See that? It was obvious Wallace disagreed with her, but he remained respectful, gave her every opportunity to think and respond, and didn't try to shut her down. THIS is how you conduct an interview.
The reason Mike Wallace was such a good interviewer was because he realized the interview was not about him, it was about the person being interviewed. So he gave that person an opportunity to express his or her views as fully as possible.
the days are long gone, of long spun conversations like the ones between bohm and krishnamurti, or feynmann interviews.. science communication and deeply philosophical talks have made place for sciencetainment, science podcasts which talk about anything but the real science, conversations and youtube video essays. so many compromises have been made, for the sake of the public, to make science palatable, for instance, but loosing in this way legitimacy as spreaders of science. i think that is the true meaning of ayn rands objectivism, that one should never compromise against one self. she ended up applying this to the free market (she has definite blind spots as an avid proponent, for the question if the market can really be free when the people aren't free, that is: the workers and the politicians, who out of their frustrations tear down the industry, would free people do such a thing? what could these industrialists have done, to prevent such a thing, with all their power? perhaps emancipating the individual is of value, but as her book shows as a kind of caricature, the gouvernment is incapable of doing such a thing. democracy is not something that can be forced, is only something that can be inspired, something ayn rand is not very good at sadly, she writes pretty good, and with great intensity, but seems kind of a dud herself outside of her writing. ).. objectivism seems to me something derived from gurdjieff's philosophy, with some nietzche involved, but more as an absolute creation of values (not the ever tearing down and reconstructing of all values even his own as nietzsche tends to do), like statues in a storm, keeping on standing, the unmoving mover. but not as a belief derived from religion or politics, but something created our of oneself. gurdjieff's philosophy is centered, in being, that in order to act, one must first: be. the free man is an actor. he retains nothing of his own, as he moves his whole being into the act. (this is not the whole of gurdjieff, though, but some sense of it, as his philosophy is vast, and at the same time, there is nothing in it, nothing ot hold on to, the perfect type of philosopher, is one who does not let you imitate him, as it is impossible, thus the whole responsability is thrown on you!) in a way, the leading characters of ayn rand are such actors. who do not compromise against anything. there truly exist, yet you cannot find anything in them. as a philosopher rand is but a shadow of gurdjieff, her own conflictedness and inner chaos, shows itself allready in the book itself, but it's all good. it is the qualm of the writer, to never be able to fit their own ideals. and that all kinds of dimensions and aspects of themselves will show in their writing, as enemies, as friends, as strangers.. so objectivism can be applied anywhere, when one surrenders completely to the role that one takes on. to act. unrelenting. ruthless as a force of nature. but ruthless is the sun, as it nourishes all life, ruthless is the river, as it flows over the earth. ruthless can mean destructive, in fact it allways is, in a way, but it also means, giving. the sun does not care, neither the earth, the moon.. this is the essence of the idea of egoism as a force for benefit in the neo liberal viewpoint. i think though that even such egoism is far from true ruthlessness, from the absense of care of the sun, of the moon. the sun neither is selfish, neither is altruistic. it truly does not care, whether life exist or not, whether man withers, or travels to the stars, or whether they enter an age of superstition and pseudo capitalism (ayn rand would laugh at the current state of capitalism, which is a minority of successfull industrialists and the majority feeding on them, and equally cuffed are the scientific community by the politicians even though they profess neoliberalism, they see still politics above science, not just a tool just as science to remove all obstacles for individual freedom, and free connection between people, in all dimensions, materially, physically, psychologically, spiritually, but make no mistake, barely any person who ever said: spiritual meant that, they mean the drug, the high of forgetting themselves, but as unconsciouss and lost to the world, when i say spiritual: it means to transcend the world, and embrace it ! the only sin: is to be unconsciouss, who is consciouss doesn't even consider the unconsciouss, he simply IS). i do wonder though, as i read that book, the industrialist she idealised, was not the modern industrialist, it was the fordist ideal of industrialism. ford, with all his flaws (he did trade in war material with nazi germany, and kindof played both sides to his benefit like a real a-moral fool) did value his workers. and saw the benefit of giving just wage: after all, those are the people who will buy the products right? the way the workers respected the taggart company, it clearly shows they where treated well. a just treatment, makes much of unions unnecessary. the only way in which worker democracy could be necessary, is when for instance your company is trading with fascists. if the ceo has no sense of honour, then his workers should push him to get it together, and don't be a wuss. also a ceo who thinks he can trade the earths vast nature for whatever product he sells, cares too much about his product. he should be just as relentless towards his own actions as he is to the world around him.
@@bobboonah you mean, much more diversity in misinformation LOL.. americans are so lost in the sauce, they don't know anything about anything with all the contradicting sources
@@RemoteMakesSense todays discussions are more of a race to win, to dominate the 'opponent', it is pretty rare to find such civil discussions these days, moreover they are often politically motivated. if for instance krishnamurti lived today, they would not invite them, because a man who does not fight to win, can never loose, so they think, he must be not that interesting, not controversial enough. ayn rand is smart, for sure, she did not really apply what she preaches, but that doesn't remove from her talent and her brilliant writings. she for sure had a great brain, and a sense of integrity, which shows most in her miss taggart character. if only capitalists had such integrity, but they use simply neo liberal ideology and even ayn rands ideology, to be a profiteer, and an exploiter, which is more what rand criticises in her support of rearden, taggart, d'anconia and galt as heroes. though personally i don't like galt very much, tesla was way more interesting and she made a kind of meager pedantic version of him, and the escapism just makes them look weak, and it reminds me of how all the brilliant people in the world cannot defeat the politics and deception of a small group of people (whether this is nazi's, or the cia, scientists and corporate leaders seem to allways be used by one 'team' or another. they seem incapable of defeating the misleaders who pull people in meaningless wars and realpolitik, with fact and ingenuitey). the greatest cost came then to the common people who did not really know what was going on. Ayn rands work, imo, is pretty complementary with the work of ursula le guin. if you understand how they are connected, you have understood, the spirit of freedom they wanted to touch.
Technically works for governments too@@AbsbsjdbZhahebsjs. Government should be selfishly in love with its citizens and not prostitute itself not any foreign nation, least of all accept foreign influence to infiltrate their borders.
Not exactly something to strive for. A lack of empathy is one of the signature signs of a sociopath. I wouldn't go searching for a heart of gold at an objectivist conference.
Is there honesty in that, or is it merely a barrier to prevent further questions? As I understand it, she is saying that the societal fabric compels us to be dishonest to be accepted a ‘good’ human, wife, husband, son, daughter, father, or mother; these are checklists that one must adhere to, dictated by society. As a result, people behave this way due to invisible pressure all their lives rather than as free minds/consciousness. We are told from birth that happiness comes from acting/behaving in certain ways. How can that be true? Isn’t it a form of dishonesty or even slavery? Only a free mind can think, love and understand anything - slaves have no rights!
It really says something about our current state of affairs that most of the comments are about the quality of the interview rather than the merits of the ideas being discussed.
All fair questions, sincere answers, no gotcha questions, just the way interviews should go. I respect them both. This interview should be studied by all journalists.
Fascinating. Wonderful conversation because Mike W is actually asking difficult questions but allowing her to answer, giving her a platform. Unlike today's "journalists", he closed out the segment with a footnote that encouraged open-mindedness rather than a discrediting statement to which the guest could not respond.
That's because there was a stability in that era that does NOT exist now. So Wallace - and what would be derided today as the media elite - did not have a concern that Rand and her followers could bring the system down.
And her eyes are so intense, so alert and beautiful. She is a native Russian speaker and yet has full command of the English language and can pronounce the French words with the perfect accent too. Whether you agree with her or not, she is an impressive woman and her philosophy is well-thought. I wish she could've gone tête-a-tête with Hitchens. I bet she'd have won him over. A powerful woman like her, she'd probably turn him on like Thatcher did 😆
True, but in playing devil's advocate to Ayn Rand arguments, his democrat view came out. Still, we need more like him (and Walter Cronkite) today because her prediction of a state dictatorship is stating to come true.
Every freshman in college should listen to this interview. It would shock their systems, but hopefully some of them would agree with Rand's philosophy - you succeed based on your ability. We would all be better off.
more of a Max Stirner kind of guy. His interpretation of Egoism is much more thorough and consistent. Half of the concepts she talks about are just her elitist moral spooks she wishes to impose on others, thereby contradicting her main argument that man should only follow his own value system.
I think that's because you and most of the people with your opinion look at her work and ideology in a shallow way and ignore the nuance or the deeper, foundational virtues she is really talking about. @@pamparker4047
I wish we had this level of integrity in intellectual debates today in media instead of the garbage on networks these days. I respect this woman’s courage and intelligence.
@@lisaschuster686think I agree with her. Life would be harder for many in the short term for about a generation, but I think society would be healthier and happier in the long run. When I look around at the major policy decisions we make and our fiscal system, one thought comes to mind. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
@@anonymous-yg1hy Did you realize how far the pendulum has swung? Luxury taxes (over $1,000,000 - ? - at the time) were 98 percent! The country was never so prosperous for the middle class. Maybe a compromise…?
And of course Ayn’s philosophy sounds so … dooming, it’s like Schumpeter’s perception of economy - things are wrong here and there, but there’s nothing we can do about it.
so... uranium is quite scarce ... it's still can't be vital ? not vital for you and me, but really not vital against an enemy who has that resource ? Rand philosophy is full of unwarranted assertion, every thing bad is collectivist, everything good is self-interest of industrialist shark ? Let be frank, they did not became big industrialist by simply creating things...they appropriate things in coercive ways! A simple exemple of water resource going through one property that could put a barrage on HIS property to block water to go to his neighbors ! He then buy his neighbor land cheaply because it's barren, then allow water to go through... all enlightened ? nah, I bet the neighbor would just grab a shotgun and... HENCE the necessity of a governing body regulating economic activity !
@@moestietabarnak I agree with a lot of what you say, that’s why I feel her philosophy is so dooming. Basically her inner coherence is that an unregulated society may be bad and cutthroat, but it’s still the best because any input leads things to the worse. And there’s nothing you can do about it. I think many people violently disagree with her on this, but that would be a fundamental disagreement which means no room for persuasion. … but still I’m very taken by her argument on “scarcity”. I think her point is not “uranium” is vital to whom, but it can’t be vital if it’s TOOOOO scarce. Let’s say all the uranium in the world can only power one bomb. Then what can you do with it? Even if US or USSR got hold of all of it, they can only bluff the other because once used, there’d be no threat. It’s a way of thinking I’ve never taken.
@@moestietabarnak Uranium is not nearly scarce enough that it could even be "cornered" by any government, muchless an individual. Who did the industrialists "coerce"? If it was the government, then the government is complicit in the crime - which is exactly why they should never be in charge of these decisions/resources to begin with. Water rights are spelled-out on property contracts/deeds that were agreed to when the land was purchased.
A significant interview with two eminently articulate individuals with laser focus and formidable analytical powers, yet with the humane capacity to be respectful of one another. This is a joy to experience.
Throughout this interview I kept feeling a sense of joy as you have expressed. So rare to see two intelligent people discussing philosophy, economics, etc in such a civil way.
Yes, but other than you opinion of these characters, do you think? What do YOU think about the ideas? Or are you another status seeking and status dispensing machine with no concrete or reasonable reasons for your conviction? Do you have the character to respond to me? Can you read my words without processing them emotionally? Can you let go of your animal self and reason with me?
Nop. What is scary is some of her points where true back there and now those points are invalid. Then some of her points which where not true are valid today. For example her political stand where she was true when it comes to the individual right over the group. The opposite of what she said back there, today, it is the guiding principal. She was saying the majority should never be in full charge to impose a rule over the minority. Today, there is no room for the individual and it is all about group ideology. You can't have your own opinions if they clash with the majority. Similarly she was saying the industrialist are the backbone of economy. She said government protected monopoly will kill freedom and the true meaning of Capitalism. We'll today, the financial moguls control everything, our economy is no longer lead by industrialist that create value, then jobs, and then growth. Today government protected financial conglomerates control everything. They invest capital on capital: no value, no new job, no asset, just buy capital then sell capital. This in fact will be the main reason for our soon to come downfall. Then the part where she was wrong, which is about man's primary objective should be self centered determinism, is now is the dominant philosophy. We no longer uphold Transcendental Notions, we no longer value objective rationals. We are a decadent society in love with subjective, localised, materialistic hubris. God, how can we be like this. The part she was right is wrong now, and the part she was wrong is right now.
This country USA was much scarier when Trump was in office that's for sure . Just look what Trump did while in office . Hel gave tax breaks to the 1%ers . Said he would not take any money while in office . He did . Not only he took money he hired all of his children and friends . All of his lawyers . Letting the tax payer to flip that bill . Destroying and recking the democratic prosses for the incoming party , He also spit on the military graves anh he said they are not hero's . Sold dics to the evils in this world . He even mocked GOD .
Not impossible. Don't defund the law, defund the government. It is overfunded. Today's billionaires are using the government and media to obtain, and retain monopoly. As Rand has pointed out in this interview. Be what you want to be. You cannot force it on others. Do not let others force their philosophy on you. Be of value while you can, in whatever means at your disposal. Be what another of value to you would deem valuable. Honesty, emotional strength, economic value, physical and or sexual value. There are alot of valuable people, hard honest workers, artist, philosophers, heck you name it. Comfy shoes for example. A good home, a good vehicle. 😊
Everything about this interview is excellent. Wallace is asking great questions and Ayn Rand giving very intelligent and poised answers. Wallace challenges her intelligently and Rand responds eloquently. Two humans having a rational and intelligent conversation to come to truth.
Independent fierce reasoning premised upon one man's purpose first is to himself. I agree with the estimates of Ayn Rand's challenges here because it makes me feel confident as a result of reasoning without added evil obligations to Others? No. But see, Brotherhood, Camaradery, a sacrifical aninmal? No. Men cannot sacrifice himself or demand of others anything they possess as morally expected? No. Love, and the late Ayn Rand, convinces me of how well she knows love when speaking about her husband; my favorite part, maybe. I've been thinking about so many on youtube I listen to as a calming agent of reason, equity, and justice by rules of laws I studied and saw applied in a court of law. RIP for both of these leanred human beings in entertainment, news, and for my mind, a recreation of sorts. Thank you kindly.
I am always amazed at how liberals recoil emotionally at true atheism like that of Rand. Objectivism has indeed been invented by Kant and pushed by Weininger. It is not a new thing at all but feminine liberals seem completely allergic, including Wallace who has a hard time taking in what is absolute open information on reason. I am a God believer, but I am completely comfortable with her concepts and her atheism. Morality based in worry of the collective well being is not moral. Morality starts at consciousness of one’s own deeds. One needs a soul to get to God and she has a soul. Liberals want to be entitled of God without soulful awareness of one’s immortality and thus ultimate potential responsibility. Once one is conscious of the self, one has the consciousness for that of others’. The “altruist” dispenses himself from consciousness.
