"The Moral Factor" by Ayn Rand

Tonight we welcome one who has become very dear to this forum. I believe I'm accurate when I say that this is the only forum that she has been willing to come to in many years. And we regard it as a challenge and as a tribute. It is not necessary for me to introduce her to this audience. And you are not anxious to hear from me. Ms. Rand is known throughout the country and also abroad for her philosophy of Objectivism and more particularly, perhaps, because of her authorship of the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. And with that, I take great pleasure in presenting the person you really want to hear, Ms. Ayn Rand.

Thank you. Ladies and Gentlemen, this year, 1976, offers us two significant events. This country's bicentennial celebration and a presidential election. One could wish that that these two events were connected in scale and in spirit. That the election would reflect some of the bicentennial's meaning and offer us, as candidates, some men of stature fighting over great issues. Instead, as the ultimate product of 200 years of the greatest country in history, we are facing a choice between what looks like the boy next door and Elmer Ganty. Don't misunderstand me. I am for the boy next door, that is, for President Ford. Because he, at least, is not guilty of today's prevalent crime. Powerlust. Power lust seems to be the driving motive of. Well, I shouldn't really call him Elmer Gantry since his name is Jimmy Carter. I could choose another literary figure, except that he does not have its tragic grandeur. The man who Laughs, besides the hero of Hugo's great novel was disfigured and unable to remove the mask of a horrible permanent green from his face. While Mr. Carter is unwilling to remove. Is the stature of the candidates in this presidential election that is appalling. Their smallness, grayness, emptiness and the overwhelming boredom of their campaigns. The philosophical principle on which this country is based and which the bicentennial is celebrating, the principle of man's inalienable individual rights, is being attacked and destroyed all over the world. Other countries had never accepted not fully and not fully understood this principle. But today it is being challenged, denied, denounced, attack throughout the globe with the result that the primordial atrocities of starvation, slavery and mass slaughter are returning and engulfing the world. Yet the public voices of this country, the intellectuals, the politicians, the candidates and their speechwriters are apologizing for America's greatness, demanding more sacrifices and arguing whether we should or should not take second place to the bloodiest brutes on earth. Let me say, parenthetically, that I am profoundly opposed to Mr. Ronald Reagan for many reasons, but the one relevant here is the fact that to exaggerate the power of the most incompetent nation in the world is not a patriotic service to the United States. Just as fear is not the proper motive to invoke in order to inspire Americans. Now is the time to assert, to proclaim and proudly to uphold the ideas that created America and thus to save this country, and incidentally, to offer guidance to a perishing world. But this cannot be done without rejecting the morality of altruism. I have been saying for years that altruism is incompatible with the philosophic foundations of this country's political system, that altruism is incompatible with individual rights, that man cannot live without moral values, and in you, rational morality is our greatest need. An interesting survey reported in the New York Times of March 31, 1976, offers a confirmation and an example of the American people's pathetic confusion. Under the title Does Work Ethic Pay? An article by Leonard Silk declares in an almost astonished manner that that, quote, survey indicates moral issue could dominate 1976 presidential election. Close quote. After stating that, quote, the campaign thus far has been a drama of six characters. Ford, Reagan, Carter, Jackson, Udall and Humphrey in the wings in search of an issue. Close quote. The article asks, quote, but what is the main issue as the American people see it? And answers, quote, but what is the main answers? Excuse me. Strong survey evidence indicates that it is really a complex bundle of issues and the name for it is either the economic issue or the moral issue. Close quote. If those disgusting conservative economists who proclaim that morality has nothing to do with economics ever read that article, let them take note. The article explains that its conclusions are based on surveys made by the research firm of Yankelovich, Skelly and White. The moral issue, as the Yankelovich interviewers understand it, is a widespread feeling on the part of ordinary people that they have worked hard, lived within the law and struggled to get ahead, but that those in power, whether in government or business, who have not lived by the rules have flourished and at their expense. The nationwide survey showed that 85% of those interviewed either strongly or partly agreed with the statement, people who work hard don't get a fair break. To the statement, the state of morality in the United States is on bad and getting worse. 83% agreed strongly or partly. Close quote. But here is the killer question that displays the hopelessness of the entire inquiry, quote, and to the statement, people are too selfish and self centered. 