The Rewrite Squad

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Q&A, 52:23 through 54:25

Q: Miss Rand, what is the Objectivist view of the concept of time? [John Enright]

A: Uhh, there cannot be such a thing as an Objectivist view of time. This is really like asking what is the Objectivist view of the su, solar system. [some laughter] You are asking a scientific question.

Unless you put it in a philosophical, euhh, form; that is, ehh, if you ask me: Does Objectivism hold, in metaphysical terms, that time is absolute, in a way Immanuel Kant held? Is that, ehh, the nature of your question? Ehh… Does time exist apart from entities?

Q: That was what I had in mind.

A: Oh, ahh, then, in that sense, our position would, in effect, be Aristotelian. And Aristotle’s position is that — ehh, this is not his statement, it’s our statement, but the issue is the same — that there is no such thing as independent time or space. The universe is finite, and the concept of time applies to a relationship between entities, specifically a measurement of motion, which is a change of relationship, a relationship between entities within the universe, not outside. Time cannot exist by itself; it exists only in, inside the universe, but it does not apply to the universe as a whole, because time is merely a measurement of motion, a change of relationship between entities within the universe. Now if by “universe” we mean the total of that which exists, there’s no relationship to anything outside itself that it could have—no motion, no change, and, therefore, no time—if you think of it as the totality.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 150-151)

[Here Mayhew’s italics on “within” are faithful to Rand’s actual emphasis pattern.

But it’s odd to imagine that the author of Anthem wouldn’t be careful when she used the first person singular as opposed to the first person plural. Here she refers to “our” position, not “my” position. Did Nathaniel Branden or Leonard Peikoff contribute to this account of time?]

[Brant Gaede]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Q&A, 6:55 through 7:41

Q: When can we expect to see Miss Rand's next novel, and her next collection of essays, or volume about Objectivist philosophy?

A: Uh, no, the, ub, Objectivist philosophy, that is a full treatment, not in the form of essays. I would say by the time I am 70, and maybe later. That I cannot promise; I am not working on it.

As to that, my next novel, I hope—if I am optimistic—within the next two years, but don't hold me to it. I can't promise, unfortunately.

Ayn Rand Answers: not included.

I remember that. I didn't believe her at the time--not about the novel--but I wanted to believe her.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1969

Q&A, 2:07 through 3:23

Q: In the last 25 years, have you had an important change of opinion?

A: Oh, I think you make it too restricted. Put it this way: in the last 64 years, I have not [lengthy applause]—not philosophical opinions. If you understand the term, that is fundamental views of the nature of man, of existence, and of the means of human knowledge and human values.

I certainly have learned a great deal in these years and in the last 25 years, and I have improved very frequently some formulation, some details of the conclusions which I reached, but never the philosophy nor the fundamentals.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 231)

I haven't changed my philosophical opinions—that is, my fundamental view of the nature of man, of existence, of human knowledge and of values—in the last sixty-four years. I've learned a great deal over the years, and frequently improved some formulations and details of my conclusions, but never the fundamentals.

Mayhew changed the original question to "have you had any major change in your philosophical outlook?"

[jeffrey smith]

Ford Hall Forum 1969

Q&A, 2:07 through 3:23

Q: In the last 25 years, have you had an important change of opinion?

A: Oh, I think you make it too restricted. Put it this way: in the last 64 years, I have not [lengthy applause]—not philosophical opinions. If you understand the term, that is fundamental views of the nature of man, of existence, and of the means of human knowledge and human values.

I certainly have learned a great deal in these years and in the last 25 years, and I have improved very frequently some formulation, some details of the conclusions which I reached, but never the philosophy nor the fundamentals.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 231):

I haven't changed my philosophical opinions—that is, my fundamental view of the nature of man, of existence, of human knowledge and of values—in the last sixty-four years. I've learned a great deal over the years, and frequently improved some formulations and details of my conclusions, but never the fundamentals.

[Mayhew changed the original question to "have you had any major change in your philosophical outlook?"]

Hmm. My math tells me that 1969 minuse 64 equals 1905. So she had all the fundamentals of Objectivism worked out by the time she reached her first birthday? That's certainly a child prodigy there. Makes Mozart look like a piker.

Robert, for the honor of the human race, please tell me that at least one person can be heard on the audio having a serious laughter attack when she said that. Or at least a heavy duty fit of coughing.

Jeffrey S.

[Chris Grieb]

Ford Hall Forum 1969

Q&A, 2:07 through 3:23

Q: In the last 25 years, have you had an important change of opinion?

A: Oh, I think you make it too restricted. Put it this way: in the last 64 years, I have not [lengthy applause]—not philosophical opinions. If you understand the term, that is fundamental views of the nature of man, of existence, and of the means of human knowledge and human values.

I certainly have learned a great deal in these years and in the last 25 years, and I have improved very frequently some formulation, some details of the conclusions which I reached, but never the philosophy nor the fundamentals.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 231):

I haven't changed my philosophical opinions—that is, my fundamental view of the nature of man, of existence, of human knowledge and of values—in the last sixty-four years. I've learned a great deal over the years, and frequently improved some formulations and details of my conclusions, but never the fundamentals.

[Mayhew changed the original question to "have you had any major change in your philosophical outlook?"]

Hmm. My math tells me that 1969 minus 64 equals 1905. So she had all the fundamentals of Objectivism worked out by the time she reached her first birthday? That's certainly a child prodigy there. Makes Mozart look like a piker.

Robert, for the honor of the human race, please tell me that at least one person can be heard on the audio having a serious laughter attack when she said that. Or at least a heavy duty fit of coughing.

Jeffrey S.

