think that Conservatives are labeled racists when its always been the other side that has sought to enslave and limit the rights of others.
I don't think she was correct with that, if she truly said that. There were always racist individuals in the USA, (and the rest of the world also), and they were people who did not understand individual liberty fully. But the USA did have less of it, only because it was based on individual liberty. It was actually the philosophies of individual liberty that ended the forced Black slavery in the USA that existed here before the USA was actually founded. The opposite philosophies of collectivism,---never liberated anybody. When people moved here for more liberty, they came from collectivist societies, and old perceptions, no matter how evil, can be hard to break. But I can agree that if you want to learn reliable history, you have to learn it from people who love individual liberty, and despise collectivism, like Ayn Rand. Individual liberty seeks to take from nobody, and has no reason to lie, but Collectivism does.
Just because physical processes coincide with character and value, does not mean they inherently define or transfer character and value. If they did, then everybody who endured the same physiological, neurological and genetic traits, would follow the exact same path in life. Clearly, they don't. Determinism would work in a universe where there was no such thing as uncertainty. Unfortunately, we don't live in a puppet universe. Things happen unforeseen all the time, people respond to the same stimuli, defects and delirium differently. Determinism is an anachronism that along with naturalism, stopped being relevant to our exploration of truth in the 20th century. Dead husks, the both of them. So long as there is probability, causality as defined by reductionist thinking, is dead. Probability necessarily implies uncertainty, and a "deterministic-uncertainty" is retarded.
she addresses that point preemptively. The fact is, regardless of the origins of a man's virtue, those virtues are individual. A genius is a genius and a moron is a moron, no matter how many geniuses or morons happen to share a group with him.
I don't know why objectivists are upset about this, she's not impartial on the individualism/collectivism divide, she's a staunch individualist. Maybe she would have been abit more impartial by acknowledging IQ difference between the races, but thats an argument for collectivist to make. She doesn't argue for individualism as the end itself, but as a means to capitalism. People only debunk her with emotions and ad hominems.
Most of the villains in her books had big bank accounts. Cuffy Meigs, Jim Taggart, Oren Boyle, these were rich people who got their wealth by running to government for special favors. She despised such people. Many of her heroes and other sympathetic characters were poor, or at least came from poverty. John Galt never earned more than a meager salary at the 20th Century Motor company, where his services were unappreciated, and he spends most of the rest of his life as a track laborer, probably earning minimum wage. Cheryl Taggart came from a poor family, and worked in a dime store. Howard Roark seems to have been an orphan, and rejected a large commission for a building because he didn;t want to compromise his ideals, and ended up working for a while in a quarry. Ayn Rand recognized the importance of money in a healthy economy, but she did not judge people by how much money they had.
Ayn Rand's mother was born into a wealthy family. Ayn Rand was born into an upper middle class, if not wealthy, family. Ayn Rand came to America and lived with rich relatives. Dagny Taggart was born into a wealthy family. Francisco D'Anconia was born into one of the world's wealthiest families. Midas Mulligan was rich. Hank Rearden was rich. Ragnar was independently wealthy. John Galt was an engineer. Up to a certain point he was paid an engineer's salary. We can assume that as a mechanical genius Galt stood an excellent chance of becoming incredibly rich down the road. I don't remember reading anything about Cuffy Meigs, Oren Boyle, or any other “villain,” except for Dagny's brother James, being wealthy. The entirety of humanity, basically the billions of people who weren't Rand “heroes,” were “villains” to Rand. It's a stretch to call Cheryl Taggart one of Rand's heroes. Rand knew nothing about healthy economies. From my notes: “AYN RAND CULT” by Jeff Walker 1999: The only sector of humanity that Ayn Rand seemed to approve of was businessmen. (Page 18) “AYN RAND NATION” by Gary Weiss 2012: Her heroes were the accumulators of money; whether earned or inherited, it didn't make a difference. (Page 10)
JEFF9K"The entirety of humanity, basically the billions of people who weren't Rand “heroes,” were “villains” to Rand. " Where do you get that from? I gave the example of Cheryl Taggart BECAUSE she is not one of the heroes, but instead an ordinary person that Rand portrays as a good, worthy person, who becomes a tragic victim of the altruist/collectivist society around her. You seem to be engaging in some serious confirmation bias, i.e, cherry picking. Galt never earns any great fortune. Francisco D'Anconia gets rid of one. Your notes mean carry no weight in this argument. You need to supprot yuor claims with what SHE said, not what other people said about her. "“AYN RAND CULT” by Jeff Walker 1999: The only sector of humanity that Ayn Rand seemed to approve of was businessmen. (Page 18)" She clearly approved of a number of people who were not businessmen. Howard Roark's best friend is a construction worker. Some of her heroes are professional philosophers. Many do other creative work without being businessmen. Steve Mallory in The Fountainhead is an artist. "“AYN RAND NATION” by Gary Weiss 2012: Her heroes were the accumulators of money; whether earned or inherited, it didn't make a difference. (Page 10)" In Francisco's Money speech, he explicitly states that only those who would be able to make a great fortune on their own are worthy of inheriting one. “Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth-the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?" You have shown that you actually read Atlas Shrugged when you knew who I was talking about when I mentioned Cheryl Taggart. But you prove you are unable to properly understand it, engaging in confirmation bias, ignoring evidence counter to what you want to believe, whenever you you try to explain what she stood for. You get it all wrong.
She's right, judge a person by what they do and not what their genetic make up is. HOWEVER... to ignore the obvious differences created by different genetic make-ups is to ignore the truth. IQ levels being a prime example
ok I just watched the clip and I agree her comments were in poor taste but was certainly not racist in the sense that she believed in any racial heirarchy. She has denounced racism many times in her non-fiction books and other interviews.
+Mr. Stephan Wood "her comments were in poor taste " "poor taste"? that's an understatement. rand said that the "white man" had a right to "take" the continent because the native people were "cave men" and the settlers were more advanced. furthermore, her position on the palestinians and Israelis exposes her hypocrisy.
No, that's only if you take the last sentence out of context and ignore everything I said before. How many times do I have to say it, there is a correlation between race and intelligence (which you ignore) but of course there is always going to be variation within those certain racial groups. I was not saying, "all individuals have equal intellectual potential, all members of certain races are genetically bound".
