1959 Mike Wallace Interview with Ayn Rand

[swag]

Mark Thoma has posted YouTube embeds of Mike Wallace's 1959 interview with Ayn Rand.

Some of the comments are great, to wit:

"Through the fog of Mike's Lucky Strike appears William F Buckley in drag.

Plus jewelry, minus Pope."

[Little Wing]

1. OMG she's hideous inside and out

It's stunning, it truly is.

The same right-wing fuckers who go to church and claim themselves as above everyone else are the same selfish fuckers who buy into her shit. Anyone capable of sleeping at night with this obvious mental difference should be euthanized, as they are obviously defective.

[Kerrytravelers]

2. Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.

:rofl:

[Little Wing]

3. Watching more

She's a shifty-eyed bitch. Obviously angry about something, I don't know what.

[Little Wing]

5. Oh GOD!

Robber-barons were just harder workers than everyone else. Call me a Nazi, but her books should be burned.

[Little Wing]

7. She also needs to wash her nasty-ass hair

:puke:

Probably smells like wine and cigarettes, like an early Ann Coulter

[Little Wing]

8. and she's a hypocrite whore!!!

Her hubby is an artist! He doesn't "Suck", he's "just starting"

Wow, now I'm starting to admire her, for getting rich on shoveling shit to the masses and getting paid for it.

Must.Rethink.Life.

Thunk.It.

Will.Not.Sell.Soul.And.Be.A.Hateful.Nasty.Ass.Scum.Feeding.Pig.Like.Her.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

4. Lol, I'm almost frightened to admit that I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged. . .

Meh, I'll do it anyway. I really liked Atlas Shrugged. I think that it a good symbol for the fight against big government. It's a typical "Rage against the machine" "Stick it to the man" type book. So here's my arm, stick in the needle. Being the soulless, capitalist, human-hating, egotistical, bastard I am, I probably won't die the first time, so you better bring a few.

[Little Wing]

6. I haven't read the book, and I probably should before I fully comment

but watching this interview, this person is such a hateful shit, I don't envision giving her estate any more money. She's the Leona Helmsley of publishing.

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. Capitalist AND anarchist?

LOL!

That's just completely absurd.

Absent the framework of government to provide for things like maintenance of infrastructure, protection of trade routes, enforcement of patent and copyright, and so on, modern capitalism is unsustainable and indeed impossible.

Not to mention that calling yourself an anarchist AND a capitalist is a perversion of both terms; capitalism is by definition and by nature exploitative to some greater or lesser degree, and capitalist organisations are in themselves a recreation in miniature of the sort of hierarchical, centralised structures of power and control that anarchism rejects.

[More Than A Feeling]

11. There are a bunch of them at this site

www.essembly.com

They hate democracy. That isn't a smear, they've actually come out and said that.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

13. I'm an Anarcho - Capitalist as opposed to Anarcho - Socialist

When you break it down, it's essentially the idea that there should be no big organized government. That people should govern themselves, and should have the right to charge whatever they want, and pay whatever they want for goods, start whatever business they want, with no government regulation. If it violates someones rights, then it is up to the people to put an end to it.

You are correct, if you take the two terms separate, they contradict each other, but Anarcho-Capitalism (which is generally accepted as a political viewpoint) basically takes the most basic points of both systems and puts them together. Anarchy, in a perfect situation, IS capitalism. Trade isn't regulated by a governing figure because there ISN'T a governing figure.

However, I've resigned myself to the fact that the world isn't a perfect place, and with the large number of assholes inhabiting the planet, the system would never work as intended.

So essentially, because I know the system I think is the best in theory won't work, I've settled for the best feasible thing, which is the Democratic party.

ON EDIT* The theory of the idea really isn't as nasty as you might think. Just like Communism, it has a good theory behind it, but it has never been, and probably will never be (if it even CAN be) implemented in a way that truly follows the theories behind it.
I like your sig quote BTW.

[chaska]

14. I'll be damned if I can figure a difference between your philosphy...

as written above and conservatism/libertarianism (as currently defined/practiced).

How exactly do you resemble us? What'd I miss?