Jeff; I would be satisfied if a few people in the audience when they got away might have said to themselves that that statement is really hard to swallow. Almost everyone would have needed to get away from the hot house atmosphere to think about what Rand was saying.

Edited July 23, 2010 by Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Jeffrey,

There's little to be heard from the audience during or after that answer, except the loud applause after "in the last 64 years, I have not."

The crowd at this Ford Hall Forum was rather unruly at other times. Judge Lurie frequently chided questioners for going on too long, audience members for booing or hissing, etc.

The crowd dynamics obviously changed over the years, along with the type of questions asked. Was this because a larger percentage of the audience came to consist of committed Objectivists?

I didn't go to enough Ford Hall Forum speeches to be able to make a comparison, but some other participants here may have some thoughts about changes in the audience.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1969

Q&A, 8:45 through 16:49

(Really long, rambling question, off-mike. Judge Lurie complains, "You're just piling it on!" Again, Judge Lurie summarizes, if that is the right word.)

Q: What do you think of the banning of cyclamates, which has not altogether been proved, and, secondly, with regard to the making of the use of marijuana a felony? Marijuana, the gentleman suggests, is a product that is being used by our generation [audience laughs] and he… If you think that marijuana is used only by the young, you haven't spent as much time as I have in the criminal courts. (Chides some audience members for making "unpleasant noises.") Now the third matter that he regards as an example of the complete use of irrationality is the fact that tobacco, which he regards as having been proved with regard to the deleterious effect that it has, is being promoted because it makes a profit, and he regards this as requiring discussion by you, as to the rationale behind all this.

A: First of all, to clear up a certain confusion I can't believe exists in your mind about my stand: since I'm obviously a defender of reason, individualism, you can gather that, logically, that I am also a defender of capitalism—pure capitalism. I am not an apologist for the Nixon administration [applause] or any mixed-economy administration. Now I think Nixon is a great improvement over his predecessor—several of them [applause], including Eisenhower [louder applause]—and I did vote for him [applause], but I certainly would not, uh, attempt to justify, or think that all the laws they have, the measures they take or policies, are all rational. No, I am probably more in disagreement with the present policies than I might find some with which I would be in temporary agreement.

I do not approve of any government controls over consumption generally, of every kind, so as to eliminate, ehh, this confusion in your mind, I would advocate that all restrictions on drugs be removed. I don't believe that the government has the right to tell adults what they do with their own health and their own life. I [applause]… But that places a much greater moral responsibility on the individual. Just because the government shouldn't prohibit, not only marijuana—take the worst of them, whichever it is, heroin, LSD, or cocaine, I don't know what's the worst, or morphine—I don't think the government should prohibit any of them, except, of course, sales, euh, to minors—that would be proper. But for adults, I think they should be free to kill themselves in any way they want to [laughter and applause].

But that is why it is a moral issue. It is the responsibility of the individual not to take the kind of things, physical, chemical things, which destroy his mind. I would say I would fight for your right to use marijuana, and I'd fight you morally to the death that you should not do it—except, of course, in a free society I wouldn't have to deal with you at all if you want to take it and we disagree. All that the government should do is only protect citizens from the consequences of those who take drugs; that is, if they turn to crime, if they rob in order to provide themselves with money, that is the province of the government.

But, you know, drugs would be much cheaper if it weren't for government law, just as pro, under Prohibition. It was the bootleggers who didn't want the repeal of Prohibition, because many criminals made fortunes because alcohol was forbidden. Same here, it's the underworld that is spreading the drug traffic, particularly to the young, and then the addicts become new pushers because it, the drugs are so expensive and they need the money. It would be much cheaper and easier—and morally much more vicious—on the part of anyone who would, uh, take drugs if they were permitted by the government.

Now, as to cyclamates, that's really a question for a doctor. But to the best information I have [cough], they are … pardon this … I take them myself in the form of dietary soft drinks and things like that [cough], and, as far as I know from doctors [nervous laughter from audience], there is nothing to the alleged proof, uh, uhh, not only of cyclamates, but also of cigarettes—although I grant you there, um, doctors are more divided on the issue of cigarettes. But there is a division, only we always hear the negative side.

On the issue of cyclamates, except for the original whoever it was that started this, doctors claim that cyclamates are not harmful. But that is a question really for the doctors to decide and tell their patients. It's not for the government to pass laws or Prohibition on a moment's notice, on any one unproved experiment … experimenter's, uh, whim.

If you want my hypothesis about why this is done, that comes from the psychology of attacking capitalism. Observe, it's attacking any industry which gives people help or pleasure and which makes money for somebody. They're now going after television dinners in New York; that's supposed to be harmful because it has preservatives in it. And, of course, the amount of work it serves [sic] to busy housewives is immeasurable. But anything which is of help and which is popular is being attacked, and there is another motive: such an attack will get you into the newspapers. Look at Ralph Nader [some laughter]—that's the real motive here.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 14-15)

I do not approve of any government controls over consumption, so all restrictions on drugs should be removed (except, of course, on the sale to minors). The government has no right to tell any adult what to do with his own health and life. That places a much greater moral responsibility on the individual; but adults should be free to kill themselves in any way they want.

It is the moral responsibility of the individual not to take substances that destroy his mind. I would fight for your legal right to use marijuana; I would fight you to the death that you morally should not do it—except that in a free society, I wouldn't have to deal with you at all. What the government should do is protect citizens from the criminal consequences of those who take drugs. But drugs would be much cheaper if it weren't for government, as liquor was much more expensive under Prohibition. Bootleggers didn't want the repeal of Prohibition, because they made a fortune. Similarly, the underworld is spreading drugs. It would be cheaper, easier, and morally more vicious on the part of the drug addict if drugs were legalized.