I'm atheist after a near death experience at 23 caused me to ask myself honest questions as to exactly what I knew and didn't know about death. I concluded religion was often nothing more than a denial mechanism for those who lack the humility to accept the unknown, but wisdom can still be found in religious text. Christian scripture frequently instructs people to do right for the sake of virtue not just to avoid Divine sanction. That which you do unto the least of my brothers you do unto me.
No it’s very much collectivist as it removes one’s individual character and being and replaces it with a collective label. It also is often done in order to make the members of one group feel better about themselves without any actual individual self improvement(example nazis saying Germans are the “master race” or alternatively black separatist blaming all community problems on “white privilege” )
"John Doe", if that's your name, if not, be a man and state who you are, because you've just written one of the most absurd pieces of garbage on UA-cam, "a few minutes" of reading Ayn Rand and "seeing" in those few minutes she's a "remarkable woman" is biased in the extreme, not to mention blind hero worship. I studied Ayn Rand at Harvard for two years. Rand said some brilliant things for sure, but she also said some absolutely ignorant things. No one is perfect, but I've met far-too-many Randians who act like they are. As with any religious extremists harboring a different style of blind faith, Randians would often unfriend anyone who spoke even one word against the orthodoxy of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand smoked all her adult life, yet stated "health and life are our highest values". Ayn Rand preached about the irrationality of contradictions, and yet her smoking was literally a living (and dying) contradiction. Ayn Rand stated that native populations, hundreds of tribes who had thrived and survived in North and South America for thousands of years, didn't deserve to have rights. One cannot get very much more racist than that.
When did she say we had the right to steal anything? Rand believed strongly in private property rights, and if the Indians owned any private property, they had every right to it.
Why would anyone think that price gouging or monopolies are a good thing? Rand would never advocate gouging customers with inflated prices or a monopoly
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.
No, slavery was NOT a product of capitalism, corrupt or not. Slavery is an institution as old as the Stone Age, and long predated anything resembling capitalism. It was only with the advent of capitalism, when people began to see individual human beings as ends in themselves ith rights, that we even thought to abolish slavery. Who said anything about a perfect system, or completely abolishing poverty. Our present welfare system has failed to do it, ans socialism has always failed.
So is capitalism an effective way to prevent racism, better than controlled systems (whatever that means in the video) or communism in Russia, or did I get sth wrong?
Racism is what I wrote, that it is the notion of one's own race being superior to others, or perhaps even over ALL others. There are other attitudes which makes one a "racialist," in that they may not have superiority issues, but rather issues with another's race due to having been nurtured in a society where their race has been maltreated, and they instinctively avoid another, or they simply have a preference for their own race. These attitudes are NOT "racist."
Can a individualist be a racist ? are than statistics racist ? Ayn believes a individualist can't accept statistics as statistics would be TRIBAL, believing that certain race for example is more prone than the other in say crime or inventions.
“Regardless of what the statistics say, a genius is still a genius even if it’s surrounded by idiots, a idiot is a idiot even if it’s surrounded by geniuses”
Please name a leftist from the early 30's who believed in individualism and one's ideas. Leftist (democratic) thought is noted for its belief in the contemptible notion that a majority of one group or another could subjugate a minority under any circumstance. Leftism and progressivism is noted for its dismissal of the individual for the good of the collective. Ms. Rand's thoughts are centrist at their core.
The proper roll of government is to protect individual rights. That includes providing oversight for investor markets. "Free market" or "free enterprise" DOES NOT mean anarchy. It means where the government does not try to influence said markets through taxes, tariffs, excise taxes, customs fees, restrictions of markets through regulations, government subsidies, and enforced monopolies, with only enough government regulations sufficient to protect property rights against theft & aggression.
What do you mean? It was the Senate Democrats in 1964, who held the majority, who filibustered the Civil Rights Bill from being passed. The NAACP was founded on the 100th birthday of Abraham Lincoln. The Democratic governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, stood in front of the doorway at Little Rock Central High School. Eisenhower, a Republican, had to send in the national guard to allow the students to enter the building.
Which is why principles were so important to Rand. Government is granted "special rights", either by divine authority, or the consent of the governed. The governmetn then sells those special rights and influence. No group, either a government or a corporation should have any rights that individuals do not. That is the at the foundation of Rand's principles and libertarianism in general.
Her relatives lived in Russia. Are you saying she mooched off her parents, they sent her money to America? She emigrated to America when she was 20. Support that people get before they reach full adulthood is not generally considered mooching. She was studying in college almost right up until she left Russia. So in exactly what way did she supposedly mooch from her parents?
Your response is not related to his post. He's talking about providing a service in areas or circumstances where NO ONE ELSE is providing it. Anyone can open up another store in that bad neighborhood, but no one wants to (in this hypothetical setting), thats why a store could potentially charge more for its goods in this bad area.
Humans do act with rational self interest, we are also capable of great acts of kindness, when we are not forced into it. That is the libertarian position, give people a chance to be good rather than try to make them.
She wasn't out to destroy any group. She upheld the rights of the individual, so what group any person came from is irrelvant, WASP, Israeli, or Arab. These groups were irrelevant to her. Only the individual matters.
U should read more carefully before responding in the future. "Belief" was the key word in my last response. Did your Dad make a living for selfish reasons? Did he do it for HIS family? To support HIMSELF and provide the things in life that HE needed? I know he didn't work for free, he worked for $. Did his selfish actions of providing a service enrich or diminish the lives of his customers and the people around him?
1. Yes it is. A majority cannot vote someone into office capable of rightfully violating individual rights. That a majority cannot vote rights away from a minority is exactly why Prop 8 was shot down by the California Supreme Court. 2. Obama said in his "debates" with Hillary that he would make universal health care participation mandatory, where she said voluntary. His version included mandates from the beginning. 3. You still don't understand the difference between voluntary & compulsion.
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; & 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"?
'Hitler said he was doing everything for the love of his people - do we take his words at face value?' He was probably being honest, in his own sick twisted way. I would say the same for Mao.