80% strongly or partly agreed. I Would love to think that the 20% who did not agree with are strongly or partly objectivist, but this is too much to hope for too soon. In any case, it should be clear that so long as people equate immorality with selfishness, they will not get a fair break. They will be milk dry of their last energy and property and will not be able to defend themselves. To defend your own rights against altruism, cannibals is selfish. On the example of this one article, we can see the tragedy of the intellectually leaderless people. The people are right in sensing that an enormous moral issue is at stake in the world of today. The issue is man's right to exist, but the bloody bromides of altruism, the evil of bigness and selfishness, is all that the intellectuals are able to identify or suggest. The article continues. Quote, the moral issue, Mr. Yankelovich said, colors all other issues about which people are concerned and cannot be isolated from them. Close quote. The survey offered people a list of problems from which they were asked to pick those they regarded as most important. The responses, quote, showed the following rank order. Inflation, 53%, unemployment 34%, morality, 19%, crime, 14%, taxes, 10% and welfare, 7%. However, Mr. Yankovic believes that the first three on the list should be taken together as the combined economic moral issue. Close quote. The first three here are inflation, unemployment, morality. Strictly speaking, all these problems should be taken together as the combined economic moral issue. All of them are politically caused. All of them are the products of a mixed economy. All of them are the concrete manifestations of of the same evil, altruism, collectivism. The article seems to glimpse this causal unity to some extent. Quote Inflation, for instance, is seen by people not only as a pecuniary loss, but also as a way they are being cheated out of the value of their money. Very, very true. And those most concerned about welfare commonly feel that those who do not work are leaving off those who do, indicating not a class hatred of the rich, but a concern for the violated work ethic. This is a violation of much more than the work ethic. The so called work ethic is not a philosophic system of ethics. It is just a single principle which is not a primary and which requires a moral primary to validate that validation is man's right to exist for his own sake, therefore his right to keep the products of his work and to regard productiveness as a virtue which takes the work ethic right out of the realm of altruism. With the progressive growth of altruism the work ethic had to collapse. The people sense it, the intellectuals do not. The article goes on to observe that, quote, the presidential candidates have strongly sensed this moral anger of the people, which is why they are running against Washington, taken as the symbol of those with power and influence. But the politicians have tried to divert the blame to the bureaucrats or to the big spenders. Curiously enough, both the bureaucrats and the big spenders are being attacked not only by the Republicans, as is traditional, but by the Democrats, especially Jimmy Carter, the frontrunner, close quote. This is an example of the intellectual's treason to the people and to their own task of leadership. They can observe the country's turn to the right, that is the people's indignation at the injustices of the welfare state and the people's blind, desperate search for moral guidance. They can observe the appeal and the sudden success of Jimmy Carter, who postures as a moralizing evangelist. Yet they refuse to face the issue of the country's moral need. And they continue their politicians business as usual. The Democrats are promising, quote, programs of public service jobs, public works grants, manpower training, youth employment, community development, close quote, et cetera. The Republicans do worse, quote, they believe that the moral issue would not have been so intense had it not coincided with and been aggravated by the economic issue. The Republicans hope that with the fading of the economic issue, the moral issue will not work against them in November as the incumbents, close quote. This is typical of the so called conservatives. They know that the morality of altruism is incompatible with their stand and with a free society. But they dare not challenge it. And they prefer to hide behind the cheap cynicism of being amoral, thus surrendering the power of moral, moral values to their enemies. It is obvious that the country is turning against the welfare state, but neither the Republicans nor the Democrats dare to acknowledge the change. The only sign of acknowledgment is the curious fact that the Democratic liberals have dropped the designation of liberals, which apparently has become an unpopular popular, almost a pejorative term. And they call themselves progressives. Mr. Udall, who is struggling to be the former liberal standard bearer, does not seem to find much popular support. And this is only four years after a presidential election in which the term liberal was too conservative a term to designate a candidate who who proclaimed his right to redistribute everyone's income. The election of 1972 was an eloquent demonstration of the gap between the American people and the intellectuals. The college hippies and yippees made a supreme effort for their candidate in that election, the effort exhausted their energy, perseverance and idealism. I hope for good. A news story in the New York Times of March 22, 1976, reports on the complaints of the organizers of the primary campaigns who find themselves unable to recruit volunteers or to arouse the interest of college students, quote. In place of the tens of thousands who flock to campaign headquarters in 1972, campaign organizers say they are drawing only meager bands of several hundred student volunteers. It seems almost an impossible dream at this point to get students involved, said an upstate student coordinator for Jimmy Carter. Students explain this indifference by saying that the change in issues, quote, has taken the drive out of the student movement. The issues of 1976, notably those relating to jobs