Howling mad -died living on welfare cos she’d run out of friends -psychotically projecting her trauma from fleeing the Soviet Union and leaving her entire family to die -the reason people like her is because she gives people an excuse to be greedy and selfish.
indeed WE are @Hoof and No @muslit, each individual makes up everyone else, duh. it's all about "Doing No Harm" to each other and not oppressing each other for another's advantage. Self Reliance if you will if you need an example hence your comment to Hoof.
muslit Why wouldn‘t I want to see others thrive? Other people producing values is at worst neutral, and at best good for me. I think there‘s some projection going on there. If you need irrational standards (altruistic, duty-based morality) to love other people something is wrong with you.
@@WeGoTSkiLL @muslit my comments is for you, sorry WeGotSkiLL "AN INDIVIDUALIST IS A MAN WHO SAYS: "I WILL NOT RUN ANYONE'S LIFE - NOR LET ANYONE RUN MINE. I WILL NOT RULE NOR BE RULED. I WILL NOT BE A MASTER NOR A SLAVE. I WILL NOT SACRIFICE MYSELF TO ANYONE - NOR SACRIFICE ANYONE TO MYSELF." - AYN RAND All she is saying is that we live in a world where accountability is nonexistent. We created generations of people who contribute nothing and are compensated by those who do contribute and fund the lives of those who don't contribute. If you are dependent on something you're a slave to it. How about having some self worth instead of demanding others help you. We in the US contribute millions willingly to charities, not by government force. The system steals my wealth to help pay for their programs that I have absolutely no say in how that money is spent. Mainly our money goes to the Military Industrial Complex. And all the contractors, there is no money in peace. Plus funding undocumented/illegal aliens costs billions in tax dollars. This country was founded on immigration, by legal means and nothing was promised. Now there is welfare for illegals. You must not know much of the Kalergi plan. This is a plan to destroy the sovereignty of all nations. Except 1 that doesn't take any refugees, Can you guess the country? They are making laws that you can't boycott or even criticize this country or question events that are promoted as facts but are highly suspect. Truth does not fear investigation. Why does this nation fear an investigation into it's past? The world is run by psychopaths who don't care about humanity. They only care about keeping their wealth and power,, that's why they're steering society towards socialism, the loss of individual rights for the greater good, not ours, theirs. It's not that complicated. They want people emotive. Not actually thinking critically for themselves. Logic and reason are considered racist or hateful. All these revolutionary movements are backed by corporations and promoted by msm, the first sign your movement is not a revolution just a way to divide everyone. BLM/ Atifa. I'm not a statist by any means. I loathe government, it's just a glorified mafia.
I read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" in my 20s. I don't really know what made me start reading them in the first place but I'm glad I did. It was so easy for me to picture, in my minds eye, what she described because her writing style is "picturesque", for want of a better term. It's just beautiful writing. It was never about politics for me - I wasn't into it back then. I admit now that Ms Rand's books probably helped to teach me HOW to think - if I'm making any sense. She helped me pay attention to logic when considering emotion. Anyway, thanks so much for posting this interview. Cheers
I too was captured by her writing style in "Atlas Shrugged" and read 4+ decades ago - all 1,084 pages in small font and on tissue like paper - my favourite book of all time. Sadly my eyesight isn't up for a second read...
Same here. Ayn Rand, her books and philosophy emphasized reason at a time in my intellectual development when I needed that lesson/message as a young Christian man. But I think Ayn Rand is a formidable intellectual but a mediocre novelist
As if smoking on live TV is immoral... ffs, yes its unhealthy but good god have we pussified in years. Everything is immoral, every word is racist or taken as suggestive / out of contex.
Nothing immoral but it isn’t very professional, you have to admit. I’ve been smoking since I was a kid but I still don’t want the dentist to have a Lucky dangling while he’s fitting me for a crown.
It's a philosophy that walks at the face of all oriental philosophies as well. I liked the depth of questioning and the reasoned level headed responses. Very good 26 mins investment 👌
- She has intense laser focus and isn’t the least bit thrown off her opinion or point. Good for her. Regardless of whether you agree with her or not she is a unique individual. Not many people present as sure minded as her these days, and able to back up their opinion with intellect .
She is full of crap. She makes these pronouncements about how unfettered markets work, and she has never once seen this kind of money worshiping government-free utopia (dystopia, to be more accurate) she wants to institute. She hasn't the slightest shred of proof that a society of pure capitalism as she envisions could produce any of the benefits she imagines. Mr. Wallace should have pushed harder on the uranium example. She pulls out of her hat this claim that no one man could ever completely dominate a vital resource, a pure article of faith on her part, with no evidence. "Winner take all", as Robert Frank observed so powerfully, is the natural outcome of pure unfettered competition, markets, capitalism. Robert Frank would wipe the floor with her.
@Anon Ymous The topic is her _philosophical_ postulate. It’s not offered without astute observation and academic rigour. Your tone comes off as highly defensive/frightened. Why? Perhaps too heavily invested?
@@FirstLast-vt3ii Doesn't a philosophical postulate have to be grounded in either a priori logical evidence (like Descartes' "cogito") or, if one is committed to an empiricist outlook and episteme, then empirical evidence claimed to be universal? How can anything she says in this regard qualify as a valid "postulate" if it is nothing but a bald, unfounded, unsupported claim?
I read anything I could find by her about 40 years ago. Her “philosophy “ was created simply to promote her own self-interests, to take what she wanted and “justify” it. To ruin others, exploit others, and wreck marriages. She’s an imposter, promoting “objectivism” to claim power over others. That’s all there is.
@@AnonYmous-ry2jn Well said. Also, her lack of compassion for others made me think of Hitler and his worldview of the perfect Adrian race ruling the world. She is a bit frightening.
Unbelievable interview, extremely hard to find someone like her today. Wallace did a great job by just getting her to answer questions staying respectful.
The reason we don't see this today is any woman who even tried to say half what she said would be shouted down, she would be told to shut up, sit down, and go away and die, by snarking nasty screeching purple haired shaved headed Jezebels who's mouths are always wide open shouting and interrupting her right from the get go, and the host would go along with them so as not to be seen to agree with the woman so why bother to try to put forward any divergent opinion when it wouldn't be allowed past the gate!
An educational interview, he gave her time to explain her views and then challenged her views, both gave the viewer an introduction to a subject of interest. I wish we still had that kind of interview style available to us today. We would have a more enlightened, less entrenched debate than we currently enjoy amongst opponents.
I agree. And why? Because people took her ideals and applied them. Why do you think the ultra wealthy and this new morally bankrupt version of the Republican Party can't stop talking about her? Her infantile, juvenile, selfish, philosophy is exactly what they were looking for. You read her as a teenager and then when you grow up you realize she is offering nothing more than a roadmap on how to be a self-centered douchebag.
I feel that Wallace did an excellent interview. I read “Atlas Shrugged “ and have been interested in Rand for many years. This gave me the most insight in to her philosophy. Thank you.
So many watching are distracted by the constant movement of Rand's eyes as if something were wrong with her. I however am amazed and understand how brilliant she is as she is accessing so much information from her mind. Much like the arm of a hard drive moving back and forth at high speeds across the disks to access information. She listens to the question, assesses information, forms an answer, decodes the answer in simple terms so the receiver can understand the point she is making. Incredible!
She’s as creepy as she is dodgy, she’s not smart... there are major holes I her theory - if you don’t think so have a look at the US in 2020, this is her vision. Monopolies don’t exist in free competition - what a load of bullshit! Private roads, yeah, real smart!!!
@@mikenodine6713 I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. English is not my first language, but I can absolutely "think in English" to then proceed to answer a question, without needing to first translate the thought from my first language into the language I speak/write in at the moment. As an example, the mere thought of writing this comment was formed in English, as well as what I'm actually saying-no Spanish involved. Have a good day :-)
My experience with Ayn Rand and objectivism - When I was 20 - I owe much of my personal change and better understanding of creativity through her writings. I’ve read much of her work. She inspired me to achieve. Not be entitled. To be free and creative and uncompromising towards takers. When I was 40 - With all this I succeeded to quite an extent … except in my soul. I felt empty from a lack of faith, relying on rationale towards love. Life became clinical and course. I could not see highways with billboards and admire them. I needed trees and brooks and streams and mountains. I needed a wider sense of creativity, a cosmic sense, a consciousness if you will. When I am 67 - I see her theory in essence in the support for uncompromising creativity as paramount. But I also see a wider power within man, something of being a co-creator with love and joy. A final version I think that comes from Abraham Hicks. Ayn talks of no compromise with people who take, I agree with that. But added to that is AH’s system of understanding the law of attraction and how this works in reality. How Wayne Dyer points to everything we see today was dreamed by someone. And how dreams and creativity and work are an enjoyment cycle, AH explains this brilliantly. It is amazingly captivating how these immense minds / powers work to provide myriad perspectives and how most of it (not all of each) seems to fit in perfectly towards one end - well being, ease, joy and happiness. We live in fascinating times.
I found "Atlas Shrugged" at age 25, and like many people, instantly became a lay objectivist and devoured several of her other works. In the fullness of time, I've come to regard Rand's ideas as a good and solid framework, but incomplete as a self-contained belief system. All of life is not *quite* as black and white as she makes it, but make no mistake, *enough* of it is that we should follow the dictates of objective reality, with an allowance for deviation at the edges of our morality. Not everything in life neatly falls into categories of good or bad, positive or negative, healthy or pathological. The missing component from this framework? I would call it social capital - the value you can add or remove from the peace and sanguinity of the world of men, which are abstract concepts that cannot be empirically measured; you more or less stick your finger in the air to see which way the wind blows. We have all faced situations where there was an obvious "correct" decision to make, an obvious "just" consequence to deliver, but the wiser move is to postpone executing that decision and delivering that consequence, because now is the wrong time and it would generate more failures than it corrects, even though it is the "right" thing to do, or especially the just thing to do. Sometimes instant justice can be too swift, and can result in a negative outcome, when the better outcome would come from biding your time and serving that justice when and how it will be most effective. She basically directly called "mercy" a dirty word, but a world completely free of mercy is no world for men to live in. Still, let's be honest: a good 80, 85, 90% of the time? A is A, and you can think A is B all you like, but A ain't changing just because you want it to. Behave as though A is B, and A will kick your, uh, A.
Uncompromising towards takers? That's, um, interesting considering that entrepreneur literally means "between taker" and so much of capitalism, conservatism and Republicanism relies on taking.
I wish this type of journalism still existed. Mike Wallace may not have been a match, intellectually, for Ayn Rand, but this interview was still lovely to watch.
I liked this interview. Rand took the questions and answered without reservation. You can take it or leave. All of our "betters" should ALWAYS be subjected to such interviews -- and SHOULD be eager to answer the questions to push their ideas forward.
I remember much of Mike's work from seeing him in the 60's & 70's growing up. I'm struck here by the comparison to his son, and the recent sham he made of the Trump/Biden debate. The apple really fell far from the tree, then rolled down a hill, fell in a stream, and ended up in a different universe. True enough that the participant's character has fallen as well, but journalism has died and this reminds me of what it was once like.
This was well before corporations really found the ways to exploit news to no end. If they can feed you ideas, make them think they are your ideas, and guide your vote, your thinking, and most importantly where you invest
Worse then dumb but immature and quasi competitive and all women are hos ,bword,cword and men are punks,jerkoffs,assholes it's like high-school instead of adult behavior.
This is not surprising; the "interviewee" has better ANSWERS and a far more intriguing view than does the "interviewer" has in the way of questions, and vantage, which are comparably stale. Mike Wallace does the best that he can, but it is not enough. . .
I fundamentally disagree with Ms. Rand’s philosophy, but no one can deny the impact she has had on modern politics and policies, so understanding her in a deeper way is highly educational. Thank you for sharing the opportunity to hear from her directly.
I fundamentally agree with Ms. Rand's philosophy, she is still correct to this day. Take a look at your governments and apply the teachings of Ms. Rand
Her views do seem cold and distant to me somehow. People working together is what makes a society, not this Darwinian vision of having to look over your back constantly to make sure no one's coming to harm you. That's no way to live.
I hope this interview is part of the curriculum for journalists today. I'm not a Mike Wallace fan but what an incredible job he does compared to the stuff we hear today....on either side of the political spectrum. It's not geared to an echo chamber..he handles conflict maturely and truly listens and bases follow-up questions on those answers. I'm not always delighted with his own projection driving the questions...but it is still light years ahead of what we get today 24x7x366 in leap year.
When I was young. in the 1960's and 1970's, "60 Minutes" was the gold standard for TV journalism. Mike Wallace. Dan Rather. Moreley Safer. Harry Reasoner. Ed Bradley. Charles Kuralt. Andy Rooney. And also at CBS (but not on 60 Minutes) Walter Cronkite. On ABC and NBC, there were Tom Brokaw, Diane Sawyer, and Barbara Walters. Those days, and jouralism of that quality, are gone forever, except maybe at the BBC. American Television news has been degraded so much that I don't even have TV service any more, dumped it in 2013 and have never missed it. I've read about half-way through "The Fountainhead", and plan to finish it when I have some spare time to read the rest of it.
@@laura-ann.0726 I dumped my service too. The only thing I'll watch now is the local news, and perhaps an occasional documentary. The rest of it is garbage. I realized that paying for cable TV only gave more garbage tv. I used to watch National Geographic, or history channel, they always had interesting shows that you can learn from. But now have these stupid reality shows, which bore me., I see these other people out there who buy these oversized TV's with hundreds of channels. I just don't see the logic in that. Is television really that interesting? I think not !
"History will support me" Perhaps her most impactful statement on me personally. Because here we are though many great things are said in this interview that one hit me the hardest. I hope someone else reads this and feels the same.
History sure does support her, just look at the US economy from the end of the civil war till 2013, the beginning of the Cartel run federal reserve, biggest boom & competitive economy ever
In our current culture, her version of America would be a disaster, but not because it's necessarily a bad idea, but rather we don't have a population capable of being that courageous and self sufficient. The entitlement programs she speaks of closed that window. Most people want safety and believe they need the government's help. This attitude doesn't lend itself well to whole individualism.
