Rational government

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

So, essentially, one of the basic premises of your arguments is that:

individual human beings cannot act responsibly, but those same individual human beings somehow become inured with the genetics of Plato's philosopher king and will protect us poor, immoral and violent human animals.

End quote

Anarchy is playing ball with no rules. I just want to dispense with that as a futile, dead end. Nor do I envision a philosopher King, or Queen, in Ayn’s case, to wrench us from our evolutionary baggage.

Jimbo writes in his introduction to Wikipedia:

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet has free access to the sum of all human knowledge . . .

And I pessimistically think:

It wouldn't make a penny’s worth of difference in terms of human ignorance, stupidity, and folly.

Yet in the same breath I can add with certainty:

The Reality is thrilling. We have the tools necessary for an infinite expansion into the Cosmos. (I recommend everyone periodically go to the Symphony of Science web site to recharge your batteries with wonder and optimism. Monetarily support that site and OL)

Now pessimism: I can prove the need for Government by pointing at the Secret Societies of Teenagers. Not just today’s teens. I am thinking back to the sixties when I was in my late teens too: So much idealism and so much folly. In ten or twenty years this new batch of teens will be making the big decisions. Doom and gloom!

Optimism!

Into space we will ascend. First exploration and mining. Then true commerce. Be certain, all of our eggs will not be in one basket. Expansion will be via space going wagon trains. Will there be barbarians? The wagon trains will be armed with state of the art weapons.

What will propel us into space? Not imaginary Anarchism or an imaginary Objectivist Government. A ‘relatively free’ society will supply the philosophy, science, culture, and required, excess wealth to go where no one has gone before.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Peter:

Anarchy is playing ball with no rules. I just want to dispense with that as a futile, dead end. Nor do I envision a philosopher King, or Queen, in Ayn's case, to wrench us from our evolutionary baggage.

Well now, that is patently false.

Therefore, we need to define terms.

Your definition is ____________________.

You know the way this one goes...you show me yours and...

Adam

[Peter]

Baal Chatzaf wrote:

Is rational government anything like military intelligence or corporate ethics?

No.

I actually was in MI in a limited way, after the North Koreans took over the Intelligence gathering ship Pueblo. MI was rational but tedious. The most fun I had was sending out disinformation. I was around five miles south of the DMZ one day, sending out my pseudo troop movements when an officer stuck his head in my 'Winnegago' and said, What the hell are you doing? Pull your troops moving back from the DMZ, you idiot!"

My phony reports had caused a massing of troops and sniper fire from the North Koreans. Wow, I thought. Am I that good? Maybe I will write fiction when this is over. And now you insinuate rational government is a fiction?

Keep up the good work!

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[tjohnson]

Into space we will ascend. First exploration and mining. Then true commerce. Be certain, all of our eggs will not be in one basket. Expansion will be via space going wagon trains. Will there be barbarians? The wagon trains will be armed with state of the art weapons.

Sounds like "The Traders" part of Isaac Asimov's The Foundation Trilogy

[Peter]

You wrote:

Sounds like "The Traders" part of Isaac Asimov's The Foundation Trilogy

I was thinking about that iin the back of my mind.

While we are on the subject of trading:

Contrarian Investor Sees Economic Crash in China

by David Barboza

Friday, January 8, 2010

provided by

James S. Chanos built one of the largest fortunes on Wall Street by foreseeing the collapse of Enron and other highflying companies whose stories were too good to be true.

Now Mr. Chanos, a wealthy hedge fund investor, is working to bust the myth of the biggest conglomerate of all: China Inc . . .

Peter

off to get supplies for the big games.

[Russell]

Note from MSK: Proven plagiarist (see here). Content removed and poster banned.

[BaalChatzaf]

Maybe I will write fiction when this is over. And now you insinuate rational government is a fiction?

Well, good government is fiction. All the government that have ever existed so far are bad governments or worse governments.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The very idea of the USA government being based on checks and balances is an implicit acknowledgment that government exists to contain the worst elements of human nature, not the best.

You don't need checks and balances to contain virtues. You need them to contain an evil like a dictatorship.

The Founding Fathers blasted the personality cult kind of dictatorship out of the water. Now we need to see how we can blast the "growing government" kind of dictatorship out of the water.

Giving up on containing bullies and thugs will not do that. On the contrary, it will ensure the rise of personality cult dictators-for-life in America.

Gang warfare is already a growing fact in our cities. Notice that the gangs don't really fight the cops—nor even ordinary citizens—as a priority. They fight each other.

Michael

[Selene]

Precisely Michael:

Even if we posit an island anarchist society that has resolved issues of the:

1) competing protective agencies;

2)"process" for non-violently resolving economic disputes; and

3) inevitable person who becomes or is psychotic and explodes;

We still bump up against the inevitable ships on the horizon issue that are armed and making demands by the current communications that exist.

Clearly, I can certainly live with a Constitutionally limited state.

My utopian ideal is a stateless one. Thoreau's Walden not Skinners lol.

Adam

[Peter]

Adam wrote:

Clearly, I can certainly live with a Constitutionally limited state . . . My utopian ideal is a stateless one. Thoreau's Walden not Skinners lol.

end quote

Mayberry exists today. There are places, through shared culture and luck, people are honest and law abiding. The citizens are never brow beaten or forced to do anything.

Hello Sheriff Andy Taylor? Evenin’ Sheriff. How is Aunt Bea? Good. Good. Could you send Barney over to the college gym? There’s a bunch of rowdy’s with signs, chanting and making trouble at the Tea Party. Right, Sheriff. They’re all from out of town.

A sheriff is needed. Rarely, but still needed.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[BaalChatzaf]

My utopian ideal is a stateless one. Thoreau's Walden not Skinners lol.

Adam

If you are mugged in your utopia, to whom do you go or from whom do you seek aid and comfort?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

My utopian ideal is a stateless one. Thoreau's Walden not Skinners lol.

Adam

If you are mugged in your utopia, to whom do you go or from whom do you seek aid and comfort?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Umm Ba'al that was meant as my fantasy state as in utopian ideal.

Sort of like the Eloi with brains and industriousness and no Morlochs[sp ?].

Adam

[Peter]

Your definition is ____________________.

My definition of Anarchism is the same as Rand's and Peikoffs. I am just more willing to discuss it. I wish they had more thoroughly addressed some of the more serious Anarchists, but c'est la vie.

We've discussed how ARI views Objectivism as a closed system. I am more of a contextualism. So far I have seen nothing to change my mind. Show me your working model of Anarchism or we are still talking about the reification of the Zero. About nothing. No thing. A dead end waste of time.

I think people who believe in deities, the supernatural, a flat earth, ESP, and Anarchism are True Believers.

Some general quotes, since someone complained about too many quotes. None of these are from Ayn. My two favorite are the last two. I think I lifted these from Neal Boortz's site, years ago.

Live long and prosper,

Peter Taylor

"In general the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to the other."

Voltaire

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."

H. L. Mencken

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." --Samuel Adams

Teddy Roosevelt in a speech before the Knights of Columbus.

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation of all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."

From Alexander Tyler. No, he wasn't writing about the United States. This quote is well over one hundred years old. Tyler was writing about the fall of the Athenian Republic.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

Alexander Tyler

When will the world learn that a million men are of no importance compared with one man?

Henry David Thoreau

Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run, these are the only people who count.

Robert Heinlein

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."

Julius Caesar

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests, " I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

Barry Goldwater

[Selene]

Peter:

I am glad you reduced that quota of quotes.

You should pay more attention to names. The person's name is Russell.

At any rate, I have no idea how Ayn or Lenny defined anarchism. So since you do know, define it please.

Additionally, as an assumption, is the individual the primary entity in the geographical area we are postulating or the state?

Adam

rapidly making lots of quotes not to use on this thread

[BaalChatzaf]

Most people can't think, most of the remainder won't think, the small fraction who do think mostly can't do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self-delusion- in the long run, these are the only people who count.

Robert Heinlein

Very Randian

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Russell]

Note from MSK: Proven plagiarist (see here). Content removed and poster banned.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Peter]

Wow, Russell. That is some good writing. You wrote that three hours ago. I have been doing other things left unsaid, but defiinitely productive, and watching Dallas kick the butts of the Philadelphia Eagles, who have the worst fans and the worst sportsmanship on the entire planet, except for the Manchester United Football Team, which is really a soccar team.

You wrought:

The Constitution? It is automatically assumed that the constitution protects rights, but it's unmistakably obvious that the Constitution affords little protection. The “American experiment”—lofty and grand as it was, with its profundity and flaws, was a dismal failure, for it merely postponed potential violations.