and the economy, have not filled the political void left by the passing of the Vietnam war. As an example of the nature of those former activists idealism, there is the following. Quote, A 20 year old at the State University at Binghamton who was active in the McGovern drive and is working for Senator Harris this year said he looked at himself and his fellow students and found that the economy is a remote issue. It affects my parents, but not me. Apparently he believes that it is his parents duty to support him whether the economy makes it possible for them or not, while he is busy fighting for the redistribution of their income. As an example of determination and perseverance, quote, the election of 1972, which swept hundreds of thousands of young people people into politics only to crush their hopes with the stunning victory by Mr. Nixon, apparently did almost as much to sour young people about working to elect national leaders. I remember sitting in front of the television election night, getting drunk, thinking the hell with it, said a 20 year old senior at Columbia who worked for McGovern in 72 this year. She is not working in any campaign, nor does she know anyone on campus who is. No one is stupid enough anymore to think they'll have any effect, whereas in 1972 they thought they would, said a 25 year old at the State University at Binghamton. Everyone was freaking out when McGovern was nominated, but it soon became apparent that he was going to lose. He said, after that I gave up on politics for life. Close quote. He's 25. His candidate lost one election. This is the spirit of the boys and girls who scream that they want it now, whatever it was they wanted. And if they don't get it, they will pout and curse society forever. Which is all that the now generation was ever really good for. Some people in politics still hope to bring the student movement back to life. John Wilbur, volunteer coordinator for Mr. Yodel, is convinced that he can recruit college students. But that conviction will have to overcome a situation that Mr. Wilbur himself said he had encountered. Close quote and there follows a most remarkable quotation from Mr. Wilbur. Quote it's incredible. They're really into their books and it's serious. They really want to learn. Close quote Incredible, isn't it, that college students should really want to learn. Mr. Wilbur is not the only one who disapproves of such a Trend. QUOTE a23year old@ the State University at Binghamton campaigning for Mr. Harris, senses that everyone's concerned about the future, about getting a job. And a 21 year old English major at Columbia feels that the same trend is afoot on her uptown campus. College is all pre professional now, she said. There's no sense of intellectuality left in college. It's all about making money. All you can do is just insulate yourself and not be affected by it. Close quote I'm sure she'll succeed at that. Considering the dominant trends in today's universities, one would have to say that they have created such students and deserve them. But there are other, less fashionable teachers who are still struggling to impart knowledge. And incredible as it might seem to the moderns and their students really want to learn, I can only hope that their trend will continue. Two hundred years ago, men were not afraid to devise and establish the first and only moral social system in human history. Today, after an unparalleled demonstration of that system's achievements, greatness, benevolence and moral righteousness, men are afraid to identify it, or to praise it, or even to say thank you. They squirm to avoid the system's name, which is capitalism. What then is being hailed as the ideal loudly and openly? Not socialism or communism, at least not in this country. Not too loudly and not yet. But that mongrel preface to socialism and communism, that dream of the philosophically illiterate, which seems to combine the having your cake and eating it too, the welfare state. Let us take a look at that system, at what it does to people and the motivations that runs it. I want you to remember in this bicentennial year that death there but for the grace of our founding fathers go we. That in one version or another is what they saved us from. That is what today's intellectual leaders are urging us to accept. In place of the American system, let us take the welfare state at its alleged best, as it is practiced in Sweden. You have heard its Claim from for years that Sweden is an ideal society, an example of peaceful, bloodless collectivism which combines material security with intellectual freedom, both guaranteed to everyone by the government. Bear in mind particularly the promises of aesthetic freedom under socialism, which as the socialists and the welfare status keep telling, will liberate artists from material concerns and set them free to create. The case I want to discuss concerning the Swedish film director Ingmar Bergman. Let me say emphatically that I am not an admirer of Ingmar Bergman, neither in his role of director nor in regard to his pictures choice of subjects. His work work to me is an example of mystically oriented subjectivist, pretentious mediocrity. I'm glad you think so too. But the issue of his aesthetic value or disvalue is irrelevant here. What is relevant is only the fact that he's a prominent man in his field who has made a name for himself and is admired by many people who regard him as great. A story in the New York Times of March 16, 1976 reports quote, Mr. Bergman was seized by two plain clothesmen on January 30th while rehearsing at the Royal Dramatic Theater in Stockholm. He was taken to police headquarters waters and questioned more than three hours about allegations that he had evaded taxes on $118,000 in income. His passport was temporarily confiscated and he was then driven to his