As I've listened to Rand's critics, I've found that they've generally misunderstood the terms she used, particularly selfishness, and sacrifice. When people think of selfishness, they think of it in a derogatory way, that it's someone who acts narcissistically, greedily, childishly, and won't share with others. Later in life, when she was asked about gift-giving, she said that she had no problem giving gifts to those she loved, as I think is common to many of us. Her distinction was that it's not forced. As with everything, she said she did this because it pleased her. After listening to a portion of what she wrote, I found it rather easy to identify how my generosity to others pleased myself, and how I did not give of myself to those I didn't approve. In so many instances, I think it is true that when we act generously to those we wish, it all fits within what she really meant by selfishness. She didn't mean "hoard," nor did she mean "indulge oneself at the expense of others." She meant serving one's own satisfaction in all the human ways we actually do that, which doesn't fit exclusively into the derogatory version of selfishness we commonly think about. Her point was that what she called selfishness can serve the needs of others, even those who are in desperate need, and have little or nothing to give back. When someone volunteers for charity, and receives fulfillment from their work, she would say they were acting selfishly, because they were actually doing something that satisfied themselves in some way. I think what she called on people to do was to become conscious of how much of what they do in life is to satisfy their own wants and needs, and how that's actually good. It doesn't mean you're always in a state of joy. Providing something of value is hard work, and will lead to disappointment when you fail, as you strive. The point is you strive, and the more you do, and learn, the more those disappointments lead to your success in whatever you want to do, or become, so long as it is within reasonable possibility. Her philosophy of selfishness does not include the notion that we recognize as greediness, those who take gratuitously, who deceive to get what they want, who seek unfair advantage over others pursuing their best interests; who do not give value for value. Her notion of sacrifice also doesn't fit within what we commonly think. What she meant was completely denying your own self-interest or aspiration, in any capacity that exists, in an effort to serve someone else; meaning completely denying any desire, or aspiration within you, as if it's meaningless, even sinful; doing something exclusively because you believe it is your duty to others, commanded by some authority, like society. Put another way, sacrifice, to her, meant you've completely outsourced your heart, your mind, your agency. An example she used was denying your own infant the milk it needs, to feed the child of another, even to the point of starving your own child to death. In other words, utter selflessness--complete denial of self. What she would call selfless sacrifice, I think a lot of us would call sociopathic. That's what she was arguing against. Her frame of reference, I think, was the Soviet Union, what she lived under, until she came to the U.S. That could be why many Americans misunderstood her. They hadn't lived that experience. Having said all this, I don't consider myself an Objectivist. I don't find her philosophy complete enough to be taken in totality, but I think her philosophy is worth serious consideration for anyone desiring to see a free society flourish. It has something valuable to offer. One criticism I'd have of what she said here was her statement that she had faith in nothing. I think she had a lot of faith in her philosophy, because can we think of any society in which her philosophy has really been implemented to its fullest, and people have seen it work? I can't. I think America strived for it at its founding, but fell far short in some ways. It's always fallen short of its objectives, in some ways, but what's noble about it is it has tried. I think all she was really saying was, "Try harder, please!"
Far too many people seem to misunderstand the basics of her philosophy. She was brilliant, and I hope that someday humans will evolve beyond the primitive thought processes against which Rand sensibly and vehemently rebelled.
@@scarlettphoenix7024- The misunderstandings/criticisms I've seen are that she didn't believe in giving, being charitable; that certain people deserve all the benefits of society, and that the rest should get crumbs. These weren't her points at all. I remember William F. Buckley allowed a leftist to write National Review's critique of Atlas Shrugged, claiming that she advocated sending the "less desirables off to the gas chamber," I assume referring to the "smoker in the tunnel" scene in the story. Really slanderous, because her point was not that "the deserving" send the "undesirables off to the gas chamber," but rather that's where they send themselves, metaphorically, if they're in charge, despite efforts to save them. By consequence, they doom the rest of society along with them. She didn't just leave it at that. She offered a path of redemption to them: Recognize that you're causing your own destruction, and that the way back is to learn to love that which supports life and flourishing--the values you hate, and think are immoral. It's been gratifying to see real people do this in recent years, not at her prompting, but by reaching a point of moral crisis, and changing how they view things. Another critique I saw had little to do with her philosophy, but just focused on her personal life, saying she cheated on her first two husbands (I forget how many), and took advantage of people, as if to say, "See how selfish and capricious she was." I don't know how truthful this is. I'd need to read her biography. In any case, despite any personal foibles, it wouldn't discourage me from taking her philosophy seriously, because I find value in it.
@@Smoke_C - I am someone who demands that assertions be tested against reality, to see how well they work. I am sure that she would demand no less. I think there are aspects of what she asserted in support of her philosophy that have been tested, and shown to work well. In my statement on this, I was taking her philosophy as a whole, applied to society, as she was in this interview. I can say confidently it's never been tried in totality, on a societal level. So, how can she say, "I don't have faith in it, only conviction"? I'd say that's simply contradicted by the facts--demonstrable human history. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. I'm not saying by any stretch that she completely lacked evidence to support the idea of extending her philosophy to the whole of society. I'd be happy to see a society make an attempt to live by her philosophy, so we could all see how well it really works in totality. That exemplar just hasn't come into being yet. Until a society successfully demonstrates her philosophy, her assertion that it is as good as she says it is can only be taken on faith. She could have her conviction about it, but, in my view, it was only based on her fervent wish that it come into existence.
There's something personable and intimate about the interviewer lighting up a smoke. This interview is like an exciting conversation between friends who are genuinely interested in what the other has to say. There's no hype, no gotcha moments, no insults, no cynicism, just honesty and respect.
@@BlueisNotaWarmColour I think that poeple understand that it cancels the difference between the altruism and the egoism. While it can be that some poeple are altruistic because of 'selfish' satisfaction from that, the common meaning is that altruism is a more difficult virtue than egoism, if the latter is a virtue at all. And while it is better to have our institutions (eg. private property and free markets) aligned with our core tendencies, it is also very advantageous to have altruism and good manners nourished as a virtue for all their relevant situations. Being based only on self interest means to be in ever cheating society. The proponents of this approach (incl. Adam Smith) either did not value the Christian attitudes inherent to population of their time, or the assumed that it stays the same intact. But it shall not. In reality, once you popularize egoism as the superior approach, you undermine not only any decency but even the keeping of contracts, which is the necessary condition for libertarians. Thus it is difficult to defend it even as the rational system. Even the basic axioms contradict some others.
@@reluminopraha5948 I disagree. It seems to me that Rand is simply acknowledging a fundamental, unchanging truth: that humans are always self-interested. That does NOT mean that humans are always SELFISH as it's traditionally understood. I'm thinking of it like this: To be self-interested means you have an interest in making the most of your life. All organisms are self-interested in that they attempt to at least survive (this requires consuming natural resources) and reproduce. Even plants and microbiology are technically self-interested. Hell, inanimate matter tends towards reproduction through entropy, so perhaps rocks are self-interested. On the other hand, to be selfish means your personal pursuits are prioritized over the Rights of others. If, to profit from life, you would commit violence against others, you are no longer merely self-interested but ALSO selfish. Private property/markets and altruism are NOT mutually exclusive. Thinking rationally, morality boils down to "do not steal," whether it's material property or bodily property. I believe Rand is arguing that everybody is self-interested, so there will never be a viable justification for theft.
Great interview. I read Atlas Shrugged about 20 years ago. It applys to what is happening here in America more than ever! You should read, if you haven't!
Alan Stang, my late husband, was a writer for Wallace during this time. He could have written this interview. He was a regular attendee at her meetings and read one of his articles to the audience.
NO WAY! I cannot COUNT the number of times I've recommended "REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START" to others. I just wish I could find an online version that doesn't contain all the nonsense characters in place of every apostrophe and quotation mark, e.g.: "Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has �lost its way� and �gone wrong.�" (first sentence from the article on the NewsWithViews site) I actually have corrected a Notepad version of the text, but...
This is brilliant - thought-provoking in a manner one does not see nowadays. In a world of name-calling, personal vendettas, as some others here have noted, no "gotcha" questions, this is a one of a kind intellectual debate. Would that journalists, political commentators, etc. could conduct such interviews, without interruption...wow!
Agree Sharon. Can you imagine any journalist today approaching any topic without a preestablished political bias outlined by the employer and supported by the journalist. You don't even need to watch the interview. Just who conducts it gives you an idea of the bias starting point.
Yes, but other than you opinion of these characters, do you think? What do YOU think about the ideas? Or are you another status seeking and status dispensing machine with no concrete or reasonable reasons for your conviction? Do you have the character to respond to me? Can you read my words without processing them emotionally? Can you let go of your animal self and reason with me?
@@marciaperone1468 Funny! 🤣 Not proof she was entirely mistaken, but hers was a theory aligned with naturalist and evolutionary sorts of principles. In that game, all winners are eventually losers and since old age has been afforded the least trial and error testing, surely there has to be a kind of caveat similar to that she would have made for children. Anyone who thinks their perspective sees the whole picture should be certain of one thing... they're wrong.
Not one time did they interrupt one another nor did she not answer any questions. She gave direct concise answers. When journalism was actual journalism
Did you watch the interview? He actually apologized for interrupting her in an obtuse way suggesting that she not letting him have a chance. ... And what is this superficial judgement that there was journalism going on. He was propagandizing, just for a much more sophisticated audience than today - when most people read books for fun.
@@anyfriendofkevinbaconisafr177 Well she is challenging their agenda and the media is controlled by people that want their 2800 slaves according to their religious text and that we are merely cattle, a product of slavery for them to live comfortable.
@@jogendron6320 As if!! Get real. Humans are a fickle and egocentric lot on the whole. Journalism is inevitably a shade of yellow. Anyone who denies it is either too idealistic or too cynical.
Such well pointed intelligent nudges from Wallace, while she remains steadfast…so articulated and yes, we need economics separated from government. Their hands are in our wallets and their greed is forcing worldwide poverty, compromising the sovereignty of nations.
Sure it is. Be a professional and act accordingly and hang out with other like people and have interesting and stimulating conversation. Just exclude the dumpers! 🙂
I'm not a smoker but in a funny way it adds a certain charm and authenticity to this wonderful discourse - anyone who loves this quality of debate should look up the Bryan McGee philosophy and political interviews from BBC they are treasure...
But the majority did in fact allow, through complacency, the 2nd amendment to be replaced by privilege and controlled by the very gov it was designed to protect people against.
Rights, only if we recognize that rights are God-given, and not lent by man. Then they cannot be morally voted away. The same is true of freedoms. The same is true of the RIGHT to property. Back to #1.
I think I’ve read all her books (Atlas Shrugged is not my favorite though), watching this interview made me realize why I love her work and feel her values are my values (mostly). The thing that really shocked me is the time she lived in and she already’ve had these values and views. Amazing woman, amazing human!
Yes I agree with the many people below -- what a refreshing interview -- great questions and respectful listening to answers and Ayn Rand allowed to speak at length. This is really a great interview. Very thought-provoking on every level.
How well she parries excellent questions. She realizes Mike Wallace is playing devil's advocate and seems happy to refute his objections. There is no one like Mike Wallace today. So authoritative yet always gracious and respectful. That's what we have thrown away - respect and courtesy.
Remember, Mike Wallace was a journalist when the best journalism meant objectivity. The point of his interview was to investigate the philosophy that Ayn Rand was presenting. NOT to put forth his own philosophy. If you noted it during this interview, he briefly made it clear that he did not share in her ideology, but he did it in a "full disclosure" sort of way, so that his audience understood where he stood. And then he moved on to drawing HER out to explain HER philosophy. From his point of view, there would be no point in trying to brow-beat Ms. Rand into adopting his own philosophy because the purpose of his interview was to allow us to get to know HERS. You don't see much of that kind of journalism these days at all. The overwhelming majority of what's out there is basic yellow journalism.
Helping others because you want to ,not because you have to., because it makes you feel good . Not because , you feel good when you tell others they have to do it. Important difference all the difference in the world.
This was back when high-ideal journalism still thought there existed an audience for objective fact-finding. Now, we've got Fox 'News' and CNN yammering at us 24-7-365 and by God, they're giving us what they think is good for us, and objective reporting be damned.
Yes. An example is how my local and national news is always telling me about Amazon; giving them free advertising for their monopoly that small businesses have to pay for. I won't spend a penny on Amazon and Besos.
@@cherylkelmar I used to avoid Amazon by buying on eBay. Now their sellers are using Amazon fulfillment to store and ship product. It appears Amazon is snapping up all shipping alternatives and/or using them as delivery partners. Includes USPS and UPS now too. Our current political system allows the biggest business to cannibalize it's rivals until we only have one choice. Who in the government engineered that? How do we reverse it now?
Growing up, I noticed people around me who valued transactional relationships and transactional thinking spoke highly of her. I run the other way toward transcendental relationships and transcendental thinking. ♥️
Imagine how much betrayal you would feel of you found out your partner was cheating on you. You selfishly pursue long-term commitment to reduce anxiety and raise your happiness. (And that's a good thing!)
You nailed it! They are polar opposite ways of accessing our experience and purpose. She has a dazzling intellect but it’s soulless (by design I suppose). The points she makes are deeply thought provoking but not how I choose find my place in this life. It is possible to express oneself to the truest potential without a divorce from altruism. The east has a cure for pure ego.
This interview really shows how far backwards we’ve gone in the past decade or so. A fine demonstration of intellect, good manners, no swearing or talking over each other. Look at this & then try to suffer Piers Morgan ..🙄
It says a lot about who is watching too. People back then had a long enough attention span to watch the entire interview without screaming, insults, name calling, and constant interruptions. I don’t know if today’s audience could sit through this type of interview or even follow what she is saying. The type of TV programs that are popular reflects a lot about the population that is tuning in.
@@KingCrab85No one in the mainstream media would want to interview her today as she is the antithesis of their Marxist views. Even Wallace is showing his Mouchism in this interview way back when.
@@favor4afavor823 that’s true, but I think a lot of those podcasts are geared toward confirmation bias. They exist in an echo chamber confirming what the audience already wants to hear. Very few of them engage in a robust honest debate in opposite view points. If they do pull someone on that opposes the general viewpoint they are made out to be the heel, and their opinion is never taken seriously or are they allowed to fully express themselves.
Golly she would have freaked during Covid! Loved her book Fountain Head ,and Atlas shrugged,brilliant ,most memorable books I’ve ever read! She is soo relevant to day more than ever !
“When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing [obviously bankers]- When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed.” ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Banking is actually a vital and useful industry. You have equivocated centralized banking with the legitimate industry of banking. Likewise applies to healthcare, infrastructure, and education.
Imo.. Her philosophy is the death of love (which is "unconditional"), and, the death of dignity (which is selfless). Both require self-sacrifice. Without self-sacrifice you have neither genuine dignity, nor love.