On the issue of cyclamates—which I use myself in the form of diet soft drinks—doctors claim they are not harmful. Doctors must decide this and inform their patients. It is not the role of government to pass laws on a moment's notice, on the basis of unproved experimental whim.

My hypothesis about why people are calling for the prohibition of cyclamates involves the psychology of the critique of capitalism. Critics attack any industry that helps people or gives them pleasure and profit. They're now going after TV dinners because they contain preservatives that are supposedly harmful. Of course, TV dinners are a big time-saver for busy housewives. And there is another motive: such attacks get you in the newspapers. Take Ralph Nader—that's his real motive.

Mayhew abbreviates the question to a single sentence about banning cyclamates and marijuana—no reference to tobacco.

He lops off the entire first paragraph of the answer, applying vigorous compression to the rest. Parts of his version are so loosely related to the original that they should be considered, at best, a paraphrase. He throws in words like "legalized" that Rand didn't use on this occasion, and "critique," which, so far as I know, she didn't use on any occasion.

Whoever did the transcription misheard her statement about cyclamates being banned on account of "one unproved experimenter's whim." "Experimental whim" must be a particularly wild variety…

Mayhew should have kept his mitts off "dietary soft drinks" and "television dinners," a couple of those colorfully unidiomatic things that Rand occasionally said. Would he edit out the "hamburger sandwich" in Atlas Shrugged?

And he gets caught once again with his hand in the cookie jar. Mayhew deleted her two sentences that refer to cigarettes. Rand was coughing during that part of her answer, eliciting some nervous laughter from the audience…

[Brant Gaede]

She was right about cyclamates. I had the idea at the time they really weren't dangerous. They had the virtue of sweetening soft drinks without a horrible taste and aftertaste, which was much more profound 40 years ago. I knew cigarettes were dangerous when I was twelve or 13 yo and one of my junior high school teachers blew cigarette smoke through a facial tissue leaving a tarry residue. He stated the lungs were even better filters and to imagine what would happen to them over many years of smoking. Nevertheless I smoked in the army only stopping a year and a half after discharge on my 25th birthday in 1969. I didn't stop in Vietnam because I expected I might be shot to death. I wonder if Allan Blumenthal, an MD, ever tried to put some sense into her head way back in the 1960s if not 1950s.

--Brant

idiot who went to Vietnam

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

My understanding about cyclamates is that they could cause cancer when fed in gigantic doses to highly sensitive, seriously inbred lab rats.

Saccharine, if tested in similar ways, will also cause cancer when fed in gigantic doses to highly sensitive, seriously inbred lab rats.

Neither appears to be especially dangerous to human beings who drink less than a bathtub full of diet soda per day.

When cyclamates, which taste pretty good to most people, were banned, they were replaced with saccharin, which doesn't.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1969

Q&A, 20:39 through 21:59

Q: Can I look forward to another novel?

A: Not in the near future, but, ek, don't pin me down to it. I would want to write it perhaps, I'm sure, more than anyone could want to read it, though I appreciate your interest. But I can't advance very fast on it right now, because of The Objectivist.

Euhh, and if you ask why do I devote my time to this magazine? As I answered a friend of mine recently, because I cannot stand to see what is going on in this country and remain silent. Because if I have the ability to express views contrary to the kind of wanton destruction of America's greatness, of the last place of freedom or even semi-individualism on earth, I can't just stand by. And since there is no publications where my views would be expressed without be, being watered down, or maybe expressed once as a freak, I have to run my own publication. The country's still free enough for me to do it. [Applause]

Ayn Rand Answers: not included.

[Daniel Barnes]

Hmm. My math tells me that 1969 minuse 64 equals 1905. So she had all the fundamentals of Objectivism worked out by the time she reached her first birthday? That's certainly a child prodigy there. Makes Mozart look like a piker.

Jeffrey, Rand seems to have regularly made claims of this nature, even on tv.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1969

Q&A, 46:20 through 48:01

Q: In your biography Who Is Ayn Rand it was stated that in 1940 you enthusiastically supported Wendell Willkie for the Presidency of the United States. Do you see anybody on the horizon who would receive your enthusiastic support, despite your hostility toward politicians?

Judge Lurie restates the question in terms of "your attitude towards politicians."

A: Oh, Judge Lurie, you've spoken something! Thank you, you spoke it quite properly. But he said, in view of my hostility to politicians. [Applause] And I, I truly appreciate your reluctance to repeat it. It's improper to put it that way, but it may not be fully intentional.

Uhh, "hostility" is a psychological term, you know, about someone who hates. I don't hate politicians. Unfortunately, I am forced to despise them. [Laughter and applause]

No, I would not even say that it would apply to every individual in politics.

And I would say that today we are a mixed economy, politically and also morally. Most people in politics, and elsewhere else, are mixed cases, but I'm very much opposed to mixtures.

And, therefore, could I be enthusiastic about anyone on the scene today? No. Would I say could they appear in the future? Possibly. It's never impossible, but I think it would take some time and a different kind of cultural trend, for a proper kind of man of stature to appear on the scene. I do not have any in mind.