End quote

200 years of ever diminishing returns I admit, but 200 years! What a wondrous marvel of social engineering, Russell!

You wrote:

Governments, at anytime and anywhere in the world and at all levels, routinely subject people to harassment, property seizure, and imprisonment.

End quote

Uh, oh. The people who usually leap to that confusion are people who are about to be, or worry about being, or have been busted. I was a cop . . . I will leave it at that.

Of course you could also be talking about eminent domain, which I have been a victim of. Naw I will pass on that too, for now.

You wrote:

Despite the Constitution, an agency that holds a mammoth and *exclusive monopoly on the use of force* is a grave danger. History has shown this in empirical spades time and again . . . then by that very argument a centralized State cannot be permitted to exist.

end quote

Yes, it is a grave danger, but I do not agree that it should not exist. I am not ready to throw a brick or jump under the wheels of the Juggarnaut.

You wrote:

You are all smarter than this. As Objectivists, you are all educated to understand how monopolies are created and maintained. It has nothing to do with the free-market. (And where such “monopolies” exist, it is by merit, not force.)

end quote

You are contradicting yourself in the same sentence. You say it has nothing to do with the free-market . . . so, . . . then how can monopolies exist by merit not force? You should rewrite that. I think I know what you mean.

Tell that to Standard Oil. Tell that to any of the “Robber Barons,” in the 1800’s. Of course they bribed government officials, but should the government have the right to stifle free trade? No!

You wrote:

. . . what is required is to sanction a group (a gang) that has already overpowered the population, a gang that has been given every means to do so without any accountability or *actual functioning restraints*

end quote

The consent of the governed is a complex philosophical issue. It is legitimate, but it is too late at night here in the EST to illuminate.

You wrote:

The *philosophically grounded anarchist society* that implements the DRO (Dispute-Resolution Organization) model would greatly ensure that nobody (or any groups) would have an *exclusive monopoly* on power because it recognizes that human beings have free-will and are capable of abusing power—a power that affects millions upon millions of people. THIS fact IS the case for a stateless society. THIS is your actual “checks and balances”, not a piece of paper called the “constitution" - and certainly not by giving a gang total (or near total) power over others. That is history's grave and bloody error.

end quote

Ah, Russell. If it were only that easy. What if everyone had weapons of mass destruction? What if the internet showed you how to build an atom bomb in your garage? Oh, Wait!!! It does. So, if I piss you off, you can take out a city?

I will leave the incriminations for you to discover.

Russell, there is no stateless society. Except as a vaccum or interim period in history it has never existed. It is a dystopia. It is a zero. Didn’t exist. Doesn’t exist. Will never exist. Prove me wrong, True Believer. Show me Eden.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

"Yes, it is a grave danger, but I do not agree that it should not exist. I am not ready to throw a brick or jump under the wheels of the Juggernaut[sic]." <<<< FALSE DICHOTOMY warning.

[Peter]

Russell wrote:

Yes, it is a grave danger, but I do not agree that it should not exist. I am not ready to throw a brick or jump under the wheels of the Juggernaut.

end quote

How many people are you going to convince? Seriously. What are the odds of anything ever coming from your efforts? I have written several letters to the editor in the last year and I will include a copy of my last one.

Wow, did I get some flack for this! Are you Loonie Tunes? Do you know how hard it would be to get a Constitutional Convention and then to vote ‘Yes’ on something as risky as this? Look at America’s demographics. Are the liberal states going to vote for this? A veto for every piece of legislation? CRAZY! (actually, not every piece) There will be fraud!

To be fair to myself, the letter was meant to cause a buzz, and to get people to start talking about a constitutional convention. But still, wouldn’t it be nice?

My letter was printed in the Wednesday December 16th 2009 of the local paper, in Maryland. 250 words max.

Feel free to quote it, with or without attribution, to amend or correct it, and to consider it your own. Work the word Anarchy into it. Good luck with that.

The letter.

The Constitution has flaws. Expanded powers have been assumed throughout our history because of those original flaws. James Madison remarked that because of checks and balances, power WON’T be snatched from one branch of government to make another branch more powerful. Rather the power will be snatched from the rights of the people.

We of the Tea Party Movement do not suggest a negation of the power-to-tax clause of article 1 section 2), because "government" as such might not be possible. Voluntary taxation would not have led to the defeat of Hitler or The Soviet Union. However, war bonds, savings bonds, paying for services, and a national lottery, could keep mandatory taxation to a minimum.

How do we get our country back? An amendment to the constitution could be a permanent fix. What if an amendment to The Constitution established a fourth branch of Government called, “We The People?”

“We” would be heard frequently. What if the 4th branch of government, “We The People,” had the power of the VETO? The VETO could be crushing in its power. Any new law or taxation could be vetoed by perhaps, one half of all those who vote yes or no to veto any particular legislation. Veto fraud could be avoided if random fraud testing were done. The League of Women Voters could host it.

We will need to wait until after the 2010 or 2012 elections to begin, because of the difficulty of the amendment process: Approval by two-thirds of both houses of the federal legislature, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states. Either that, or a Constitutional Convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by special state conventions.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Now, can anyone imagine “Anarchism” ever being voted in? if The United States of America collapses in 2012, how many former states will opt for Anarchism? Will any pockets of Anarchism be tolerated?

If you want to spread Objectivism in America, you don't start out by emphasizing Rand's Atheism. That is a deal breaker. If you want to improve America and fix the Constitution, you don't start by talking about Anarchy, not even as a final withering away of the state. Anarchy is a deal breaker.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Peter:

I would ask you to attempt to try to learn to use the quote function. I know that is asking a lot of you. I suspect that you expect your ramblings to have the force of the gun you used to carry.

However, you wrote the following, not Russel, as far as I can grasp. Digging through your barely coherent rantings/posts is rather difficult.

Russell wrote: Yes, it is a grave danger, but I do not agree that it should not exist. I am not ready to throw a brick or jump under the wheels of the Juggernaut[sic].

How many people are you going to convince?

Let's see...

Christ had 12-13.

Lenin had about 7-8.

Rand had about 10-12 in the "collective" [this is my guess from the different statements of members]

Shall I continue to provide you with some facts about numbers and movements, or will you gracefully concede this point?

Are you Loonie Tunes?

Do you always attempt to use ad hominem arguments? Does that make you feel more "correct" by demeaning a person that you voluntarily chose to address on a point?

If you want to spread Objectivism in America, you don't start out by emphasizing Rand's Atheism.

Well, I finally found something that I could agree with you on. This is correct as to a lead argument, but to evade it would lack integrity...yes.

Adam

mulling over new standards for police officers

Edited January 10, 2010 by Selene

[Peter]

Selene wrote:

However, you wrote the following, not Russel, as far as I can grasp. Digging through your barely coherent rantings/posts is rather difficult.

End quote

Sorry, I am still used to older ways of email.

Is Selene your first, last, or a pseudonym?

My rantings as you term them, are meant in a benevolent way. Someone recently told me, not on this list, that I should not try to convince someone, because I will sound too ardent and off-putting.

I recently posted a thread from the old Atlantis/Owl website about “Evil Ideas.” It includes information that was still fresh about The Split, ARI shunning etc. I had forgotten how Anarchists were pretty much ignored as loonies back then, by Objectivists. And Determinists, were scorned, and apparently still are by many. I have a lot of old letters from 1999 until 2005 that I find interesting which is why I repost them.

I honestly cannot remember which person you are or if you consider yourself an Anarchist. I am getting old. Those boxes in boxes with quotes throw me off, but with repetition I should get better.

I want a Rational Anarchist to show me a model that they think would work. None ever has. I am pointed at this aspect of the theory or that but never shown anything all encompassing. Read Rothbard, I am told, or someone else. No thanks.

And of course most Anarchists want to discredit and even trash the US Constitution, which is destructive. Let’s fix it. That is the only option.

Now is this a rant? I will try to improve before you shun me.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Selene]

Peter:

Chill. We are approximately the same age 62-63.

I have not ruled "anarchism" out as a way to live.

I am a limited Constitutional originalist. Our founding is miraculous and was an exponential change in the nature of government.

I love this country that is why I am willing to chance anarchism, [if we could ever agree on what the hell we mean by it],

rather than see it progress to a soft tyranny [Toqueville], which we are dangerously close to now with the exponential rise of the administrative state₁

and watch it become a hard tyranny.

My objection with the way you tossed anyone who even raised the issue into one "loony" bag of "bomb-throwing nihilists" [my words, not yours] was not proper for this

forum.