I read Fountainhead in high school and it made a huge impact on me. For years, Rand’s philosophy guided me in my life and career. But I was never truly an objectivist because I always knew it was missing an important part of reality. And that reality is human nature. True selfishness lies in looking out for others. Because when you look out for others, they will also look out for you. In a connected world, it’s important to recognize that all our actions have repercussions. If we impact others negatively with our actions, they will respond negatively. If we impact others positively, they will also respond positively too. The key to living a good life I’ve found is to forge our own destiny, to owe allegiance to no one, to be true to ourselves and most importantly, to love our fellowmen. The latter not because we want to be our brother’s keepers or for altruistic reasons, but because we want to surround ourselves with love and goodwill. This is the part that Rand missed. Human nature Is intrinsically selfish, why should others show love to me if I don’t show love to them? Unless of course if you believe in the myth of unconditional love which is a form of entitlement. A life of pure selfishness where we’re only looking out for ourselves is a very lonely life indeed.
If you choose to "look out for others" for your own self-interest, then that is completely consistent with Objectivism. The problems arise when you are *forced* into it (by others and/or the State), or if you try to force others into it.
You've missed the point Phil. Your examples are focused on emotional attachments without regard to an intellectual reasoning. This is an immoral position to stand on since it equates all people to the same level of treatment regardless of participation, involvement, or production of the recipients. Causing an illegitimate and unrealistic standard to be expected of all. Your formula equates to E/I, which is inverse of I/E.... she's not void of emotion, love or passion, she's happily married.
What a discussion. You only have to go back 60 years in time to witness a conversation where both parties are respecting each other’s opinions, even when they don’t agree… each one is trying sincerely to dig in the others mind know, where the beliefs are coming from, and what gave the rise to this certain philosophy, unlike today’s media and journalism, which has become shallow like a spoon. No intellectual stimulation, no analytical discussions, dumbing down our own capacities to think and see many view points of a situation, to develop a whole and well rounded view. I am grateful that I read The fountainhead in my twenties and I was moved by the idea of intellectual integrity and being the first hander, the creator, and a person with original ideas, I will always resonate with the aspect of Ayn’s philosophy of intellectual integrity, and man’s own right to justify his creative values. If you think in terms that man is here to create a world, a creation, a piece of art, whatever, then surely he must abide to his own creative value and morals and not serve any other. Ayn’s philosophy to me, can be understood by any person with original ideas, and who want to retain their individualism. But when you think in other ways, this is somewhat extremist approach and would not work on each and every system, and as like any other system, there would be people who would abuse others in the name of free will…humanity knows no bounds to use any perfect set of rules for their own personal regard…no one rule can suffice for greater lengths of time, and same rules can not be imposed on different sets of people. That’s it. What she is saying is correct, but it is very personal and though highest level of principle, it demands so much personal integrity from the person who is following the objectivism, that he is to report to his own moral compass and no other, the person would have to be very self aware and with utmost integrity. The only person I remember now, fictional is Howard Roark from her book The fountainhead, with whom I resonated so much. There are very very few people like that…they are either scientists, or mad artists devoted only to their art, craft or passion, that’s their true religion and they listen only to the muse that ignites them. You don’t often find people like that, it’s rare but beautiful to find someone like that. I understand Ayn Rand, on a basic level, on the level, where the artist in me never want to create for money or for applause, I just want to create in order to make a world, or write a piece just with the pure creative impulse, artistic freedom… yes, and if I do get money from my original creations, that is only justified money I want to make. Not with something I sell my soul and make money without keeping my artistic integrity intact.
Thank you. You just helped me understand the pure thought behind her philosophy. I am an artist and relate to all you say here. The saddest thing is that people were lulled to sleep (by those in power, who are hidden and have unlimited wealth and power) to abandon their creative sovereignty, which we all have and it can manifest itself in all things we do. I am 70. I am thinking of studying her now - and the reason it hasn't worked is exactly what you said - the amount of integrity this would take to achieve, indiividually and in society. The one thing she failed to see was that the robber barons were here, came in the ships from England, - though she knews that her system never had a chance because the Owner-psychopaths made sure of that. If we had a chance, they would have been stopped and punished as she suggested. I don't know how you keep greed from rising up again and doing the same thing though; is sociopathy and psychopathy the cause of this flaw in character? She raises many questions that align with questions I've always had.
@@b.bailey8244 about greed, and dark forces in society, I may sound spiritual now, but that's the truth, in each and every field in this world - there will always be darkness, because that's the nature of humanity, we are mixture of dark and light. Some are more lighter than others, and vice versa. And I take solace in the fact that almighty or divine power, whatever you chose to call it, keeps a balance, so there will always be enough people to light a candle in humanity, even in times when there is a certain darkness looming in society. We can always flip through history and find proofs that, eventually dark is lifted, even if by a handful of true people
I’m listening to Atlas Shrugged on Audible it’s scary how prophetic she was 60 years ago. Everything is 180 degrees out of phase. The mind and rational thought have gone out the window.
While I find Rand's philosophy to be cold and uncompromising, she defends it quite adeptly while Wallace listens and engages very courteously. If only this style of interview was prevalent today!
Yes that's the way a interview should be conducted it exposes the truth of that individual or individuals beliefs! How can the public come to a conclusion when both sides are talking over each other ranting and raving you can't even understand what they're saying great intelligent interview
I think you‘d love her novels too. Not only her philosophical works. Have you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? Those are great places to start.
Notice that her statements are all very well thought out and expressed. But also notice that he interrupts her before she finishes, nearly *every* time.
Brilliant answers and equally brilliant questions. Even Mike Wallace of the modern era can't hold a candle to the Mike Wallace of 1959. Think of how better informed we would ALL be if journalists of today were smarter.
While wearing a crucifix. No longer permitted, in fact, wholly frowned upon by media and the country as a whole. After all, many would have you believe MIke Wallace’s greatest qualification is his color and gender. Today is a bizarro world and the genie is out of the bottle. There’s no putting it back in, leaving few options. Randy’s eyes are amazing. A true window to her mind and soul.
See that? It was obvious Wallace disagreed with her, but he remained respectful, gave her every opportunity to think and respond, and didn't try to shut her down. THIS is how you conduct an interview.
Yes, no hate speech here
That is my age group. You could agree to disagree.
I read, or dragged myself through her books. But never really found common ground.
The reason Mike Wallace was such a good interviewer was because he realized the interview was not about him, it was about the person being interviewed. So he gave that person an opportunity to express his or her views as fully as possible.
I remember the old dats like this vid. Far from this these days
He knew she was a bitter Russian immigrant when they invited her to be on the show.
The magic in this interview is not that they are speaking with each other, rather, that they are listening to each other - a dying art.
If you think it’s a “dying art”, you’re watching the wrong interviews.
@@donlogan83 I watch a lot of 'wrong' things
Having a good listener is a rarity these days.
Who is a good listener & interviewer on American TV?
Civility is only *magic" if you are
diplomatically challenged .She was STILL a greedy, self- seeing *****!
This interview is such a brilliant illustration to what degree journalism TODAY has degraded.
"Journalists" today engage in PROPAGANDA ADVOCACY not journalism.
Yes, but even then, his liberalism shines through.
the days are long gone, of long spun conversations like the ones between bohm and krishnamurti, or feynmann interviews.. science communication and deeply philosophical talks have made place for sciencetainment, science podcasts which talk about anything but the real science, conversations and youtube video essays.
so many compromises have been made, for the sake of the public, to make science palatable, for instance, but loosing in this way legitimacy as spreaders of science. i think that is the true meaning of ayn rands objectivism, that one should never compromise against one self. she ended up applying this to the free market (she has definite blind spots as an avid proponent, for the question if the market can really be free when the people aren't free, that is: the workers and the politicians, who out of their frustrations tear down the industry, would free people do such a thing? what could these industrialists have done, to prevent such a thing, with all their power? perhaps emancipating the individual is of value, but as her book shows as a kind of caricature, the gouvernment is incapable of doing such a thing. democracy is not something that can be forced, is only something that can be inspired, something ayn rand is not very good at sadly, she writes pretty good, and with great intensity, but seems kind of a dud herself outside of her writing. )..
objectivism seems to me something derived from gurdjieff's philosophy, with some nietzche involved, but more as an absolute creation of values (not the ever tearing down and reconstructing of all values even his own as nietzsche tends to do), like statues in a storm, keeping on standing, the unmoving mover. but not as a belief derived from religion or politics, but something created our of oneself.
gurdjieff's philosophy is centered, in being, that in order to act, one must first: be.
the free man is an actor. he retains nothing of his own, as he moves his whole being into the act. (this is not the whole of gurdjieff, though, but some sense of it, as his philosophy is vast, and at the same time, there is nothing in it, nothing ot hold on to, the perfect type of philosopher, is one who does not let you imitate him, as it is impossible, thus the whole responsability is thrown on you!)
in a way, the leading characters of ayn rand are such actors. who do not compromise against anything. there truly exist, yet you cannot find anything in them. as a philosopher rand is but a shadow of gurdjieff, her own conflictedness and inner chaos, shows itself allready in the book itself, but it's all good. it is the qualm of the writer, to never be able to fit their own ideals. and that all kinds of dimensions and aspects of themselves will show in their writing, as enemies, as friends, as strangers..
so
objectivism can be applied anywhere, when one surrenders completely to the role that one takes on. to act. unrelenting. ruthless as a force of nature. but ruthless is the sun, as it nourishes all life, ruthless is the river, as it flows over the earth. ruthless can mean destructive, in fact it allways is, in a way, but it also means, giving. the sun does not care, neither the earth, the moon.. this is the essence of the idea of egoism as a force for benefit in the neo liberal viewpoint.
i think though that even such egoism is far from true ruthlessness, from the absense of care of the sun, of the moon. the sun neither is selfish, neither is altruistic. it truly does not care, whether life exist or not, whether man withers, or travels to the stars, or whether they enter an age of superstition and pseudo capitalism (ayn rand would laugh at the current state of capitalism, which is a minority of successfull industrialists and the majority feeding on them, and equally cuffed are the scientific community by the politicians even though they profess neoliberalism, they see still politics above science, not just a tool just as science to remove all obstacles for individual freedom, and free connection between people, in all dimensions, materially, physically, psychologically, spiritually, but make no mistake, barely any person who ever said: spiritual meant that, they mean the drug, the high of forgetting themselves, but as unconsciouss and lost to the world, when i say spiritual: it means to transcend the world, and embrace it ! the only sin: is to be unconsciouss, who is consciouss doesn't even consider the unconsciouss, he simply IS).
i do wonder though, as i read that book, the industrialist she idealised, was not the modern industrialist, it was the fordist ideal of industrialism.
ford, with all his flaws (he did trade in war material with nazi germany, and kindof played both sides to his benefit like a real a-moral fool) did value his workers. and saw the benefit of giving just wage: after all, those are the people who will buy the products right?
the way the workers respected the taggart company, it clearly shows they where treated well. a just treatment, makes much of unions unnecessary.
the only way in which worker democracy could be necessary, is when for instance your company is trading with fascists. if the ceo has no sense of honour, then his workers should push him to get it together, and don't be a wuss.
also a ceo who thinks he can trade the earths vast nature for whatever product he sells, cares too much about his product. he should be just as relentless towards his own actions as he is to the world around him.
@@bobboonah you mean, much more diversity in misinformation LOL.. americans are so lost in the sauce, they don't know anything about anything with all the contradicting sources
@@RemoteMakesSense todays discussions are more of a race to win, to dominate the 'opponent', it is pretty rare to find such civil discussions these days, moreover they are often politically motivated. if for instance krishnamurti lived today, they would not invite them, because a man who does not fight to win, can never loose, so they think, he must be not that interesting, not controversial enough.
ayn rand is smart, for sure, she did not really apply what she preaches, but that doesn't remove from her talent and her brilliant writings. she for sure had a great brain, and a sense of integrity, which shows most in her miss taggart character. if only capitalists had such integrity, but they use simply neo liberal ideology and even ayn rands ideology, to be a profiteer, and an exploiter, which is more what rand criticises in her support of rearden, taggart, d'anconia and galt as heroes. though personally i don't like galt very much, tesla was way more interesting and she made a kind of meager pedantic version of him, and the escapism just makes them look weak, and it reminds me of how all the brilliant people in the world cannot defeat the politics and deception of a small group of people (whether this is nazi's, or the cia, scientists and corporate leaders seem to allways be used by one 'team' or another. they seem incapable of defeating the misleaders who pull people in meaningless wars and realpolitik, with fact and ingenuitey). the greatest cost came then to the common people who did not really know what was going on.
Ayn rands work, imo, is pretty complementary with the work of ursula le guin. if you understand how they are connected, you have understood, the spirit of freedom they wanted to touch.
"I am in love with him selfishly"
There's a lot honesty in that
Yes, this works with individual social systems, not in government.
Technically works for governments too@@AbsbsjdbZhahebsjs. Government should be selfishly in love with its citizens and not prostitute itself not any foreign nation, least of all accept foreign influence to infiltrate their borders.
Government dosent work period
Not exactly something to strive for. A lack of empathy is one of the signature signs of a sociopath. I wouldn't go searching for a heart of gold at an objectivist conference.
Is there honesty in that, or is it merely a barrier to prevent further questions? As I understand it, she is saying that the societal fabric compels us to be dishonest to be accepted a ‘good’ human, wife, husband, son, daughter, father, or mother; these are checklists that one must adhere to, dictated by society. As a result, people behave this way due to invisible pressure all their lives rather than as free minds/consciousness. We are told from birth that happiness comes from acting/behaving in certain ways. How can that be true? Isn’t it a form of dishonesty or even slavery? Only a free mind can think, love and understand anything - slaves have no rights!
It really says something about our current state of affairs that most of the comments are about the quality of the interview rather than the merits of the ideas being discussed.
One could add to that that the quality of the ideas were also a lot higher.
Very good point.
Agreed. I was eager to read people's thoughts on Objectivism but...
I don't agree with her on all things.....but she wasn't wrong about the collectivists leading us to tyranny and dictatorship
Y E S !!!!!!!!
All fair questions, sincere answers, no gotcha questions, just the way interviews should go. I respect them both. This interview should be studied by all journalists.
You respect Rand? LoL. So you respect one of the most cold-hearted, evil you-know-whats to ever walk the face of this Earth?
There aren’t many journalists with enough intelligence left to bother with.
Mike's example is why his son finally came to his senses, and left FOX "News"
😂😅😜🥸🤣
Watch her eyes. She is obviously taking amphetamines, an earlier type of meth.
Fascinating. Wonderful conversation because Mike W is actually asking difficult questions but allowing her to answer, giving her a platform. Unlike today's "journalists", he closed out the segment with a footnote that encouraged open-mindedness rather than a discrediting statement to which the guest could not respond.
they were journalist, now rhey are activist
Chris Wallace, his pathetic Marxist son, is ruinous for journalism.
