Ayn Rand is like a Patton compared to Ron Paul on foreign policy.
Another slag off for Sarah Palin.
Wonderful post! Marking to view later.
Damn, I’m gonna floss six times a day from now on.
Bookmark
What makes you think she would not be a Palin supporter? I don’t get the parallel.
Curiosity only...why would she not like Palin?
While Ayn should be required reading for anyone thinking they want an education, she was a feminist and demanded special rights for women. She supported “Affirmative Action”, i.e. setasides for women. Ayn was not pure in her thoughts as a libertarian.
ping for later
- belief in the value, the dignity and the freedom of Man.
- the American way of life has always been based upon the Rights of Man, upon individual freedom, and on upon respect for each individual human personality.
- each man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken from him for any cause whatsoever. These rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
- the right of life means that man cannot be deprived of his life for the convenience of any number of other men.
- the right of liberty means freedom of individual decision, individual choice, individual judgment and individual initiative; it means also the right to disagree with others.
- the right to the pursuit of happiness means man's freedom to choose what constitutes his own private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement; that such a pursuit is neither evil nor reprehensible, but honorable and good; and that a man's happiness is not to be prescribed to him by any other man nor by any number of other men.
- these rights have no meaning unless they are the unconditional, personal, private possession of each man, granted to him by the fact of his birth, held by him independently of all other men, and limited only by the exercise of the same rights by other men.
- the only just, moral and beneficent form of society is a society based upon the recognition of these inalienable individual rights.
- the State exists for Man, and not Man for the State.
- the greatest good for all men can be achieved only through the voluntary cooperation of free individuals for mutual benefit, and not through a compulsory sacrifice of all for all.
- "voluntary" presupposes an alternative and a choice of opportunities, and thus even a universal agreement of all men on one course of action is neither free nor voluntary if no other course of action is open to them.
- each man's independence of spirit and other men's respect for it have created all civilization, all culture, all human progress and have benefited all mankind.
- the greatest threat to civilization is the spread of Collectivism, which demands the sacrifice of all individual rights to collective rights and the supremacy of the State over the individual.
-the general good which such Collectivism professes as its objective can never be achieved at at the sacrifice of man's freedom, and such sacrifice can lead only to general suffering, stagnation and degeneration.
- such conception of Collectivism is the greatest possible evil-under any name, in any form, for any professed purpose whatsoever.
(1)Harriman, David. ed. Journals of Ayn Rand. Plume. 1999.p354,355.
It’s a shame that Wallace was not familiar with Heinlein. Robert wrote better fiction and soliloquies that were nearly as long. And he wrote them long before 1959, although he perfected them in the ‘60’s.
They tell me that Rand and Heinlein never met, although their writings are very similar in theme. Even his women were as one dimensional in the early books, and they never grew beyond the 13 year old boy’s fantasy woman.
Heinlein’s men were more adult, however. Most of the time.
Come to think of it — did anyone ever see the two together in the same room? Do we have any evidence that the two were not the same person?
Could it be that Lazarus Long is more real than we imagined?
Ping
I can see the brillance in her eyes. She was toying with Wallace.
Thanks for posting.
Ron Paul discussing Ayn Rand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjwuGHPilwI
John Piper providing a Christian response to Ayn Rand