As to the Willkie campaign, well, that's one of the things by which one learns, from one's mistakes. [Laughter] It wasn't a mistake to support him as he appeared, but when that man, a few months after his defeat, announces that all his statements were merely campaign oratory—after that, one does not get enthusiastic about candidates, though not all of them are that bad.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 57-58)

Mayhew makes the answer appear a little better groomed—and misspells Willkie.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1969

Q&A, 28:45 through 29:17

Q: Miss Rand, people in your generation seems to have a lot more fear than people in my generation. And I'm wondering…

A: No personalities, please. You're not a psychologist and I am not here to be analyzed. You may object to my ideas. You cannot pass on my state of emotions. [Applause]

And, besides, you're wrong.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 132)

Minimal editing from Mayhew, on an answer that needed none at all.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1969

Q&A, 3:26 through 8:44

Q: Miss Rand, you obviously have got a very brilliant and a very keen mind. I would like to point out, however, something I think that you will probably agree with, and that is that our rationality provides the means to ends, the ends themselves by their nature must be produced irrationally. … The Apollo flight is not a rational flight, for the following reason … (Having launched into a speech, the questioner is halted and chided by Judge Lurie, some in audience applaud and others jeer, Judge Lurie scolds those who make "unpleasant noises," questioner restates, off-mike, and Judge Lurie summarizes…)

Judge Lurie: Will you kindly suggest a truly rational reason for seeking to go to the moon, either on an economical basis, a philosophical basis, or any basis whatsoever?

A: I will start answering the last part of your question, and then I'd like to go to the beginning.

Yes, a very simple reason: the extension of knowledge. (Stretches of the answer are lost as the broadcast mike cuts in and out.) Everything that man has attempted … (4-second cutout) and, in fact, in every rational endeavor… (5-second cutout) only by the constant extension of … (11-second cutout) … of the Apollo program to the military program. But I would hope—I'm merely expressing a personal hope—that it has an enormous value, or might have in the future, for military purposes—for purposes of self-defense.

Remember that savages worse than the ones in Woodstock [applause]—oh, much worse, and adult—also are making space journeys or have space vehicles—that is, if one can believe it; let us assume that we can, according to such news as we're given. If they are making, ubbuh, space explorations, we'd better try to get to Mars and fast.

There is only one thing that could raise an objection, and I would agree with you: I do not think they can make it. But so long as that they're trying to, and there are corrupt men of intelligence even in that cesspool which is Communist Russia, if so long as they're trying, we have to try. We are morally obligated to try, because even an animal will not die without biting in self-defense. [Applause]

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 164)

]Yes, the extension of knowledge. Every rational endeavor expands knowledge. Further, I hope there is a relationship between the Apollo program and our military, for, in the future, could have enormous value for self-defense. Remember, savages much worse than those at Woodstock claim to be traveling into space. If they are, we should try to beat them to Mars next, and fast. I don't think the Russians can make it; but as long as they are trying, and there are corrupt men of intelligence even in that cesspool, we are morally obligated to try for the sake of self-defense.

Mayhew split off the first part of the question and Rand's response to it, which show up in a different section of Ayn Rand Answers. He did not mention that parts of her response about the Apollo program were missing from the recording and, therefore, that he is presenting an abridgment forced by technical difficulties. He also toned down her rhetoric about the Soviet Union.

Back to the original answer:

A: Judge Lurie, I just want one word on the first part of that question.

I wanted to thank you for your compliment, but disagree very thoroughly with your statement that only means are chosen by reason, that ends—human ends—have to be chosen irrationally. That is precisely one of the worst active, or credos in ethics, which I am out to fight. That is precisely what has destroyed human ethics, or human morality. I do not believe that ends are chosen irrationally. That is the human evil that has taught men that the choice of ends by reason is impossible. Everything I have written is devoted to proving the exact opposite. We choose our ends by means of reason, or we perish.

And since you are obviously not so acquainted with my work, I wouldn't ask you to start reading volumes—so I think they're good, but I'm not here to do salesmanship. I would suggest that you just read a short essay of mine, entitled "The Objectivist Ethics," and that will give you the essence of my stand on this particular issue of ends and means.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 107)

No! I reject the evil idea that choosing ends by reason is impossible. It has destroyed ethics. Everything that I have written is devoted to proving the opposite. Ends are not chosen irrationally. We choose our ends by reason, or we perish. “The Objectivist Ethics” provides the essence of my stand on ends and means.

Again Mayhew attaches emphasis to a single word where Rand didn’t.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1969

Q&A, 22:07 through 28:42

Q: Miss Rand, do you consider the October 15 Moratorium rational or irrational?

A: As irrational and as immoral as any public act in our history that I know about [loud applause]. Let me point out one difficulty in expressing this: I am against the war in Vietnam and have been for years ago— I made a speech right here in this Forum, I believe three or four years ago, under the Johnson administration, in regard to my view of Vietnam.

But I am not for the victory of the Vietcong. I am not for unilateral surrender. And when you know that members of your country and your generation by draft—military draft, which I also oppose—are fighting and dying in a war, whatever you do in the nature of protest, you do not ask unilateral surrender, you do not accept compliments from the Vietcong and good wishes, and you do not distribute Vietcong flags. Don't you understand—I cannot believe that anybody can fail to understand—that by doing anything, undertaking any action which supports a military enemy during an actual war, you are murderers? You are taking on your hands the death of every soldier in Vietnam.

I would say we should pull out of there [applause]. I'd say, if somebody asked me—I mystically had the power, except there is no mysticism [applause]—should we pull out of Vietnam tomorrow, I would say, yes, we never should have pulled in. It was the fault of the same liberals, the same policy that today is in the forefront of the anti-Vietnam marchers [a shout of "No!, mixed with vigorous applause]. It was a product of Kennedy and Johnson, but, above all, Kennedy who today because he is not present is regarded as an idealistic martyr, but it's he who got us into Vietnam just the same. And the Republicans and the Democrats are equally guilty, but since it was up to now a Democratic administration, it's their war, and I do not know how short a memory people can have, or if you're young and didn't see it yourself, certainly there's still enough evidence in the newspapers. We don't have censorship or book burning yet.

You can look up the record of Vietnam and of Kennedy's speeches, of, of Johnson's speeches, and if you want to go further back, go back to World War II and read about the campaign of the same gang—there is no other word for it, except that today it is a political party—the Democrat-liberal axis [applause] that were insulting as isolationists everybody who was opposed to our entering World War II. Isolationism was regarded as a very dirty word. You were accused of being narrowly patriotic and selfish because you didn't want to mix into foreign wars.