That's because there was a stability in that era that does NOT exist now. So Wallace - and what would be derided today as the media elite - did not have a concern that Rand and her followers could bring the system down.
Today we have very few journalists. We have activists.
@@balto20002 Here's a question- how much of that instability is produced or promoted by today's propagandizing media?
RAND IS A BRILLIANT WOMAN.
SPECTACULAR VISION, HONESTY AND A FEARLESS INTELLECT
And her eyes are so intense, so alert and beautiful. She is a native Russian speaker and yet has full command of the English language and can pronounce the French words with the perfect accent too. Whether you agree with her or not, she is an impressive woman and her philosophy is well-thought. I wish she could've gone tête-a-tête with Hitchens. I bet she'd have won him over. A powerful woman like her, she'd probably turn him on like Thatcher did 😆
That thing ain't no woman. The eyes are creepy. Ugly on the inside and out. 🤮
Exactly how I'd expect someone typing in caps to feel.
@@gahangore111 CAPS ARE SUPPOSED TO WAKE UP YOBS OF LOW INTELLIGENCE
@@gahangore111 GO TO INDIA
If this was the standard for interviews on television I would own a television.
I don't like internet acronyms. I laughed out loud at your comment. Good work.
The person who could conduct a interview properly was Johnny Carson
This was the standard of Western civilization in general
m.ua-cam.com/video/RlBr2fyqn9g/v-deo.html
As A Matter Of Fact I Do!!!;
This is journalism - not a bought and paid for clown - a true journalist. Kudos to Wallace.
True, but in playing devil's advocate to Ayn Rand arguments, his democrat view came out. Still, we need more like him (and Walter Cronkite) today because her prediction of a state dictatorship is stating to come true.
@@arikwolf3777mmmmm, "starting"? Now it's more obvious, but iit has been since a while...
Dying or dead art
Too bad Chris Wallace, his son didn't inherit his dad's intellect!
@@JP-ud7xq Not really, it is an evolving thing (Mike Wallace would have turned into Chris Wallace these days) as Ms. Rand predicted.
So this is what a civilized interview looks like.
Yes!!!!
Exactly!
What's with you're moon man profile?
You got GME?
Not civilized because she's a lunatic.
It''s almost like she has no fear of being hit by a chair...hmmm.
Every freshman in college should listen to this interview. It would shock their systems, but hopefully some of them would agree with Rand's philosophy - you succeed based on your ability. We would all be better off.
Lol no one should listen to her she’s too naive, a woman at the end of the day.
I read her books in high school and found it as selfish garbage
more of a Max Stirner kind of guy. His interpretation of Egoism is much more thorough and consistent. Half of the concepts she talks about are just her elitist moral spooks she wishes to impose on others, thereby contradicting her main argument that man should only follow his own value system.
I think that's because you and most of the people with your opinion look at her work and ideology in a shallow way and ignore the nuance or the deeper, foundational virtues she is really talking about. @@pamparker4047
@@nekrokulterYou both (commenters) don't seem to really understand her or aren't willing to.
I wish we had this level of integrity in intellectual debates today in media instead of the garbage on networks these days. I respect this woman’s courage and intelligence.
without agreeing with her, right?
@@lisaschuster686think I agree with her. Life would be harder for many in the short term for about a generation, but I think society would be healthier and happier in the long run. When I look around at the major policy decisions we make and our fiscal system, one thought comes to mind. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
@@anonymous-yg1hy So selfishness is a virtue, huh? That's the title of Rand's compilation of essays.
That, in and of itself, is an oxymoron.
@@anonymous-yg1hy Did you realize how far the pendulum has swung? Luxury taxes (over $1,000,000 - ? - at the time) were 98 percent! The country was never so prosperous for the middle class. Maybe a compromise…?
@@anonymous-yg1hyutter drivel. NO ONE is going to heaven.
BEAUTIFUL sharp back-and-force interview. “If a natural resource is that scarce, it can’t be vital” that was beautiful.
And of course Ayn’s philosophy sounds so … dooming, it’s like Schumpeter’s perception of economy - things are wrong here and there, but there’s nothing we can do about it.
It's a more peaceful point of view than grasping in desperation for what fear we can't live without!
so... uranium is quite scarce ... it's still can't be vital ? not vital for you and me, but really not vital against an enemy who has that resource ?
Rand philosophy is full of unwarranted assertion, every thing bad is collectivist, everything good is self-interest of industrialist shark ?
Let be frank, they did not became big industrialist by simply creating things...they appropriate things in coercive ways!
A simple exemple of water resource going through one property that could put a barrage on HIS property to block water to go to his neighbors ! He then buy his neighbor land cheaply because it's barren, then allow water to go through... all enlightened ?
nah, I bet the neighbor would just grab a shotgun and... HENCE the necessity of a governing body regulating economic activity !
@@moestietabarnak I agree with a lot of what you say, that’s why I feel her philosophy is so dooming. Basically her inner coherence is that an unregulated society may be bad and cutthroat, but it’s still the best because any input leads things to the worse. And there’s nothing you can do about it. I think many people violently disagree with her on this, but that would be a fundamental disagreement which means no room for persuasion.
… but still I’m very taken by her argument on “scarcity”. I think her point is not “uranium” is vital to whom, but it can’t be vital if it’s TOOOOO scarce. Let’s say all the uranium in the world can only power one bomb. Then what can you do with it? Even if US or USSR got hold of all of it, they can only bluff the other because once used, there’d be no threat. It’s a way of thinking I’ve never taken.
@@moestietabarnak Uranium is not nearly scarce enough that it could even be "cornered" by any government, muchless an individual. Who did the industrialists "coerce"? If it was the government, then the government is complicit in the crime - which is exactly why they should never be in charge of these decisions/resources to begin with. Water rights are spelled-out on property contracts/deeds that were agreed to when the land was purchased.
A significant interview with two eminently articulate individuals with laser focus and formidable analytical powers, yet with the humane capacity to be respectful of one another. This is a joy to experience.
Throughout this interview I kept feeling a sense of joy as you have expressed. So rare to see two intelligent people discussing philosophy, economics, etc in such a civil way.
You really need to raise your standards.
Yes, but other than you opinion of these characters, do you think? What do YOU think about the ideas? Or are you another status seeking and status dispensing machine with no concrete or reasonable reasons for your conviction? Do you have the character to respond to me? Can you read my words without processing them emotionally? Can you let go of your animal self and reason with me?
maybe not rehearsed per se but it's so rapid fire it seems they had discussions before taping this..
Albeit, a rare occurrence these days.
Whats scary is now 2023 she has proven to be 100% correct. We are in a mess , Government control is out of control .
Nop. What is scary is some of her points where true back there and now those points are invalid. Then some of her points which where not true are valid today.
For example her political stand where she was true when it comes to the individual right over the group. The opposite of what she said back there, today, it is the guiding principal. She was saying the majority should never be in full charge to impose a rule over the minority. Today, there is no room for the individual and it is all about group ideology. You can't have your own opinions if they clash with the majority. Similarly she was saying the industrialist are the backbone of economy. She said government protected monopoly will kill freedom and the true meaning of Capitalism. We'll today, the financial moguls control everything, our economy is no longer lead by industrialist that create value, then jobs, and then growth. Today government protected financial conglomerates control everything. They invest capital on capital: no value, no new job, no asset, just buy capital then sell capital. This in fact will be the main reason for our soon to come downfall.
Then the part where she was wrong, which is about man's primary objective should be self centered determinism, is now is the dominant philosophy. We no longer uphold Transcendental Notions, we no longer value objective rationals. We are a decadent society in love with subjective, localised, materialistic hubris.
God, how can we be like this. The part she was right is wrong now, and the part she was wrong is right now.
How was she 100% correct? The level of cognitive dissonance is this comment is hilarious.
This country USA was much scarier when Trump was in office that's for sure . Just look what Trump did while in office . Hel gave tax breaks to the 1%ers . Said he would not take any money while in office . He did . Not only he took money he hired all of his children and friends . All of his lawyers . Letting the tax payer to flip that bill . Destroying and recking the democratic prosses for the incoming party , He also spit on the military graves anh he said they are not hero's . Sold dics to the evils in this world . He even mocked GOD .
That’s capitalism in crisis not govt
@@alep_bet bull, you must not just blind but dumb look around we are the verge of communism right now.
I’m impressed with how rapidly and crisply the questions are both asked and answered.
She’s done it time and time again, she doesn’t seem intellectually honest rather just defending her own ideas.
amazing
that'll be the amphetamines
People had respect for each other back then even if they disagreed
Public discourse and general knowledge has dumbed-down a lot in 70 years.
Imagine a show on TV of this quality today. Impossible.
Not impossible. Don't defund the law, defund the government. It is overfunded. Today's billionaires are using the government and media to obtain, and retain monopoly. As Rand has pointed out in this interview. Be what you want to be. You cannot force it on others. Do not let others force their philosophy on you. Be of value while you can, in whatever means at your disposal. Be what another of value to you would deem valuable. Honesty, emotional strength, economic value, physical and or sexual value. There are alot of valuable people, hard honest workers, artist, philosophers, heck you name it. Comfy shoes for example. A good home, a good vehicle. 😊
The closest I’ve come to this is Russell Brand’s shows on UA-cam. If you haven’t seen them before, prepare to be pleasantly surprised.
people dont have the attention span for long form serious interviews.. the longest would be 10 to 15 minutes
Impossible.
When adults were adults even bigots on tv acted like adults in 2023 even the bigots are fake it's all for entertainment and shock value.
“May I interrupt now.” Not said with anger, vice, or snarky sarcasm.
Those were the days where people really had patience.
He was a tad snarky.
He is a little hostile for no reason
@@prod3362 I would be more than a little hostile if I was in the presence of a wackadoodle. Intelligence alone does not make a human being.
... and he didn't do the commie tap dance like Colbert.
The most intellectually stimulating interview I have ever seen !
Everything about this interview is excellent. Wallace is asking great questions and Ayn Rand giving very intelligent and poised answers. Wallace challenges her intelligently and Rand responds eloquently. Two humans having a rational and intelligent conversation to come to truth.
What truth?
@@peter58peter If I may answer for Mr. Harmon: I think he meant that their intent was to find truth, not necessarily that they found it.
It is almost like, since we don’t see this type of conversation today, we could almost accept that her prediction of the future has been secured.
Independent fierce reasoning premised upon one man's purpose first is to himself. I agree with the estimates of Ayn Rand's challenges here because it makes me feel confident as a result of reasoning without added evil obligations to Others? No. But see, Brotherhood, Camaradery, a sacrifical aninmal? No. Men cannot sacrifice himself or demand of others anything they possess as morally expected? No. Love, and the late Ayn Rand, convinces me of how well she knows love when speaking about her husband; my favorite part, maybe. I've been thinking about so many on youtube I listen to as a calming agent of reason, equity, and justice by rules of laws I studied and saw applied in a court of law. RIP for both of these leanred human beings in entertainment, news, and for my mind, a recreation of sorts. Thank you kindly.
Ayn Rand may have been eloquent but she was also delusional.
Incredible journalism !! Mike was a legend..You'll never see intellectual discourse like this nowadays..
Even his son was a damned jerk. Mike was a leftist; but a decent American anyway.
Not from the jedi...
Not mike.. Ayn
With all do respect, she is the legend!
Yea Mike was a legendary asshole
When conversation at the adult level was still a thing.
Yes; collegiate, I believe they call it. Not popular in a dying society.
Smoking is the key.
I am always amazed at how liberals recoil emotionally at true atheism like that of Rand. Objectivism has indeed been invented by Kant and pushed by Weininger. It is not a new thing at all but feminine liberals seem completely allergic, including Wallace who has a hard time taking in what is absolute open information on reason. I am a God believer, but I am completely comfortable with her concepts and her atheism. Morality based in worry of the collective well being is not moral. Morality starts at consciousness of one’s own deeds. One needs a soul to get to God and she has a soul. Liberals want to be entitled of God without soulful awareness of one’s immortality and thus ultimate potential responsibility. Once one is conscious of the self, one has the consciousness for that of others’. The “altruist” dispenses himself from consciousness.
Howling mad -died living on welfare cos she’d run out of friends -psychotically projecting her trauma from fleeing the Soviet Union and leaving her entire family to die -the reason people like her is because she gives people an excuse to be greedy and selfish.
I heard elders talk and discuss like this. It is an engaging, inviting and civil way to connevt.
The way Mike conducted the final step of this interview deserves appreciation. Well done, Mike. It was not an easy topic.
Wow. Thanks for posting.
“The individual is the most important minority.” Is my favorite Rand quote.
me and the hell with everyone else you mean
indeed WE are @Hoof and No @muslit, each individual makes up everyone else, duh. it's all about "Doing No Harm" to each other and not oppressing each other for another's advantage. Self Reliance if you will if you need an example hence your comment to Hoof.
@@jasonkenneth1875nice.
muslit Why wouldn‘t I want to see others thrive? Other people producing values is at worst neutral, and at best good for me.
I think there‘s some projection going on there. If you need irrational standards (altruistic, duty-based morality) to love other people something is wrong with you.
@@WeGoTSkiLL @muslit my comments is for you, sorry WeGotSkiLL
"AN INDIVIDUALIST IS A MAN WHO SAYS: "I WILL NOT RUN ANYONE'S LIFE - NOR LET ANYONE RUN MINE. I WILL NOT RULE NOR BE RULED. I WILL NOT BE A MASTER NOR A SLAVE. I WILL NOT SACRIFICE MYSELF TO ANYONE - NOR SACRIFICE ANYONE TO MYSELF."
- AYN RAND
All she is saying is that we live in a world where accountability is nonexistent. We created generations of people who contribute nothing and are compensated by those who do contribute and fund the lives of those who don't contribute.
If you are dependent on something you're a slave to it.
How about having some self worth instead of demanding others help you.
We in the US contribute millions willingly to charities, not by government force.
The system steals my wealth to help pay for their programs that I have absolutely no say in how that money is spent. Mainly our money goes to the Military Industrial Complex.
And all the contractors, there is no money in peace.
Plus funding undocumented/illegal aliens costs billions in tax dollars.
This country was founded on immigration, by legal means and nothing was promised. Now there is welfare for illegals.
You must not know much of the Kalergi plan.
This is a plan to destroy the sovereignty of all nations.
Except 1 that doesn't take any refugees, Can you guess the country?
They are making laws that you can't boycott or even criticize this country or question events that are promoted as facts but are highly suspect.
Truth does not fear investigation. Why does this nation fear an investigation into it's past?
The world is run by psychopaths who don't care about humanity.
They only care about keeping their wealth and power,, that's why they're steering society towards socialism, the loss of individual rights for the greater good, not ours, theirs.
It's not that complicated.
