My next guest is here for her first visit
on this show. She is probably one of most intense, outspoken, perhaps one of the most
intellectual voices in America today. Her books, The Fountainhead, which was made into
a motion picture, and Atlas Shrugged have sold millions of copies and some people say
that her Objectivism her Objectivist newsletter is one of the more vital publications in the
world today. This is her new book called Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I think you will find her
most unusual and most controversial. Would you welcome please, Miss Ayn Rand. It's indeed a pleasure to have you with us
tonight. I'm delighted to be here. I know that you probably don't appear on many
shows of this nature. It's kind of a crazy entertainment show generally, although we
do like to sit down occasionally and get some views of people that are important in the
world today. Well, I don't disapprove of entertainment.
In fact I've been watching you many times. I'm very, very happy. We'll talk about this
later on. I know it's very difficult to state any philosophical principles like Objectivism
in a short period of time or to condense it but quite can you give us some basic idea of Objectivism
and the principles of philosophy that you believe in? All right, now I'll make it very brief, with
the understanding that anyone who really is interested would look it up in my books, particularly
in Atlas Shrugged, because otherwise I can't give a long discourse and proof here. So just
as mentioning the highlights: The basic principle of Objectivism is that man must be guided
exclusively by reason. Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material
provided by his senses. That's a formal definition. Reason is man's only tool of knowledge, his
only guide to action, and his only guide to the choice of values. As a consequence of
that, man's proper ethics or morality is a morality of rational self-interest, which
means that every man has a right to exist for his own sake, and he must not sacrifice
himself to others or sacrifice others to himself, that the achievement of his own rational happiness
is the highest moral purpose of his life. As a consequence of that, the only system
the only political system which expresses this morality is the system of laissez-faire
capitalism, by which I mean full, unregulated, uncontrolled capitalism a system based on
the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is
owned by private individuals. The principle which ties morality to politics is the principle
that no man has the right to initiate physical force, violence, compulsion against other
men. Men certainly have the right of self-defense, but no man, no group of men that includes
the government has the right to initiate force and to force a man to act against his own
judgment. Now this is the essence of the philosophy, but if you want me to illustrate what it means, it means that very beautiful song which we just heard
[The Impossible Dream, from Man
of La Mancha, sung by Florence Henderson], which was sung magnificently, only in reverse.
It means that man, if he chooses his ideals rationally, can and must achieve them, here
on earth in reality that there are no unreachable heights for man, there are no unrightable
goals, er, wrongs. In other words, I approve enormously of that which makes people like
the song, but I don't approve of its content. I say man can be happy, can achieve the ideal
here and on earth. I'm here with Miss Rand tonight. Your Objectivism
is in a way, of course, why there is so much controversy. It is... it is most contrary
to I guess the cultural beliefs as people have been brought up, true? As to sacrifice,
the good of your fellow men, and not to have the self-egoism and self-sacrifice as
you call it? Not almost contrary, the exact opposite. And you're saying that man should first serve
his own self-interests and be interested in himself first? I wouldn't say first, I would say only. But
you would l have to explain this. Other men can be of interest to an individual if they
represent values, moral values. You serve your own interest best by finding, associating
with, working with the right kind of people. Therefore other people can be a value, a great
value to a man, but only when and if they correspond to his moral ideas, not otherwise.
In other words, man does not have to serve anyone except himself, but he does in effect
serve others when their interests and their values agree. Now you say serve yourself. I think you said
that the... you discuss values quite frequently and why men need values and how they get their
values, because you say man comes into the world without any preset notion of values
or concepts and learns. Why is it that we were discussing youngsters this afternoon
that you find very young children who are by nature selfish, young children are completely
self-oriented. Now do they learn that, or is that something inherent in the very young,
that they re completely self-oriented? Well I think that's inherent in everything
that's living. It's inherent in any living entity. An entity which was not concerned with
itself or put it better, an entity that did not value itself would not exist for very
long. But now children are below the understanding of the issues. They in effect do not yet have
a choice. It is when children begin to speak when they begin to acquire ideas that their
choice begins. And the idea of self-sacrifice is a totally artificial, very evil idea which
children and adults learn from others, which is passed from person to person. Now this
doesn't mean that if a child were left alone that he would naturally be selfish properly.
No, because it is an enormous achievement to discover rational selfishness not acting
on whim or pleasure of the moment, but knowing what is rationally an important goal of what
value is it to you and how to achieve it. The idea of being rationally selfish is not
available to children. It would take a long period of thought or the proper teaching for
them to discover it. You say man is an end to himself. You say
A is A and existence is existence That's right. and we are here as an end to itself. Why is
it that man throughout I guess at least recorded history, needs, seems to need, something else,
a belief which you do not believe in, I assume, do not believe in existence of a supreme being
or a god or a creator or whatever No, I do not. you want to label it. Why does man then seem
to need that ever since man has been on earth? I Is it to rationalize his existence here? I wouldn't call it a need. I would say he
has resorted to it by default, because all the content of man's consciousness, he has
to acquire. He has to acquire it by thought, by knowledge. He has to discover it. By default
of a proper understanding of life, which means a proper philosophy of life, men resort to
blind faith. It is a phenomenon of default. Men have not yet progressed out of it. You don't think it serves a need for any people? You say it You say it's a need, but it s a wrong need.
Is that it? It's a it's a need that fills a vacuum. In
the sense that the actual need is for a conscious philosophy of life. Man is a conceptual being.
He can't exist range of the moment. He needs a larger view, a long-range plan. By default
of proper rational principles, he falls on religion because that is all that is offered
to him, so that I regard religion as the infancy of mankind. It is the pre-philosophical stage,
and a great many people are still in that infancy. You have many lectures at at at colleges. Oh yes What is it? Do you find the feeling that type
of a feeling away from religion per se and more in your, as you say, completely rational
reasoning without faith. I've never attempted to take a poll of those
issues but I just wanted to know what they asked you
and what they discussed with you Here is, oh yes , here is what I find: that
young people particularly in colleges are enormously anxious to find rational answers.
This is not to say that they will all necessarily always be rational, but they need the quest
for understanding, for an integrated consistent view of life, is there enormously and tragically.
If you begin to speak to them about faith or religion or any form of mysticism, most
of them will not listen with great interest. When you talk about morality setting a sense
of values does each individual set his own standard of morality? Because one person's
morality affects those around him, does it not? No. It does not? Oh it affects it alright... no, but to say
that each person sets his own standard would simply mean subjectivism. No, what sets the
standard is the science of ethics. That is a branch of philosophy. Its particular task
is to define moral standards then it is up to each individual to decide what he agrees
with which standards he considers right if he thinks, which standards he considers rational.
Now an individual may discover a new set of standards. But it is not subjective. It is
not just up to him. If he discovers such a subjective code, this is not really morality.
This is not ethics. It's just what we call whim worship. You think it's immoral, if that's the right
word, for somebody who is not productive or to not produce to capacity. I wouldn't say that. Well suppose somebody didn't want to, say,
work. Maybe his self-interest is served by not producing or working to capacity. Oh one moment. Now if you're asking me should
every man be productive? Yes. And that is not To the limits of his ability? Yes. But it does not mean that he should work
himself to death. He may have other interests in his life too. But as his primary goal,
if you mean should every man's first value top goal should it be productive work on any
level of ability? I would say yes, certainly. And if a man does not want to be productive
he is immoral. I think the word you use is an emotional parasite? If he places other people above his own productive
career his own creative mind then he is an emotional parasite. Hmm. Have do you emotionally have, are attached
to people, friendships, close friendships? Oh yes. But you don't place their interests above
what you do? There's never any clash, because I would be
friendly only with rational people. And among rational people there is no clash. We'll be right back. Back with Ayn Rand. Now Ed did you want to
ask something? I was just wondering if in our culture, it
seems that everything springs from family the family relationship. The little tiny individual
groups of husband, wife, child or whatever. How does that grouping fit in with your philosophy?
In other words, how do you share? Optionally. How? Optionally. I don't think that the family
is the necessary unit of society. But I think it's precisely independent individuals that
would make the best husbands and wives. If they share the same values and same interests
they would form the proper kind of unions that would be the lasting unions but I would
never maintain that the family is an obligation on the individual. A man cares to marry? That
is fine or a woman. If not, it's fine also, provided that have rational reasons for their
choice. What are the greatest hangs you find that
young people have today? I suppose guilt, anxiety there's a fly buzzing around here. Maybe it's protesting. Is that protest? You find that a lot of anxieties?
That is a word used by psychotherapy today: anxiety. Yes. Various guilts. It's above all confusion, and consequently
and very often, unearned guilt. Some of it is earned all right if people consciously
do what they know to be wrong. But the more tragic thing is unearned guilt. Young people,
and older ones too, who accept guilt because of the wrong moral standard who are really
not guilty but are made to feel guilty by today's culture. Who sets the moral standards? Now they say
people say the churches should set the moral standards the parents should set the moral
standards The philosophers. The philosophers set them? Properly. Now you say who should? Historically,
yes, the churches set them for much too long, and with disastrous consequences. But if you
ask me who should? Philosophers. And are they? As you seem to be Not as they stand today no. No. As they would
be ideally But not all philosophers have the same judgments,
do they? No and therefore what is the arbiter? Reason. Well, it has to come down to the individual
again. Each individual has to decide what he concludes
is right. But then how will they determine who is objectively right? The one who can
prove his case. The one who can prove the kind of code of morality he advocates without
any contradictions. I've read an article of yours recently. Someone
sent it to be about you were talking about the draft, freedom, and the war et cetera.
About that the country should not require or has no right to require of an individual
now maybe not having the context quite right to serve You're right. You said it a while ago that if a country
is attacked, people defend and people will fight. But you didn't think it was right for
a country to demand of its citizens a conscripted army was not a good idea. No it is a very immoral idea. It is unconstitutional. Thank you. Can we explore that a wee bit? Now we got
a few boos there. Surely. Which is to be expected. Anytime anybody has
any views that don't go according to the norm you're gonna have some antagonism. But that's
why we want to talk about these things. Oh, my views would probably be the norm of
the future, but not right now. You say a conscripted army. An army by conscription,
that's drafted, is usually not as an effective army and I that, military authorities have repeatedly
testified. It is not an effective army that a volunteer army, an army of men who know
what they are fighting for, speaking in practical terms is much more effective, a much better
army. But first the moral issue underlying it: I say that no single individual has the
right to demand the life of another individual. Each man is the owner of his own life. That
is the meaning of the idea that a man has the right to life to his own life, not anybody
else's. Well, if no single individual has the right to your life or mine, ten million
of them or two billion do not acquire that right by ganging up on one man. No man has
the right to demand the life of another. Therefore neither has a group nor a nation nor a country.
Men do not have the right to the life of another human being. Now of course your opponents will say: But
you're born in a country and freedom, and people are trying to take over the world,
and if people do not stand fast now and protect our freedoms we may be lost. What is your
answer to that? That this is a contradiction, because what
it amounts to is saying: since people are trying to take away your freedom, give it
up yourself. That is the sole meaning of this kind of argument. You do not descend to your
enemies level in order to defend yourself, morally speaking. Practically speaking, of
course, it doesn't work. Well, war first of all is terribly stupid.
You are not saying of course that if this country was not attacked that people would
fight. I would say if it was attacked, yes people
would. Because people have always fought for a free, or even a semi-free country. If you
ask me the proper, to fight when your country is attacked in self-defense, yes, I would
say certainly, and men should volunteer to fight in such a case, because it is in defense
of their own rights and their own freedom. But a country does not have the right to compel
them to fight, particularly in a war like Vietnam, in which the United States has no
interest whatever. We have nothing to gain by that war and it is draining this country.
Therefore I am enormously opposed to the whole Vietnam mess but for the opposite reasons
from the one those that beatniks are yelping about. I do not agree with them, but I am
against the war in Vietnam because it is a useless and senseless war, and it does not
serve any national interest. [applause] We'll be right back after this brief message.
Stay with us. I don't know. We've got a couple of those
flies I don't know what it is about they'll drive you crazy. What would you like to discuss?
There are so many questions. Obviously we're talking about the war. It becomes an emotional
tug of war with many people doesn't it? Because you hear the words patriotism, freedom, communist
enslavement. Do you think sometimes people get emotionally involved in it rather than
rationally exploring it? Today, yes, but that is the whole trend of
today's culture that people act on the direction of their emotions. They do not think What is your answer to the people who say
if we do not stay fast in Vietnam and that if we leave, that all of Asia will follow
and eventually we will be fighting the war in the United States? I would say Asia is not the place to start
opposing Communism. I would say we have given up so much in Europe where, if you want to
defend civilization I say if that's the place to begin. But strictly speaking, if we wanted
to save the world from communism, it's not necessary to go to war. All one would have
to do is stop helping them economically. Stop building bridges to them which have supported
them for fifty years now. That country would collapse of its own evil, if the semi-free
world did not constantly help them. You were born in Russia. [applause] Yes. You were born in now, Leningrad, St. Petersburg That's right. then at the time. Obviously you are tremendously
opposed to communism and its, what it stands Not for that reason. Not for that reason? No. But because of the evil of of the idea of communism. I've never been
particularly patriotic about Russia, because I was very young at the time of the revolution.
