The Mike Wallace Interview with Ayn Rand

this is Mike Wallace with another television portrait from our gallery of colorful people throughout the United States small pockets of intellectuals have become involved in a new and unusual philosophy which would seem to strike at the very roots of our society The Fountainhead of this philosophy is a novelist iron Rand whose two major works The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged have been bestsellers we'll try to find out more about her revolutionary Creed and about Miss Rand herself in just a moment and now to our story down through history various political and philosophical movements have sprung up but most of them have died some however like democracy or communism take hold and affect the entire world here in the United States perhaps the most challenging and unusual new philosophy has been forged by a novelist I'm Ren miss rands point of view is still comparatively unknown in America but if it ever did take hold it would revolutionize our lives and I am to begin with I wonder if I can ask you to capsulize I know this is difficult can I ask you to capsulize your philosophy what is brand is I first of all I do not call it Randy's a man I don't like that name I thought objectivism all right meaning a philosophy based on objective reality let me explain it as briefly as I can first my philosophy is based on the concept that reality exists as an objective absolutely that man's mind reason is his means of perceiving it and that man needs a rational morality I am primarily the creator of a new code of morality which has so far been believed impossible namely a morality not based on face on face not on face not an arbitrary whim not on emotion not an arbitrary edict mystical or social but on reason and morality which can be proved by means of logic which can be demonstrate to be true and necessary alright alright now may I define what my moralities does this is merely an introduction 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 which I mean that he has to hold the reason as his only guide to action and that his 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 forced 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-interest may I interrupt now you may because you bring you put this philosophy to work in your novel Atlas Shrugged today you demonstrate it in human terms in your novel Atlas Shrugged and let me start by quoting from a review of this novel Atlas Shrugged that appeared in Newsweek it said that you are out to destroy almost every edifice in the contemporary American Way of life our judeo-christian religion a modified government regulated capitalism are ruled by the majority will other reviews have said that you scorned churches and the concept of God are these accurate criticisms yes I agree with the facts but not the estimates of this criticism namely if I am challenging the base of all these institutions I'm challenging the moral code of altruism the precept that man's moral duty is to live for others that man must sacrifice himself to others which is the present-day morality but since I sacrifice himself for others this now we're getting to the point one moment since I'm challenging the base I necessarily would challenge institutions you name which are a result of that morality and now what is self-sacrifice yes what is self-sacrifice you say that you do not like the altruism by which we live you do like a certain kind of iron randiss selfishness I would say that I don't like is too weak a word I considered evil and self-sacrifice is the precept that men need to serve others in order to justify his existence his moral duty is to serve others that this was most people believe today would yes we're taught to feel concerned for our fellow man to feel responsible for his welfare to feel that we are as religious people might put it children under God and responsible one for the other now why do you rebel what's wrong with his philosophy but that is what in fact makes men a sacrificial animal that men must work for others concern himself with others or be responsible for them that is the role of a sacrificial object I say that man is entitled to his own happiness and that he must achieve it himself but that he cannot demand that others give up their lives to make him happy nor should he wish to sacrifice himself for the happiness of others I hold that man should have self-esteem and cannot man have self-esteem if he loves his fellow man what's wrong with loving your fellow man Christ every important moral leader in man's history has taught us that we should love one another why then is this kind of love in your mind immoral it is immoral if it is a love placed above oneself it is most more than immoral it's impossible because when you are asked to love everybody indiscriminately that is to love people without any standard to love them regardless of the fact whether they have any value or virtue you are asked to love nobody but in a sense in your book you talk about love as if it were a business deal of some kind isn't the essence of love that it is above above self-interest well let me make it a complete for you what would it mean to have love above self-interest it would mean for instance that the husband would tell his wife if he were moral according to the conventional morality that I am marrying you just for your own sake I have no personal interest in it but I am so unselfish that I am marrying you only for your own good husbands and wives should husbands and wives I'm tally up at the end of the day and say well now wait a minute I love her if she's done enough for me today or she loves me if if I have properly put all my functions no you misunderstood me that is not how love should be treated I gives you the tribute it is like a business deal but every business has to have its own terms and its own kind of currency and in love the currency is virtual you love people not for what you do tools for them or what they do for you you love them for that values the virtues which they have achieved in their own character you don't love causelessly you don't love everybody indiscriminately you love only those who deserve it and then if a man is weak or a woman is weak then she is beyond he is beyond love he certainly does not desert he certainly is beyond he can always correct it man has free will if a man wants love he should correct his witnesses or his flows and he may deserve it but he cannot expect the unearned misery in love nor in money but you either in matter nor spirit you have lived in our world and you realize recognize the fal ability of human beings there are very few of us then in this world by your standards who are worthy of love unfortunately yes very few but it is open to everybody to make themselves worthy of it and that is all that my morality offers them if they way to make themselves worthy of love also that's not the primary motive for let's move ahead how does your philosophy translate itself into the world of politics now one of the principal achievements of this kind in the past 20 years particularly I think most people agree is the gradual growth of social protective legislation