And today it is suddenly the liberals that are isolationists. Well, look—excuse me—it is just too Goddamn obvious. [Loud applause] If one makes any pretense to speak or stand for serious principles, at least have respect for your audience, do stand for principle and do not count on the concrete-bound mentality of subnormal children who will not understand that you—by which I mean anyone who supports that Moratorium—are playing a double standard. It is proper to go to war to fight Fascism, you said—or your gang said—but it is not proper to fight Communism. And I say one must fight both or neither. And when it comes to this country, here is when we should fight them.

But as to any fight for freedom abroad, I believe, let us send all the military equipment that we can spare without sacrifice to any fight for freedom, whether it's of the [anti-]Fascist kind or the [anti-]Communist kind, which is, of course, two variants of the same thing. Don't ever let us dare take American lives to sacrifice them to somebody else's freedom, or to sacrifice them in any form.

That's my position, and it's on these grounds that I say, if you object to a war—and remember, a war is military action, it is actual shooting—and you as civilians are taking the side favorable to the enemy, that is as low, as immoral, as unspeakable an attitude as anything I, at least, can conceive of. [Lengthy applause]

[Mayhew combined this answer with the one that starts at 30:55]

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1969

Q&A, 30:55 through 36:45

[Long question, off and farther off-mike, Rand interjects, Judge Lurie takes over. Questioner resumes, somewhat more audibly. Judge Lurie steps in.]

Judge Lurie: Wait a minute, I have your question. Believe it or not, I have your question. Be seated.

He will tell you whether I have it in a minute. Now you listen.

This gentleman says he regards what took part with the hippies in Woodstock as being a display of emotional rationality. Now he say that in connection with the war in Vietnam, there are those, and he is one who believe that it is rational to believe that to bring these boys home is to do what the Moratorium is intended to do. Now the question is, why is this not an exercise in rationality?

A: Because I have yet answered. Because you are in a war, you are dealing with an irrational enemy who is not willing to make any concessions, and in such cases you cannot withdraw unilaterally. There is no way to do it; you would lead to the slaughter of the whole, euhh, Viet, South Vietnam population, as has already been demonstrated, if you watch the news.

But let's put it this way. Nothing is rational which takes one aspect of a situation on, or one desire, and focuses only on it. If you say you want to end this war, don't you think the whole country wants to end it? Don't you think that President Nixon and even President Johnson did want to end it? But will you also realize that you ought to be at least somewhere on the outskirts of Washington, by which I mean, of a political job, not with full information, but at least with some partial information about the nature of that situation?

Merely saying, I want the boys to come back, somehow, is irrational, because if you do have this desire, it is obligatory on you to tell the people, the country, or President Nixon and Congress, how. How to do it without destroying the prestige of America in the world and delivering unknown hundreds of thousands of people who trusted us to slaughter? You see, if we hadn't gone into Vietnam—I don't believe it's our responsibility to protect either side of, in the war; it's their country, let them fight it out—once we got in and we expected and asked and got the cooperation of the local people, to then withdraw when we have the power to fight, and abandon those people, is quite a monstrous thing.

Now I would still say no, we shouldn't do it at the expense of American lives. But merely saying, let's stamp our foot and demand that our American boys come back is acting like a petulant ch, ehh, child stamping his foot at reality. Unfortunately, it can't be done that way.

You know where you could help, if you take the situation seriously? Try to give it some thought, and watch the foreign policy of your country, and see to it that no administration, Republican or Democratic, ever puts this country into this position again. Start a slow movement for real political isolationism, in the George Washington sense [applause], in the sense of his principle of "no foreign entanglements."

That's the trouble. You cannot solve the conditions, the problems created by an irrational policy, which is now approximately 50 years old, in certain respects, or older. It's irrational foreign policy brought us to this. What we're seeing is the consequences of irrationality, not the cause, and you cannot solve the consequences or get rid of them simply by wishing it. You have to attack the root and the cause. That's much harder to do than to march in a demonstration, but it can be done.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 92-93)

It is as irrational and immoral as any public act in our history. I am against the war in Vietnam, and have been for years. But I am not for the Vietcong or American unilateral surrender. When you know that citizens of your country were drafted and are fighting and dying in war, whatever form of protest you make, do not call for unilateral surrender. Do not accept compliments from the Vietcong and distribute Vietcong flags. Do anything that supports an enemy during an actual war, and you are a murderer. You take on your hands the death of every soldier in Vietnam. If you, as civilians, take the side of the enemy that is as low and unspeakably immoral as any attitude that I can conceive of.

The Vietnam War is the fault of the same liberals and the same policies that today are at the forefront of the opposition to the war. The war was the product of Johnson and especially Kennedy, who is now regarded as an idealistic martyr. But Kennedy got us into Vietnam just the same. Republicans and Democrats are in a sense equally guilty, but the Democrats began that war. Look up the speeches of Kennedy and Johnson on Vietnam. Or go further back, and read how the same Democrat-Liberal axis insulted anyone opposed to our entering World War II as narrowly patriotic, selfish, and "isolationist." Today, suddenly the liberals are isolationist. Well, this is just too goddamn obvious. If you make any pretense about standing for serious principles, then at least respect your audience. Don't treat them like subnormal children who won't understand that you are holding a double standard. It is proper to go to war to fight fascism, the Left says, but not to fight communism. I say we must fight both or neither.

In my view, we should fight fascism and communism when they come to this country. As to fighting abroad, let us send all the military equipment we can spare (without sacrifice) to any fight for freedom, whether it's against fascism or communism (which are two variants of statism). But let us never sacrifice American lives for somebody else's freedom.

