Ayn Rand Speaks
With Phil Donahue and Mike Wallace and Tom Snyder. (Donahue also speaks with Milton Friedman.)
I found these youtubes by accident. Thought some would appreciate these blasts to the past, using today's technology.
Who Needs Philosophy? Aristotle vs Plato!
Beginning with the psychology of man's oppression of emotion? She forgot she was on the teevee. Then says you can tell a lot by people on teevee.
From 1959 with Wallace, on Liberty vs Socialism:
I've always sort of dismissed her books without having read them, but she's a pretty compelling speaker. The most interesting part to me was her answer in the first two minutes of the second clip. And the resulting discussion exemplifies the messiness of even some of the most clearly-presented ideas.
Her idea that voluntary cooperation / voluntary consent and total laissez-faire would work in today's world falls apart pretty fast. She almost has a romantic revisionist memory toward industrialists, too.
I didn't watch that closely, but isn't voluntary cooperation sort of the underlying foundation of democracy?
That was the first part of clip #2. He asked her about things we voted on democratically (social safety nets aka welfare). She said we shouldn't be able to vote on anything that removes personal freedom or property from someone else. ie taxes
Ah. That view...I mean, I think that's a fine way to debate an issue or program, and I think her answer to that question is generally apt. But I wouldn't say people shouldn't be allowed to vote themselves into stupid arrangements like Social Security.
Dread, I can't recommend reading her books. Her philosophy aside, they are very poorly written and muddy. She was in desperate need of a good editor. The Robert Jordan of nonfiction, as it were.
Yeah, I've heard they are pretty painful. And her life seemed sorta...cultish at times. Though I wonder if some of that is simple character assassination.
Wasn't she buddies with Alan Greenspan, until he became a central banker and they had a philosophical fall-out? Or was that someone else....
R.J. was legit... overly descriptive but did good work.The Robert Jordan of nonfiction, as it were.
Yes, to say the least. Not only flabby, but very heavy-handed. Look, I wasn't exactly the most discriminating reader in my late teens, and even I could discern that she was a bad writer who suffered from a complete lack of editing.Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
You really believe that? Granted, her philosophies have always been mildly controversial, but you'd have to call her mainstream given how many people have read her books in the 60+ years since they came out. Most people with a good college education at least know who she is and what her philosophy was. That's mainstream. And consequently stories may be slightly amplified, but are probably true.And her life seemed sorta...cultish at times. Though I wonder if some of that is simple character assassination.
besides, the bare facts aren't debatable, and they are a mite bit odd.
All I said was flabby. He could, and should, have told that story in 6 books. Look, if you're Patrick O'Brian you can justify writing more than ten books in a series. Jordan was no freaking O'Brian.
Honestly its pretty sad to say but Robert Jordan dying was the best thing that could have happened to the Wheel of Time series. The last two books that have been published have been great.All I said was flabby. He could, and should, have told that story in 6 books. Look, if you're Patrick O'Brian you can justify writing more than ten books in a series. Jordan was no freaking O'Brian.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote