The Rewrite Squad

[Neil Parille]

Robert,

It sounds as if Rand was jumping to the conclusion that the questioner was accusing her of racism. I think that's why the "I am not a racist" was inserted in the middle.

-Neil Parille

[Robert Campbell]

Neil,

Ayn Rand was aware of the drill with Judge Lurie. He was supposed to repeat the question on mike before she started answering. She obviously liked working with him, as she asked him to moderate in 1976, when he was moving into retirement and was no longer the regular moderator at the Foum.

When she jumped in ahead of him, it was out of eagerness (as in her answer about Roots) or out of annoyance at the questioner (as in this "survey" of African-Americans in the audience, or the question about amphetamines).

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1972

Q&A, 42:34 through 46:13

Q: You’ve said that the United States should maintain its nuclear superiority over China and Russia. Seriously, would you ever advocate that we actually use these weapons?

A: I would not dispose of the lives of other people, and it’s improper to put me in the role of a commander-in-chief.

Ask the question in principle:

Is it proper for an individual to defend himself? Yes.

Is it proper for a country to defend itself? Yes.

Are Russia and China monstrous aggressors which, whose first aggression is against their own people? Yes.

If so, certainly we should have superiority over all of them, and we should not attack them—but we don’t have to. At the first sign of an attack from them, we should fight them by every means we have, because I think it is criminal to kill American men and not use better weapons which we do have. [Applause]

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 87)

Mayhew split this answer into two parts. The reader of Mayhew's book has no way of knowing when individual "answers" have really been excerpted from longer statements, and he never identifies their mates or continuations.

Back to the original answer:

[side conversation with Judge Lurie]

Uh, let me add a footnote, about war killing innocent people.

Why do you think people should be concerned about the nature of their government? Certainly the majority in any country at war is innocent. But if by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn’t, ukk, overturn or choose, uh, a bad government, and choose a better one, then they have to pay the price for the sins of their government, as all of us are paying for the sins of ours. That’s why we have to be interested in the philosophy of government and in seeing, to the extent we can, seeing to it that we have a good government.

Because a government is not an independent entity; it’s supposed to represent the people of a nation. If some people put up with Soviet, uhh, dictatorship—not all of them, you know, but some do, as they did in Germany—they deserve whichever their government deserves. There is no innocent people in war.

The only thing to be concerned with is who started that war. And once you can establish that it’s a given country, there is no such thing as consideration for the rights of that country, because it has initiated the use of force, and, therefore, stepped outside the principle of rights. But I’ve covered that in better detail in, uh, “The Nature of Government.” Ekk, take a look at that, in, um, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, where I explain why nations as such do not have any rights. Governments have no rights; only individuals have.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 94)

Mayhew broke this off the original answer, replacing the question with “What do you think about the killing of innocent people in war?”

This “war guilt” answer puts the emphasis on which country started a war, at least in the context of retaliating with nukes. In other answers from the 1970s, she claims that countries with dictatorial regimes don’t have to start a war, because any reasonably free country may rightly invade them at any time.

[Wolf DeVoon]

"You, erh, graduate from being a student when you no longer have to use the name of your teacher."

Caught my attention, too. Yikes.

W.

[tjohnson]

[Wow.

Mayhew has jettisoned the entire original question about using nuclear weapons, replacing it with "What do you think about the killing of innocent people in war?" Dumping her entire response about nuclear superiority and the use of nuclear weapons, he picks up instead with Rand's "footnote."

This "war guilt" answer puts the emphasis on which country started a war, at least in the context of retaliating with nukes. In other answers from the 1970s, she claims that countries with dictatorial regimes don't have to start a war, because any reasonably free country may rightly invade them at any time.]

So if you happen to be unlucky enough to have been born into a totalitarian regime where you could easily lose your life by trying to overthrow your government then you deserve to lose your life because of the actions of your government anyway? I don't think I'm comfortable with that point of view.

[Robert Campbell]

[Wow.

Mayhew has jettisoned the entire original question about using nuclear weapons, replacing it with "What do you think about the killing of innocent people in war?" Dumping her entire response about nuclear superiority and the use of nuclear weapons, he picks up instead with Rand's "footnote."

This "war guilt" answer puts the emphasis on which country started a war, at least in the context of retaliating with nukes. In other answers from the 1970s, she claims that countries with dictatorial regimes don't have to start a war, because any reasonably free country may rightly invade them at any time.]

So if you happen to be unlucky enough to have been born into a totalitarian regime where you could easily lose your life by trying to overthrow your government then you deserve to lose your life because of the actions of your government anyway? I don't think I'm comfortable with that point of view.

GS,

Neither am I.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

[Wow.

Mayhew has jettisoned the entire original question about using nuclear weapons, replacing it with "What do you think about the killing of innocent people in war?" Dumping her entire response about nuclear superiority and the use of nuclear weapons, he picks up instead with Rand's "footnote."

This "war guilt" answer puts the emphasis on which country started a war, at least in the context of retaliating with nukes. In other answers from the 1970s, she claims that countries with dictatorial regimes don't have to start a war, because any reasonably free country may rightly invade them at any time.]

So if you happen to be unlucky enough to have been born into a totalitarian regime where you could easily lose your life by trying to overthrow your government then you deserve to lose your life because of the actions of your government anyway? I don't think I'm comfortable with that point of view.

GS,

Neither am I.

Robert Campbell

My context growing up was general thermonuclear war. The idea was to avoid that by being so strong no one would attack you. In the 1960s this idea devolved into MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Ayn Rand never really seems to have given any thought to the nuts and bolts horror of the basic situation and how to deal with it, but her thinking reflected the insanity of popular thought wherein countries on three continents would be all but obliterated. I call this the "bomber perspective." Your view of the world doesn't include the people you are incinerating say in Hiroshima or Tokyo only that you are doing what seems to be necessary. War is so horrible that if that horror isn't your primary focus you'll go stupid in discussing it. If you want freedom you'll want peace. If you want peace you'll want to be strong so no one tries to beat up on you or even gives it much serious thought. If you want a mighty military in order to fight a "just war"--her very words--you're the bad guy. I also think her special animus toward Soviet Russia greatly informed her thinking. It informed mine and I wasn't so directly victimized by it. It's hard to understand now how US citizens were initially so supportive of the Vietnam War. We were fighting communism just as we had once fought Nazism.

--Brant

[Selene]

Brant is correct.

I thought early on in the 60's that Ayn's mindset regarding a number of issues was flippantly ignorant.

Since that time, her comments on psychology..."I'll leave that sewer to you Nathan...", her statements on war/military conceptualizations, art and politics have confirmed to me

that she was rather simplistically ignorant.

She had many, innocent little girl aspects to her body language, voice intonations and looks in her eyes that would exhibit that painful childhood and young adult experience that she

lived through in her escape from that monstrous society.

In other words, she was a human woman with all the faults and strengths that we all have and she was brilliant.

I think that we owe it to the rational self that she projected as the nature of man to respectfully discard her foolish and ignorant conclusions while taking the purer aspects of her ideas forward with the intensity they deserve.

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

Adam,

I don't think that Ayn Rand ever understood what in those days was called "the balance of terror."

Taking her answer about nuclear superiority literally, you'd have to infer that if the Soviet Union had mounted a small-scale conventional attack on American troops somewhere, the appropriate response would have been a massive American nuclear strike.

Which, in turn, would have led to a massive nuclear counter-strike by the Soviets.

Millions would have been dead in Russia; millions more in the United States.

That's why there was a red phone in the White House.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1972

Q&A, 46:14 through 48:54

Q: [Partly inaudible; refers to Rand rejecting a conception of “groveling masses” dependent on people in power.] I would like to know what your idea, your opinion of the masses is, “masses” meaning those of us who have no outstanding talent, just ordinary people eager to earn a living?

A: Uhh, two things.

There is no human being who has no talent. Every human being, if he uses his mind, has talent to that extent. He should not be pretentious, and he shouldn’t aspire to more than he is able to understand and produce with his own mind. But there is no such thing as a worthless human being; he makes himself that. There is no such thing as “the little people.”

But now let’s suppose, that eahh, a class or a group of people of such limited intelligence that they are really helpless. Well, if you are concerned with them, you should be more of an advocate of the exceptional man than I am, if it’s possible, because it is only by means of the work of the better minds—of men in a free society—that the really helpless people, if they exist, can survive at all. They couldn’t survive in a more primitive society. It is only in an industrial society that they can survive, and an industrial society can exist only in freedom.

But—this part answers your practical question, but before one even considers it, shouldn’t one ask: Why is anybody entitled to concern, interest, and sympathy, because he is undistinguished? If there are such people—and that’s your choice of word, not mine—then I would say that they deserve no further interest. Because what we should be interested in is the talented, the intelligent, the hardworking, the ambitious, the people who want to carry their own weight and make something of themselves—and that’s the overwhelming majority of Americans. [Applause]

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 121)

Mayhew says "No human has no talent" where Rand said "There is no human being who has no talent."

His other editorial changes don't improve on Rand, but don't do her much harm either.

[Rand seems to have meant that “undistinguished,” rather than “helpless,” was the questioner’s word. But it’s not the biggest deal; in the portions of the question that I could hear, the questioner didn’t actually use either word. The questioner said “ordinary,” and “no outstanding talent,” which Judge Lurie relayed as “no talent.”]

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1972

Q&A, 49:00 through 52:26

Q: Miss Rand, I would like to know what differences, if any, other than atheism and religion you have with William F. Buckley, Jr.

[some colloquy with Judge Lurie about microphone placement.]

A: It would be simpler if you ask what similarity do we have [laughter]—and I would say we have none.

A difference such as reason versus mysticism is so much more fundamental—if one can use the term—it affects so much more than politics, that politics isn't even important in that context.

The first issue is reason versus irrationality—mysticism, faith, and an organized faith. The next issue is morality, after which you can come to politics.

Now Mr. Buckley and I are—I assume you mean the whole conservative movement, which he represents—they advocate religion and an organized religion, a religion which, in its past history and present attempts, is very interested in politics. In other words, what they have in mind is a theocracy, a society ruled by religious functionaries, which we haven't had since pre-Middle Ages.

One of the most primitive societies, uhh, there is, like Ancient Egypt, is an example of theocracy. The union of, uh, Catholic Church and state in the, uh, late Middle Ages and Renaissance, which was responsible for the Inquisition, is an example of theocracy.

The view that man is a low-grade, helpless sinner and worm, that the life on earth is, ubbup, I don't know, a den of iniquity or a vale of tears, or whatever they call it [laughter from audience] and the idea that man must not aspire to solve his problems by using his mind, which is what they accuse the liberal movement of the 19th century—which isn't the same as today—when that liberal movement really stood for individual rights, freedom, and free enterprise…ehh, and they, uhh, the Catholics, conservatives, uh, well, thinkers [audience laughs], uh, say that man should not attempt to solve social or earthly problems by means of reason. That's why we failed, because the, uh, liberals of the 19th century tried to go by nothing but, oh, they use the expression "the arrogance of reason." We should all bow to the Pope, and act on faith—and the Pope is the one who has declared that capitalism is worse than Marxism. And, of course, the only morality is the morality of altruism, where it it is our duty to sacrifice, ehh, for the good of others and the glory of God.

What is there in common between that and me? [Laughter and applause]

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 64)

Mayhew explains which Pope was being referred to, and which article Rand wrote in response to the encyclical Populorum Progressio—that bracketed passage of his is useful to the reader, but not relevant here.

His editing removes some rambling. It also eliminates all traces of Rand making fun of certain phrases widely used by Christians.

[Selene]

Bob:

I have not had the detailed time to truly appreciate the heavy lifting that you are engaged in. Suffice it to say that I will be starting at the beginning of the thread over the Christmas season. I have been so out of the loop of information within the "movement" and have a lot of catchup reading to do. I have not to my knowledge read Mayhew, or much Kelly et. al..

I am going to dive into one or both of the new book babes offerings, but what you are undertaking is extremely interesting to me.

Could that section in Post 110 had a pause and a second kind of rhetorical question, I wonder?

"Why is anybody entitled to concern, interest, and sympathy?" New sentence after a quick pause "Because he is undistinguished?"

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

Could that section in Post 110 had a pause and a second kind of rhetorical question, I wonder?

"Why is anybody entitled to concern, interest, and sympathy?" New sentence after a quick pause "Because he is undistinguished?"

Adam,

In speaking, Ayn Rand sometimes used "because" to start a new sentence.

But I don't hear her doing that in this passage. From her standpoint, she'd already made it clear that distinguished individuals generally deserve concern, interest, and sympathy.

You can listen to it on www.atlasshrugged.com. The Ford Hall Forum lectures are listed there by title instead of year: 1972 is "A Nation's Unity."

Of the "new book babes"—should that be the title of a new thread?—Jennifer Burns got access to the Archives and disclosed extensive editorial tampering with Ayn Rand's previously unpublished writings, notes, interviews, lectures, and answers to questions. I picked the Ford Hall Forum Q&A sessions for closer examination because most of them are available on recordings and many of the answers were selected for presentation in Bob Mayhew's book Ayn Rand Answers. I also attended one of the Ford Hall Forum lectures in the 1970s and heard several others on broadcasts, so they are a bit of a trip down memory lane.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Could that section in Post 110 had a pause and a second kind of rhetorical question, I wonder?

"Why is anybody entitled to concern, interest, and sympathy?" New sentence after a quick pause "Because he is undistinguished?"

Adam,

In speaking, Ayn Rand sometimes used "because" to start a new sentence.

But I don't hear her doing that in this passage. From her standpoint, she'd already made it clear that distinguished individuals generally deserve concern, interest, and sympathy.

You can listen to it on www.atlasshrugged.com. The Ford Hall Forum lectures are listed there by title instead of year: 1972 is "A Nation's Unity."

Of the "new book babes"—should that be the title of a new thread?—Jennifer Burns got access to the Archives and disclosed extensive editorial tampering with Ayn Rand's previously unpublished writings, notes, interviews, lectures, and answers to questions. I picked the Ford Hall Forum Q&A sessions for closer examination because most of them are available on recordings and many of the answers were selected for presentation in Bob Mayhew's book Ayn Rand Answers. I also attended one of the Ford Hall Forum lectures in the 1970s and heard several others on broadcasts, so they are a bit of a trip down memory lane.

Robert Campbell

Thanks Robert:

I am looking forward to listening to them myself. I have a strong suspicion that it is going to be a very bittersweet experience for me. Probably going to be very painful in spots.

I think that we could use this image for the thread and include Barbara and Mimi. Possibly start some new book babes off on that path.

Adam

Edited November 28, 2009 by Selene

[Greybird]

[...] Taking her answer about nuclear superiority literally, you'd have to infer that if the Soviet Union had mounted a small-scale conventional attack on American troops somewhere, the appropriate response would have been a massive American nuclear strike.

Which, in turn, would have led to a massive nuclear counter-strike by the Soviets.

Millions would have been dead in Russia; millions more in the United States.

All of which was utterly lost on such slavish disciples as Peter Schwartz. Who insisted — in a full-page ad in the freaking New York Times, fer gawdsake — that the Soviets' shooting down of Korean Air Lines Flight 7 warranted "our" immediate nuclear obliteration of the USSR.

The logical connections involved ... erhm, well, they escape me. {rueful smile} (A U.S. Congressman died on that plane, we might recall. But Schwartz didn't even refer to that among his litany of excuses.)

O'course, genuine disciples aren't prone to using logic.

[Selene]

[...] Taking her answer about nuclear superiority literally, you'd have to infer that if the Soviet Union had mounted a small-scale conventional attack on American troops somewhere, the appropriate response would have been a massive American nuclear strike.

Which, in turn, would have led to a massive nuclear counter-strike by the Soviets.

Millions would have been dead in Russia; millions more in the United States.

All of which was utterly lost on such slavish disciples as Peter Schwartz. Who insisted — in a full-page ad in the freaking New York Times, fer gawdsake — that the Soviets' shooting down of Korean Air Lines Flight 7 warranted "our" immediate nuclear obliteration of the USSR.

The logical connections involved ... erhm, well, they escape me. {rueful smile} (A U.S. Congressman died on that plane, we might recall. But Schwartz didn't even refer to that among his litany of excuses.)

O'course, genuine disciples aren't prone to using logic.

Greybird:

I am not familiar with Peter Schwartz, but that was not just any Congressman. Have you read Charlie Wilson's War, quite enlightening.

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Q&A, 1:00 through 1:39

Q: Miss Rand, would you please explain the current status of NBI and of The Objectivist, and the reasons for them?

A: No, I will not. [Applause]

Since know enough to ask this question, you know that there’s something is going on there. And if you know that, you should know that for 50 cents you can buy the May 1968 issue of The Objectivist, which will tell you what happened and the reasons for it. [Tepid applause]

Ayn Rand Answers: not included

Content-wise, this answer is nothing special.

But in its tone is some of the caginess and craft that Robert Hessen recalled when she was asked point-blank whether she and Nathaniel Branden had had an affair.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Q&A, 1:42 through 5:29

Q: With regard to your position on selfishness, Erich Fromm says precisely the same thing about selfishness when he talks about individual self-esteem and love. Will you comment on your views concerning Erich Fromm’s philosophy about love?

A: Well, indeed, we would be living in Atlantis if men used words so precisely that when a man uses a certain concept, you may be sure he means it, and that it means the same as the concept used by anyone else.

It so happens that, yes, Erich Fromm uses the concept selfishness. Only it is in the exact diametrically opposite sense to the one I use. Uhh, to give you the briefest example of the difference between us and Erich Fromm’s view of love, I would suggest that you read a brief little book he published called The Art of Love [sic], which was very well known, uh, and in which he presents as the proper nature, the morality of love what I in Atlas Shrugged presented in the character of James Taggart. And if you have read Atlas Shrugged you know that he is not a representative of my philosophy, to say the least. [some laughter]

Ehh, Erich Fromm advocates that love must be causeless, and he [Taggart] uses almost the same terms—if not literally the same, the same ideas—as Erich Fromm. Incidentally, his book came out after James Taggart … This book came out I think about a year before Atlas Shrugged. I’m not accusing him or myself of stealing from each other because I don’t know him, I’ve never met him. But it’s fascinating to what extent the logic of the wrong premises works.

He advocated the following. If you love someone for reasons—for given virtues, or character traits, or values in the person—that is, in effect, commercial. You must, uh, love a person without reasons. Otherwise, he claims that it is trading; it is, in effect, capitalistic; and he declares that capitalism is the enemy of love.

And if this is his idea of love, I would say that it is true, except that capitalism wouldn’t have to bother him. He is free to indulge in any kind of love he wants and if causeless love, unearned love is what he wants, he must have his reasons. [Laughter]

But that is the exact opposite of what I advocate. I say that proper love, romantic love, anything which is not a neurotic emotion, is based precisely on, ehr, what he regards as commercial, namely, on justice, on a proper response to the values you observe and admire in a member of the opposite sex. Love is a response to values and, most certainly, if it is to be love, has to be earned—earned by means of the virtues which you have developed in your character. So Erich Fromm and I do not agree.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 136)

His book The Art of Loving presents, as proper, the view of love that in Atlas Shrugged I give to the villain James Taggart. Fromm, like Taggart, says that love must be causeless. (His book came out before Atlas Shrugged, but I didn’t take this conception of love from him.) It’s fascinating to what extent the logic of his wrong premises work [sic]. He says that if you love a person for certain virtues or values, then you’re being commercial. But you should love a person without reason; otherwise, your love is a trade—it’s capitalistic—and capitalism is the enemy of love.

Capitalism is the enemy of his idea of love, although capitalism wouldn’t have to bother with him. He can indulge in any kind of love he wants, and if he wants unearned love, he must have his reasons. But that is the opposite of what I advocate. Proper romantic love is based precisely on what he regards as commercial, namely, on justice—on a proper response to the values you admire in a member of the opposite sex. Love is a response to values, and must be earned by means of your virtues.

There’s no agenda-driven distortion here. It’s just plain ham-handed editing.

The first paragraph and a half are cut, for no apparent reason.

Mayhew feels obliged to tell the reader that James Taggart is a villain, when Rand made her point effectively without needing to use the word.

And whoever did the transcription for him misheard the clause “except that capitalism wouldn’t have to bother him.” It’s not that capitalism needn’t be concerned about Erich Fromm. Rather, it’s Erich Fromm who needn’t be so concerned about capitalism, because in a free society he would not be held back from his pursuit of causeless love.

[Steve Gagne]

[...] Taking her answer about nuclear superiority literally, you'd have to infer that if the Soviet Union had mounted a small-scale conventional attack on American troops somewhere, the appropriate response would have been a massive American nuclear strike.

Which, in turn, would have led to a massive nuclear counter-strike by the Soviets.

Millions would have been dead in Russia; millions more in the United States.

All of which was utterly lost on such slavish disciples as Peter Schwartz. Who insisted — in a full-page ad in the freaking New York Times, fer gawdsake — that the Soviets' shooting down of Korean Air Lines Flight 7 warranted "our" immediate nuclear obliteration of the USSR.

The logical connections involved ... erhm, well, they escape me. {rueful smile} (A U.S. Congressman died on that plane, we might recall. But Schwartz didn't even refer to that among his litany of excuses.)

O'course, genuine disciples aren't prone to using logic.

That flight certainly was a strange situation.

My uncle & aunt won the Massachusetts state lottery shortly before that flight happened, and decided to spend part of their winnings on a far-east/oceania tour. Their flight left New Bedford & stopped over in (I think) Anchorage; they were supposed to make the connecting flight & head to Hong Kong. They took a detour by way of a church & ended up missing the connecting flight. Wierd.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Q&A, 7:42 through 9:33

Q: Miss Rand, isn’t priestly celibacy an official form of birth control?

A: Well, it isn’t so much birth control as it is an example, a declaration of, euh, the tenet that sexuality, or sex as such, is evil, or unworthy in some way of a man who dedicates his life to God.

Uhh, the Catholic Church has explained that it was —in modern times, uh, at least some spokesmen have said it was—not intended as a, uh, disparagement of sex, but simply intended for the purpose of having a priest dedicated exclusively to his calling as a priest and his duty to God, and so that he would not be distracted, in effect, by a divided loyalty or love for woman or a family.

Uh, that might be the reason, but it does not seem likely because—or at least if it is, it is a bad miscalculation—because a happy marriage helps any man or woman in any serious devotion, and certainly if God did not regard—and if there were a deity, I’m sure that He couldn’t—regard love as evil, there would be, in reason, no reason why a priest should not be married.

But there is one of the oldest and very profound indications of the Catholic Church’s antagonism to and condemnation of sex.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 139-140)

Here's a sentence from the answer as Mayhewized:

That’s an unlikely reason; but if it is the reason, it’s a miscalculation, because a happy marriage helps a man or woman in any serious devotion.

These italicized words—e.g., helps—are a favored device of Mayhew’s. They rarely draw on anything in Ayn Rand’s actual wording or her intonation pattern.

[Chris Grieb]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Q&A, 7:42 through 9:33

Q: Miss Rand, isn't priestly celibacy an official form of birth control?

A: Well, it isn't so much birth control as it is an example, a declaration of, euh, the tenet that sexuality, or sex as such, is evil, or unworthy in some way of a man who dedicates his life to God.

Uhh, the Catholic Church has explained that it was —in modern times, uh, at least some spokesmen have said it was—not intended as a, uh, disparagement of sex, but simply intended for the purpose of having a priest dedicated exclusively to his calling as a priest and his duty to God, and so that he would not be distracted, in effect, by a divided loyalty or love for woman or a family.

Uh, that might be the reason, but it does not seem likely because—or at least if it is, it is a bad miscalculation—because a happy marriage helps any man or woman in any serious devotion, and certainly if God did not regard—and if there were a deity, I'm sure that He couldn't—regard love as evil, there would be, in reason, no reason why a priest should not be married.

But there is one of the oldest and very profound indications of the Catholic Church's antagonism to and condemnation of sex.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 139-140)

Robert; Thanks again for doing this work. Showing that Mayhew thinks he's smarter than Ayn Rand is like Nietzsche's comment about not being a flyswatter.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Q&A, 17:23 through 19:40

Q: Recently Paul Samuelson, the neo-Keynesian economist at MIT, gave a short speech, and later on in Newsweek he used the entire time, and in his very first comment made fun of Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand. I would like to know what is your connection, what do you think of Mr. Greenspan, etcetera?

A: I would be happy to answer that question if it were asked by someone else in a different context.

In the way in which you presented it, on principle, I will not answer, for the following reason. If you saw that the commence, comments were derogatory, what is your intention in getting up in public and announcing them? Your action, in being Mr. Samuelson’s transmission belt, or free press agent, whether you intended it as that or not, amounts to that. You in effect are telling me, “Some so-and-so has attacked you and a friend of yours; what do you think of your friend?”

I will not, ek, tell you my opinion of Mr. Greenspan under this circumstance. But my opinion of Mr. Samuelson you should have been able to deduce yourself from whichever remarks of his that you read. That is your job, not mine. [Applause]

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 133)

Mayhew does not mention that the very next question, from a different member of the audience, was about Alan Greenspan’s role in the Nixon administration—and it elicited a more contentful answer.

His edited version of that other answer is on p. 42 of his book.

Why Mayhew took Rand’s first sentence out of the past subjunctive (“if it were asked”) is known only to him.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Q&A, 22:01 through 26:01

Q: While I would agree with the speaker concerning the role of individual decisions in such matters as birth control and abortion, I wonder if the speaker would apply the same ideas about individual decisions to the topics of suicide and euthanasia.

A: Well, it's not, not the same issues, incidentally, because birth control and abortion specifically involve the actions of the individuals who are acting, and to which they, the individuals, have a right. They do not infringe anyone's rights. They act on their own.

Now suicide, it would appear to fall into the same category. I would say yes, in principle a man has the right to commit suicide, but it is enormously inadvisable. [Audience laughs] Only you could not, uh, pass any kind of legal, uh, measure to prevent a suicide. You know, incidentally, they tried it in Soviet Russia—years ago, and I don't know whether they still have it. But they had a wave of suicides of Party members in the 20s, the early revolutionists who were disillusioned. They passed a law that the penalty for suicide is death. [Much laughter] So it exactly illustrates the fact of judging such an issue as suicide.

One would to have to say that there are many, mm, moral reasons why a man should not take his own life. One would also have to say there are situations where he may have perfectly valid reasons, and it is his own life, and there is nothing that the law or other people could do about it.

Now euthanasia is more complex, because here the life of another person is involved. And here I would say in principle, if a man in advance—not under the attack of pain, but maybe even then—uhh, made arrangements that he does not want to have unbearable pain and it can be proved that this was his desire, in such a case, in principle, I would say it's his right and the doctor's right. But it would be a horrible, euhh, issue to attempt to put into law, because I cannot quite project, and I don't know whether anyone could, the safeguards that would have to be introduced in order to prevent any possibility of an unscrupulous doctor in cahoots with, ehh, unscrupulous relatives, euhh, finishing somebody's life, euhh, who is not in pain. That can always happen, and the danger there is the arbitrary power of killing that in this way would be legally given to the doctor.

On the other hand, I would suspect that there've been many such cases about which we do not know and probably should not know. And in, ehh, that, I would have, I would have to say it's up to the doctor involved. Only he can know if he is seeing a truly unbearable torture, and I almost feel like saying I would not assume to pass judgment on him. I truly don't know. The situation is too horrible. I can only say I lean in sympathy towards the position of the doctor who does help the patient to die if necessary, but I would not advocate it as the law.

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 16)

Birth control and abortion involve the actions of the agent alone. They do not infringe on anyone's rights. Suicide falls into the same category. So in principle, a man has the right to commit suicide—but it is very inadvisable. Further, a government can't pass laws to prevent suicide. The Soviets tried that in Russia in the 1920s, because of a wave of suicides among Party members. The penalty was death—which illustrates the problem. In general, there are many reasons why a man should not take his life. There are situations, however, in which suicide is perfectly valid, and it is his own life; there is nothing the law or other people can do about it.

Euthanasia is more complex, because the life of another person is involved. If a man makes arrangements stating that he does not want to feel unbearable, and it can be proved that this was his desire, in principle I'd say it is his right and the doctor's right to perform euthanasia. But it would be difficult to put this into law, because of the safeguards needed to prevent unscrupulous doctors in cahoots with unscrupulous relatives from killing somebody who is not dying and in pain. The danger here is legally giving to the doctor the power of killing. I suspect, however, that there are many cases of euthanasia about which we do not know and probably shouldn't know; in such cases, it is up to the doctor involved. Only he can know if a terminally ill patient is suffering truly unbearable torture. I feel like saying I would not pass judgment on him. I don't know. The situation is too horrible. I sympathize with the doctor who helps the patient die, but I would not advocate euthanasia as a law.

I'll give Robert Mayhew credit here for not trying to make Rand appear surer of herself on the euthanasia issue than she really was.

However, he sticks in another one of those uncharacteristic italicized words ("and it is his own life"). He turns "infringe," which Rand used the old-fashioned way, as a transitive verb, into "infringe on." He tries to make Rand over into an academic applied ethicist, employing words like "agent" that were not part of her philosophical vocabulary. But he also has her speak of suicide as a "valid" action when she spoke of valid reasons for committing suicide.

[Robert Campbell]

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.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1968

Q&A, 19:42 through 21:55

Q: I’d like to change it a little. I’d like to know what role Mr. Greenspan is playing with Mr. Nixon. Whether he has a central role as economic advisor, or is he just one of many?

A: As far as I know, Mr., ehh, Greenspan does not intend to go into politics. He was working for Mr. Nixon, in effect, as a dollar-a-year man—as a volunteer, not an employee.

He has a business of his own, and as far as I know, uhh, he could not contemplate, uh, taking a job in Washington. He is at present still acting as Mr. Nixon’s economic advisor; you know, he has just recently been appointed to act as Mr. Nixon’s personal representative on the Budget Commission, on, uh, the, in regard to the budget which Johnson has to prepare. Ah, and on that Budget Commission Mr. Greenspan will act in Mr. Nixon’s interests as his representative, but that is all I know of his plans, and he is not really interested in practical pol, politics as such.

What was he doing on the campaign? Mr. Nixon’s top economic coordinator, er, that is, for internal affairs. There was another man who was the top coordinator of the various advisors for foreign affairs, and Mr. Greenspan was advisor for domestic affairs. And, of course, an Objectivist who is an economic advisor to a president, even temporarily in a campaign, is a marvelous sign for the country and Mr. Nixon. [Applause]

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 42)

[Nixon had just been elected, and would not be inaugurated for a little while yet, as is clear from Rand’s reference to the Budget Commission.

Mayhew does not remark on Rand’s use of the phrase “top coordinator,” which was not used in the Nixon campaign so far as I know—but did appear in Atlas Shrugged.]