I first read Ayn Rand about 13 years ago. I love her ideas. However, most of the nitwits raving about her now never heard about her until Nov. 2008.

For you bandwagoners out there, what do you think Rand would have thought about the PATRIOT ACT? How about prayer in public schools? Intelligent design?

Just curious how you 'great intellectuals' on this page feel////

Wow, Mike Wallace was even a big terd back then, I guess that's something he didn't have to grow into. You could hear the disdain in his voice. She continuously told him no, he was wrong or did not understand. And those that are the Mike's ilk are the one's our "society" has charged with giving us objective truth. Long live Ayn Rand's philosophies. The sooner we rid ourselves of this 19th Century socialist clap trap the better we shall all be. Just remember "bread and circuses"

She was and is right. God help us all.

Her composition blows. Her editor blows harder. I could edit that books page count down by 30% and not lose any meaning.

The Fountainhead was the same way. How many times do we have to be told the protagonists architecture was pure, clean and without any unnecessary element?

50 years ago before internet and computers. Can you image how well off American's would be today if our government had taken heed in 1960!

My answer is this. People need truth and grace to have a moral code. Morally speaking the Bible offers truth and grace(I am not offering this insight to start a science vs religious debate).

However SP you offer 2 perplexing suggestions. First is your simplicity, You say that if something makes you feel bad it is wrong. Does that imply that something that makes you feel good is right? Is it enough for a drunk driver to say he felt good so I drove home? I felt bad when I punished my nephew when he hit my niece. Am I a bad person for punishing my nephew?
You also state that morals are "standard equipment." Then how do you explain the people that molest 5 year old children or the judges that sentence them to probation? Is it only wrong if the rapist says he felt bad doing it?

That would explain part of why when I first started reading things she wrote, I thought of her as someone who put down on paper what I saw and thought(except religion, but I don't agrees with anybody on everything). I think, "The Anti-Industrial Revolution," is her best, it has a very interesting section on education.

I've always credited Aristotle most for showing me how to use my mind.

I like the fact that even though Mike Wallace didn't agree with her, he was cordial and didn't berate her. Unfortunately, that's probably what would have happened to her today.

"A free economy will not break down. All depressions are caused by government interference."

Well, we sure are getting our fair share of government interference. Where do you think that will take us?

I person smoking in the late 50's was not at all unusual. The surgeon general's report came out in 1964 I believe. I know you want to hoist Boortz on his own petard, but I believe you are a victim of yours.

Ayn goes out of her way to show Objectivism as an economic philosophy. I was a bit put off at first to see her cast religion aside, but after further thought, I understand why.

If you are Objectionist, you have a greater potential to serve others in whatever form that service takes. The more important point is that you are making that decision as to who, when, and how to serve others. You decide the "value" of that which you are serving, but are not a slave to that service.

This is just brilliant. I always thought it was a bit Oxymoronic for the government to promote the social justice of Jesus whilst bashing him repeatedly in open forums. The Christian motive for loving one another can more truly be personalized in this economic philosophy. Imagine how much more we could do for others and our own personal causes if we were not taxed of this earned income? This income would also be left with the people who could more directly and intelligently apply it. That's true freedom my friends! Feeling good about something should be personal- not governmental.

Did you notice she didnt say ummm.... ONCE?

there were prolly teleprompters all over the room

Wallace believes that just because someone was voted into office by majority vote that the legislation that is then "forced" on us by these elected officials is what we would by default have voted for ourselves. What the hell kind of logic is that? You can not make me believe that the bailouts and the other crap going on in the current administration would have in any way happened if it were given to majority vote of the people to inact. It was forced on us even though it was clear the majority didn't want it. Through past and current legislation and the consolidation of media, it has been made so that the system is rigged to not give the people any real clear choice in different political philosophy of those we can elect. Politicians should keep themselves to politics and stay out of the economic business. I love the idea of seperation of economics and state.

Moral judgments can be based on logic. It is illogical to think you have the right to anyone elses property because that would infer they also have the right to yours.

Logic is moral.