I just decided to draw you out.

Now can we start fresh?

Adam

no harm no foul NY City rules

1 Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin Chapter 5 "On Federalism" Pages 49-60.

Edited January 10, 2010 by Selene

[Peter]

I am leaving the whole letter for you to see. So you are Adam, not Selene. Who is Selene?

Adam do you know of any way I can receive each letter to my hotmail account, and then I could respond from my hotmail box. Is that possible?

If you want to chance living as an anarchist then you are doing away with 'America' (accept as a territorial name, perhaps.) Logically, that means you are not a patriot. I am a limited Constitutional originalist, also. So, perhaps you are a patriot.

May an Anarchist take an oath of office to support The Constitution? Would he be lying? If you take offense at these questions, it may show how different we are.

When I was in the military, I was investigated, beyond a normal background check, because I was to be placed into a sensitive position. The FBI talked to my neighbors. My background check was over very quickly, because I had been a military officer's son (a dependent,) and my neighbors were all in the military or their dependents. They already "knew" me but followed procedure.

So when someone says to me, "I have not ruled out anarchy," I already know you are not one of US. If I were investigating you for a sensitive position . . .?

I will go and find Ayn's testimony before HUAC, and post it. You may have read it, but others may be seeing it for the first time.

Another question. If you are working to overthrow the govenment of the United States could you not be up for a charge of Sedition?

Believe me. I am quite cool and rational when I ask this, and I am not ranting.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Peter:

Chill. We are approximately the same age 62-63.

I have not ruled "anarchism" out as a way to live.

I am a limited Constitutional originalist. Our founding is miraculous and was an exponential change in the nature of government.

I love this country that is why I am willing to chance anarchism, [if we could ever agree on what the hell we mean by it],

rather than see it progress to a soft tyranny [Toqueville], which we are dangerously close to now with the exponential rise of the administrative state₁

and watch it become a hard tyranny.

My objection with the way you tossed anyone who even raised the issue into one "loony" bag of "bomb-throwing nihilists" [my words, not yours] was not proper for this

forum.

I just decided to draw you out.

Now can we start fresh?

Adam

no harm no foul NY City rules

1 Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin Chapter 5 "On Federalism" Pages 49-60.

[Peter]

Adam, and everyone, here is a brief thread that includes Ayn's testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee, or HUAC.

Fascinating.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

From: "William Dwyer" <wsdwyer@home.com>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Ayn Rand and Principles! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 21:08:06 -0700

George Smith quoted a poster on the Human_ism list, who stated,

"Lets not forget to mention how she [Rand] supported the 1950s commie witch hunts...."

George replied,

"This is an absolute, flat-out lie. Do you have any respect for truth at all, or do you just make up this tripe as you go along?"

George, what the poster is probably alluding to is Rand's HUAC testimony, which she gave back in 1947. There was a discussion about the morality of her action a couple of years ago on the "Philosophy of Objectivism" list. At the time (March 22, 1999), I posted the following defense of Rand's testimony: I wrote,

"If the commies were fired for being exposed, then their employment relationship was nonconsensual, to begin with. In that case, all the testimony did was reveal the truth, and allow the employer to make a fully informed choice.

"By objecting to the loss of their jobs, the blacklisted were claiming a right to be employed without the consent and against the will of the employer. They were demanding the right to an unconsenting, involuntary relationship.

"The HUAC testimony did not, therefore, deny their right to freedom of speech; it simply upheld the employer's right to freedom of association."

Dan Griffing and Mike Hardy posted critical replies to these comments, which I answered with a long response. At the risk of re-opening this discussion, I will reproduce that response in a second post on this issue, and you can see if you find anything of value in it. If you agree with me, perhaps, it will give you some ammunition for your participation on the Humanist list.

Bill

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Ayn Rand and Principles! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 23:46:32 -0500

Bill Dwyer wrote:

"George, what the poster is probably alluding to is Rand's HUAC testimony, which she gave back in 1947. There was a discussion about the morality of her action a couple of years ago on the "Philosophy of Objectivism" list. At the time (March 22, 1999), I posted the following defense of Rand's testimony."

Yes, I knew that is what he was referring to. (My adversary later posted a link to her testimony.)

Here is my response. I haven't looked into this for a while, so I run the risk of making some factual errors. I would therefore appreciate it if Atlanteans would read the following for mistakes. Am I overstating the case in Rand's defense? If so, I would like to know now, so I can rectify matters. (For example, I couldn't find BB's biography among stacks of books, so I just worked from memory, but my memory is not always as reliable as I would like.)

Keep in mind that my adversaries were running off at the mouth about Rand being "homophobic" and anything else they could think of to discredit her political philosophy. Their attitude is clearly reflected

in the subject heading above.

[This was my reply]

I've read the testimony before. I never said that Rand didn't appear before HUAC -- but she was also clear in her condemnation of its attempt to use governmental power to censor or suppress.

This subject (including Rand's reasons for agreeing to testify) are discussed in Barbara Branden's biography, *The Passion of Ayn Rand.* It is also discussed in the film documentary, "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life."

You said that she "supported the 1950s commie witch hunts...." She most emphatically did not. I personally think she made a strategic error in agreeing to testify, but her reasons were not what you suggest. She was

clear in her disapproval of governmental interference in the movie industry or anywhere else, for that matter.

George H. Smith

From: "William Dwyer" <wsdwyer@home.com>

To: <Atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Ayn Rand and Principles! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 21:58:41 -0700

The following is an answer to Dan Griffing and Mike Hardy on Rand's HUAC testimony, which I posted to the "Philosophy of Objectivism" list back in March of 1999. I am reproducing it here, because I thought it might provide some ammunition for George's participation on the Human_ism list, in which one of the posters criticized Rand for supporting the Communist "witchhunt" in the 1950's.

***********************

"ABSTRACT: In a previous post, I claimed that far from denying Communists the right to freedom of speech, the HUAC testimony upheld the employers' right to freedom of association. Both Dan Griffing and Mike Hardy challenge this claim. I answer them as follows:

---------------------------------------

"Griffing argues that, instead of upholding the employers' right to freedom of association, the HUAC testimony violated the communists' right to freedom of association by penalizing them for their membership in the Communist Party.

He states:

>"Blacklisting" was a collusion between all of the competing companies in an industry not to hire any of those

who were on the government-sponsored list. To be blacklisted is to have one's profession ended. It might be

a great plot device for Howard Roark to get blacklisted and have to work in a quarry, but having it done to most people because the government has "Outed" them is a destruction of their values through government coercion and is a violation of their rights. >

"Is it? Rand's comments on this issue are worth considering. She states:

"The whole conception of civil rights (of free speech, free assembly, free political organization) applies to and

belongs in...a realm that precludes the use of physical violence. These rights are based on and pertain to the

peaceful activity of spreading or preaching ideas, of dealing with men by intellectual persuasion.

"Therefore, one cannot invoke these rights to protect an organization such as the Communist Party, which not merely preaches, but actually engages in acts of violence, murder, sabotage, and spying in the interests of a foreign government. This takes the Communist Party out of the realm of civil law and puts it into the realm of criminal law. And the fact that Communists are directed and financed by a foreign power puts them into the realm of treason and military law.

"The Thomas Committee [HUAC's chairman was J. Parnell Thomas] was inquiring, not into a question of opinion, but into a question of fact, the fact being membership in the Communist Party.

"The Thomas Committee did not ask anyone whether he believed in Communism, but asked only whether he had joined the Communist Party. Membership in the Communist Party does not consist merely of sharing the ideas of that Party. That Party is a formal, closed, and secret organization. Joining it involves more than a matter of ideas. It involves an agreement to take orders to commit actions -- criminal and treasonable actions.

[snip]

"Membership in the Communist Party is a formal act of joining a formal organization whose aims, by its own

admission, include acts of criminal violence. Congress has no right to inquire into ideas or opinions, but has every right to inquire into criminal activities. Belonging to a secret organization that advocates criminal actions comes into the sphere of the criminal, not the ideological."

[snip]

"It is extremely important not to let this whole issue be considered as an issue of the freedom of speech. Nobody has interfered with the right of the Hollywood Ten to their freedom of speech... No legal penalties of any kind were to be imposed on them for their admission of membership in the Communist Party, if they had chosen to admit it. Yet they were screaming that they were asked to incriminate themselves. To incriminate themselves in what manner?"

[_Journals of Ayn Rand_, pp. 381-384.]