Oversimplified the racist as unintelligent, unaccomplished, brutish dolt which couldn't be further from the truth. The primary motivativating factor of racism for the bruit very well may be derived from a lack of self-esteem. But for great men (the founding fathers, the william shockley's of the world etc) it is a focus on creating and maintaining a better world for their offspring. Ancestor worship is secondary and harmless. Just my opinion...
Not if people that are capable of work are incapable of negotiating on their own behalf. There was just a case settled a few days ago where disabled men were duped into working for forty one cents an hour at the evisceration dept at a chicken plant for thirty years. They were capable of the work, but not of negociating fair salaries on their own behalf. They needed someone to advocate for them and if not the state a union type organization to make sure they weren't being taken advantage of.
What she says here is perfectly consistent with all the rest of her philosophy. If she is right here, then she is right about most of the rest of her ideas.
Again, no specifics means you are dancing round the subject. She was a real philosopher, by definition, and your opinion means less and less the more you avoid the argument. Please try to refute Objectivism in 500 characters or less.
The most straw manned woman of all time. After reading some Ayn Rand I realized how desperate and pathetic so many people can be. All it took was a few minutes of genuine reading to see that Ayn Rand is nothing like liberals or even conservatives say. She truly is a remarkable woman.
I agree. I see it all the time. They have to claim she said things she never said in order to try to prove her wrong. Its almost like an admission that THEY think she was, in fact, right.
If you don't realize that Rand's depiction of liberals was as "STRAW MAN" as humanly possible you should re-read it.
JEFF9K
Nope. Liberals CONSTANTLY live up to her low opinion and evaluation of them. You are a case in point. Always misrepresenting anything she said, always demanding sacrifices from other people at the point of a gun (of course not touching the gun themselves, just having the government do it for them).
Tell me what I said that wasn't accurate.
Also, look up the definition of "straw man."
JEFF9K OK:
You wrote: "She was BEHIND her time. She copied all her ideas from early business theory."
If she copied anything from anyone, it was Aristotle. She gave him a lot of credit. But what do you mean by "early business theory"? Who ever described morality as coming from two things: the choice to live and the law of causality? Who came up with her theory of measurement omission in concept formation? Who did she get the subjective/objective/intrinsic tricotomy from? She made a LOT of unique, new contributions to the philosophy of liberty, and to philosophy in general.
"Anyone who supports her writings after the most recent refutation of her philosophy, the economic meltdown of 2008, is a stupid person indeed."
Wrong. 2008 was a brilliant CONFIRMATION of her philosophy. It was an Objectivist "I told you so" moment. If she had been alive to see it, that is what she would have been saying. She advocated a gold standard. We had been printing paper money backed by nothing but the government's guns for decades. She opposed the Federal Reserve, yet the Fed had lowered its interest rate to 1% in 2002 and kept it there for a coupel years, pumping a couple trillion dollars into the housing bubble. We had GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES, Fannie and Freddie, yet she advocated a separation of sate and economics. She was for limited government, and that means low government spending, but the US government had been running record deficits the whole decade.
I could go on and on and on listing government meddling with the economy, all of which she opposed. Yet you blame the 2008 collapse on her ideas????
"Ayn Rand judged people by the content of their bank accounts. "
I've already gone over this one ad nauseum. But you seem impervious to evidence on the subject.
153 collectivists dislikes this video.
Also known as Liberals
oskaveli662 Libtards
+psilocyberspaceman racism is also rampant on the right.
Say it with me...LIBERTARIANS. (NOT the same as liberals.)
there is hardly a difference between the alt right and social justice warriors other than their political origins
Too many people fight racism with racism rather than rising above.
I agree. I feel fighting racism with racism can be a natural response because when someone is genuinely racist towards you it upsets you, and what do humans like to do most when something upsets them? Well fight it back with the same bravado. The term "fight fire with fire" didn't originate from nothing after all.
However, we must move past such kiddy responses and rise above injustices we see.
I think that the elites use "racism" as an excuse to perpetuate it. BLM is a Marxist collectivist group designed to keep black Americans at the bottom of the society and by telling them they can never get ahead so why try? So they have a handy angry group of uneducated and furious poor people they can call upon to continually break up a free country which is anything BUT racist. Critical Race Theory is all about oppression.
RACISM is based on power. This comment is pointless
You LITERALLY support the opposite of what she states. Sad.
You don't need to rise. You must only exist.
What a contrast of wisdom , Arn Rand from 50 yrs. ago , or Madonna's present day rants !
The dummying down of our culture is no accident!
@Chris Schneider dumb she might be but there is no reason you should let her live in your head rent-free like that also I like her old music it remains me of car rides with my mom so she was good for something
This woman's universe can be condensed in one word.....INDIVIDUALISM!
I'd say that if you go for one word, it'd be "reason".
Anything but....reason...
Name a contradiction in her ideas, then.
How could she contradict herself....could name a million dissenting ideas...fm an external source, but a contradiction of her own ideas?....nuts!
+Yves Gomes She claims to be against collectivism, but opposes democracy-- which means that she doesn't think that the majority are equal, but rather her talk IMPLIES that SHE is the sole voice of reason and logic, and therefore she should rule.
That's a contradiction.
This is the first time I have heard this woman and I find her simply brilliant.
And she was Russian and I believe she had seen what Marxist thought had done to Russia.
Like Thomas stowell and her great minds are never exposed to your hidden
is a man brilliant ,by saying brilliant things,
This type of discussion makes leftists writhe in agony.
PV1230 And it makes the greedy, idle rich that she so catered to lift their heads in smug triumph...
PV1230 And I find it odd because they'd normally agree with her stance in the video, that is before they went full SJW.
There's nothing odd about it, both liberalism and objectivism are about social liberty.
Lady was so on point..
I actually only disagree with what she's said in this video, genetics does hugely influence people's traits, biological determination is a legit thing.
So can you point to which genetic configuration makes a doctor? A lawyer? A drug dealer? Or is there a little more to it? The point is not that ancestry has no effect on a person's life, just that it is inconsequential in determining a person's future
When you have genetic predisposition for neurosis and laziness your chances to become drug dealer are higher than to become a doctor. People are consciously suppressing this fact while raising their children, or worse when the children raise themselves because parents don't have enough time. So it is not so inconsequential. It is a part of the bigger picture especially when you consider memetic theory can be atleast a little bit true.