apartment where the police removed personal documents. Three days later the 57 year old director was taken to a hospital for what friends described as an nervous breakdown. Close quote. The case involves some money which Mr. Bergman transferred to Switzerland for the purpose of producing pictures abroad. He believed that the transfer was legal. Mr. Bergmann maintained through his current lawyer that he wanted to accumulate capital for film projects. Close quote this is not an easy task in Sweden. It is known that in recent years taxes took up to 80% of Mr. Bergman's annual income of 150 to $200,000. Mr. Bergman's personal defense as quoted in the story is not too impressive. Quote, I am an artist, I know nothing about money and I know nothing about these charges. Close quote who incidentally is to provide an artist with the luxury of knowing nothing about money, that is about his livelihood. But never mind that every collectivist believes it to be an artist's right. The significant aspect of the case is as follows. Quote what has stirred the most debate, however, is the oft heard comment that Mr. Bergman has been singled out by authorities because what he somehow represents threatens numerous Swedes. The allegation is denied by the tax authorities, but one Senior civil servant said, Bergman is a unique figure here, and in many ways he's not a modern Swede. He's had five wives. His films, everything he does are a projection of his own spiritual troubles, his concerns. That's not particularly Swedish now. Close quote. This means even subjectivism may be regarded as a twisted form of individualism, and therefore Mr. Berman does not fit into the solid conformity of a collectivist state. Quote. In Sweden, we have no real debate about spiritual problems, the problems of man's nature. The official said, Everything is politicized. It's Bergman's uniqueness that makes him a target. He's a symbol of something that threatens people. Close quote Is this then the welfare statist idea of freedom, of artistic independence, of creative integrity? Harry Schein, Jeff chairman of the Swedish Film Institute and a friend of Mr. Bergman, said, quote, there's something very Swedish about this whole case. The idea of people saying you can get away with anything. We call it the Royal Swedish envy, and it's 400 years old. He added, one of the reasons Swedish equality is so advanced is that the motive behind it is not just socialism, but an active dislike of people who are supposed to be better. You have to cut people down. Everyone must be equal, make someone who's exceptional feel unexceptional. Close quote. This, I submit, is the most evil national psychology ever described. This is the bottom of the moral abyss. Many of you have read my essay on the Age of Envy, which deals with what I regard as the lowest evil, hatred of the good for being the good. It is shocking to read of an entire nation committed to that kind of hatred. Yet such is the base of the welfare state and the motive required to hold it together. Mr. Schein continues, we are a nation of intense social and moral pressures. Social pressures and social conformity explains the stability of the system. But if you are difficult or different in Sweden, it's very hard. And Ingmar has made himself too different. Close quote. Erlen Josephson, an actor who had worked for Mr. Bergman, said, There's a saying. No, no one's allowed to grow too tall. Bergman is one of the few totally free people here. He doesn't need government money, he can work abroad. He's not a critic of the system, he's just independent of it. And that upsets people. I should like to say that anyone who is not a critic of such a system and is willing silently to work under is not a totally free man and deserves what he would get sooner or later. Quote Police and tax officials adamantly deny that Mr. Bergman has been singled out and they have been supported by the populist press. A political columnist said that mail and phone calls ran heavily against the outcry of support for Mr. Bergman and that the opinion expressed was that the director should be treated like anyone else under investigation. Close quote on March 18th. Excuse me, 28th. On March 28th, the Times carried a brief news item. Quote, A tax fraud case against Ingmar Bergman, the Swedish film director, has ended almost as abruptly as it is began. The public prosecutor's office has dropped the investigation, saying that it was not able to find any basis for further investigation or for charges against Mr. Bergman. The prosecutors did not explain why, if there is no evidence now to support charges, there was cause to seize Mr. Bergmann January 30th and question him for more than three hours. Mr. Bergman was reported to have had a nervous breakdown. Because of his treatment by officials, he has stopped working on current projects. Friends say that he feels he has been humiliated and that he is contemplating moving to Italy. The Bergman story had a sequel. On April 3, the Times reported that Bibi Anderson, a Swedish actress who has appeared in many Bergman films, quote, was taken into custody early in February, held for 36 hours of questioning about a six year old tax return, refused access to her lawyer, denied permission to speak to her five year old daughter and told she might face a year in prison. Why was she treated that way? No reason is given in the story, but one can draw a certain inference. Quote, Swedish radical and populist publications repeatedly warned that renowned people should not be accorded special treatment. Ms. Anderson is now in New York. The interview she gave the Times is fascinating. She sounds like a child struggling to grasp some enormous evil, evil beyond her power of understanding. In a certain sense, she reminded me of Cheryl Taggart. Quote, I was shocked, she said. I was