"Griffing notes that blacklisting the Communists ended their profession. That's true, but I don't see how the refusal to employ someone violates his rights. He doesn't have the right to work at a particular job if no one who is offering that job chooses to hire him. To claim otherwise is to endorse involuntary servitude; it is to make the employer a slave of the employee. Indeed, since the Communists were using the entertainment industry as a medium for Soviet propaganda, Hollywood was not only within it's rights not to employ them; it had a moral *obligation* not to.

"Griffing says that the blacklisting violated the anti-trust laws, as if this were sufficient to discredit it. But the

anti-trust laws were themselves a violation of the employers' right to freedom of association, of which the

blacklisting was a legitimate expression.

"Besides, professional ostracism is one of the most benign ways of dealing with members of a violent revolutionary organization directed by a foreign power. Commiserating with these scoundrels because they lost their jobs is beyond the pale -- especially when they used those jobs to infect the entertainment industry with misleading propaganda."

* * * * *

"I stated that if Hollywood employees were fired for being exposed as members of the Communist Party, then their employment relationship was nonconsensual, to begin with. Mike Hardy asks:

>Why do you say that? That would be the case only if the employer had earlier told the employee that it refuses to employ communists. If the employer decides not to employ communists, but then neglects to say so and hence gets a communist employee on its staff (who never denied nor affirmed being a communist), that's just the employer's own negligence, not a fraud by the employee. >

"But the employment would still be nonconsensual, if the employer would not have consented to it had he known of the employee's political affiliation. That doesn't mean that the employee is guilty of fraud for not revealing his political affiliation, if he isn't asked. But it does mean that he's perpetrating a fraud, if he deliberately conceals his affiliation because he has good reason to believe that he'd be fired if the employer found out, since, in that case, he'd be working for the employer under false pretenses.

"It is for this reason that I believe that fraud WAS involved in the case of the Communists. If they thought

that their employers didn't object to employing members of the Communist Party, then why were they so upset at being asked about their membership? Why did they refuse to answer on the grounds that it might "incriminate" them, if they knew that no *legal* penalties would be imposed upon them?

"Evidently, they had good reason to think that if their employers found out, those employers would not want to deal with them, in which case, they WERE holding their jobs by fraud, because they were attempting to conceal their true identities, knowing full well that if the employers discovered their membership in the Communist Party, they would no longer accept them as employees.

"In any case, fraud was the least of the Communists' vices; these enemies of freedom were committed to crimes of a far more serious nature. If one is concerned with political injustice, then it is the *victims* of Communism who deserve one's sympathy, not the blacklisted members of the Communist Party."

Bill

From: Ellen Lewit <elewit@mindspring.com>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Ayn Rand and Principles! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 00:58:32 -0400

She did testify. Many of those who did were not in favor of witch hunts but they saw the problem with communism and wanted to say something about it and the growing socialistic thought in the country. They played into the hands of men who then used them. Others who were not actually communists but rather misguided socialistic liberals protested and were blacklisted. Or not even that but who had visited a meeting or were named by others. There were those who would have even admitted their errors but would not name other people. And then there were those who were blacklisted because they did testify.

It was a tragic error for the country. What is worse there seems to have been an anti-Semitic slant to it as well. Consider how many Jews or those of Jewish descent were in Hollywood at the time since they were not welcomed in other professions. They were on both sides of the problem.

Perhaps it was part of the last death throes of the madness of the thirties and forties. A sad time. Ayn Rand was certainly not to blame. May be you should have explained the situation to the poor ignorant fool who knew so little of the period as to divide it into the good guys and the bad ones. I'm afraid you played into his hands.

Ellen

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

Reply-To: "George H. Smith" <smikro@earthlink.net>

To: "*Atlantis" <atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Ayn Rand and Principles! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 00:21:13 -0500

I was aware that Rand had testified before HUAC (I had read her testimony previously) but that was not the specific charge leveled by my adversary. (See my last post.) Nevertheless, I think you are right inasmuch as my response could have been much better. (I was obviously very angry when I wrote it, since I have been battling lie after lie for several days now. Nonetheless, it is always a bad idea to write a post in the heat of passion, especially when factual matters are involved.)

The trouble is that these people really don't care about extenuating circumstances; they are just out to get Rand, and any detailed explanation on my part won't even get read, much less seriously considered. We are talking about Rand-bashers of the highest order here -- and although I don't for a moment believe that I can influence their attitudes, there are many lurkers on that list who are more reasonable.

I appreciate the information provided by you and Bill Dwyer. This issue may just evaporate, since I don't think my adversary is interested in reading up on any details.

Personally, I have a problem with the whole HUAC business. True, voluntary blacklisting is acceptable by libertarian standards, but in this case there was obviously a good deal of governmental intimidation

involved as well. It's a complicated issue.

In any case, if I committed any serious errors, I will simply acknowledge them up front. Even though this might prove embarrassing, given my strident post, I think it is a matter of intellectual honesty -- even though my adversaries would never dream of reciprocating in similar circumstances.

Ghs

From: Ellen Stuttle <egould@mail.hartford.edu>

To: atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: ATL: Re: Ayn Rand and Principles! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 03:05:11 -0400

An excellent first step is to acknowledge that horrendous injustices were done by those committees. Don't try to defend the committees (which were a disaster from OUR standpoint too, because of what they spelled in the

increase of governmental power); just explain her reasons for testifying, and refer to what she actually said. (It's clear if you read her testimony that she wasn't even being listened to by her examiners.)

ES

From: "William Dwyer" <wsdwyer@home.com>

To: <Atlantis@wetheliving.com>

Subject: ATL: Re: Ayn Rand and Principles! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 00:15:29 -0700

I don't think Rand would agree with you here. Didn't she defend HUAC on the grounds that it was investigating a criminal organization?

Bill

Ayn Rand's HUAC Testimony

Introduction

The following is a full transcript of the testimony by Ayn Rand before the United States House of Representatives' Committee on Un-American Activities (commonly known as the House Un-American Activities Committee, or HUAC) on October 20, 1947.

This annotated transcript of Rand's testimony differs somewhat from others found on the internet. Most transcripts are unedited reproductions of the testimony as it was given in the official Government Printing Office record ("Hearings Regarding Communist Infiltration of the Motion Picture Industry"). While unedited transcripts are valuable documents for historians, they can sometimes be less than enlightening for the general reader due to a lack of context. For example, speakers may refer to people and events that are not fully described anywhere in the text.

To make Rand's testimony more meaningful to contemporary readers, this transcript is annotated with explanatory information not found in other versions. It is still a complete transcript, and none of the speakers' words have been altered or omitted. Because the exact history of the hearings and Rand's role in them is widely misunderstood, substantial background material is also provided.

Background

The History of HUAC

The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) became a permanent (or "standing") committee of the House in 1945, having already existed on a temporary basis since 1938. Although it was charged with monitoring possible foreign influences in the United States, including pro-fascist or pro-Nazi activity, HUAC is most widely known for its investigations of suspected Communist influence in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Along with the investigation of Alger Hiss, the investigation of Communist influence in the motion picture industry is one of the defining episodes in the committee's history. Although HUAC would continue to exist into the 1960s, these memorable hearings are its best-known legacy. The committee's name was changed in 1969, and it was abolished in 1975, when jurisdiction over investigation of foreign influence was transferred to the House Judiciary Committee.

HUAC and Hollywood

In September 1947, HUAC subpoenaed 41 witnesses for its hearings on Communist influence in Hollywood. Of these, 19 were considered "unfriendly" witnesses. The eleven unfriendly witnesses who eventually came to the hearings in October 1947 became the most famous participants in the HUAC hearings. Ten of them -- writers Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Ring Lardner Jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott, and Dalton Trumbo, along with director Edward Dmytryk -- refused to answer questions, denounced the committee, and were held in contempt of Congress. The contempt citations led to brief prison terms for all ten when the Supreme Court refused to reverse their convictions. (The eleventh unfriendly witness, German-born writer Bertolt Brecht, testified he wasn't a Communist and then promptly went back to Europe -- ultimately settling in Communist-controlled East Berlin.) They became known as the "Hollywood Ten," and would be blacklisted from the industry for many years afterward. The blacklist itself was not developed by HUAC, but by a group of studio executives who met shortly after the hearings and adopted a resolution against employing Communists, including the Hollywood Ten. With the exception of Dmytryk, who later changed his position and cooperated with the committee, the Hollywood Ten either did not work on American movies or used pseudonyms for most of the 1950s.