*****
hard to argue against. Well said!
Mictlantecuhtli Chances. Not predestination. And all dependent on the rationale of the subject. If you approach laziness as simply high reward for little work, drug dealing might be a reasonable choice. But if someone is lazy in risk-taking they are less likely to deal drugs because it's too high risk for them to justify. Im not saying genes dont matter period, just that they are inconclusive in the grand scheme of things. Way too many other factors. Great people come from mediocre familes all the time.
Yes, yes and yes.
Happy sunday my dear Nina, kiss.
Rosa Cozzi yes. Merry Sunday to you, my dear friend. Kisses.👄
Ayn Rand is Brilliance,how can a dumbed down society ever understand.
"Racism is not a legal but moral issue." I wish that are modern politicians would realize this. I have met several racist people in my life and I know for a fact that no amount of litigation would change them.
Litigation will not change their hearts, but will change their behavior. And for all intents of purposes that is usually enough.
this women is a well of knowledge.
sheparddog, (Is that how you see yourself?): Rand said we fall in love, (real love), because we meet with the minds and respect each others values, much like the way we pick friends. But for a intimate relationship, we celebrate the respect of each others values with sex. With friends, we celebrate our friendship with a beer over a ball game, (or some other activity we do and enjoy together).
Race has nothing to do with Rand's definition of love. Put the race card down. It's dirty.
Hey sheparddog---your sheep are leaping the fence to get away from you. Freedom means, freedom from people like you.
collectivism is anti-human, and best left for farm animals because they can not "reason".
Now how is it a wild animal can live with out a ruler, with out a baby sitter, but the most intelligent living entity on earth, humans, can not? OK, collectivist can not survive on their own. obama and bernie never even had a job.
EarthSurferUSA 👊
Sheparddog: You are not smart enough to kill a lion on your own? May be not. It was some other individual human being who developed the gun. Enjoy your collective primitive brain dead slavery. You beg for it. Go work in a tribe, and eat from the dirt. All of Western culture, when collectivism was minimized---advanced past you, and the rest of the collectivist history of mankind. You can desire to be treated like a farm animal by other human beings who developed nothing. I have no such desire.
Ayn Rand really needs to check her privilege. ;)
On a more serious note, it's amazing how relevant this essay is to today's political turmoil around collectivist identity politics.
Good one! :)
+Shawn Jones
excuse me but did you just assume xirs gender?
Yep, She wants to rule everyone else, on the grounds that nobody should rule anybody.
Standard Jew-hypocrisy: "all are equal, but the Chosen."
She's against collectivism, but wants to rule everyone else because she's RIGHT.... an oxymoron.
She thinks she should just be able to claim to be more logical than anyone else, and that therefore everyone should bow to her word.
Sarah Guten
In what book or video does Ayn say she wants to rule anyone?
Did you just mispronoun Ze as Zir? Also, UA-cam is grammar explaining the word "mispronoun" and it has to stop.
Brilliant. One of the greatest 20th-century philosophers.
Jacqueline X - I
It's funny how she seems to be talking not only about radical left wing collectivist but unfortunately smalls strains of the alt right and the cultural libertarian movement today.
+Andrew Letke
To explain that, we would first have to define words like "left" and "right", because they really don't have any definition. Any time we use words and phrases like that (conservative, liberal, progressive, libertarian, left, right, extremest, change; for examples) we are using words that have different meanings in our individual minds, so the conversation is actually unintelligible, and that is the reason why 95% of us are walking around, talking in a political fog that we think we can see through.
But what does have definition are the terms (which have basically been expunged from our vocabulary), "collectivism" vs "individualism". Our nation was based on the philosophies of individualism, but those philosophies are ignored in almost every think tank, mode of academia, media, art and hollywood. If you want to live in freedom,---we now have to educate ourselves about it first.
Ayn Rand knew the difference between individualism and communism very well, and realized both parties are based in collectivism. Now--our whole way of life is based in collectivism, and with that, man can never be great again, by using their own brain.
Can we "change" that? "Yes we can", if we demand our "individual rights protected by law" back, and our "citizen owned capitalism back" (business belongs to us as a product of our minds---not to government people who are to stupid to produce things.
+James King
"radical left wing collectivist" - No, she is not, you idiot. She's talking about supremacy, particularly WHITE supremacy.
She's talking about anybody who treats a person on the basis of membership in a group rather than as individual.
I'm a libertarian and no she's not Ayn Rand defines more of today's left wing authoritarian political spectrum parties like the Democratic party.
A LeRoux I don't give credit for virtue signalling there A. Rand has nothing in common with modern dems. For example, she advocated the complete separate of government and economy.
the problem with believing in the idea of racial superiority and oppression is that if it turns out that the ones deemed inferior are in fact superior then you have just successfully and systematically defended their right to oppress you.
equality becomes a special benefit when people believe there are groups of people not deserving of it.
+WarWolf x26 wow you are very confused, you actually used the terms "corporatist" and "Marxist elite" even though Karl Marx himself shunned corporations, capitalism, the state and all elites. He advocated a moneyless, stateless, classless society and advocated direct workers control over the means of production - for this to happen, you would need direct consensus democracy. Also, yes it may be true that those discriminated against can get special privileges, however this is to make up for the discrimination they suffer from. How would you like it if ever time you walked out of your house that almost everyone constantly discriminated against you? Also, how the actual fuck, is the far right populist?? I mean I know people generally aren't well eductaed in society, but they aren't THAT fucking stupid! Socialism is in the interests of the general population because most of the population is in fact working class, and socialism (including Marxism) is an ideology based on the concept of a worker's controlled society (where the working class control society rather than some elite).
***** "In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state." - This is the definition of Communism. Communism means the functions of capital are abolished, when they are undertaken by the State, it is called State Capitalism, because the state acts to serve the interests of capital and undertakes it's functions. And in a actual socialist (communist) economic system, there is NO elite. It is controlled directly by the workers, meaning that the general public are the ones who debate, discuss, choose and undertake the control of the means of production and directly own it as a community. Also, what the fuck does regulation have to do with Communism??