If you want to help, watch our foreign policy and see to it that no administration, Republican or Democratic, ever puts the United States into this position again. Start a movement for George Washington's principle of "no foreign entanglements." The present problems were created by an irrational policy, which is at least fifty years old. You must attack its root and cause. You cannot solve the problem simply by wishing it away. Merely saying, "I want the boys to come back, somehow," is irrational. The problem is: how to end the war without destroying the prestige of America and delivering thousands of people who trusted us—the South Vietnamese—to slaughter. If we hadn't gone into Vietnam, it wouldn't be our responsibility to protect either side. It's their country; let them fight it out. But since we did go in, and asked for and received the cooperation of the local people, to then withdraw and abandon those people, when we have the power to fight, would be monstrous. We shouldn't remain at the expense of American lives; but merely stamping our feet and demanding that the boys come home is acting like a petulant child.

Mayhew combined two different answers from this session, liberally slicing and reassembling. The first answer is the one that began at 22:07.

Note the uncharacteristic emphasis on opposition, and the emphasis on lives where the listener heard one on American. Mayhew takes Rand's predictions of the slaughter of the whole South Vietnamese population, or "unknown hundreds of thousands," and reduces them to "thousands" killed.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1969

Q&A, 48:05 through 50:40

(Some negotiation between the questioner and Judge Lurie.)

Q: Miss Rand, from the Objectivist point of view, what is the property status of the air and masses of water, as related to pollution?

A: This is not exactly related to today's subject, and is on a much lower, more concrete scale, but I will answer briefly.

I am against any kind of government controls imposed as preventive, uh, issues. In the, such an issue as pollution, let people demonstrate the actual harm and sue the individual polluter. That has always been [applause] a proper division of human rights.

If, for instance, you create some kind of unsanitary conditions on your property—which, not, uh, not merely offensive visually—can create germs that then invade your neighbor's property, he can sue you, and if he can demonstrate that the damage—the physical damage—comes from your property, he appropriately will be awarded damages, or you will be ordered to clean up the menace. This law exists already in the realm of relationships between property owners, and the same principle would apply to pollution.

Uh, beyond that, I would say before we even touch the issue, you'd have to get all the vested interests out, because it's too easy and pat and ugly an issue that is being pushed by people who make a living out of issues of that kind.

I do not believe that capitalists or factory owners want to pollute air, and if and when you can demonstrate to them that they are damaging you—without forcing them to close door and then create unemployment, for which you also blame them—if that were the approach, then the issue could be discussed sensibly. [Coughs] [some applause]

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 9)

Mayhew tries to tidy this answer up. Here his emphasis on a single word, preventive, is authentic.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1971

Q&A, 50:08 through 53:39

Q: Miss Rand, when a child is taught by the Montessori Method and goes to public school later on … would a necessary condition for this be an explicit explanation to the child of the nature of thinking?

A: No, bec… you cannot explain, not only the importance of, but even what is thinking to a child of six. Because Montessori, ehh, nursery schools are only, ehh, for children between the age of three and, I believe, five, maybe six. But by the time a child goes to public school, he's still too young to understand what you mean by thinking. And it's certainly much too young to give him theory—that takes a great deal of conceptual development on his part. You don't really begin to explain theory till about adolescence—if he is very precocious and he brings up the subject, you might teach him a few principles.

That's not what Montessori does; she does something much more important. She trains a child's psycho-epistemology.

Now, the term is mine; it's not hers; but what she writes about is what I call psycho-epistemology: the method of thinking. She develops … her system is aimed at, deliberately and consciously—which I think is an achievement of genius—to develop the conceptual ability in a child's mind. She writes explicitly about what she wants to teach a child is not the content of any particular ideas, but the method required to, uk, uh, acquire ideas, to bring order into a child's mind so that he wouldn't feel a stranger, confused in the world—that's, ehh, from memory, not an exact quotation from her, but the exact meaning of what her purpose is. Therefore, she wants to train a child's ability to deal with cognition and with concepts, which is precisely the ability that the progressive education, schools, are, ehh, devoted to destroying.

Therefore, a child will not be guar… will have no guarantee that he will always think the right thoughts, but look, no adult has that guarantee, ever. Uh, what a child, the protection he will have against public schools is that his method of mental functioning in the most crucial formative years of his life will be set, and, uh, with some assistance on his part—because nothing is automatic—it will be set for life. But he has a good chance because he has already grasped the method of how to deal with percepts and then concepts. That's what the Comprachicos are destroying.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 174)

Mayhew subjects this answer to some trimming, but there are no allusions to other authors involved.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Q&A, 9:36 through 17:22

Q: Miss Rand, anyone who tells me that it is not in my self-interest to violate another person's rights in any situation must first demonstrate that the self-interests of men do not clash in any situation, including metaphysical emergencies, by which I mean a rational man finds himself trapped in an actual emergency, where no one has initiated force against him, and where the only way to preserve his life is to kill another …

Judge Lurie: Let's see if I've got it. You don't have to give an example, because the very question is the example. [Restates the question, including a further brief exchange with the questioner.]

A: This is what I call "lifeboat" questions, by which I mean ethical questions based on some formulation such as what should a man do if he and another man are in a lifeboat which can hold only one. That's the same principle.

So therefore first as a principle, I will answer: Every code of ethics has to be based on metaphysics; that is, on a certain view of reality, of the world in which man lives, the metaphysical nature of that world with which he has to deal.

Now man does not live in lifeboats, nor in situations where to save his life he has to kill an innocent man. Offhand, even as a writer, I cannot project any situation in which a man has to kill an innocent man to defend his own life. I can understand him killing a man who is threatening him, or is initiating force—those situations do exist and can be imagined.