Ayn Rand, on the other hand, was among the "friendly" witnesses who cooperated with the committee. Along with various others -- including studio heads Jack Warner and Louis B. Mayer, and actors Gary Cooper, Robert Montgomery, Ronald Reagan, and Robert Taylor -- Rand agreed to testify about Communist influence on Hollywood movies. Rand's testimony, like that of the other friendly witnesses, was given prior to the debacle of the "Hollywood Ten."

HUAC's initial investigations of Communists in Hollywood ended after the testimony of the Hollywood Ten. The committee resumed investigations of Communist influence on movies in the early 1950s and continued them for several years. Hearings held in 1952 received some historical attention when director Elia Kazan, who testified before the committee on two different occasions that year, was given an honorary award by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1999. Nonetheless, the 1947 hearings and their immediate aftermath dominate most discussions of the HUAC investigations -- including, ironically, many of the discussions prompted by Kazan's award.

HUAC and Joseph McCarthy

HUAC is sometimes confused with the Senate Committee on Government Operations, which included Senator Joseph McCarthy. The Senate committee's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations was particularly active in investigating suspected Communists in the 1950s, especially after McCarthy became it's chairman. The House and Senate committees were two separate bodies. McCarthy was not involved in HUAC and never served in the House of Representatives. Although he was a freshman senator in 1947, McCarthy had not yet begun his well-known campaign against communism, which he initiated in February 1950. The later investigations of Hollywood that HUAC began in 1951 might be interpreted as a reaction to the anti-Communist furor raised by McCarthy, but he had no influence on the 1947 hearings at which Rand testified.

Both HUAC and McCarthy's Senate committee were also different from the Senate Internal Security Subcomittee, which was the Senate's direct equivalent to HUAC.

Rand's Role in the Hearings

At the time she was called to testify, Rand was already well-known in Hollywood for her opposition to Communism. She originally planned to testify about two movies -- Song of Russia and The Best Years of Our Lives. The former was made during World War II, with the fairly obvious purpose of making Americans feel more comfortable about being allies with the Soviets during the war. The latter was a popular post-war film that had won several Academy Awards, including the Oscar for best picture. Rand was later asked to testify only about Song of Russia. Some members of the committee thought it was too risky to criticize a popular film like The Best Years of Our Lives. Upset by that she was only allowed to discuss one older movie that was obvious propoganda, Rand demanded a chance to give additional testimony. After some argument, the committee chairman eventually offered to recall her later in the hearings, but never did. Her testimony as it stands concerns only Song of Russia.

Asked years later by Barbara Branden about her opinion of the hearings, Rand said that the hearings were "a very dubious undertaking" and "futile" because a government inquiry would not legitimately be able to investigate the ideological penetration of communism into the movies. (cf. The Passion of Ayn Rand, pp. 200-203) It could only show that there were members of the Communist Party working in the industry. She did believe, however, that it was acceptable for the committee to ask people whether they had joined the Communist Party, because the Party supported the use of violence and other criminal activities to achieve its political goals, and investigating possible criminal activities was an appropriate role of government. In any case, she was glad to have had the opportunity to gain media exposure on the subject, and supported the efforts of private employers to reduce the influence of Communists on the movies. As she had put it in an earlier essay she had written on the subject, "The principle of free speech requires ... that we do not pass laws forbidding [Communists] to speak. But the principle of free speech ... does not imply that we owe them jobs and support to advocate our own destruction at our own expense." ("Screen Guide for Americans," reprinted in Journals of Ayn Rand, p. 366, emphasis in original)

For more detailed biographical information about Ayn Rand herself, see the Ayn Rand Biographical FAQ.

Transcript

Rep. J. Parnell Thomas1, Chairman of the Committee: Raise your right hand, please, Miss Rand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Ayn Rand: I do.

Chairman Thomas: Sit down.

Mr. Robert E. Stripling2, Chief Investigator: Miss Rand, will you state your name, please, for the record?

Rand: Ayn Rand, or Mrs. Frank O'Connor3.

Stripling: That is A-y-n?

Rand: That is right.

Stripling: R-a-n-d?

Rand: Yes.

Stripling: Is that your pen name?

Rand: Yes.

Stripling: And what is your married name?

Rand: Mrs. Frank O'Connor.

Stripling: Where were you born, Miss Rand?

Rand: In St. Petersburg, Russia.4

Stripling: When did you leave Russia?

Rand: In 1926.

Stripling: How long have you been employed in Hollywood?

Rand: I have been in pictures on and off since late in 1926, but specifically as a writer this time I have been in Hollywood since late 1943 and am now under contract as a writer.5

Stripling: Have you written various novels?

Rand: One second. May I have one moment to get this in order?

Stripling: Yes.

Rand: Yes, I have written two novels.6 My first one was called We the Living, which was a story about Soviet Russia and was published in 1936. The second one was The Fountainhead, published in 1943.

Stripling: Was that a best seller -- The Fountainhead?

Rand: Yes; thanks to the American public.

Stripling: Do you know how many copies were sold?

Rand: The last I heard was 360,000 copies. I think there have been some more since.

Stripling: You have been employed as a writer in Hollywood?

Rand: Yes; I am under contract at present.7

Stripling: Could you name some of the stories or scripts you have written for Hollywood?

Rand: I have done the script of The Fountainhead, which has not been produced yet8, for Warner Brothers, and two adaptations for Hal Wallis Productions, at Paramount, which were not my stories but on which I did the screen plays, which were Love Letters9 and You Came Along.10

Stripling: Now, Miss Rand, you have heard the testimony of Mr. [Louis B.] Mayer?11

Rand: Yes.

Stripling: You have read the letter I read from Lowell Mellett?12

Rand: Yes.

Stripling: Which says that the picture Song of Russia13 has no political implications?

Rand: Yes.

Stripling: Did you at the request of Mr. Smith, the investigator for this committee, view the picture Song of Russia?

Rand: Yes.

Stripling: Within the past two weeks?

Rand: Yes; on October 13, to be exact.

usr/STRONG>Stripling: In Hollywood?

Rand: Yes.

Stripling: Would you give the committee a break-down of your summary of the picture relating to either propaganda or an untruthful account or distorted account of conditions in Russia?

Rand: Yes.

First of all I would like to define what we mean by propaganda. We have all been talking about it, but nobody --

Stripling: Could you talk into the microphone?

Rand: Can you hear me now? Nobody has stated just what they mean by propaganda. Now, I use the term to mean that Communist propaganda is anything which gives a good impression of communism as a way of life. Anything that sells people the idea that life in Russia is good and that people are free and happy would be Communist propaganda. Am I not correct? I mean, would that be a fair statement to make -- that that would be Communist propaganda?

Now, here is what the picture Song of Russia contains. It starts with an American conductor, played by Robert Taylor,14 giving a concert in America for Russian war relief. He starts playing the American national anthem and the national anthem dissolves into a Russian mob, with the sickle and hammer on a red flag very prominent above their heads. I am sorry, but that made me sick. That is something which I do not see how native Americans permit, and I am only a naturalized American. That was a terrible touch of propaganda. As a writer, I can tell you just exactly what it suggests to the people. It suggests literally and technically that it is quite all right for the American national anthem to dissolve into the Soviet. The term here is more than just technical. It really was symbolically intended, and it worked out that way. The anthem continues, played by a Soviet band. That is the beginning of the picture.

Now we go to the pleasant love story. Mr. Taylor is an American who came there apparently voluntarily to conduct concerts for the Soviets. He meets a little Russian girl15 from a village who comes to him and begs him to go to her village to direct concerts there. There are no GPU16 agents and nobody stops her. She just comes to Moscow and meets him. He falls for her and decides he will go, because he is falling in love. He asks her to show him Moscow. She says she has never seen it. He says, "I will show it to YOU." They see it together. The picture then goes into a scene of Moscow, supposedly. I don't know where the studio got its shots, but I have never seen anything like it in Russia. First you see Moscow buildings -- big, prosperous-looking, clean buildings, with something like swans or sailboats in the foreground. Then you see a Moscow restaurant that just never existed there. In my time, when I was in Russia, there was only one such restaurant, which was nowhere as luxurious as that and no one could enter it except commissars and profiteers. Certainly a girl from a village, who in the first place would never have been allowed to come voluntarily, without permission, to Moscow, could not afford to enter it, even if she worked ten years. However, there is a Russian restaurant with a menu such as never existed in Russia at all and which I doubt even existed before the revolution. From this restaurant they go on to this tour of Moscow. The streets are clean and prosperous-looking. There are no food lines anywhere. You see shots of the marble subway -- the famous Russian subway out of which they make such propaganda capital. There is a marble statue of Stalin thrown in. There is a park where you see happy little children in white blouses running around. I don't know whose children they are, but they are really happy kiddies. They are not homeless children in rags, such as I have seen in Russia. Then you see an excursion boat, on which the Russian people are smiling, sitting around very cheerfully, dressed in some sort of satin blouses such as they only wear in Russian restaurants here. Then they attend a luxurious dance. I don't know where they got the idea of the clothes and the settings that they used at the ball and --

Stripling: Is that a ballroom scene?

