Try this: http://www.educationviews.org/keith-l...

While I am more libertarian than objectivist, I don't agree with the article's conclusion that we should prefer pure ideology over opportunities to make positive political change by allying, within limits, with fellow travelers including conservatives. Ironically, one of Rand's major errors, in my view, was to hold this same attitude as a reason not to cooperate with libertarians.

But the article's major point about Rand is that she based many of her dictates (for instance, her loyalty to the institution of government) on beliefs that she never explained, and which therefore appear to the reader to be nothing but dogma. I agree with this and see it as her other major error. This is not to say that all or even most of her beliefs where her writing fits this description are indefensible -- only that she was too intellectually lazy to bother defending them against attacks such as this article, and if she had done so, maybe most people wouldn't dismiss her as a crank.

I'm at least partly playing devil's advocate here. But a better persuader would have avoided these mistakes, or so I believe.

And I agree strongly with Temlakos that the author is a bigger perverter of the true meaning of libertarianism than anyone else I've read.

Reads like the Watchtower.

I'm thinking that an anarchist's desire is to flood their followers with such disinformation that they end up thinking down is up and A is not A. This article was so full of holes, but others have already recognized that fact.

Right. The Wallace interview, as well as other video recordings, are always or nearly always from TV shows. Commercial TV videotape became widely used in the 1960s. You could, if you desired, look up the history of the use of videotape in TV news reporting. Prior to 1960 any such recording would have been on film, if I remember correctly.

So do not expect to find any "casual" or non-studio TV recordings of Rand.

As for attending her FHF talks, there were times when leftists would be there for the purpose of being disruptive. You could feel the hatred in the air for some of the answers she gave, especially when she merely referred the hostile questioner to her writings. The only reason she deigned to appear was the strong presence of Judge Ruben Lurie, the Forum's president. He always protected the speaker when taking questions, and immediately stopped people who were making statements instead of asking questions. "Let me remind you, the speaker is on the platform. The questioner is in the audience." He did this for ALL speakers, not just Rand.

On rare occasion Judge Lurie would try to silence an obnoxious questioner, but Rand would be fascinated by the point the person was making, and interrupt the Judge: "No, no, let him speak. This is very interesting. I want to hear what he has to say."

Excellent. Thank you. Added to the reading immediate reading list. :)

I have a book of many off-the-cuff responses by her.

When I was a teenager, I once considered anarchy---for a few minutes. But I realized that if we got it,
the Soviet Union (or Red China, if not both) would take us over almost immediately.

One book you might want to read is For the New
Intellectual, which contains philosophical passages from her novels. And then, Introduction to Object-
tivist Epistemology.

How are you going to hear our thoughts if we are
not allowed to comment on the article itself?

I had a feeling that might be the case. I know that video was a more ephemeral medium before the 1980s, but I still held out hope (there is still footage available of the Wallace interviews, for instance, as well as Donahue).

Your caveat strikes at the heart of what I see as an emerging issue - that it seems that there is enough information that is misleading or incorrect - even among the documents that seek to promote her - that an unguided wandering amongst the aisles could possibly lead to, well, ideas that form the basis of the article attached to here.

Nevertheless, I'll go back and reread the FHF transcripts. Thanks. :)

Nobody was doing videos of everything around 1970. Video equipment was quite expensive, and the broadcast media were specifically uninterested in recording Rand. The FHF talks were regularly broadcast by Harvard's station, WHRB, but on more than one occasion they "forgot" to broadcast Rand's appearance.

I think that you can get recordings of the FHF talks from the Ayn Rand Institute, but apparently the Q&A after the talks were often not recorded at all.

In general, you can get all you need from the existing books and recordings that are available.

It is important to realize that some of the second-hand material about her is untrue or slanted. This includes material that appears to be FAVORABLE to her.

When looking at writing that attacks Rand you should remember the saying, "When you are catching flak, you are over the target." People attacking Rand just might be fearing exposure!

Yes, I don't think it's an accident that comments were not allowed...

Every Comment on this article is better than the article.

It is PURE RUBBISH. I can't go 3 paragraphs without being able to show the writer misusing their own examples.

It reads like a hit piece plain and simple!

I'm afraid that's part of the problem. My point is not that there isn't information available - it's that there is no clear path for which information is best to read and in which sequence... and why.

From my perspective, it's difficult to encourage people to learn about Ayn Rand and Objectivism by just saying "Read The Fountainhead or Read Atlas Shrugged" or, even worse, "go educate yourself" (you're not saying that, but I've seen it elsewhere). Simply pointing someone to a library and saying, "There are books in there. Go find them" doesn't actually count as guidance, IMO.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++'s

Check out the Ayn Rand Institute on-line............it will lead to all you choose to learn.

Mike....Excellent, Superb........many+++++++++'s

Is there video available of her response about "leebertayrain heepies"? :)

Well said, blarman. Of course, Wilson didn't do it by himself. He may have even been a tool, albeit willing. It's going on today, with the innocent-sounding label, "progressive".

And that morphing of liberalism from the classical liberalism of the Founders to modern-day "liberalism" (really socialism/communism) was instigated by none other than that champion of Progressivism: Woodrow Wilson. He knew that before he could successfully pervert the American system he had to disassociate the Founders principles from what they actually meant to what he wanted it to mean, paving way for an imperial President with broad "discretionary" powers. You can see this in his academic writings long before he became President.

"socialists (all those who believed in the individual’s right to possess what he or she produced)"
That article is off to a bad start!

Lucky's right.

or peaceful

After reading some of the comments, especially Mike Moratta's, I don't know that I could add much about this specious article. As far as having a strong central government whom we must obey until we have its permission to do otherwise always results in a society where people die by the millions at the hands of the governors instead of dying by the hundreds or thousands at the hands of the criminals. Not having a central government that is the only allowable entity to use force does not mean that you would have to be armed at all times and shooting everyone who approached you. The example of Somalia is false because, as admitted, there are a bunch of warlords exercising their authority is not the same as a central authority (which is more efficient at killing) which is not the same as not granting a sole authority to a state to use violence. A slave state might be quiet because the slaves are afraid to act, that does not make them free.