I was twelve. But the whole Russian culture I am opposed to it. It is a mystical culture.
All that I like about Russia are some of her writers and some of her music. But that's
about all. I am much more American in fundamental principles than I am Russian. You think it is possible to live now we have
existed fairly well with Yugoslavia and some of the other countries who are Communistic
without too much problem. Do you think it's possible in the long run to coexist with
a Communist China? This seems to be the big fright of the Western world the containment
of Communist China. A free country can coexist with anyone, and
incidentally free the rest of the world by example, if it is free itself and if it has
a firm domestic and foreign policy. Remember that the United States destroyed tyranny,
serfdom, and slavery all over the world, not by fighting wars by example, by free trade.
a free country destroys barriers gradually. But for that you need a proper political philosophy.
We had the beginnings of it in the nineteenth century not the full case. And we lost the
case. Why did we lose? Because capitalism cannot coexist with the morality of altruism.
If and when we return to a proper political system it wouldn't be a return in going back,
it's going forward, because it has never yet fully existed but it would have to be on the
basis of an appropriate morality, a rational morality of self-interest, and in that case
you would not have to fight wars. Without, I'll call this to your attention. The nineteenth
century was the most peaceful period in history the only period without a major world war
between the end of the Napoleonic wars and World War I. And that was the closest to capitalism
that the civilized world had come contrary to all the popular nonsense, capitalism does
not lead to wars. That is the peaceful system, and that has been demonstrated in historical
practice. But today, with the kind of mixed economy and mixed philosophies that we stand
for, we will ultimately probably have to fight, unfortunately. If we had better ideas, a country
like Russia or Yugoslavia or the whole damn world would not be any problem, or any threat
to the United States. Do you think that day is going to come? We
don't seem to be getting too much smarter. Nobody can predict the immediate future. I
don't know. Men have free will. It is possible. I don't see any large scale sign of it yet,
but on the other hand, America is the one country which could not collapse to statism.
It's contrary to its whole past and all its basic premises whereas Europe always was statist.
I don't believe that America could go statist, but what kind of trouble we could get into
on the way to liberation, I don't know. Thank you. We re going to take station identification.
We'll be right back. We've been talking the past half-hour with
Ayn Rand and Buster Crabbe, who was scheduled to be with us tonight, will be with us next
week we got talking here and I think everybody wanted to hear what you had to say. Now a
lot of people probably did not agree with a lot of your views, and when Miss Rand agreed
to appear on this show she only asked one thing. She says, You won't attack me, and
I said No, I wouldn't do that, because I don't think it s a good idea to invite a guest
on the show and then take issue with their views or to bring somebody else on with opposing
views and have them sit and yell at each other for half an hour. I'd much rather have you
here and express your philosophy, and other times we ve had other people on the show who
may have opposing views. But I think it makes for a much easier show, and people get more
information from it that way. Oh, of course. I couldn't agree with you more. This is your magazine, called The Objectivist,
which does explain we only briefly touched into philosophy tonight. If anyone wants full proof or greater discussion,
this is where they will find it: in the magazine, of which I am coeditor with Nathaniel Branden,
The Objectivist. Why is it that people we talked about you
said that you are an atheist and why does that word bring up such violent reaction from
people? I think mainly by surprise. [laughter] You say I am an atheist and I don't believe
in a creator and they're not quite willing to I don't I've never found many people who did
believe in god. But the idea of declaring yourself to be an atheist frightens them. You're that's going on record, huh? That's my impression of people. And always although I must say that I don't associate
with religious people. Not too much. Really? Well, not intimately, therefore I would not
know what their Don't you find some religious people who are
intellectual? Oh yes. Oh yes. It's perfectly compatible to be an intellectual
and still believe in a a supreme being, isn't it? Perfectly compatible? No. Some people might
get by that way. Ayn, thank you so much for being with us tonight.
Thank you, we'll see you on Monday. [applause and music]