Rand: Yes; the ballroom -- where they dance. It was an exaggeration even for this country. I have never seen anybody wearing such clothes and dancing to such exotic music when I was there. Of course, it didn't say whose ballroom it is or how they get there. But there they are -- free and dancing very happily.

Incidentally, I must say at this point that I understand from correspondents who have left Russia and been there later than I was and from people who escaped from there later than I did that the time I saw it, which was in 1926, was the best time since the Russian revolution. At that time conditions were a little better than they have become since. In my time we were a bunch of ragged, starved, dirty, miserable people who had only two thoughts in our mind. That was our complete terror -- afraid to look at one another, afraid to say anything for fear of who is listening and would report us -- and where to get the next meal. You have no idea what it means to live in a country where nobody has any concern except food, where all the conversation is about food because everybody is so hungry that that is all they can think about and that is all they can afford to do. They have no idea of politics. They have no idea of any pleasant romances or love-nothing but food and fear. That is what I saw up to 1926. That is not what the picture shows.

Now, after this tour of Moscow, the hero -- the American conductor -- goes to the Soviet village. The Russian villages are something -- so miserable and so filthy. They were even before the revolution. They weren't much even then. What they have become now I am afraid to think. You have all read about the program for the collectivization of the farms in 1933, at which time the Soviet Government admits that three million peasants died of starvation. Other people claim there were seven and a half million, but three million is the figure admitted by the Soviet Government as the figure of people who died of starvation, planned by the government in order to drive people into collective farms. That is a recorded historical fact.17

Now, here is the life in the Soviet village as presented in Song of Russia. You see the happy peasants. You see they are meeting the hero at the station with bands, with beautiful blouses and shoes, such as they never wore anywhere. You see children with operetta costumes on them and with a brass band which they could never afford. You see the manicured starlets driving tractors and the happy women who come from work singing. You see a peasant at home with a close-up of food for which anyone there would have been murdered. If anybody had such food in Russia in that time he couldn't remain alive, because he would have been torn apart by neighbors trying to get food. But here is a close-up of it and a line where Robert Taylor comments on the food and the peasant answers, "This is just a simple country table and the food we eat ourselves."

Then the peasant proceeds to show Taylor how they live. He shows him his wonderful tractor. It is parked somewhere in his private garage. He shows him the grain in his bin, and Taylor says, "That is wonderful grain." Now, it is never said that the peasant does not own this tractor or this grain because it is a collective farm. He couldn't have it. It is not his. But the impression he gives to Americans, who wouldn't know any differently, is that certainly it is this peasant's private property, and that is how he lives, he has his own tractor and his own grain. Then it shows miles and miles of plowed fields.

Chairman Thomas: We will have more order, please.

Rand: Am I speaking too fast?

Chairman Thomas: Go ahead.

Rand: Then --

Stripling: Miss Rand, may I bring up one point there?

Rand: Surely.

Stripling: I saw the picture. At this peasant's village or home, was there a priest or several priests in evidence?

Rand: Oh, yes; I am coming to that, too. The priest was from the beginning in the village scenes, having a position as sort of a constant companion and friend of the peasants, as if religion was a natural accepted part of that life. Well, now, as a matter of fact, the situation about religion in Russia in my time was, and I understand it still is, that for a Communist Party member to have anything to do with religion means expulsion from the party. He is not allowed to enter a church or take part in any religious ceremony. For a private citizen, that is a nonparty member, it was permitted, but it was so frowned upon that people had to keep it secret, if they went to church. If they wanted a church wedding they usually had it privately in their homes, with only a few friends present, in order not to let it be known at their place of employment because, even though it was not forbidden, the chances were that they would be thrown out of a job for being known as practicing any kind of religion.

Now, then, to continue with the story, Robert Taylor proposes to the heroine. She accepts him. They have a wedding, which, of course, is a church wedding. It takes place with all the religious pomp which they show. They have a banquet. They have dancers, in something like satin skirts and performing ballets such as you never could possibly see in any village and certainly not in Russia. Later they show a peasants' meeting place, which is a kind of a marble palace with crystal chandeliers. Where they got it or who built it for them I would like to be told. Then later you see that the peasants all have radios. When the heroine plays as a soloist with Robert Taylor's orchestra, after she marries him, you see a scene where all the peasants are listening on radios, and one of them says, "There are more than millions listening to the concert."

I don't know whether there are a hundred people in Russia, private individuals, who own radios. And I remember reading in the newspaper at the beginning of the war that every radio was seized by the government and people were not allowed to own them. Such an idea that every farmer, a poor peasant, has a radio, is certainly preposterous. You also see that they have long-distance telephones. Later in the picture Taylor has to call his wife in the village by long-distance telephone. Where they got this long-distance phone, I don't know.

Now, here comes the crucial point of the picture. In the midst of this concert, when the heroine is playing, you see a scene on the border of the U.S.S.R. You have a very lovely modernistic sign saying "U.S.S.R." I would just like to remind you that that is the border where probably thousands of people have died trying to escape out of this lovely paradise. It shows the U.S.S.R. sign, and there is a border guard standing. He is listening to the concert. Then there is a scene inside kind of a guardhouse where the guards are listening to the same concert, the beautiful Tschaikowsky music, and they are playing chess.

Suddenly there is a Nazi attack on them. The poor, sweet Russians were unprepared. Now, realize -- and that was a great shock to me -- that the border that was being shown was the border of Poland. That was the border of an occupied, destroyed, enslaved country which Hitler and Stalin destroyed together.18 That was the border that was being shown to us -- just a happy place with people listening to music.

Also realize that when all this sweetness and light was going on in the first part of the picture, with all these happy, free people, there was not a GPU agent among them, with no food lines, no persecution -- complete freedom and happiness, with everybody smiling. Incidentally, I have never seen so much smiling in my life, except on the murals of the world's fair pavilion of the Soviets. If any one of you have seen it, you can appreciate it. It is one of the stock propaganda tricks of the Communists, to show these people smiling. That is all they can show. You have all this, plus the fact that an American conductor had accepted an invitation to come there and conduct a concert, and this took place in 1941 when Stalin was the ally of Hitler. That an American would accept an invitation to that country was shocking to me, with everything that was shown being proper and good and all those happy people going around dancing, when Stalin was an ally of Hitler.

Now, then, the heroine decides that she wants to stay in Russia. Taylor would like to take her out of the country, but she says no, her place is here, she has to fight the war. Here is the line, as nearly exact as I could mark it while watching the picture:

"I have a great responsibility to my family, to my village, and to the way I have lived."

What way had she lived? This is just a polite way of saying the Communist way of life. She goes on to say that she wants to stay in the country because otherwise, "How can I help to build a better and better life for my country." What do you mean when you say better and better? That means she has already helped to build a good way. That is the Soviet Communist way. But now she wants to make it even better. All right.

Now, then, Taylor's manager, who is played, I believe, by Benchley19, an American, tells her that she should leave the country, but when she refuses and wants to stay, here is the line he uses: he tells her in an admiring friendly way that "You are a fool, but a lot of fools like you died on the village green at Lexington."20

Now, I submit that that is blasphemy, because the men at Lexington were not fighting just a foreign invader. They were fighting for freedom and what I mean -- and I intend to be exact -- is they were fighting for political freedom and individual freedom. They were fighting for the rights of man. To compare them to somebody, anybody fighting for a slave state, I think is dreadful. Then, later the girl also says -- I believe this was she or one of the other characters -- that "the culture we have been building here will never die." What culture? The culture of concentration camps.

At the end of the picture one of the Russians asks Taylor and the girl to go back to America, because they can help them there. How? Here is what he says, "You can go back to your country and tell them what you have seen and you will see the truth both in speech and in music." Now, that is plainly saying that what you have seen is the truth about Russia. That is what is in the picture.