The Soviet Union was State Capitalist since the working class weren't the ones controlling it, Stalin was. Dictatorship and Elitism are incompatible with Socialism/Communism. I think you reaaly need to properly look into what socialism is rather than just making poor assumptions.
***** I think you need to listen to Gabor Mate, Bakunin, Robert Sapolsky, Kropoktin and Jacque Fresco.
You have a lot to learn about a lot opf things, especially economics, human behavior, sociology and psychology.
***** It seems to me like one of the few sensible solutions, along with libertarian socialism.
Ayn Rand>Stefan Molyneux
It's been going on since the beginning of time. Whether it's race, class or religious discrimination it's a herd (or tribal) mentality.
Religion doesn't fit the same categorization of race or caste (what is often called class), since it is a fundamentally philosophical matter in nature (religion is defined as the relationship between men and what they consider sacred, divine, or absolute truth about the universe) and thus is about ideals and principles. Principles about morality are one of the things the divide good people from evil people, since evil people espouse vice-justifying principles like "Might makes Right" or "Do whatever you want/makes you feel good".
I've examined Ayan Rand's work for about five years and I have to confess, I'm starting to agree with her point of view, even though I still consider her to be a bit of a hypocrite in some ways, but we are all hypocrites to some degree, if someone were to lay our lives open for a thorough examination. However, when I look at cities like Detroit, Michigan and if I look "honestly" at the over reach of
many Government programs that have lowered the standards bars in education and the hiring practices of many companies, just to be more inclusive, it becomes obvious, why nothing works properly. Even though I consider her literary work and skills to be far inadequate to her philosophical insights, she has managed to win me over and coming from a Black man, that was not something I'm finding easy to explain to other Blacks.
Very Powerful, I'm a Black man myself. I just wish I was a younger man.
@@channelmerchdontleavecasho4420 Cracks me up that people think we're all irrational animals incapable of reasoning or abstract concepts. If that was the case we wouldn't have any qualms with negative or differential treatment.
You don't owe anyone an "explanation". Everyone should put in the work on their own. You have already made a contribution just by being an independent thinker. FWIW I'm Black & see things similarly.
To be able to abandon comforting (but false) observations for uncomfortable (but accurate) ones is difficult for one of any race to do. You will be confronted again and again with raw emotional bias rather than logic. Just hold on to the certainty that your embrace of reason has you on the right path, and will ultimately prove you right.
Very precise and clear.
I really enjoyed some of the 80's rock growing up as a teen and young 20's. The stuff I listened to, like Boston, Journey, Styx, ("why must you be such an angry young man, when your future looks so bright to me", example), were inspiring to me as a young low self esteem individual, and it helped prompt me to go to college, (something productive, not like today's colleges). I just recently found out that "Rush" dedicated 2112, (or parts of it),--"to the genius of Ayn Rand".
No matter what happens to mankind, her spirit will exist in some minds, so there will always be hope for mankind. She was a "Hero", who will never be forgotten.
She died in 1982, 36 years ago. There was a part of one of her books that said, "When a hollywood actor or sports icon dies, the news is on the front pages for weeks. But when a good philosopher dies, almost nobody notices". Her reply, "They will eventually". Can you name one other philosopher who remains in the minds of man as she has?
@@EarthSurferUSA Alan Watts
You’re thinking of Anthem. Based on the book of the same name.
Ironically, today the left would consider this speech as racist.
They don't know what they're talking about, collectivism is the biggest evil of our time.
DAMN i never knew that before !
Now i know what Racism is.
0:44 reminds me of SJW's claim of white privilege.
The reason Ayn Rand is so great in my mind is that she can take even complex concepts, pull them apart layer by layer, and ruthlessly analyse each of their premises. And all throughout my thinking is almost invariably, this is how I've always felt about it from early boyhood, except I didn't have the words to express it. This extract I think is from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and is the greatest indictment of racism I have ever heard.
Wow they cut a lot out of this from the corresponding chapter in The Virtue of Selfishness. Not that this video was bad, but the fullness of her point and her ingenious articulation in her book was incomparable to this. Check it out if you get the chance
Damn, ayn rand was a genius.
I've found that every critic of Rand that I've ever ran into has had a drastically wrong idea of what her philosophy entails.
I think the mind of a true genius is vibrating on such a different plane of existence, it's almost impossible for some to get in synch with it. They can only see things the way they have been taught to believe true. Creators with new and original thoughts in art, philosophy, music. architecture, etc. are ordinarily misunderstood, certainly at first.
The actual Nazis (Hitler's Germany) were about a lot of things, but not about brute force. They were not pure materialists, they were idealist a lot. Collectivist they are for sure...
Time to introduce Ayn Rand to the members of BLM and Antifa
They would call her a fascist (even though fascism is just Mussolini’s system of nationalist syndicalism)
To admit racial differences is racism? The word truly lost all meaning.
No racial differences mean nothing when discussing the individual. Gathering statistics on any group can only talk about a trend in that group. It cannot correctly identify or diagnose any of the features of the individual in his totality.
Who did that? Rand didn't.
Again for the slow people
The racial differences say NOTHING of the "individual"
A moron is a moron regardless of the amount of genius he belongs to
A genius is a genius regardless of the amount of morons he belongs to
If you can't comprehend that then your social IQ is just too low to comprehend the the rest of her points
Obviously she never rode the J train or walked down a street in Newark.
+TimeWarp66 No, they are not only related, but tightly intertwined.
+spideraxis Ayn Rand supported Israel over the Arabs because of their cultural superiority.
+Eryk Pyts Africa had no culture or civilization.
spideraxis well, it has a culture; female genital mutilation and such.
+Eryk Pyts It also created cannibalism, AIDS and screwing water buffalo.
Really clear and well put. Excellent woman!
I've spent 50 years on this Earth and this is the most cogent, extensive and logical opinion on racism that I've ever 'heard' from a white person or any person for that matter.(can you remember any others?, you can't). That's sad. It's because she is an individualist and free from your peer pressure. I came here wanting to hate her thinking that she was 'the enemy'. She's not. All rational, logical, thinking people are my friends...and I think that's part of what she's trying to say here.
Being proud of your race is like being proud of your body's ability in being able to defecate after a big meal...Taking pride in your accomplishments shouldn't be derived from simple biological/physical attributes, that's just plain absurd.
