Comments on: Mike Wallace Interviews Ayn Rand About Objectivism

By: Label dispensers

Label dispensers — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 21:52:55 +0000

I very much enjoyed all the three videos and they were really amazing.

By: Anna

Anna — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:57:03 +0000

Excellent post. True–so annoyingly, wearyingly true, your point 1—-Anna

By: Anna

Anna — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:53:21 +0000

I studied and majored in Philosophy at an Ivy League university (Columbia), both bachelor's and master's, and recently, beginning in my mid thirties, re read the Pre Socratics, Catholic Scholasticism and German Idealism out of sheer intellectual interest…I find Rand a giant among giants (and pygmies masquerading as giants)…She could easily have taken on Descartes, Kant, Hegal and Nietzsche; John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged could trounce the Bertrand Russels, Sartres and Keyneses of this world. Rand is completely misunderstood by her "critics" and even her fans understand her–it often strikes me–only very superficially. That she wrote her philosophy in the form of a novel simply speaks to her artistic talent—the books are beautifully written (and I discovered her at 30, not "14"). I say all this without being an Objectivist, just a great fan. Cheers to you.

By: kevin

kevin — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 17:06:23 +0000

thanks for share

By: Pablo

Pablo — Fri, 07 May 2010 14:16:46 +0000

"I agree with the facts but not with the estimate[...]" Wonderful answer!

Thanks for posting this Brad, when you did I was actually reading Atlas Shrugged and I bookmarked to watch it when I finished. That is now

By: bfeld

bfeld — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:54:06 +0000

“optimal for whom” for whom is a key phrase. I watched CNN for the first time in a year during my run today just to see what was on. It was ridiculous – 80% was about government (state / federal / international), 10% was about weather, and 10% was about other stuff. I ran for an hour – probably got 45% of the “first run of the day news.” I kept thinking “this is not relevant to my view of / interest in” the universe.

By: DaveJ

DaveJ — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:01:14 +0000

Brad, you might not be surprised to know that I have the interview on videotape and I decided to watch it again this morning during my workout. I found it particularly amusing that Wallace uses exactly the terminology Rand decries in Atlas Shrugged.

Another thing I noticed is that her defense regarding the business cycle was exclusively that if one studies economic history, all monopolies and recessions are caused by government interference. In other words, she seems to grant that they are bad, but claims that they wouldn't happen under genuine laissez-faire. I have been thinking recently about another way to approach this: what if we didn't think of these things as "societal concerns" – that (politically) we just let things play out. Maybe some things wouldn't be "optimal." Is that a justification for government interference? That things aren't optimal? (even leaving aside the key question of "optimal for whom?")

By: John Stossel to Air Program on Atlas Shrugged | Naked Liberty

John Stossel to Air Program on Atlas Shrugged | Naked Liberty — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:32:53 +0000

[...] Mike Wallace Interviews Ayn Rand About Objectivism (feld.com) [...]

By: Carter Adams Cleveland

Carter Adams Cleveland — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:29:41 +0000

Hi Michael – I'm impressed by your writing and hope it will inspire my own. Do you have a blog that I could follow?

@Brad – thanks for the post. Incredibly thought provoking.

By: rrdavies

rrdavies — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:33:45 +0000

Good point. One could envision a scenario where google is basically a "monopoly". However, that monopoly relies on the greater society and network effects. That requires everyone to have motivation to contribute to that monopoly's bottom line. Google therefore is kept in check and wouldn't want to risk doing much that might shake up the makeup of their network. I don't think Rand ever contemplated this type of monopoly – only corporatist monopolies.