Now, here is what I cannot understand at all: if the excuse that has been given here is that we had to produce the picture in wartime, just how can it help the war effort? If it is to deceive the American people, if it were to present to the American people a better picture of Russia than it really is, then that sort of an attitude is nothing but the theory of the Nazi elite -- that a choice group of intellectual or other leaders will tell the people lies for their own good. That I don't think is the American way of giving people information. We do not have to deceive the people at any time, in war or peace. If it was to please the Russians, I don't see how you can please the Russians by telling them that we are fools. To what extent we have done it, you can see right now. You can see the results right now. If we present a picture like that as our version of what goes on in Russia, what will they think of it? We don't win anybody's friendship. We will only win their contempt, and as you know the Russians have been behaving like this.

My whole point about the picture is this: I fully believe Mr. Mayer when he says that he did not make a Communist picture. To do him justice, I can tell you I noticed, by watching the picture, where there was an effort to cut propaganda out. I believe he tried to cut propaganda out of the picture, but the terrible thing is the carelessness with ideas, not realizing that the mere presentation of that kind of happy existence in a country of slavery and horror is terrible because it is propaganda. You are telling people that it is all right to live in a totalitarian state.

Now, I would like to say that nothing on earth will justify slavery. In war or peace or at any time you cannot justify slavery. You cannot tell people that it is all right to live under it and that everybody there is happy. If you doubt this, I will just ask you one question. Visualize a picture in your own mind as laid in Nazi Germany. If anybody laid a plot just based on a pleasant little romance in Germany and played Wagner music and said that people are just happy there, would you say that that was propaganda or not, when you know what life in Germany was and what kind of concentration camps they had there. You would not dare to put just a happy love story into Germany, and for every one of the same reasons you should not do it about Russia.

Stripling: That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Thomas: Mr. Wood.

Rep. John S. Wood21: I gather, then, from your analysis of this picture your personal criticism of it is that it overplayed the conditions that existed in Russia at the time the picture was made; is that correct?

Rand: Did you say overplayed?

Wood: Yes.

Rand: Well, the story portrayed the people --

Wood: It portrayed the people of Russia in a better economic and social position than they occupied?

Rand: That is right.

Wood: And it would also leave the impression in the average mind that they were better able to resist the aggression of the German Army than they were in fact able to resist?

Rand: Well, that was not in the picture. So far as the Russian war was concerned, not very much was shown about it.

Wood: Well, you recall, I presume -- it is a matter of history -- going back to the middle of the First World War when Russia was also our ally against the same enemy that we were fighting at this time and they were knocked out of the war. When the remnants of their forces turned against us, it prolonged the First World War a considerable time, didn't it?22

Rand: I don't believe so.

Wood: You don't?

Rand: No.

Wood: Do you think, then, that it was to our advantage or to our disadvantage to keep Russia in this war, at the time this picture was made?

Rand: That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Wood: Well --

Rand: But if you want me to answer, I can answer, but it will take me a long time to say what I think, as to whether we should or should not have had Russia on our side in the war. I can, but how much time will you give me?

Wood: Well, do you say that it would have prolonged the war, so far as we were concerned, if they had been knocked out of it at that time?

Rand: I can't answer that yes or no, unless you give me time for a long speech on it.

Wood: Well, there is a pretty strong probability that we wouldn't have won it at all, isn't there?

Rand: I don't know, because on the other hand I think we could have used the lend-lease supplies23 that we sent there to much better advantage ourselves.

Wood: Well, at that time --

Rand: I don't know. It is a question.

Wood: We were furnishing Russia with all the lend-lease equipment that our industry would stand, weren't we?

Rand: That is right.

Wood: And continued to do it?

Rand: I am not sure it was at all wise. Now, if you want to discuss my military views -- I am not an authority, but I will try.

Wood: What do you interpret, then, the picture as having been made for?

Rand: I ask you: what relation could a lie about Russia have with the war effort? I would like to have somebody explain that to me, because I really don't understand it, why a lie would help anybody or why it would keep Russia in or out of the war. How?

Wood: You don't think it would have been of benefit to the American people to have kept them in?

Rand: I don't believe the American people should ever be told any lies, publicly or privately. I don't believe that lies are practical. I think the international situation now rather supports me. I don't think it was necessary to deceive the American people about the nature of Russia. I could add this: if those who saw it say it was quite all right, and perhaps there are reasons why it was all right to be an ally of Russia, then why weren't the American people told the real reasons and told that Russia is a dictatorship but there are reasons why we should cooperate with them to destroy Hitler and other dictators? All right, there may be some argument to that. Let us hear it. But of what help can it be to the war effort to tell people that we should associate with Russia and that she is not a dictatorship?

Wood: Let me see if I understand your position. I understand, from what you say, that because they were a dictatorship we shouldn't have accepted their help in undertaking to win a war against another dictatorship.

Rand: That is not what I said. I was not in a position to make that decision. If I were, I would tell you what I would do. That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the fact that our country was an ally of Russia, and the question is: what should we tell the American people about it -- the truth or a lie? If we had good reason, if that is what you believe, all right, then why not tell the truth? Say it is a dictatorship, but we want to be associated with it. Say it is worthwhile being associated with the devil, as Churchill said, in order to defeat another evil which is Hitler. There might be some good argument made for that. But why pretend that Russia was not what it was?

Wood: Well --

Rand: What do you achieve by that?

Wood: Do you think it would have had as good an effect upon the morale of the American people to preach a doctrine to them that Russia was on the verge of collapse?

Rand: I don't believe that the morale of anybody can be built up by a lie. If there was nothing good that we could truthfully say about Russia, then it would have been better not to say anything at all.

Wood: Well --

Rand: You don't have to come out and denounce Russia during the war; no. You can keep quiet. There is no moral guilt in not saying something if you can't say it, but there is in saying the opposite of what is true.

Wood: Thank you. That is all.

Chairman Thomas: Mr. Vail.

Rep. Richard B. Vail24: No questions.

Chairman Thomas: Mr. McDowell.

Rep. John R. McDowell25: You paint a very dismal picture of Russia. You made a great point about the number of children who were unhappy. Doesn't anybody smile in Russia any more?

Rand: Well, if you ask me literally, pretty much no.

McDowell: They don't smile?

Rand: Not quite that way; no. If they do, it is privately and accidentally. Certainly, it is not social. They don't smile in approval of their system.

McDowell: Well, all they do is talk about food.

Rand: That is right.

McDowell: That is a great change from the Russians I have always known, and I have known a lot of them. Don't they do things at all like Americans? Don't they walk across town to visit their mother-in-law or somebody?

Rand: Look, it is very hard to explain. It is almost impossible to convey to a free people what it is like to live in a totalitarian dictatorship. I can tell you a lot of details. I can never completely convince you, because you are free. It is in a way good that you can't even conceive of what it is like. Certainly they have friends and mothers-in-law. They try to live a human life, but you understand it is totally inhuman. Try to imagine what it is like if you are in constant terror from morning till night and at night you are waiting for the doorbell to ring, where you are afraid of anything and everybody, living in a country where human life is nothing, less than nothing, and you know it. You don't know who or when is going to do what to you because you may have friends who spy on you, where there is no law and any rights of any kind.

McDowell: You came here in 1926, I believe you said. Did you escape from Russia?

Rand: No.

McDowell: Did you have a passport?

Rand: No. Strangely enough, they gave me a passport to come out here as a visitor.

McDowell: As a visitor?

Rand: It was at a time when they relaxed their orders a little bit. Quite a few people got out. I had some relatives here and I was permitted to come here for a year. I never went back.

McDowell: I see.

Chairman Thomas: Mr. Nixon.

Rep. Richard M. Nixon26: No questions.