based on the principle that we are our brothers keepers how do you feel about the political trends of the United States in Western world the way everybody feels except more consciously I feel that it is terrible that you see destruction all around you and that you are moving toward disaster until and unless all those welfare state conceptions have been reversed and rejected it is precisely these trends which are bringing the world to disaster because we are now moving towards complete collectivism or socialism a system under which everybody is enslaved to everybody and we are moving that way only because of our l3s morale yes but you say everybody is enslaved to everybody yet this came about democratically I and the free people in a free country voted for this kind of government wanted this kind of legislation do you object to the democratic process I object to the idea that people have the right to vote on everything they a traditional American system was a system based on the idea that majority will prevailed only in public or political affairs and that it was limited by inalienable individual rights therefore I do not believe that a majority can vote a man's life or property or freedom away from him and therefore I do not believe that if a majority votes on any issue that this makes the issue right it doesn't all right then how do we arrive at action how should we arrive at action by voluntary consent voluntary cooperation of freemen unforced and how do our leaders arrive how do we arrive at our leadership who elects who appoints the whole people elects there is nothing wrong with the democratic process in politics we are averted the way we arrived by the American Constitution as it used to by the constitutional process as we had it people elect officials but the powers of those officials the parallel government are strictly limited they will have no right to initiate force or compulsion against any citizen except a criminal those who have initiated force will be punished by force and that is the only proper function of government what we would not permit is the government to initiate force against people who have heard no one who have not forced anyone we would not give the government or the majority or a minority their right to take the life or the property of others that was the original American system when you say take the property of others I imagine that you're talking now about taxes Sam and you believe that there should be no right by the government to tax you believe that there should be no such thing as welfare legislation unemployment compensation regulation during times of stress certain kinds of rent controls and things like that that's right I am opposed to all forms of control I am for an absolute let's say fair free unregulated economy let me put it briefly I'm for the separation of state and economics just as we had separation of state and church which led to peaceful coexistence among different religions after a period of religious wars so the same applies to economics if you separate the government from economics if you do not regulate production and trade you will have peaceful cooperation and harmony and justice among men you are certainly enough of a political scientist to know that certain movements spring up in reaction to other movements the labor movement for instance certain social welfare and legislation this did not spring full-blown from somebody's head I mean out of a vacuum this was a reaction to certain abuses that were going on isn't that true I I'm not always it actually spring up from same source as the abuses if by abuses you mean the legislation which originally had been established to help industries which was already a breach of complete free enterprise Yves then in reaction labor leaders get together to initiate legislation to help labor that is only acting on the same principle namely all parties agreeing that it is proper for the state to legislate in favor of one economic group or another but what I'm saying is that nobody should have the right these are employers nor employees to use state compulsion and force but when you as advocate when you advocate completely unregulated economic life in which every man works for his own profit you are asking in a sense for us a devil take the hindmost dog-eat-dog society and one of the main reasons for the growth of government controls was to fight the robber barons to fight laissez faire in which the very people whom you admire the most I'm the the hard-headed industrialist the successful men of perverted the use of their power is that not true no it isn't this country was made not by robber barons but by independent men by industrious who succeeded on sheer ability I mean without political force help or compulsion but at the same time there were men industrialists who did use government power as a club to help them against competitors they were the original collectivists today the Liberals believes that that same compulsion should be used against the industrialist for the sake of workers but the basic principle there is should there be any compulsion and the regulations are creating robber barons they are creating capitalists with government help which is the worst of all economic phenomenon and I think that you will agree with me when I say that you do not have a good deal of respect for the society in which you and I currently live you think that we're going downhill fairly fast now I would like you to think about this question and you'll have a minute intermission to ponder it and then come back and answer it do you predict dictatorship and economic disaster for the United States if we continue on our present course do you and we'll get Iran's answer in just a moment and now back to our story all right on rent what I like to do is this since you described it as happening in your novel Atlas Shrugged do you actually predict dictatorship and economic disaster for the United States if the president collectivist trend continues if the present unti reason philosophy continues yes that is the way the country is going but I do not believe in historical Turman ISM and I do not believe that people have to go that way men have the free will to choose and to sink if they change their thinking we do not have to go into the potato chips yes but how can you expect to reverse this trend when as we've said the country is run by majority rule through ballot and that majority seems to prefer to vote for this modified welfare state oh I don't believe that you know as well as I do that the majority today has no choice what do you mean majority has never been offered a choice between controls and freedom how do you account for the fact that an almost overwhelming majority of the people who are regarded as our leading intellectuals and our leading industrialists the men whom you seem to admire the most the men with the muscle and the money favored the modified capitalism that we have today because it is an intellectual issue since they all believe in collectivism they do favorite but the majority of the people has never been given a choice you know that both parties today are for socialism in effect for controls and there