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

17. I resemble you because those systems are inherently flawed when put into practice

I might not agree with Liberal views 100%, but at least it WORKS, and works better than everything else so far. While I might agree with there platform, I would vote for a democrat before an Anarcho Capitalist anyday of the week. The problem people seem to have when I talk to them is the distinction between what I believe is the most ideal system, and the system that I agree with because it can actually work.

Is that unreasonable? Perhaps. However, that's how I feel.

[Spider Jerusalem]

15. I know what "anarcho-capitalism" is.

I just find it to be a self-contradictory and incoherent political philosophy which has a thoroughly unsound basis, and which in practice would be akin to industrial feudalism, if not something worse. It's an intellectually bankrupt system which presupposes (quite wrongly, as countless examples from history show us) that humans can be counted upon to always act from enlightened self-interest, and I've never met anyone who espoused it who wasn't either very naïve and immature or very selfish and egotistical. The examples we have of minimal regulation of capitalism from the 19th century should be quite sufficient to convince anyone that regulation is not only necessary but essential (unless you think 8-year-olds working in factories and coal mines is a GOOD thing, that is...and that's where an absence of 'government interference' ends up).

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

18. ". . .very naïve and immature or very selfish and egotistical." That hurts.

I am selfish and egotistical, but let's look past that for a moment.

"That humans can be counted upon to always act from enlightened self-interest. . . .The examples we have of minimal regulation of capitalism from the 19th century should be quite sufficient to convince anyone that regulation is not only necessary but essential (unless you think 8-year-olds working in factories and coal mines is a GOOD thing, that is...and that's where an absence of 'government interference' ends up)."

You realize that's the EXACT same thing I said right? In history, the system hasn't worked, and most likely can't work, just because there are too many human variables. In essence, there are too many idiots and assholes. HOWEVER, just because it can't work in our world (okay, this sounds stupid I know. I do have some semblance of a point coming up) doesn't mean the system can't be acknowledged and recognized as a good idea. That's all I've ever said. Even though I thought Anarcho Capitalism is a good idea in theory (assuming people 'act from enlightened self interest'- good way of putting it btw) doesn't mean I advocate people trying to use it.

Communism was my previous example. It is a good idea, but it's never gonna work. We can still appreciate it as a good idea though, without all joining the Communist party can't we?

I did notice however that you disagree with it's theory even without the abysmal historical attempts at putting it into practice. That's fine. I just wanted to try to make that distinction before I get ignored by too many people :)

[slj0101]

19. Should I add them to my "People Who Should Die in a Fire" list?

:D

It's an ever-expanding databank, at this rate.

[Heidi]

9. Bookmarking.

Thanks, swag. :thumbsup:

[Blue-Jay]

12. Thanks for the link, swag.

I've read Fountainhead and Atlas Shat, but it's still interesting to hear about her philosophy of complete selfishness directly from her own mouth.

[AlCzervik]

16. i wonder if she ever cried.

she doesn't stirke me as someone who ever cried.

[tigereye]

20. it is easy to see why her philosophy can attract -

there are elements of it that posit a great struggle against a large bureaucracy, collectivism and a bureaucratic morality, as she puts it. I think that is part of why younger people (and to be fair, some older people) might be impressed by the "one man (or woman) against the state" aspect of it.

Also she is unstinting in her defense of her philosophy, so unrattled, so able to place any arguments in the context of objectivism, and so clear in her own view that she is correct. To spar with and be unrattled by, Mike Wallace, even when you have very little to stand on, is rather impressive. It is easy to see that many of her views appear to be a marked reaction against the rigidity and loss of personal control so typical of the Soviet state.

It is also interesting that there are some elements of her views that are echoed in the neoconservative perspective, the Libertarian perspective, her own view that sees part of her philosophy as Aristotelian, and oddly, some elements of early
Jeffersonian arguments against Adams and the Federalists.

But her arguments against altruism ring very hollow. It amazes me that people are still fascinated by her views after all this time and, say, not by the views of other, much more palatable and tolerant social commentators and philosophers....

[sammythecat]

21. Thanks for the link. Very, very, interesting.

I don't subscribe to her philosophy, I'm too much of an altruist, but I don't discount every word she's ever said either. I thought she made some points that were, at the very least, debatable and worthy of some consideration.