Chairman Thomas: All right. The first witness tomorrow morning will be Adolph Menjou.27

Notes

1 John Parnell Thomas (1895-1970) was a Republican representative from New Jersey. This hearing occurred during his one term as chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities, during the one term when the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives from January 1947 to January 1949. One of the political motivations for the hearings was his desire to embarrass the Democrats by finding evidence that the Roosevelt administration had encouraged putting pro-Soviet propaganda in movies. The testimony solicited from Rand was clearly related to this goal. After his term as chairman of HUAC was over, Thomas was charged with embezzling money from the US Treasury by claiming non-existent people as members of his office staff. He served nine months in Danbury Prison, alongside two of the Hollywood Ten who were serving their sentences for contempt of Congress. [Return to Text]

2 Robert E. Stripling was the committee's chief investigator -- that is, he was a staff employee, not a Congressman. He was the third person to serve in that role, having been an assistant to the first two chief investigators for the committee. [Return to Text]

3 Rand married actor Frank O'Connor (1897-1979) in 1929. O'Connor's acting career was over by the time Rand testified (although somewhat confusingly, another actor of the same name was still performing). [Return to Text]

4 Rand was born in St. Petersburg (later renamed Petrograd, then Leningrad, and now St. Petersburg again) in 1905. She moved to the United States in 1926 and became a naturalized US citizen in 1931. For more biographical details on Rand, see the Ayn Rand Biographical FAQ. [Return to Text]

5 Rand's first job "in pictures" was in 1926 as an extra in Cecil B. DeMille's The King of Kings. Afterward she worked as a junior screenwriter for DeMille, writing summaries of literary properties he had bought to turn into movies. She later worked as head of the wardrobe department at RKO. Her first screenplay sale was in 1932, but the movie was never produced. She left Hollywood for New York in 1934 because her play Night of January 16th was to be produced on Broadway. She did not return to screenwriting until she sold the movie rights to her novel The Fountainhead in 1943. [Return to Text]

6 Rand also wrote a novella called Anthem that was published in 1938, although the first edition was published only in England. A second, revised edition was published in the US in 1946. Apparently Rand chose not to mention it as one of her published novels. Her most famous novel, Atlas Shrugged, was not published until 1957 and had not even been written at the time of these hearings. For more information on Rand's novels and other writings, see the ORC list of Ayn Rand's books. [Return to Text]

7 Rand had been under contract to producer Hal Wallis since 1944. Under their unusual arrangement, each year Rand was supposed to work on screenplays for six months, and then have six months off to work on other projects. She worked with Wallis until 1949. [Return to Text]

8 The movie version of The Fountainhead, directed by King Vidor and starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal, was released by Warner Brothers in July 1949. [Return to Text]

9 Love Letters, directed by William Dieterle and starring Jennifer Jones and Joseph Cotten, was released by Paramount in 1945. [Return to Text]

10 You Came Along, directed by John Farrow and starring Robert Cummings and Lizabeth Scott, was released by Paramount in 1945. Rand was credited as a co-writer, because she revised a script originally written by another writer. [Return to Text]

11 Louis B. Mayer (1885-1957) was a founder and production chief of Metro-Goldwin-Mayer (MGM), the studio that produced Song of Russia. Mayer was, among other things, a staunch Republican and one of the highest-paid business executives in the United States. In his role as a studio chief, he was one of a group of studio heads who met a few weeks after the hearings and adopted the "Waldorf Statement" against employing Communists in movies. In the statement, they deplored "the action of the 10 Hollywood men who have been cited for contempt," and promised they would "not knowingly employ a Communist or a member of any party or group which advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States by force or by illegal or unconstitutional methods." Like Rand, Mayer was born in Russia, but his family emigrated when he was just two years old. [Return to Text]

12 Lowell Mellett was the director of a 1942 documentary, The World at War. [Return to Text]

13 Song of Russia, directed by Gregory Ratoff and starring Robert Taylor and Susan Peters, was released by MGM in 1943. [Return to Text]

14 Robert Taylor (1911-1969) was a popular actor who appeared in dozens of movies and was later the host of the TV series "Death Valley Days." As indicated by Rand, in Song of Russia Taylor played the character of John Meredith, an American conductor. Like Rand, Taylor appeared before HUAC as a "friendly" witness. In fact, he was one of the few witnesses in these early hearings who actually "named names" -- he gave the committee the names of two actors that he thought might be Communists. [Return to Text]

15 Susan Peters (1921-1952) played the character of Nadya Stepanova, a Russian singer. It was one of her few starring roles. A couple of years after she made Song of Russia, her movie career was cut short by a hunting accident that left her paralyzed. [Return to Text]

16 The GPU was the State Political Administration of the Soviet Union ("GPU" is the acronym of its Russian name). In 1922, it took over the powers of the Soviet secret police, including the investigation and arrest of political "criminals" and others considered threats to the Communist government. In 1923 it was slightly renamed as the Unified State Political Administration, or OGPU. In 1934 it was renamed the People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs, or NKVD. It was under this name that it conducted the massive purges ordered by Stalin in 1930s. After various other reorganizations and name changes, the Soviet secret police powers were finally invested in the Committee of State Security, or KGB, in 1954. [Return to Text]

17 Rand's presentation of the results of Soviet farm collectivization efforts is accurate, although most of the starvation deaths occurred in Ukraine, not Russia itself. When Ukrainian farmers resisted collectivization efforts, their grain quotas -- that is, the amount of grain that they had to give up to the government before they could keep any for themselves -- were increased, to the point that they could no longer feed themselves with what they were allowed to keep. With the NKVD and army troops in place to stop peasants from "hoarding" grain (that is, keeping any extra to eat) or moving out of the region, an estimated six to eight million people starved. Interested readers can review documents related to the famine from the Soviet archives, and extensive journalism and commentary from the Ukrainian Weekly. [Return to Text]

18 In 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union agreed to a non-aggression pact. The public text of the agreement was supplemented by secret language providing for the partition of Poland -- half of that country would be occupied by Germany, and the other half would be occupied by the Soviet Union. Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. The Soviets followed suit on September 17, and divided Poland in accordance with the pact. Germany and the Soviet Union remained at peace with one another until Germany violated the agreement by launching an invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. [Return to Text]

19 Actor Robert Benchley (1889-1945) played the character of Hank Higgins. An actor and writer, he worked more often on comedies than on dramas like Song of Russia. [Return to Text]

20 On April 19, 1775, one of the first battles of the American Revolution was fought in Lexington, Massachusetts. Eight colonial minutemen were killed in the battle. [Return to Text]

21 John Stephens Wood (1885-1968) was a Democratic representative from Georgia. At the time of this hearing, he had previously served as chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities, and he would do so again afterwards. He retired from Congress in 1952. [Return to Text]

22 Russia was one of the first nations involved in World War I when it started in 1914. In December 1917, the newly installed Communist government in Russia signed an armistice with the Central Powers that took Russia out of the war. A formal peace treaty between Russia and the Central Powers was signed in March 1918. Several of the Central Powers also dropped out of the war in 1918, until the war finally ended with Allied victory over Germany on November 11, 1918. [Return to Text]

23 The Lend-Lease program was enacted in 1941 to allow the United States to provide war supplies to the Allies, including the Soviet Union. The Soviets were the second-largest recipient of American lend-lease aid, getting more than 11 billion US dollars worth of assistance. (The United Kingdom and its Commonwealth countries were first with over $31 billion in aid.) The supplies were theoretically loaned to the recipient governments by the United States, although in practice repayment could only be expected if the Allies won the war. Although there was no way to know this at the time of Rand's testimony, the Soviet Union would still owe more than $722 million in Lend-Lease debt some 25 years after the war ended, after most other recipients had repaid in full. [Return to Text]

24 Richard Bernard Vail (1895-1955) was a Republican representative from Illinois. [Return to Text]

25 John Ralph McDowell (1902-1957) was a Republican representative from Pennsylvania. [Return to Text]

26 Richard Milhous Nixon (1913-1994) was a Republican representative from California, later a senator, vice-president, and president of the United States. At the time of Rand's testimony, he was a freshman representative and the junior member on the committee. Nixon first became widely known on a national level during the HUAC investigation of former State Department employee Alger Hiss in 1948. [Return to Text]

27 Adolph Menjou (1890-1963) was an actor who appeared in over 100 movies. Like Rand, he was one of the "friendly witnesses" who cooperated with the committee.

Fro

[Selene]

Peter: This is responding to your post #48 additionally, I if you sign up for a particular thread, you can get an e-mail whenever there is a response to the thread that you signed up for - left hand blue rectangle at the top of this thread - click on it and then there are several options

Agreed. An anarchist could obviously not take any oath to the US Constitution.

That is not the argument. In terms of a political system, that functions within a geographical area, clearly I, at least, am not advocating that be done tonight

because that would be a purely sophistic argument.

One of the questions being posed here in this thread is whether an anarchistic society can exist at all.

My island illustration of an anarchistic society raises the question...what do the anarchists do when the armada appears on the horizon line and demands tribute.

Or as Ba'al[Robert] asked ... who do you call when you get mugged?

"According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."^[7] "

continuing Wiki explains:

There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.^[8] Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of socialist and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.^[9][10][11] Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,^[12][13][14] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an economic and legal individualist strain,^[15] with that strain supporting a market economy and private property (like traditional non-capitalist individualist anarchism and contemporary anarcho-capitalism).^[16][17][18]"

http://en.wikipedia....rcho-capitalism <<<<this is the Wiki link to anarcho-capitalism

Is this a definition that we can agree on...yes or no, but I can't accept a maybe.

Adam

and Selene are one and the same friend

Edited January 10, 2010 by Selene