She does not eliminated charity in her discussions, she just wants to make sure that the recipients deserve it. There certainly is no reason why charity (or welfare) recipients should not prove they deserve to receive. There is always something they can do. Even children can at least be taught things to help them escape the enabling forces that keep generations enslaved.

If you lived in the Soviet Union in the 40s or 50s you'd have shifty eyes too. Looking for the man to come get you...

Rockhound,
I did a lot of skimming when I read it. Just wait until you get to John Galt's speech. 60 pages. I read the first few then skipped to the end of the speech.

What makes the book so good is how spot on accurate it is with what's happening now.

Wow, Mike Wallace was a real piece of work—so amazingly and insinuatingly rude. I liked Ayn’s response to his hypothetical question about the monopoly—reject the premise. I do not agree with her morality, as she states it in the first segment—it is not my morality—but I do think that how it applies to the role of government is pretty accurate.

Mike got his ass handed to him by logic.

But on a side note ayn has really shifty eyes.

I pulled out what I will now consider my life mission statement from that interview. Long live Ayn Rand!
"My morality is based on man’s life as a standard of value. And since man’s mind is his basic means of survival, I hold that if man wants to live on earth and to live as a human being, he has to hold reason as an absolute. By which I mean, that he has to hold reason as his only guide to action and that he must live by the independent judgment of his own mind; that his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness and that he must not force other people nor accept their right to force him, that each man must live as an end in himself and follow his own rational self-interests."

Wallace is patronizing her. Especially when he falls back on the "Good-Hearted Industrialist", but overall, he let's her have her say. I thought that the interview was pretty good overall.My footnote- Ayn never says you can't be a "good-hearted" person, just that government thuggery should not be used to steal wealth from other people. Adam Smith economics will always get a thumbs-up from me.

The bad news: Neal has it right. Our biggest problem in this country is lack of education. I'm afraid that until that is fixed there is little hope.

The good news: there is a *little* hope. Objectivism and libertarianism has spread; more importantly some of their fundamental principles have spread and are talked about in the media and among groups like ours, here.

I just don't know if it's enough. History shows that if we cannot get back to governing according to our constitution, there will be tyranny followed by the government being overthrown from within or without as it eventually becomes too weak to sustain itself. If we can get back to our founding principles, the future is less certain, but certainly better than the road we're on.

you people need to stay on topic today. y'sterday you were talkin' reliegon n' stuff........

And all she is advocating is a return to our constitution! Self sufficiency.

Love it! We have enabled for too many centuries all at the point of an IRS gun.

Do you think Mike or anyone of his fellow so called journalist would ever go after Obama the way he went after Ayn?

I really admire her *rational* and calm *objective* demeanor as she presents what she knows to be controversial ideas. When viewed through the eyes of logic, she does put forth some arguments which I find difficult to counter. I'd not seen this before; thanks for sharing!

sorry, frank. these were brought to my attention through another source.

Let's see - a woman who, by her accent, is probably from a western European nation has bad teeth and doesn't look good with pancake makeup on tv in '59. I think I've captured your thoughts quite well.

So, what you're saying is: it isn't the quality of the ideas - it's how she looks...

Hmmm... Maybe that is how we ended up with the chain-smoker-in-chief and the hoof-in-mouth in the Whitehouse... As Neal refers to it - the American Idol election.

Come on Stan - I'll loan you my Mr. Rogers thinking sweater so you can actually have a coherent thought if you'd like.

"...take a leap at a rolling donut..." - Chuck

all i can say is wow!

Your ignorance, bigotry and prejudice are showing. Can't discuss the issues and ideas she presents, so you attack her appearance. So typical.

If you like Rand (and Boortz), check out Paul McKeever on Youtube as well. He's the candidate for the Canadian Freedom Party. He's an actual Objectivist candidate.

Which comes first: Moonbat denial/hysteria or chirping crickets?

Not even a shout-out for me pointing this out to you a month ago?

Mike Wallace just never grew up.... still a socialist at 80... must be something wrong with his mind.

Mike Wallace clearly does not have the intellectual capacity to keep up with Rand.