An outstanding essay!
..Saved to desktop..
Well said.
I love Ayn Rand, but her stance on culture in this instance with regards to race is so shallow.
Really? Do you have something deeper, or just an unfounded insult?
I don't think you love Ayn Rand. I think you lie. Please prove me wrong with your deeper thoughts of racism.
This doesn’t seem to apply to black supremacy or Islam.
So many people walking around with Double standards for themselves and everyone else. Virtue signalling morons.
Wow I agreed with 85% of what she was saying until she stared using the United States as an example. I guess she forgot about the South and all that free African labor, and how Northern companies got rich from bonding and insuring such free African labor force as the property was treated. That is the Capitalism she loves. Now I know Ayn Rand was Russian Born and there was not a lot is any Russians who owned Slaves in the American South but to over look how the basis of American Capitalism was entrenched in racism almost negates this entire essay.
Your comments about capitalism and slavery lack all historical perspective. Until the 19th century, slavery was the norm throughout the world, not just the USA. The USA was one of the early countries to cast off the practice. Remember the historical lesson Milton Friedman likes to teach. Capitalism is not a sufficient condition for freedom, but it is a necessary one.
fzqlcs Your response doesn’t shed any light on the fact that Miss Rand overlooked an entire chapter of American history that took a group of people that looked different from the European citizenry and made them slaves, not voluntary indentured servants. I mean dehumanized, beaten, raped, and bought chattel slavery. It wasn’t an anomaly in the south it was an institution. That is the very basis of racism and someone as smart as Ayn Rand does not accidently look over.
Clint G. All of these terrible things began before the USA existed. The Atlantic slave trade was started by greedy, violent, collectivist Monarchists. Benjamin Franklin, the primary capitalist among the founding fathers started American abolitionism because it was an affront to his capitalist views. No capitalist has ever denied a person their natural rights, and if a business used slaves; they weren't being run by a capitalist.
Slavery wasn't taking place only in the south nor was slavery a uniquely American ideal. Considering that America was one of the first to truly abolish slavery shows that everything she said is true. She was speaking against racism in all forms including slavery. Also, blacks were not the only race to be enslaved in America, though they were the majority. Either way, I dont see how anyone can dispute what Ayn Rand was stating here. Those that seek to separate people into groups (blacks, whites, gay, straight, etc) instead of celebrating individualism and personal freedom are only looking to gain power over said groups. And to think that Conservatives are labeled racists when its always been the other side that has sought to enslave and limit the rights of others.
your smart
there are no bad races only bad cultures . There are good and bad in all people's.
"If you study reliable history and not liberal racist newspapers, racism didn't exist in this country until liberals brought it up."
~~Ayn Rand
I don't think she was correct with that, if she truly said that. There were always racist individuals in the USA, (and the rest of the world also), and they were people who did not understand individual liberty fully. But the USA did have less of it, only because it was based on individual liberty. It was actually the philosophies of individual liberty that ended the forced Black slavery in the USA that existed here before the USA was actually founded. The opposite philosophies of collectivism,---never liberated anybody. When people moved here for more liberty, they came from collectivist societies, and old perceptions, no matter how evil, can be hard to break.
But I can agree that if you want to learn reliable history, you have to learn it from people who love individual liberty, and despise collectivism, like Ayn Rand. Individual liberty seeks to take from nobody, and has no reason to lie, but Collectivism does.
ayn rand is absolutely brilliant
Shes amazing
Her high hopes for the U.S. lol. Wonder what she would think had she seen today's U.S.
>implying one's values and character are not physical processes
>implying these physical processes are not inheritable
Just because physical processes coincide with character and value, does not mean they inherently define or transfer character and value. If they did, then everybody who endured the same physiological, neurological and genetic traits, would follow the exact same path in life. Clearly, they don't. Determinism would work in a universe where there was no such thing as uncertainty. Unfortunately, we don't live in a puppet universe. Things happen unforeseen all the time, people respond to the same stimuli, defects and delirium differently. Determinism is an anachronism that along with naturalism, stopped being relevant to our exploration of truth in the 20th century. Dead husks, the both of them. So long as there is probability, causality as defined by reductionist thinking, is dead. Probability necessarily implies uncertainty, and a "deterministic-uncertainty" is retarded.
she addresses that point preemptively. The fact is, regardless of the origins of a man's virtue, those virtues are individual. A genius is a genius and a moron is a moron, no matter how many geniuses or morons happen to share a group with him.
I don't know why objectivists are upset about this, she's not impartial on the individualism/collectivism divide, she's a staunch individualist. Maybe she would have been abit more impartial by acknowledging IQ difference between the races, but thats an argument for collectivist to make. She doesn't argue for individualism as the end itself, but as a means to capitalism. People only debunk her with emotions and ad hominems.
The comments on this upload lead me to believe that democracy is the God that failed... as Hans Hoppe wrote.
Ayn Rand judged people by the content of their bank accounts. Also by how tall and good-looking they were.
Ayn Rand hated the irrational. Apparently, the irrational hate her right back.
No one is more irrational than Rand's supporters.
Most of the villains in her books had big bank accounts. Cuffy Meigs, Jim Taggart, Oren Boyle, these were rich people who got their wealth by running to government for special favors. She despised such people.
Many of her heroes and other sympathetic characters were poor, or at least came from poverty. John Galt never earned more than a meager salary at the 20th Century Motor company, where his services were unappreciated, and he spends most of the rest of his life as a track laborer, probably earning minimum wage. Cheryl Taggart came from a poor family, and worked in a dime store. Howard Roark seems to have been an orphan, and rejected a large commission for a building because he didn;t want to compromise his ideals, and ended up working for a while in a quarry.
Ayn Rand recognized the importance of money in a healthy economy, but she did not judge people by how much money they had.
Ayn Rand's mother was born into a wealthy family.
Ayn Rand was born into an upper middle class, if not wealthy, family.
Ayn Rand came to America and lived with rich relatives.
Dagny Taggart was born into a wealthy family.
Francisco D'Anconia was born into one of the world's wealthiest families.
Midas Mulligan was rich.
Hank Rearden was rich.
Ragnar was independently wealthy.