They want people emotive. Not actually thinking critically for themselves. Logic and reason are considered racist or hateful.
All these revolutionary movements are backed by corporations and promoted by msm, the first sign your movement is not a revolution just a way to divide everyone. BLM/ Atifa.
I'm not a statist by any means.
I loathe government, it's just a glorified mafia.
I read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" in my 20s. I don't really know what made me start reading them in the first place but I'm glad I did. It was so easy for me to picture, in my minds eye, what she described because her writing style is "picturesque", for want of a better term. It's just beautiful writing. It was never about politics for me - I wasn't into it back then. I admit now that Ms Rand's books probably helped to teach me HOW to think - if I'm making any sense. She helped me pay attention to logic when considering emotion. Anyway, thanks so much for posting this interview.
Cheers
Her best book is "We the Living".
I reas Atlas Shrugged in 1959 as a high-school senior and the Fountainhead a little later. Inspired me my whole life.
I too was captured by her writing style in "Atlas Shrugged" and read 4+ decades ago - all 1,084 pages in small font and on tissue like paper - my favourite book of all time. Sadly my eyesight isn't up for a second read...
@@Chuck68ify I am surprised at how many men have read her books and the lasting impact her writings had... I wish you well, Sir...
Same here. Ayn Rand, her books and philosophy emphasized reason at a time in my intellectual development when I needed that lesson/message as a young Christian man. But I think Ayn Rand is a formidable intellectual but a mediocre novelist
This guy’s puffing away on a cigarette and he’s still a thousand times more professional than tv interviewers todays.
That was the sponsor of the program. I believe it was Phillip Morris.
As if smoking on live TV is immoral... ffs, yes its unhealthy but good god have we pussified in years. Everything is immoral, every word is racist or taken as suggestive / out of contex.
Nothing immoral but it isn’t very professional, you have to admit. I’ve been smoking since I was a kid but I still don’t want the dentist to have a Lucky dangling while he’s fitting me for a crown.
Including his worthless son!
He lived until 93. Maybe if he didn't smoke he would have lived until at least 95.
It's a philosophy that walks at the face of all oriental philosophies as well. I liked the depth of questioning and the reasoned level headed responses. Very good 26 mins investment 👌
Yes ..atma, Brahm
And vedanta
Whatever you may think of Rand and her philosophy, there is no doubt that this is a great interview.
Why would anyone disagree with Ayn Rand's philosophy?
@@boulevarda.aladetoyinbo4773 Cause not everyone is a 10 year old toddler
How so?
@@davidmartinezbragado4598 10 year olds aren't toddlers....
Society is merely a collection of selfish individuals if you follow her philosophy, that translates into something like 'dog eat dog'.
- She has intense laser focus and isn’t the least bit thrown off her opinion or point. Good for her. Regardless of whether you agree with her or not she is a unique individual. Not many people present as sure minded as her these days, and able to back up their opinion with intellect .
She is full of crap. She makes these pronouncements about how unfettered markets work, and she has never once seen this kind of money worshiping government-free utopia (dystopia, to be more accurate) she wants to institute. She hasn't the slightest shred of proof that a society of pure capitalism as she envisions could produce any of the benefits she imagines. Mr. Wallace should have pushed harder on the uranium example. She pulls out of her hat this claim that no one man could ever completely dominate a vital resource, a pure article of faith on her part, with no evidence. "Winner take all", as Robert Frank observed so powerfully, is the natural outcome of pure unfettered competition, markets, capitalism. Robert Frank would wipe the floor with her.
@Anon Ymous
The topic is her _philosophical_ postulate. It’s not offered without astute observation and academic rigour.
Your tone comes off as highly defensive/frightened. Why? Perhaps too heavily invested?
@@FirstLast-vt3ii Doesn't a philosophical postulate have to be grounded in either a priori logical evidence (like Descartes' "cogito") or, if one is committed to an empiricist outlook and episteme, then empirical evidence claimed to be universal?
How can anything she says in this regard qualify as a valid "postulate" if it is nothing but a bald, unfounded, unsupported claim?
I read anything I could find by her about 40 years ago. Her “philosophy “ was created simply to promote her own self-interests, to take what she wanted and “justify” it. To ruin others, exploit others, and wreck marriages. She’s an imposter, promoting “objectivism” to claim power over others. That’s all there is.
@@AnonYmous-ry2jn Well said. Also, her lack of compassion for others made me think of Hitler and his worldview of the perfect Adrian race ruling the world. She is a bit frightening.
Unbelievable interview, extremely hard to find someone like her today. Wallace did a great job by just getting her to answer questions staying respectful.
The reason we don't see this today is any woman who even tried to say half what she said would be shouted down, she would be told to shut up, sit down, and go away and die,
by snarking nasty screeching purple haired shaved headed Jezebels who's mouths are always wide open shouting and interrupting her right from the get go, and the host would go along with them so as not to be seen to agree with the woman
so why bother to try to put forward any divergent opinion when it wouldn't be allowed past the gate!
"It is far beyond our understanding and seems practically impossible, but it has a deep essence that makes us stronger at specific points in time."
I started Atlas Shrugged over 14 years ago and still have not finished it....don't need to as we are now living the book!
Agree!
Finished that mofo in a month.. your not a reader
Why didn't you finish it?
Return of the Primitive. More your style. Read it
Mike Wallace. Wow! The man really did his homework and conducted a superb interview here. Inspiring journalism.
He didn't even know that her philosophy was called objectivism.
Mike was a legend.
And smoking a cigarette 🚬
@@gbennett58 you didn't either. Give it a rest.
@@moniqueengleman873 🤣
Back when a journalist with integrity could disagree and yet show accurately his guest’s opinion.
To a certain degree, but you could see him wiggling in discomfort.
if you enjoyed this go watch the Donahue episodes w Ayn or Milton Friedman. Donahue was great even if he was wrong about politics..imo
@@TheRealBrook1968that shows he's actually considering the ideas, unlike today's "journalists", who can be replaced by parrots.
I liked how he did enough reading to understand her poistion and used logic to argue with her. Nowdays it would just be a smear job.
@@alhiddell6810 sadly true.
We are very fortunate to have this record of Ayn Rand. A giant.
An educational interview, he gave her time to explain her views and then challenged her views, both gave the viewer an introduction to a subject of interest. I wish we still had that kind of interview style available to us today. We would have a more enlightened, less entrenched debate than we currently enjoy amongst opponents.
What a great conversation. In my opinion this is the type of thing I would have thought UA-cam would be for. Thank you for sharing this
What a fascinating perspective and interview. The world has certainly went from intelligent to belligerent.
has gone, yes.
Has gone from not has went from.
Both wrong
I agree. And why? Because people took her ideals and applied them. Why do you think the ultra wealthy and this new morally bankrupt version of the Republican Party can't stop talking about her? Her infantile, juvenile, selfish, philosophy is exactly what they were looking for. You read her as a teenager and then when you grow up you realize she is offering nothing more than a roadmap on how to be a self-centered douchebag.
@@jonnyflash5110 Yes, you are completely wrong.
I feel that Wallace did an excellent interview. I read “Atlas Shrugged “ and have been interested in Rand for many years. This gave me the most insight in to her philosophy. Thank you.
So many watching are distracted by the constant movement of Rand's eyes as if something were wrong with her. I however am amazed and understand how brilliant she is as she is accessing so much information from her mind. Much like the arm of a hard drive moving back and forth at high speeds across the disks to access information. She listens to the question, assesses information, forms an answer, decodes the answer in simple terms so the receiver can understand the point she is making. Incredible!
Pretty sure there's a touch of Asperger's there too.
She’s as creepy as she is dodgy, she’s not smart... there are major holes I her theory - if you don’t think so have a look at the US in 2020, this is her vision. Monopolies don’t exist in free competition - what a load of bullshit! Private roads, yeah, real smart!!!
@@samminton3810 The U.S. economy has never been free of government interference.
English was not Rand's first language. Add to the list her sharp mind was processing that she had to translate her thoughts into English.
@@mikenodine6713 I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. English is not my first language, but I can absolutely "think in English" to then proceed to answer a question, without needing to first translate the thought from my first language into the language I speak/write in at the moment.
As an example, the mere thought of writing this comment was formed in English, as well as what I'm actually saying-no Spanish involved.
Have a good day :-)
My experience with Ayn Rand and objectivism -
When I was 20 -
I owe much of my personal change and better understanding of creativity through her writings. I’ve read much of her work.
She inspired me to achieve. Not be entitled. To be free and creative and uncompromising towards takers.
When I was 40 -
With all this I succeeded to quite an extent … except in my soul.
I felt empty from a lack of faith, relying on rationale towards love. Life became clinical and course.
I could not see highways with billboards and admire them. I needed trees and brooks and streams and mountains. I needed a wider sense of creativity, a cosmic sense, a consciousness if you will.
When I am 67 -
I see her theory in essence in the support for uncompromising creativity as paramount.
But I also see a wider power within man, something of being a co-creator with love and joy. A final version I think that comes from Abraham Hicks.
Ayn talks of no compromise with people who take, I agree with that. But added to that is AH’s system of understanding the law of attraction and how this works in reality.
How Wayne Dyer points to everything we see today was dreamed by someone. And how dreams and creativity and work are an enjoyment cycle, AH explains this brilliantly.
It is amazingly captivating how these immense minds / powers work to provide myriad perspectives and how most of it (not all of each) seems to fit in perfectly towards one end - well being, ease, joy and happiness.
We live in fascinating times.
I found "Atlas Shrugged" at age 25, and like many people, instantly became a lay objectivist and devoured several of her other works. In the fullness of time, I've come to regard Rand's ideas as a good and solid framework, but incomplete as a self-contained belief system. All of life is not *quite* as black and white as she makes it, but make no mistake, *enough* of it is that we should follow the dictates of objective reality, with an allowance for deviation at the edges of our morality. Not everything in life neatly falls into categories of good or bad, positive or negative, healthy or pathological.
The missing component from this framework? I would call it social capital - the value you can add or remove from the peace and sanguinity of the world of men, which are abstract concepts that cannot be empirically measured; you more or less stick your finger in the air to see which way the wind blows. We have all faced situations where there was an obvious "correct" decision to make, an obvious "just" consequence to deliver, but the wiser move is to postpone executing that decision and delivering that consequence, because now is the wrong time and it would generate more failures than it corrects, even though it is the "right" thing to do, or especially the just thing to do. Sometimes instant justice can be too swift, and can result in a negative outcome, when the better outcome would come from biding your time and serving that justice when and how it will be most effective. She basically directly called "mercy" a dirty word, but a world completely free of mercy is no world for men to live in.
Still, let's be honest: a good 80, 85, 90% of the time? A is A, and you can think A is B all you like, but A ain't changing just because you want it to. Behave as though A is B, and A will kick your, uh, A.
Your last bit, yes. Do we not all desire the same things?
@@JL-ql2jo And aren't we supposed to be left free to work those things out between and amongst ourselves?
My experience with Ayn Rand and objectivism - NOBODY CARES
Uncompromising towards takers? That's, um, interesting considering that entrepreneur literally means "between taker" and so much of capitalism, conservatism and Republicanism relies on taking.
I wish this type of journalism still existed. Mike Wallace may not have been a match, intellectually, for Ayn Rand, but this interview was still lovely to watch.
True, his son is an absolute disgrace though
@@jolantamk9546 mark wallace's son?
@@toryleeann8528 Chris Wallace is Mike Wallace's son.
Exactly! You would never hear such valuable information and truth presented on network television today.
To be fair, very few people are as intelligent as her.
I liked this interview. Rand took the questions and answered without reservation. You can take it or leave. All of our "betters" should ALWAYS be subjected to such interviews -- and SHOULD be eager to answer the questions to push their ideas forward.
I remember much of Mike's work from seeing him in the 60's & 70's growing up. I'm struck here by the comparison to his son, and the recent sham he made of the Trump/Biden debate. The apple really fell far from the tree, then rolled down a hill, fell in a stream, and ended up in a different universe. True enough that the participant's character has fallen as well, but journalism has died and this reminds me of what it was once like.
it's like the sam walton and kids situation
I like how he constantly attacks her ideology to ask how she would solve issues.
Ironically, Trump agrees. Trump always told Chris he was nothing compared to his dad.
I didn't know that was his son. What a shame.
This was well before corporations really found the ways to exploit news to no end. If they can feed you ideas, make them think they are your ideas, and guide your vote, your thinking, and most importantly where you invest
fascinating discussion. This can't happen these days; society became too dumb for an intellectual debate.
This is simplistic nonsense.
The intellectuals converse. Debates are two people talking and neither is listening.
I would say western society has become too individualistic for an intellectual debate.
@@bradleyharper7073 do you think Noam Chomsky would put up with Charlie Kirk or Ben Shapiro rattling off talking points at 155 words per minute?
Worse then dumb but immature and quasi competitive and all women are hos ,bword,cword and men are punks,jerkoffs,assholes it's like high-school instead of adult behavior.
The camera spends most of its time fixed on the interviewee, unlike on modern tv, where the center of attention is the questioner.
Astute observation
VLAD TV
You are right, thank you. I was thinking what is different here other than the black and white, poor sound and video (film?) quality?
This is not surprising; the "interviewee" has better ANSWERS and a far more intriguing view than does the "interviewer" has in the way of questions, and vantage, which are comparably stale. Mike Wallace does the best that he can, but it is not enough. . .
Todays socialist mind set would do good to listen to her! I have read both novels and they will set you free. Atlas shrugged is excellent!
Wallace was one of the GOATS of journalism! I miss him on 60 minutes!
There isn't any journalist today with this level of deftness and inquisitiveness with their guests. RIP Mike Wallace.
I fundamentally disagree with Ms. Rand’s philosophy, but no one can deny the impact she has had on modern politics and policies, so understanding her in a deeper way is highly educational. Thank you for sharing the opportunity to hear from her directly.
I fundamentally agree with Ms. Rand's philosophy, she is still correct to this day. Take a look at your governments and apply the teachings of Ms. Rand
Her views do seem cold and distant to me somehow. People working together is what makes a society, not this Darwinian vision of having to look over your back constantly to make sure no one's coming to harm you.
That's no way to live.
She has it right we are responsible for are own happiness! If you don’t love yourself how can you truly love someone else!
@@FernandoGon814 That is part of her point which makes sense.
@@DSnake655 Did you not read my comment?????
I hope this interview is part of the curriculum for journalists today. I'm not a Mike Wallace fan but what an incredible job he does compared to the stuff we hear today....on either side of the political spectrum. It's not geared to an echo chamber..he handles conflict maturely and truly listens and bases follow-up questions on those answers. I'm not always delighted with his own projection driving the questions...but it is still light years ahead of what we get today 24x7x366 in leap year.