scared. They have taken away my honesty. What I care about now is to be treated justly. Close quote after declaring that, quote, it is not my country that I talk about, she said, quote, if there are taxes that I have not paid, I will pay them with enthusiasm. And this, of course, is the trouble which is my estimate. It is the bureaucracy that I speak about. They did not behave to me as if they wanted money. They seemed to want to prove that I had committed a conscious act of cheating, that I was a criminal. They wanted somehow to prove I had intentionally done wrong. Close quote she does not say and probably does not understand that what they wanted was to induce guilt, moral guilt. Further quote, she repeated what other theater people have said, that the Swedish tax Authorities appear to be set on making examples of public figures. We pay 80 to 90% taxes, Ms. Anderson explained. That is normal. We get a great deal for that. Do they? But we are feeling it is beginning to take away our personal freedom to work. Close quote it is interesting to note the gradual steps by which a country was brought down to such conditions. Quote she said the tax bureaucracy's growing power had accumulated over the years. First it was the doctors and the lawyers. The actress said the press had to create a climate emotional that was aggressive to tax cheating. There were a lot of suicides. To be identified by the press as being under investigation for taxes was worse than being a drug addict, worse than being a murderer. Have you heard the leftists denouncing capitalistic greed? Have you heard the drippy liberals contemptuous sneers about people who place money above everything? No capitalist, no banker, no long shark could ever match this kind of policy practiced by the humanitarian rulers of a welfare state. A medieval lord would hesitate to drive his serfs to suicide if they were late with their taxes. It is only lousy modern intellectual placed in the power who can permit themselves this kind of greed for the money they have not earned but extort from those who have. The ruler's motive here is, of course, deeper than mere financial greed. The purpose is to indoctrinate the hapless swedes with the spirit of serdom and of chronic guilt, with the notion that their duty to serve them, their masters, is of greater importance. Importance and everything else of greater importance than their lives. Since tax evasion is considered worse than murder. Poor Bibi Anderson seems to sense something about the nature of power lust. Quote I'm afraid she states, in a bureaucracy there are places for persons with their own psychologists, people who have chosen their jobs because it excites them to oppress other people. Close quote I wish someone would tell Ms. Anderson that the psychologies of these persons represent the psychology of the welfare state, the motivation that makes it possible. But I'm afraid she wouldn't understand it. Not so long as she goes on paying taxes with enthusiasm. That, incidentally, is a blatant example of the sanction of the victim. Such is the essence of the welfare state and as it was the essence of all social systems in history with the exception of the United States of America. It is these glorious exceptions that the bicentennial is supposed to celebrate. But we do not hear it said by any of our public leaders. Now observe that both the American politicians and The Swedish actress P.B. anderson are blaming and denouncing the bureaucrats. Why? The reason is obvious. Intentionally or not, it is a way of a Vedic principles of substituting men for ideas. It is a way of saying there's nothing wrong with the system, whether the mixed economy or the welfare state or the Soviet Union or whatever. It is only bad people who abuse the system. And there is always an accompanying implication. My gang would do it better. But why do we evaluate some people as good and others as bad? We do it on the ground of ideas, moral ideas. It is ideas fundamental, that is, philosophical ideas that determine man's actions and mankind's history. A culture dominated by the right ideas tends to disarm and discourage the worst of men. A culture dominated by altruism disarms the best and produces the montraggities we have been discussing. The role of altruism is obvious in all these examples. The moral issue in our primary campaigns is the people's angry rebellion against the injustice of being sacrificed to social welfare schemes. The college activists were enthusiastic about working for McGovern so long as they saw the altruistic prospect of distinction distributing the unearned but lost interest when reality confronted them with the question of who was to earn it. Ingmer Bergman and Bibi Anderson do not question the state's right to dispose of their livelihood and their lives. They would merely like it to be done politely. When people regard themselves as sacrificial animals, there will always be men eager to cash in on the sacrifice. They will crawl from under rocks, attracted by the smell. It is only the American people, not the intellectuals, who have given signs of rebellion against altruism. It is a blind, groping, ideologically helpless rebellion. But it would be a terrible crime of history if that rebellion is allowed to be defeated by silent default. So if you want to celebrate the American Bicentennial in a meaningful way, make yourself heard. Speak out against altruism on any scale you can reach, large or small. Tell people the meaning of America's founding principle, the meaning of individual rights. Tell them that this country was not built for any sort of dream, but for the hard, harsh, radiant, glowing reality of what it did achieve freedom. This is the only tribute we can pay to the great men who were the founders of this country. And the only way we have of saying thank you. It's.