John Galt was an engineer. Up to a certain point he was paid an engineer's salary. We can assume that as a mechanical genius Galt stood an excellent chance of becoming incredibly rich down the road.
I don't remember reading anything about Cuffy Meigs, Oren Boyle, or any other “villain,” except for Dagny's brother James, being wealthy. The entirety of humanity, basically the billions of people who weren't Rand “heroes,” were “villains” to Rand.
It's a stretch to call Cheryl Taggart one of Rand's heroes.
Rand knew nothing about healthy economies.
From my notes:
“AYN RAND CULT” by Jeff Walker 1999:
The only sector of humanity that Ayn Rand seemed to approve of was businessmen. (Page 18)
“AYN RAND NATION” by Gary Weiss 2012:
Her heroes were the accumulators of money; whether earned or inherited, it didn't make a difference. (Page 10)
JEFF9K"The entirety of humanity, basically the billions of people who weren't Rand “heroes,” were “villains” to Rand. "
Where do you get that from? I gave the example of Cheryl Taggart BECAUSE she is not one of the heroes, but instead an ordinary person that Rand portrays as a good, worthy person, who becomes a tragic victim of the altruist/collectivist society around her.
You seem to be engaging in some serious confirmation bias, i.e, cherry picking. Galt never earns any great fortune. Francisco D'Anconia gets rid of one.
Your notes mean carry no weight in this argument. You need to supprot yuor claims with what SHE said, not what other people said about her.
"“AYN RAND CULT” by Jeff Walker 1999:
The only sector of humanity that Ayn Rand seemed to approve of was businessmen. (Page 18)"
She clearly approved of a number of people who were not businessmen. Howard Roark's best friend is a construction worker. Some of her heroes are professional philosophers. Many do other creative work without being businessmen. Steve Mallory in The Fountainhead is an artist.
"“AYN RAND NATION” by Gary Weiss 2012:
Her heroes were the accumulators of money; whether earned or inherited, it didn't make a difference. (Page 10)"
In Francisco's Money speech, he explicitly states that only those who would be able to make a great fortune on their own are worthy of inheriting one.
“Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth-the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?"
You have shown that you actually read Atlas Shrugged when you knew who I was talking about when I mentioned Cheryl Taggart. But you prove you are unable to properly understand it, engaging in confirmation bias, ignoring evidence counter to what you want to believe, whenever you you try to explain what she stood for. You get it all wrong.
Good job, Pen.
What an unspoiled critical thinker.
She's right, judge a person by what they do and not what their genetic make up is. HOWEVER... to ignore the obvious differences created by different genetic make-ups is to ignore the truth. IQ levels being a prime example
So ironic coming from Ayn Rand...
+reedca97 how and why is it ironic?
+Mr. Stephan Wood because Ayn Rand was pretty fucking racist.
PROOF sir please
ok I just watched the clip and I agree her comments were in poor taste but was certainly not racist in the sense that she believed in any racial heirarchy. She has denounced racism many times in her non-fiction books and other interviews.
+Mr. Stephan Wood "her comments were in poor taste "
"poor taste"? that's an understatement. rand said that the "white man" had a right to "take" the continent because the native people were "cave men" and the settlers were more advanced.
furthermore, her position on the palestinians and Israelis exposes her hypocrisy.
what is the name of the song at the beginning of this video?
So she knew about racism since her jewish race has always suffered.
No, that's only if you take the last sentence out of context and ignore everything I said before. How many times do I have to say it, there is a correlation between race and intelligence (which you ignore) but of course there is always going to be variation within those certain racial groups.
I was not saying, "all individuals have equal intellectual potential, all members of certain races are genetically bound".
I have no idea why you are asking this but when I actually do what it is you're attributing to me, you'll be the first to know.
I'm atheist after a near death experience at 23 caused me to ask myself honest questions as to exactly what I knew and didn't know about death. I concluded religion was often nothing more than a denial mechanism for those who lack the humility to accept the unknown, but wisdom can still be found in religious text.
Christian scripture frequently instructs people to do right for the sake of virtue not just to avoid Divine sanction. That which you do unto the least of my brothers you do unto me.
"racism is the most crude form of collectivism"
errr...what? surely it's the exact opposite of collectivism...
No it’s very much collectivist as it removes one’s individual character and being and replaces it with a collective label. It also is often done in order to make the members of one group feel better about themselves without any actual individual self improvement(example nazis saying Germans are the “master race” or alternatively black separatist blaming all community problems on “white privilege” )
this aged like fine wine
"John Doe", if that's your name, if not, be a man and state who you are, because you've just written one of the most absurd pieces of garbage on UA-cam, "a few minutes" of reading Ayn Rand and "seeing" in those few minutes she's a "remarkable woman" is biased in the extreme, not to mention blind hero worship.
I studied Ayn Rand at Harvard for two years. Rand said some brilliant things for sure, but she also said some absolutely ignorant things. No one is perfect, but I've met far-too-many Randians who act like they are. As with any religious extremists harboring a different style of blind faith, Randians would often unfriend anyone who spoke even one word against the orthodoxy of Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand smoked all her adult life, yet stated "health and life are our highest values".
Ayn Rand preached about the irrationality of contradictions, and yet her smoking was literally a living (and dying) contradiction.
Ayn Rand stated that native populations, hundreds of tribes who had thrived and survived in North and South America for thousands of years, didn't deserve to have rights.
One cannot get very much more racist than that.
When did she say we had the right to steal anything? Rand believed strongly in private property rights, and if the Indians owned any private property, they had every right to it.
Wow! I did not see any pictures of the Communist Party, NAACP, or the Black Panthers. Why?
Why would anyone think that price gouging or monopolies are a good thing? Rand would never advocate gouging customers with inflated prices or a monopoly
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.
No, slavery was NOT a product of capitalism, corrupt or not. Slavery is an institution as old as the Stone Age, and long predated anything resembling capitalism.
It was only with the advent of capitalism, when people began to see individual human beings as ends in themselves ith rights, that we even thought to abolish slavery.
Who said anything about a perfect system, or completely abolishing poverty. Our present welfare system has failed to do it, ans socialism has always failed.
So is capitalism an effective way to prevent racism, better than controlled systems (whatever that means in the video) or communism in Russia, or did I get sth wrong?