When I was young. in the 1960's and 1970's, "60 Minutes" was the gold standard for TV journalism. Mike Wallace. Dan Rather. Moreley Safer. Harry Reasoner. Ed Bradley. Charles Kuralt. Andy Rooney. And also at CBS (but not on 60 Minutes) Walter Cronkite. On ABC and NBC, there were Tom Brokaw, Diane Sawyer, and Barbara Walters. Those days, and jouralism of that quality, are gone forever, except maybe at the BBC. American Television news has been degraded so much that I don't even have TV service any more, dumped it in 2013 and have never missed it. I've read about half-way through "The Fountainhead", and plan to finish it when I have some spare time to read the rest of it.
@@laura-ann.0726 I dumped my service too. The only thing I'll watch now is the local news, and perhaps an occasional documentary. The rest of it is garbage. I realized that paying for cable TV only gave
more garbage tv. I used to watch National Geographic, or history channel, they always had interesting shows that you can learn from. But now have these stupid reality shows, which bore me., I see these other people out there who buy these oversized
TV's with hundreds of channels. I just don't see the logic in that. Is television really that interesting? I think not !
Agreed - the dumbing down of our culture is palpable.
@Hello there, how are you doing this blessed day?
"History will support me" Perhaps her most impactful statement on me personally. Because here we are though many great things are said in this interview that one hit me the hardest.
I hope someone else reads this and feels the same.
History sure does support her, just look at the US economy from the end of the civil war till 2013, the beginning of the Cartel run federal reserve, biggest boom & competitive economy ever
In our current culture, her version of America would be a disaster, but not because it's necessarily a bad idea, but rather we don't have a population capable of being that courageous and self sufficient. The entitlement programs she speaks of closed that window.
Most people want safety and believe they need the government's help. This attitude doesn't lend itself well to whole individualism.
My thoughts exactly
And she was wrong. Remarkably so.
Elaborate, please@@JoeKnows44
As I've listened to Rand's critics, I've found that they've generally misunderstood the terms she used, particularly selfishness, and sacrifice. When people think of selfishness, they think of it in a derogatory way, that it's someone who acts narcissistically, greedily, childishly, and won't share with others. Later in life, when she was asked about gift-giving, she said that she had no problem giving gifts to those she loved, as I think is common to many of us. Her distinction was that it's not forced. As with everything, she said she did this because it pleased her. After listening to a portion of what she wrote, I found it rather easy to identify how my generosity to others pleased myself, and how I did not give of myself to those I didn't approve. In so many instances, I think it is true that when we act generously to those we wish, it all fits within what she really meant by selfishness. She didn't mean "hoard," nor did she mean "indulge oneself at the expense of others." She meant serving one's own satisfaction in all the human ways we actually do that, which doesn't fit exclusively into the derogatory version of selfishness we commonly think about.
Her point was that what she called selfishness can serve the needs of others, even those who are in desperate need, and have little or nothing to give back. When someone volunteers for charity, and receives fulfillment from their work, she would say they were acting selfishly, because they were actually doing something that satisfied themselves in some way.
I think what she called on people to do was to become conscious of how much of what they do in life is to satisfy their own wants and needs, and how that's actually good. It doesn't mean you're always in a state of joy. Providing something of value is hard work, and will lead to disappointment when you fail, as you strive. The point is you strive, and the more you do, and learn, the more those disappointments lead to your success in whatever you want to do, or become, so long as it is within reasonable possibility.
Her philosophy of selfishness does not include the notion that we recognize as greediness, those who take gratuitously, who deceive to get what they want, who seek unfair advantage over others pursuing their best interests; who do not give value for value.
Her notion of sacrifice also doesn't fit within what we commonly think. What she meant was completely denying your own self-interest or aspiration, in any capacity that exists, in an effort to serve someone else; meaning completely denying any desire, or aspiration within you, as if it's meaningless, even sinful; doing something exclusively because you believe it is your duty to others, commanded by some authority, like society. Put another way, sacrifice, to her, meant you've completely outsourced your heart, your mind, your agency. An example she used was denying your own infant the milk it needs, to feed the child of another, even to the point of starving your own child to death. In other words, utter selflessness--complete denial of self. What she would call selfless sacrifice, I think a lot of us would call sociopathic. That's what she was arguing against. Her frame of reference, I think, was the Soviet Union, what she lived under, until she came to the U.S. That could be why many Americans misunderstood her. They hadn't lived that experience.
Having said all this, I don't consider myself an Objectivist. I don't find her philosophy complete enough to be taken in totality, but I think her philosophy is worth serious consideration for anyone desiring to see a free society flourish. It has something valuable to offer.
One criticism I'd have of what she said here was her statement that she had faith in nothing. I think she had a lot of faith in her philosophy, because can we think of any society in which her philosophy has really been implemented to its fullest, and people have seen it work? I can't. I think America strived for it at its founding, but fell far short in some ways. It's always fallen short of its objectives, in some ways, but what's noble about it is it has tried. I think all she was really saying was, "Try harder, please!"
Far too many people seem to misunderstand the basics of her philosophy. She was brilliant, and I hope that someday humans will evolve beyond the primitive thought processes against which Rand sensibly and vehemently rebelled.
@@scarlettphoenix7024- The misunderstandings/criticisms I've seen are that she didn't believe in giving, being charitable; that certain people deserve all the benefits of society, and that the rest should get crumbs. These weren't her points at all.
I remember William F. Buckley allowed a leftist to write National Review's critique of Atlas Shrugged, claiming that she advocated sending the "less desirables off to the gas chamber," I assume referring to the "smoker in the tunnel" scene in the story. Really slanderous, because her point was not that "the deserving" send the "undesirables off to the gas chamber," but rather that's where they send themselves, metaphorically, if they're in charge, despite efforts to save them. By consequence, they doom the rest of society along with them. She didn't just leave it at that. She offered a path of redemption to them: Recognize that you're causing your own destruction, and that the way back is to learn to love that which supports life and flourishing--the values you hate, and think are immoral.
It's been gratifying to see real people do this in recent years, not at her prompting, but by reaching a point of moral crisis, and changing how they view things.
Another critique I saw had little to do with her philosophy, but just focused on her personal life, saying she cheated on her first two husbands (I forget how many), and took advantage of people, as if to say, "See how selfish and capricious she was." I don't know how truthful this is. I'd need to read her biography. In any case, despite any personal foibles, it wouldn't discourage me from taking her philosophy seriously, because I find value in it.
Your one criticism is something she clarified by using the word conviction rather than faith
It is not a faith in her philosophy. Objective reality does not require faith. You obviously missed this fundamental point.
@@Smoke_C - I am someone who demands that assertions be tested against reality, to see how well they work. I am sure that she would demand no less.
I think there are aspects of what she asserted in support of her philosophy that have been tested, and shown to work well. In my statement on this, I was taking her philosophy as a whole, applied to society, as she was in this interview. I can say confidently it's never been tried in totality, on a societal level. So, how can she say, "I don't have faith in it, only conviction"? I'd say that's simply contradicted by the facts--demonstrable human history. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.
I'm not saying by any stretch that she completely lacked evidence to support the idea of extending her philosophy to the whole of society. I'd be happy to see a society make an attempt to live by her philosophy, so we could all see how well it really works in totality. That exemplar just hasn't come into being yet. Until a society successfully demonstrates her philosophy, her assertion that it is as good as she says it is can only be taken on faith. She could have her conviction about it, but, in my view, it was only based on her fervent wish that it come into existence.
There's something personable and intimate about the interviewer lighting up a smoke. This interview is like an exciting conversation between friends who are genuinely interested in what the other has to say. There's no hype, no gotcha moments, no insults, no cynicism, just honesty and respect.
You sound like a smoker.
she is not interested in what he has to say really. only if he could surprise her or not
Hm. I read the cigarette as a dig against her principle of actualization and independence, as she was addicted/physically dependent on them
As he concurrently mocks her known position she would state at the end of the interview, "out of my own mind"
honesty respectfully scripted.
I must admit it, it is good that this interview is available on this platform, despite ill practices the platform follows. Eye opening interview.
" No because I am in love with him selfishly" that smile on her face, that was good lol
She's gone on to cite her love/passion for her husband in other interviews & even in her later years.
That was the best part and it also directly addresses the misconception people seem to have about her philosophy.
Ayn Rand was so sexy!!! Her life in bed must have been really good.
@@BlueisNotaWarmColour I think that poeple understand that it cancels the difference between the altruism and the egoism. While it can be that some poeple are altruistic because of 'selfish' satisfaction from that, the common meaning is that altruism is a more difficult virtue than egoism, if the latter is a virtue at all.
And while it is better to have our institutions (eg. private property and free markets) aligned with our core tendencies, it is also very advantageous to have altruism and good manners nourished as a virtue for all their relevant situations.
Being based only on self interest means to be in ever cheating society. The proponents of this approach (incl. Adam Smith) either did not value the Christian attitudes inherent to population of their time, or the assumed that it stays the same intact. But it shall not.
In reality, once you popularize egoism as the superior approach, you undermine not only any decency but even the keeping of contracts, which is the necessary condition for libertarians. Thus it is difficult to defend it even as the rational system. Even the basic axioms contradict some others.
@@reluminopraha5948 I disagree. It seems to me that Rand is simply acknowledging a fundamental, unchanging truth: that humans are always self-interested. That does NOT mean that humans are always SELFISH as it's traditionally understood. I'm thinking of it like this:
To be self-interested means you have an interest in making the most of your life. All organisms are self-interested in that they attempt to at least survive (this requires consuming natural resources) and reproduce. Even plants and microbiology are technically self-interested. Hell, inanimate matter tends towards reproduction through entropy, so perhaps rocks are self-interested.
On the other hand, to be selfish means your personal pursuits are prioritized over the Rights of others. If, to profit from life, you would commit violence against others, you are no longer merely self-interested but ALSO selfish.
Private property/markets and altruism are NOT mutually exclusive. Thinking rationally, morality boils down to "do not steal," whether it's material property or bodily property. I believe Rand is arguing that everybody is self-interested, so there will never be a viable justification for theft.
This woman predicated the mess we are in! Amazing. This video should be shown to all people.
Predicted or helped create it through her influence?
@@HeatherRose2023 observing what the state of affairs in the world doesn't create. It awakens people to what is really going on.
She didn't create this mess on her own mate!
Humans are experts at creating their own enemies and opposition! :D
@@JP-ud7xq you two....
Predicted the mess you are in - the rest of us are fine.
Great interview. I read Atlas Shrugged about 20 years ago. It applys to what is happening here in America more than ever! You should read, if you haven't!
100% agree!
This conversation recording is a national treasure.
Wow. This interview is awesome. I am going to save it so I can listen to it again. So much to pack in.
Just read Atlas Shrugged instead
She is so sweet while talking about Frank, her honesty inspires me every day
Alan Stang, my late husband, was a writer for Wallace during this time. He could have written this interview. He was a regular attendee at her meetings and read one of his articles to the audience.
NO WAY!
I cannot COUNT the number of times I've recommended "REPUBLICAN PARTY, RED FROM THE START" to others. I just wish I could find an online version that doesn't contain all the nonsense characters in place of every apostrophe and quotation mark, e.g.:
"Many patriots these days lament that the Republican Party has �lost its way� and �gone wrong.�"
(first sentence from the article on the NewsWithViews site)
I actually have corrected a Notepad version of the text, but...
Stang, former John Birch Society contriubutor. Good man.
This lady is amazing. We need more people like this today. Love this interview.
This is brilliant - thought-provoking in a manner one does not see nowadays. In a world of name-calling, personal vendettas, as some others here have noted, no "gotcha" questions, this is a one of a kind intellectual debate. Would that journalists, political commentators, etc. could conduct such interviews, without interruption...wow!
Agree Sharon. Can you imagine any journalist today approaching any topic without a preestablished political bias outlined by the employer and supported by the journalist. You don't even need to watch the interview. Just who conducts it gives you an idea of the bias starting point.
Yes, but other than you opinion of these characters, do you think? What do YOU think about the ideas? Or are you another status seeking and status dispensing machine with no concrete or reasonable reasons for your conviction? Do you have the character to respond to me? Can you read my words without processing them emotionally? Can you let go of your animal self and reason with me?
Yes just watched Part III of Atlas and it seemed written for today...
They say she ended up on social security in later years.
@@marciaperone1468 Funny! 🤣
Not proof she was entirely mistaken, but hers was a theory aligned with naturalist and evolutionary sorts of principles. In that game, all winners are eventually losers and since old age has been afforded the least trial and error testing, surely there has to be a kind of caveat similar to that she would have made for children.
Anyone who thinks their perspective sees the whole picture should be certain of one thing... they're wrong.
Not one time did they interrupt one another nor did she not answer any questions. She gave direct concise answers.
When journalism was actual journalism
Did you watch the interview? He actually apologized for interrupting her in an obtuse way suggesting that she not letting him have a chance. ... And what is this superficial judgement that there was journalism going on. He was propagandizing, just for a much more sophisticated audience than today - when most people read books for fun.
@@anyfriendofkevinbaconisafr177 Well she is challenging their agenda and the media is controlled by people that want their 2800 slaves according to their religious text and that we are merely cattle, a product of slavery for them to live comfortable.
You kidding me? that's all he did was interrupt her.
Journalism is still real journalism.
You just don’t wanna learn how to read properly.
@@jogendron6320 As if!! Get real. Humans are a fickle and egocentric lot on the whole. Journalism is inevitably a shade of yellow. Anyone who denies it is either too idealistic or too cynical.
Such well pointed intelligent nudges from Wallace, while she remains steadfast…so articulated and yes, we need economics separated from government. Their hands are in our wallets and their greed is forcing worldwide poverty, compromising the sovereignty of nations.
Wow first time I’ve ever watched this lady and she’s absolutely spot on! What an intellect love her!❤😊
Those eyes, that voice, and the choice of the words....Intensity redefined!!
@L.G Beatty haha it’s only the Rand cultists who can’t see her pseudo-intellectualism
like watching a snake.
two professionals in a thoughtful discourse - no longer possible
Sure it is. Be a professional and act accordingly and hang out with other like people and have interesting and stimulating conversation. Just exclude the dumpers! 🙂
Two things confused here, professionalism still possible, it`s the thought that lacks.
Not popular at the moment. People rather the yelling over of each other at round table "discussions."
I'm not a smoker but in a funny way it adds a certain charm and authenticity to this wonderful discourse - anyone who loves this quality of debate should look up the Bryan McGee philosophy and political interviews from BBC they are treasure...
No longer possible.
"A majority cannot vote a man's rights, property or freedoms away" That is, they cannot morally do so.