But, uh, you would have to first project, even theoretically, what, in what way would an innocent man get into the first man's way, or in the worst kind of strategy…

Now I can tell you one—ehh, let's see if this is what you had in mind. It would only be possible under some kind of authoritarian dictatorship. Supposing your first man is escaping, and needs a disguise; if he doesn't get it, uhh, the Gestapo or the GPU will arrest him the next moment. So he has to kill an innocent bystander to get his coat as a disguise. Is that the kind of situation you mean?

If it is, I would say that nobody can answer you, er, your question because when men are under a totalitarian dictatorship—that is, under force—there is no such thing as morality. Morality ends where a gun begins. I would have to say in such a case, I personally would say your man is still immoral if he takes an innocent life. But, speaking formally, as a moral philosopher, I would say in emergency situations of that kind, in which, incidentally, the main protagonist is not the cause of the emergency situation—if he is a murderer escaping from the police, then he caused his own predicament—but only in emergency situations such as dictatorships, or gang war in which a bystander gets caught, nobody can prescribe what is appropriate for a man to do when his own life is at stake, and this would apply to the situation of two men and a boat that can hold only one.

No moral rule can be prescribed for those situations by anyone, for the reason that only life is the base on which one can establish moral a code. When a man is under threat of destruction, through no fault of his own, morality does not pertain to those situations and whichever he chooses to do is, in effect, right. He can only be subjectively right. And in this sense two men can make opposite choices: I don't think I'd kill an innocent bystander if my life was in danger. But I would project that I would kill 10 of them if, if my husband's life was in danger. But that could happen only under dictatorship, and that is one reason why one should not live under one or seek to establish them. Morality vanishes under a gun.

(Judge Lurie appends his own comments: Look up in a law library the case of Regina v. Dudley. British crewmen in a lifeboat, because their own boat had sunk. In the crew, there was a young lad, and they were starving. They killed the boy and they ate him. Within the day, a boat came and rescued them, and they were charged with murder. What happened was this. They were found guilty of murder, and eventually there was a commutation by the Home Office, after each of these unhappy men had served 6 months in prison. There was a comparable case in American jurisprudence, he says. Ayn Rand asks him what he would do, but he demurs.)

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 113-114)

Mayhew puts italics on innocent, again with no basis in Rand's speech or intonation. The same goes for putting italics on life.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Q&A, 26:06 through 30:19

Q: Miss Rand, in Atlas Shrugged, the hero, Dagny is with three different men. If romantic love can be with more than one other person, how does this relate to the institution of monogamy?

A: To begin with, if you want to ask it in principle, fine. But I resent the nonsense of saying that Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged was promiscuous. She had three men in her life, not simultaneously. Ehh, where have you been all your life? [Laughter]

This is not only permissible, it is virtuous and moral. I have never said that marriage is the only proper form of romantic love. There is nothing wrong with a romantic affair, if there are reasons why the couple cannot be married or if they are too young to marry, ehh, and that is not promiscuity, provided it is a serious feeling based on serious values.

Now, as to more than one love, well now, remember man has free will. It is the Catholic Church who advocates indissoluble marriage. I don’t. And the reason one cannot, because man is not omniscient. He can make a mistake in his choice of partner, or the partner may change through the years, and therefore a man may fall out of love, or, eh, so can a woman, if the partner he or she has chosen no longer lives up to the proper values.

In Atlas Shrugged, a better example of it to cite Hank Rearden and his wife Lillian. Uhh, he was romantically in love with her at first, because he thought she was a certain type of woman and she deliberately faked the kind of image, ehh, she thought he would want, and he got disappointed. Now he was very wrong in carrying on a secret affair with Dagny. But what was wrong in it was not sex, but secrets—the lies.

An open relationship with as many men as you can meet—if you are unlucky—but not several at a time—uhh, is appropriate except that, of course, one cannot be, ek, unlucky that often; one would have to then check one’s standards if one makes constant mistakes. [some laughter from audience]

But as a principle of romantic love, one cannot say that only a single lifelong romance is, can, approp, can be appropriately called romantic. That is the ideal; if a couple achieves that, they must be extremely lucky and they must have extremely good premises. But one can’t make that the norm. Sometimes, it is an exclusive single love, uh, for all time; sometimes not. The issue to judge here—the moral principle—is the seriousness of the feeling, and one gauges that by what kind of values is it based on. What is it that a person is attracted to in a man or a woman and why. That is the standard of romantic love.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 136-137)

More small cuts from Mayhew.

It’s hard to hear or read this answer without thinking about certain matters, concluded just a few months earlier, that Rand was choosing not to bring up. The questioner has a foreign accent, possibly Spanish, and can’t be heard clearly. But so far as I can tell, he didn’t use the word “promiscuous,” and Mayhew seems to agree with me on this.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Q&A, 32:43 through 35:47

Q: Miss Rand, would you consider a relationship with, say, one man and two women, if all is in the open, as immoral? [The rest of the question trails off into inaudibility, but Judge Lurie paraphrases the first sentence.]

A: Not necessarily, but it would be a very rare occasion when it wouldn't, because one would have to know then the motives and the situation.

It's the, kind of Noel Coward's Design for Living in reverse. In his play, there are two men, ehh, and one woman living together. Now, well, you have one man and two women together.

Well, it may be possible, but the only situation I can think of the sort of stories where … it usually happens with men … A man is presumed to be dead, his wife remarries, but she always loves him, and then he suddenly reappears.

Well, this is a situation like that in reverse: A man is married, and then his wife disappears. He marries another woman, and he loves her, but he always loves his wife, too, and then she reappears.