is no party there are no voices to offer an actual pro-capitalist laissez-faire economic freedom and individualism that is what this country needs today isn't it possible that they all we all believe in it because we are all basically lonely people and we all understand that we are basically our brothers keepers you couldn't say that you really understand it because there is no way in which you could justify it nobody has ever given a reason why men shouldn't be their brothers keepers and you've had every example and you see the examples around you of men perishing by the attempt to be their brothers keepers you have no faith in anything face only in your mind that is not face that is a conviction yes I have no face at all I only hold convictions who are you I ran when I say that I would like to know just a little bit above your vital statistics you have an accent which is Russian Russian you were born in Russia yes came here Oh about 30 years ago and whence did this philosophy of yours come out of my own mind with the sole acknowledgment of a debt to Aristotle who is the only philosophers ever influenced me I devised the rest of my philosophy myself your parents did they die in Russia or did they come here to the United States no I came here alone and I don't know I have no way of finding out whether they died or not you are married yes your husband is he an industrialist no he's an artist his name is Frank O'Connor and he not the one you know I'm not a writer and does he live from his painting he's just beginning to study painting was a designer before as he supported in his efforts by the by the state no certainly not he's supported by you for the time being nobody's only work actually in the past well I know I mean if necessary but there isn't quite necessary and there is no there is no contradiction here in that in that you help him no because you see I am in love with him selfish it is to my own interest to help him if he ever needed it I would not call that a sacrifice because I take selfish pleasure in it let me put one specific case do you suppose under your system of self-sufficiency one single corporation were to get a stranglehold on a vital product or aroma of raw material uranium for instance which might be vital for the national defense and then would refuse to sell it to the government then what under a free system no one could acquire a monopoly on anything if you look at economics and economic history you will discover that all monopolies have been established with government help with the help of franchises subsidies or any kind of government privileges in free competition no one could cornered the market on a needed product I mean let's say there is a deposit you will support me there is a deposit of uranium in Nevada it's the only one in the United States and that's there are only access to that and for self-defense we need this whereas not to say in the Soviet Union the state is able to command that and a kind of a strange man of strange beliefs got hold of this uranium and said I will not sell this uranium to my government you should not be able to be forced by the government according to your philosophy to sell that uranium but you realize that you are setting up an impossible fantasy that is if you're talking of any natural resource that is vitally needed it could not become vitally needed if it were that scarce not that not scarce to the point where one man could control all of it so long as I'm using your example if natural resource exists in more than one place in the world no one man is going to control alright let's take another how do we build roads sanitation facilities hospitals schools if you are not if the government is not permitted to force if you will by both taxation I'll use your word we have to depend upon the trickle-down theory upon the dope so bleach the large yes I will ask I will answer you buy it asking you a question who pays for all those things we all of us pay for these things when you admit that you want to take money by force from someone and ask me how are we going to build hospitals or roads you admit that someone is producing the money the wealth that will make those roads possible now you have no right to tell the man who produced the wealth in what way you want him to spend it if you need his money you can obtain it only by his voluntary consent and you believe in the eventual goodwill of all human beings or at least that top echelon of human beings whom you believe will give willingly no goodwill is necessary only self-interest almost a baby rabbit roads for habit post offices private school when industry breaks down momentarily and there is unemployment mass unemployment we should not be permitted to get unemployment insurance Social Security we do not need will depend upon the self-interest of these enlightened industrialists whom you so admire to take care of things when when the economy needs a little lubrication and there are millions of people out of work study economics a free economy will not break down old operations are caused by government interference and the Cure is always effort so far to take more of the poisons that caused the disaster depressions are not a result of a free economy ion one last question we only have about a half a minute how many ran disks you don't like the word I beg you project is how many Objectivists would you say there are in the United States it's hard to estimate but I can tell you some figures my best intellectual error Nathaniel Branden a young psychologist is giving a series of lectures on my philosophy in New York he has received 600 letters of inquiry within the months of January he's giving these lectures and attendance is growing in geometrical proportion I'm I'm sure that you have stimulated a good many people more people in already have to read your book Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and I'm equally sure they will be stimulated for the reading indeed if they do not agree thank you thank you very much I'll be back in a moment with my personal footnote to the story of iron rain as we said at the outset if I'm rands ideas were ever to take hold they would revolutionize the world and to those who would reject her philosophy miss Rand hurls this challenge she has said for the past two thousand years the world has been dominated by other philosophies look around you consider the results we thank iron Rand for adding her portrait to our gallery one of the people other people are interested in Mike Wallace goodbye

Channel: Ayn Rand Institute

Views: 328,350

Rating: 4.7308102 out of 5

Keywords: ARI, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand Institute, Fountainhead, Individual Rights, Individualism, Objectivism, Objectivist, Philosophy, Reason, Capitalism, Freedom, Liberty, Atheism, Secular Humanism, mike wallace, interview, ayn rand interview, objetivismo, mike wallace interviews, the economy, welfare, taxes, the american political system explained, modern philosophy, modern philosophers, ayn rand mike wallace interview, donahue, ayn rand donahue, rand wallace, dystopian books

Id: lHl2PqwRcY0

Length: 26min 38sec (1598 seconds)

Published: Sun Jul 19 2020