But the majority did in fact allow, through complacency, the 2nd amendment to be replaced by privilege and controlled by the very gov it was designed to protect people against.
@@subjectofgov
Thus confirming what Rand said.
Rights, only if we recognize that rights are God-given, and not lent by man. Then they cannot be morally voted away. The same is true of freedoms. The same is true of the RIGHT to property. Back to #1.
@@standalon3308 Nice religious-theft of the truth, dumb fundamentalists can not take let any opportunity pass to spread there lies and bullshit.
@@standalon3308 : Religion was born when the first scoundrel met the first fool. Enjoy your ignorance, you fool!
I think I’ve read all her books (Atlas Shrugged is not my favorite though), watching this interview made me realize why I love her work and feel her values are my values (mostly). The thing that really shocked me is the time she lived in and she already’ve had these values and views. Amazing woman, amazing human!
Yes I agree with the many people below -- what a refreshing interview -- great questions and respectful listening to answers and Ayn Rand allowed to speak at length. This is really a great interview. Very thought-provoking on every level.
Okay nice interview thousand people have already stated the obvious. What the hell man.
How well she parries excellent questions. She realizes Mike Wallace is playing devil's advocate and seems happy to refute his objections. There is no one like Mike Wallace today. So authoritative yet always gracious and respectful. That's what we have thrown away - respect and courtesy.
Why is mike wallace wearing a cross he is Jewish ot it because she is an atheist
John Stossel is similar. He always plays devil’s advocate, explaining the other side’s position before the interviewee answers.
Apparently no one likes Chris Wallace, his son, but I think he's one of the most underrated of interviewers.
Remember, Mike Wallace was a journalist when the best journalism meant objectivity. The point of his interview was to investigate the philosophy that Ayn Rand was presenting. NOT to put forth his own philosophy. If you noted it during this interview, he briefly made it clear that he did not share in her ideology, but he did it in a "full disclosure" sort of way, so that his audience understood where he stood. And then he moved on to drawing HER out to explain HER philosophy. From his point of view, there would be no point in trying to brow-beat Ms. Rand into adopting his own philosophy because the purpose of his interview was to allow us to get to know HERS.
You don't see much of that kind of journalism these days at all. The overwhelming majority of what's out there is basic yellow journalism.
One of the smartest comments I've seen on this thread.
Helping others because you want to ,not because you have to., because it makes you feel good . Not because , you feel good when you tell others they have to do it. Important difference all the difference in the world.
What about feeling bad if you don’t help others?
@@wetgash help them so you feel good
@L.G Beatty What? Who?
And That's said it all!;!@
@L.G Beatty I don't believe that!!
Awesome interview.
Perfect interviewer mike was perfect both challenging and perfecting rands views this is how modernday news should be
This was back when high-ideal journalism still thought there existed an audience for objective fact-finding.
Now, we've got Fox 'News' and CNN yammering at us 24-7-365 and by God, they're giving us what they think is good for us, and objective reporting be damned.
@@AbsentWithoutLeaving, right. Smart, thoughtful people are “elites.” They still are to most of us, just not the noisy few.
@@lisaschuster686 ???
@@AbsentWithoutLeaving I’m not sure what I meant 🤭
@@lisaschuster686 - LOL, revisiting...I got it!
"All monopolies in history were established with the help of Government". -- Ayn Rand -- Truth.
Yes. An example is how my local and national news is always telling me about Amazon; giving them free advertising for their monopoly that small businesses have to pay for. I won't spend a penny on Amazon and Besos.
How true!
@@cherylkelmar I used to avoid Amazon by buying on eBay. Now their sellers are using Amazon fulfillment to store and ship product. It appears Amazon is snapping up all shipping alternatives and/or using them as delivery partners. Includes USPS and UPS now too. Our current political system allows the biggest business to cannibalize it's rivals until we only have one choice. Who in the government engineered that? How do we reverse it now?
@ShadeyBladey I don't think you understand who/what the Nazis were. There is nothing in the Nazi philosophy that would appeal to Rand.
Check out video about Dr. Burzynski this is an example of that.
Growing up, I noticed people around me who valued transactional relationships and transactional thinking spoke highly of her. I run the other way toward transcendental relationships and transcendental thinking. ♥️
If you believe that serves your highest interest, or that you personally value what interest it serves, you aren’t in conflict with her ideas.
Imagine how much betrayal you would feel of you found out your partner was cheating on you. You selfishly pursue long-term commitment to reduce anxiety and raise your happiness. (And that's a good thing!)
You nailed it! They are polar opposite ways of accessing our experience and purpose. She has a dazzling intellect but it’s soulless (by design I suppose). The points she makes are deeply thought provoking but not how I choose find my place in this life. It is possible to express oneself to the truest potential without a divorce from altruism. The east has a cure for pure ego.
Beautiful, I've read all her books... freaking love the books.. makes total sense to me.
This interview really shows how far backwards we’ve gone in the past decade or so. A fine demonstration of intellect, good manners, no swearing or talking over each other. Look at this & then try to suffer Piers Morgan ..🙄
Not a huge fan of Piers, but descent into a pit of jackals requires one to adapt and respond to the environment
When you mentioned swearing I was reminded of Gerald Celente.
“I have no faith at all, I only hold conviction.” Damn that went hard
Nietzsche predicted what nihilism would lead to.
@@lisaschuster686 100% correct
It says a lot about who is watching too. People back then had a long enough attention span to watch the entire interview without screaming, insults, name calling, and constant interruptions. I don’t know if today’s audience could sit through this type of interview or even follow what she is saying. The type of TV programs that are popular reflects a lot about the population that is tuning in.
@@KingCrab85No one in the mainstream media would want to interview her today as she is the antithesis of their Marxist views. Even Wallace is showing his Mouchism in this interview way back when.
They can and do. That's why long form podcasts are becoming prevalent and legacy media is dying.
@@favor4afavor823 that’s true, but I think a lot of those podcasts are geared toward confirmation bias. They exist in an echo chamber confirming what the audience already wants to hear. Very few of them engage in a robust honest debate in opposite view points. If they do pull someone on that opposes the general viewpoint they are made out to be the heel, and their opinion is never taken seriously or are they allowed to fully express themselves.
Golly she would have freaked during Covid! Loved her book Fountain Head ,and Atlas shrugged,brilliant ,most memorable books I’ve ever read! She is soo relevant to day more than ever !
“When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing [obviously bankers]-
When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors -
When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you -
When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice -
You may know that your society is doomed.”
― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
I’m not sure it’s bankers but rather government. Like needing licensing to provide a good
Ever the cheerful Russian! 😀
Man I think you should be able to get sick Note a
Banking is actually a vital and useful industry. You have equivocated centralized banking with the legitimate industry of banking. Likewise applies to healthcare, infrastructure, and education.
She was speaking about the Soviet Union. Capitalism yields the same results when not tempered by social values. She condemned medicare, but used it.
In 2020 this is even more evident and so the dynamic is truth.
And the coherent interview.
"History will support me." Wonderful.
Wow. Ms. Rand stood up well to Wallace. She is my new hero. I am blessed to have the time to become more educated at this time in my life.
Imo..
Her philosophy is the death of love (which is "unconditional"), and, the death of dignity (which is selfless). Both require self-sacrifice. Without self-sacrifice you have neither genuine dignity, nor love.
I read Fountainhead in high school and it made a huge impact on me. For years, Rand’s philosophy guided me in my life and career. But I was never truly an objectivist because I always knew it was missing an important part of reality. And that reality is human nature.
True selfishness lies in looking out for others. Because when you look out for others, they will also look out for you. In a connected world, it’s important to recognize that all our actions have repercussions. If we impact others negatively with our actions, they will respond negatively. If we impact others positively, they will also respond positively too.
The key to living a good life I’ve found is to forge our own destiny, to owe allegiance to no one, to be true to ourselves and most importantly, to love our fellowmen. The latter not because we want to be our brother’s keepers or for altruistic reasons, but because we want to surround ourselves with love and goodwill. This is the part that Rand missed. Human nature Is intrinsically selfish, why should others show love to me if I don’t show love to them? Unless of course if you believe in the myth of unconditional love which is a form of entitlement.
A life of pure selfishness where we’re only looking out for ourselves is a very lonely life indeed.
If you choose to "look out for others" for your own self-interest, then that is completely consistent with Objectivism. The problems arise when you are *forced* into it (by others and/or the State), or if you try to force others into it.
You've missed the point Phil.
Your examples are focused on emotional attachments without regard to an intellectual reasoning. This is an immoral position to stand on since it equates all people to the same level of treatment regardless of participation, involvement, or production of the recipients. Causing an illegitimate and unrealistic standard to be expected of all. Your formula equates to E/I, which is inverse of I/E.... she's not void of emotion, love or passion, she's happily married.
What a discussion. You only have to go back 60 years in time to witness a conversation where both parties are respecting each other’s opinions, even when they don’t agree… each one is trying sincerely to dig in the others mind know, where the beliefs are coming from, and what gave the rise to this certain philosophy, unlike today’s media and journalism, which has become shallow like a spoon. No intellectual stimulation, no analytical discussions, dumbing down our own capacities to think and see many view points of a situation, to develop a whole and well rounded view. I am grateful that I read The fountainhead in my twenties and I was moved by the idea of intellectual integrity and being the first hander, the creator, and a person with original ideas, I will always resonate with the aspect of Ayn’s philosophy of intellectual integrity, and man’s own right to justify his creative values. If you think in terms that man is here to create a world, a creation, a piece of art, whatever, then surely he must abide to his own creative value and morals and not serve any other. Ayn’s philosophy to me, can be understood by any person with original ideas, and who want to retain their individualism. But when you think in other ways, this is somewhat extremist approach and would not work on each and every system, and as like any other system, there would be people who would abuse others in the name of free will…humanity knows no bounds to use any perfect set of rules for their own personal regard…no one rule can suffice for greater lengths of time, and same rules can not be imposed on different sets of people. That’s it. What she is saying is correct, but it is very personal and though highest level of principle, it demands so much personal integrity from the person who is following the objectivism, that he is to report to his own moral compass and no other, the person would have to be very self aware and with utmost integrity. The only person I remember now, fictional is Howard Roark from her book The fountainhead, with whom I resonated so much. There are very very few people like that…they are either scientists, or mad artists devoted only to their art, craft or passion, that’s their true religion and they listen only to the muse that ignites them. You don’t often find people like that, it’s rare but beautiful to find someone like that. I understand Ayn Rand, on a basic level, on the level, where the artist in me never want to create for money or for applause, I just want to create in order to make a world, or write a piece just with the pure creative impulse, artistic freedom… yes, and if I do get money from my original creations, that is only justified money I want to make. Not with something I sell my soul and make money without keeping my artistic integrity intact.
How about elaborating more.
🤣🤣🤣
Thank you. You just helped me understand the pure thought behind her philosophy. I am an artist and relate to all you say here. The saddest thing is that people were lulled to sleep (by those in power, who are hidden and have unlimited wealth and power) to abandon their creative sovereignty, which we all have and it can manifest itself in all things we do. I am 70. I am thinking of studying her now - and the reason it hasn't worked is exactly what you said - the amount of integrity this would take to achieve, indiividually and in society. The one thing she failed to see was that the robber barons were here, came in the ships from England, - though she knews that her system never had a chance because the Owner-psychopaths made sure of that. If we had a chance, they would have been stopped and punished as she suggested. I don't know how you keep greed from rising up again and doing the same thing though; is sociopathy and psychopathy the cause of this flaw in character? She raises many questions that align with questions I've always had.
@@b.bailey8244 about greed, and dark forces in society, I may sound spiritual now, but that's the truth, in each and every field in this world - there will always be darkness, because that's the nature of humanity, we are mixture of dark and light. Some are more lighter than others, and vice versa. And I take solace in the fact that almighty or divine power, whatever you chose to call it, keeps a balance, so there will always be enough people to light a candle in humanity, even in times when there is a certain darkness looming in society. We can always flip through history and find proofs that, eventually dark is lifted, even if by a handful of true people
Beautifully put and I agree completely. Atlas Shrugged is my favorite novel…Rand was a prophet.
I’m listening to Atlas Shrugged on Audible it’s scary how prophetic she was 60 years ago. Everything is 180 degrees out of phase. The mind and rational thought have gone out the window.
Both books are exceptional reads and have stayed on my best books list for more than 40 years… re-reading them only makes them better
You can't be serious.
More people should read Atlas shrugged but then, it doesn't have pictures and has soooo many pages.
'Feelings' are dominant now, in-depth discussion and civility is out of fashion unfortunately.
Don't forget Alan Greenspan screwed up the economy for decades based on this philosophy. The practical results are a disaster.
While I find Rand's philosophy to be cold and uncompromising, she defends it quite adeptly while Wallace listens and engages very courteously. If only this style of interview was prevalent today!
I thought the same thing and then I stopped watching a third through because she's a dictator
@@soulsurvivor4499Actually she was against dictatorship.
Yes that's the way a interview should be conducted it exposes the truth of that individual or individuals beliefs! How can the public come to a conclusion when both sides are talking over each other ranting and raving you can't even understand what they're saying great intelligent interview
Mike Wallace belligerent
Liberty is not so hard to understand. It’s just hard to be prolonged in reality without the use of force.
Brilliant lady! Excellent interview.
I love this woman. Her smile, her wit, I think Objectivism is something I should turn my attention to once more.
I think you‘d love her novels too. Not only her philosophical works. Have you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged? Those are great places to start.
I think Objectivism (or something very much like it) is our future, if we deserve one.
Ha! Nothing to love about that face or what comes spewing from it.
@@Marshall_Stacks How appropriate that your user name is "Dirty Shirt."
I visit this interview from time to time knowing Ayn told us what our future would be and how we could have avoided the current situation.
What a fascinating interview. Unlike anything you will see on todays media channels.
She was absolutely correct. We now know that we cannot truly love someone else properly until we love ourselves first properly....
Notice that her statements are all very well thought out and expressed. But also notice that he interrupts her before she finishes, nearly *every* time.
20:08 the most sincere and honest words a loving person has ever said or could say
Brilliant answers and equally brilliant questions. Even Mike Wallace of the modern era can't hold a candle to the Mike Wallace of 1959.
Think of how better informed we would ALL be if journalists of today were smarter.
While wearing a crucifix. No longer permitted, in fact, wholly frowned upon by media and the country as a whole. After all, many would have you believe MIke Wallace’s greatest qualification is his color and gender. Today is a bizarro world and the genie is out of the bottle. There’s no putting it back in, leaving few options.
Randy’s eyes are amazing. A true window to her mind and soul.
Isn't it .... CHRIS Wallace?
This is fantastic, the kind of political dialogue that matters.
We don't get that anymore. Only pure mind control from tv