Now, in such a case, it could be conceivably proper if they're honest about it and nobody cheats anyone, and they understand what the situation is and all agree. It's possible but it's not very likely. Euhh, and, again, it's an almost-lifeboat situation.

As a general principle, however, one would have to say this: In regard to passing judgment on the romances of others, one has to be very, very careful. Euhh, one doesn't really have to judge, un, unless you are very sure that something improper goes on and then you don't want to deal with the person. But if you are not personally involved, I would say don't pass judgment on whether a given relationship is or is not romantically proper. You'd have to know an enormous lot about both persons before you could pass that judgment. Uhh, but, if it is someone you are involved with and everything is important and you want to know the past relationships of a person you are interested in, in order to judge, euhh, the standards, the values of a given person—outside of that, don't judge the personal life of others too lightly. It's an enormously different, difficult subject and, uhh, you have to very scrupulous with what you regard as objective evidence.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 138)

Not necessarily, though usually it would be. One would need to know the situation and their motives. (This is Noel Coward's Design for Living in reverse. In that play, two men and one woman live together.) It would be moral if he didn't choose both at the same time. One situation is where a woman who is married disappears and is presumed dead; her husband—who always loved her—remarries, and then she reappears. If they are honest and they all understand the arrangement and agree to it, then it's possible for it to be proper.

As a general principle, be very careful about passing judgment on the romances of others. Don't pass judgment unless you know something is improper, and so don't wish to deal with the person. If you are not personally involved, don't pass judgment. You have to know a lot about both persons before you could do so. Don't judge the personal life of others too lightly. It's a difficult subject, and you must be scrupulous about what you regard as objective evidence.

Another arbitrarily italicized word. Overall, Mayhew really gave this answer the chop. But even shorn of context, it reads like Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi.

[Greybird]

[Rand's words, not Mayhew's absurd condensation:] [...] In regard to passing judgment on the romances of others, one has to be very, very careful. [...] if you are not personally involved, I would say don’t pass judgment on whether a given relationship is or is not romantically proper. You’d have to know an enormous lot about both persons before you could pass that judgment.

Rand clearly decided that all those in her inner circle thus qualified, but without the full knowledge of what was done and when. That is, involving herself. And were expected to pass judgment anyway.

Great minds can indeed be capable of the most exquisite, subtle hypocrisy.

[Rand's words:] [...] It’s an enormously different, difficult subject and, uhh, you have to be very scrupulous with what you regard as objective evidence.

Unless you're Rand's last-man-standing protégé, who decided that taking pains to gather and validate objective evidence before making moral appraisals was more or less unnecessary.

And that one should, instead, simply be a constant "valuer," flinging judgments in every direction, heedless of knowledge, context, or propriety. ("Fact and Value")

Great minds can also be capable of the most appalling judgment in selecting their protégés.

[Campbell:] [...] Overall, Mayhew really gave this answer the chop. But even shorn of context, it reads like Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi.

Literally "Jupiter," for the Latin rhyme, but colloquially: "What the gods may do, the cattle may not." On another occasion (noted, I believe, in Passion), she referred in public to only "giants" being able to do it.

Grandiose much, milady?

I'm astonished that ARI is even making these original sources open to the public, frankly. They may actually tear down the Philosopher-Novelist Icon of Utter Moral Perfection, and leave the Humanly Flawed and Sometimes Cruelly Mistaken Creator of Great Written Works.

Which would be more fair to us readers, and certainly more just as to Rand's legacy ... but would vastly reduce ARI's income and field of mischief-making. In the very long run {rueful smile}

Edited December 20, 2009 by Greybird

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1973

Q&A, 17:23 through 17:56

[Only Judge Lurie’s version of the question is on the tape. The questioner’s segment has been deleted.]

Judge Lurie: Reconcile the Supreme Court’s decision through the majority on abortion with the Supreme Court’s decision by majority on censorship.

A: Quite properly, that question should be asked of the Supreme Court, not of me. [Laughter from audience; obvious tape splice at end; the word "I" has been cut from the beginning of her reply]

don’t know, but I have said that people who hold inconsistent premises will act inconsistently, and, therefore, some better premises were in their minds, apparently, on that occasion but not on the occasion of obscenity.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 18)

[Minor slip—the Mayhew book doesn’t identify the origin of this item.]

[Daniel Barnes]

[Rand]: I am against the war in Vietnam and have been for years ago— I made a speech right here in this Forum, I believe three or four years ago, under the Johnson administration, in regard to my view of Vietnam....But I am not for the victory of the Vietcong. I am not for unilateral surrender.... ...I would say we should pull out of there [applause]...

Apologies for the sidetrack but just a quick question (not directed at Robert): the difference between "unilateral surrender" and "pull[ing] out of there" is...what, exactly? You make a slightly different speech when you do it?

It seems to me that the US deciding to pull out for whatever excuse could only be a victory for the Vietcong.

I note Rand's rhetorical skill at making what seems to be a pretty obviously untenable position palatable to her audience (eg the applause).

[Brant Gaede]

[Rand]: I am against the war in Vietnam and have been for years ago— I made a speech right here in this Forum, I believe three or four years ago, under the Johnson administration, in regard to my view of Vietnam....But I am not for the victory of the Vietcong. I am not for unilateral surrender.... ...I would say we should pull out of there [applause]...

Apologies for the sidetrack but just a quick question (not directed at Robert): the difference between "unilateral surrender" and "pull[ing] out of there" is...what, exactly? You make a slightly different speech when you do it?

It seems to me that the US deciding to pull out for whatever excuse could only be a victory for the Vietcong.

I note Rand's rhetorical skill at making what seems to be a pretty obviously untenable position palatable to her audience (eg the applause).

She hated communism.

--Brant