Racism is what I wrote, that it is the notion of one's own race being superior to others, or perhaps even over ALL others. There are other attitudes which makes one a "racialist," in that they may not have superiority issues, but rather issues with another's race due to having been nurtured in a society where their race has been maltreated, and they instinctively avoid another, or they simply have a preference for their own race. These attitudes are NOT "racist."
Can a individualist be a racist ? are than statistics racist ? Ayn believes a individualist can't
accept statistics as statistics would be TRIBAL, believing that certain race for example is more prone than the other in say crime or inventions.
“Regardless of what the statistics say, a genius is still a genius even if it’s surrounded by idiots, a idiot is a idiot even if it’s surrounded by geniuses”
Free markets don't cause instability in markets, corrupt, unstable governments do. How would a free market cause itself to be unstable?
Wrong. A statement by implication does not elicit a response. A question does.
-Good to know there's people like you out there that actually LISTENED and understood what Rand is saying in this video
Death is not the only suffering. Humanity should strive to have a humane society worldwide.
Please name a leftist from the early 30's who believed in individualism and one's ideas. Leftist (democratic) thought is noted for its belief in the contemptible notion that a majority of one group or another could subjugate a minority under any circumstance. Leftism and progressivism is noted for its dismissal of the individual for the good of the collective. Ms. Rand's thoughts are centrist at their core.
The proper roll of government is to protect individual rights. That includes providing oversight for investor markets. "Free market" or "free enterprise" DOES NOT mean anarchy. It means where the government does not try to influence said markets through taxes, tariffs, excise taxes, customs fees, restrictions of markets through regulations, government subsidies, and enforced monopolies, with only enough government regulations sufficient to protect property rights against theft & aggression.
Ayn Rand's examination of Racism not only disproves traditional racism, but modern Critical Race Theory.
The reason that the heroes didn't do all the work themselves is the point of the book.
Again, if you want to think that Ayn Rand is not a shallow poser, please feel free. I do not share your opinion. I'm done.
What do you mean? It was the Senate Democrats in 1964, who held the majority, who filibustered the Civil Rights Bill from being passed. The NAACP was founded on the 100th birthday of Abraham Lincoln. The Democratic governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, stood in front of the doorway at Little Rock Central High School. Eisenhower, a Republican, had to send in the national guard to allow the students to enter the building.
'her use of the term racism above is extremely deceptive - she is actually referring to nationalism'
She really isn't.
Which is why principles were so important to Rand. Government is granted "special rights", either by divine authority, or the consent of the governed. The governmetn then sells those special rights and influence. No group, either a government or a corporation should have any rights that individuals do not. That is the at the foundation of Rand's principles and libertarianism in general.
It doesn't matter what happens to a dead body, really the dead person won't care about it. This is something even you cannot argue with.
Her relatives lived in Russia. Are you saying she mooched off her parents, they sent her money to America?
She emigrated to America when she was 20. Support that people get before they reach full adulthood is not generally considered mooching. She was studying in college almost right up until she left Russia. So in exactly what way did she supposedly mooch from her parents?
A class in "Ayn Rand" should be required at all colleges. She was very prophetic; just look at America now.
[[Your answer lies in Ayn Rands message of objectivism. Your answer is found in anarchy.]]
-
She wasn't an anarchist.
Your response is not related to his post. He's talking about providing a service in areas or circumstances where NO ONE ELSE is providing it. Anyone can open up another store in that bad neighborhood, but no one wants to (in this hypothetical setting), thats why a store could potentially charge more for its goods in this bad area.
Andrew Ryan > Ayn Rand.
Simply because golf clubs are cooler.
Humans do act with rational self interest, we are also capable of great acts of kindness, when we are not forced into it. That is the libertarian position, give people a chance to be good rather than try to make them.
Funny how Rand writes so eloquently against racism and had no problem opening her mouth and completely contradicting her writing.
She wasn't out to destroy any group. She upheld the rights of the individual, so what group any person came from is irrelvant, WASP, Israeli, or Arab. These groups were irrelevant to her. Only the individual matters.
i think you missed the point. All she is saying is that people should be weighed by their accomplishments and not by association with a group.
So, since you can't make a legitimate point, you're just going to troll the board now?
U should read more carefully before responding in the future. "Belief" was the key word in my last response. Did your Dad make a living for selfish reasons? Did he do it for HIS family? To support HIMSELF and provide the things in life that HE needed? I know he didn't work for free, he worked for $. Did his selfish actions of providing a service enrich or diminish the lives of his customers and the people around him?
Saying that men tend to be stronger than women is not a blanket generalisation, it is a fact. Learn the difference between facts and generalisations.
1. Yes it is. A majority cannot vote someone into office capable of rightfully violating individual rights. That a majority cannot vote rights away from a minority is exactly why Prop 8 was shot down by the California Supreme Court.
2. Obama said in his "debates" with Hillary that he would make universal health care participation mandatory, where she said voluntary. His version included mandates from the beginning.
3. You still don't understand the difference between voluntary & compulsion.
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; & 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"?
Half truth, half wishful thinking
'Hitler said he was doing everything for the love of his people - do we take his words at face value?'
He was probably being honest, in his own sick twisted way. I would say the same for Mao.
Oversimplified the racist as unintelligent, unaccomplished, brutish dolt which couldn't be further from the truth. The primary motivativating factor of racism for the bruit very well may be derived from a lack of self-esteem. But for great men (the founding fathers, the william shockley's of the world etc) it is a focus on creating and maintaining a better world for their offspring. Ancestor worship is secondary and harmless. Just my opinion...
Not if people that are capable of work are incapable of negotiating on their own behalf. There was just a case settled a few days ago where disabled men were duped into working for forty one cents an hour at the evisceration dept at a chicken plant for thirty years. They were capable of the work, but not of negociating fair salaries on their own behalf. They needed someone to advocate for them and if not the state a union type organization to make sure they weren't being taken advantage of.
What she says here is perfectly consistent with all the rest of her philosophy. If she is right here, then she is right about most of the rest of her ideas.
Again, no specifics means you are dancing round the subject. She was a real philosopher, by definition, and your opinion means less and less the more you avoid the argument.
Please try to refute Objectivism in 500 characters or less.