The mechanics of the question period are very simple. I will take each section in a turn. I'll try to cover the entire audience if possible. And when recognized, please stand. It will enable me to see you as well as to hear you. I will repeat the question if I don't do it to your satisfaction. Indicate it and I'll try again. As I have often said in days when I used to preside regularly. Remember one, you are the questioner. The speaker is on the platform. Is there any question here? Yes.

Ms. Rand, could you tell us which of the founding Fathers you most admire and why?

Can you tell us which of the founding fathers you most admire and why?

If I had to choose one, I would say Thomas Jefferson for the Declaration of Independence. Independence, which is probably the greatest document in human history, both philosophically and literally, incidentally. Yes. Come on.

You pay income taxes?

If so, why?

Ms. Graham, do you pay income taxes and if so, why?

Because they're taken from me at the point of a gun.

What is standard justice and how does it apply to US involvement in Vietnam? What is standard justice and how does it apply to the United States involvement in Vietnam?

I'm not sure I know what you mean by standard justice. Or do you mean what is the standard of justice? Yes, the same. Well, the standard of justice and the only base for it is inalienable individual rights. Our behavior in Vietnam. I was against the war in Vietnam and I've spoken about that fact right here at this form during the war. But we are not guilty of anything except towards ourselves. We are guilty of colossal, stupid altruistic self sacrifice. We are not guilting towards the Vietnamese. If you want to consider what they are doing now or what the Cambodians are doing now. We did not do anything to anyone except ourselves. If you ask by a standard of justice, did we have the right to interfere in Vietnam? I have said in my article on collectivized rights, please look up the details that when a country does not recognize individual rights internally, when it does not recognize the rights of its own citizens, it cannot claim any national or international rights. Therefore, anyone who wants to invade a dictatorship or a semi dictatorship, morally injustice can do so because he's doing no worse than what that country has accepted as its social system. It is improper to invade or attack only a free country. Why? Because it recognizes the individual rights of its citizens. But there is no such thing as national or collective rights.

Further question. Yes.

Yes.

Do you feel that the note the.

Concept of bonuses or profit sharing in.

A company for the workers would one, help to reaffirm the justice of the work ethic? And two, do you feel that this would be contrary to capitalism? Types of productivity? Do you think that the custom of bonuses and profit sharing in connection with businesses works to assist the capitalist system based on productivity? Else there wouldn't be the product, the profits.

I wouldn't make it a general rule. I would see nothing wrong in such a policy. But no such principle can be established as a law for all types of business. If a company wants to do so voluntarily. Voluntarily by its own judgment, that's fine. Provided of course it is based on productivity. But it would not be a service to capitalism to establish that as a rule.

Further question way up. Come on. Excuse me, Mr. Ann, you mentioned six candidates for president. I'm sorry? You've mentioned six candidates for president.

By any chance have you heard of.

Roger MC of the Libertarian Party? Could you tell us what you think of him? You have mentioned six candidates for the presidency. Have you ever heard of Roger McBride? And what do you think of him?

My proper answer should be I don't. But I'd like to elaborate. To begin with, I mentioned the candidates which were mentioned in the particular article. They didn't hear of McBride, which is just as well. There's nothing to hear there now. Why would I be opposed it? Because I have been saying, look, if you know nothing about me except the lecture today, but I have been saying the same thing in everything I've spoken or written. That the trouble in the world today is philosophical, that only the right philosophy can save us. And here is a party which plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite. With religionists, with anarchists, with just about every intellectual misfit and scum that they can find and they call themselves Libertarian and run for office. Just let me add I dislike Mr. Reagan, I dislike Mr. Carter, and I don't not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. I would say the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt anything so unphilosophical, so low and so pragmatic as this Libertarian Party because it's the last insult to the idea of ideas and to philosophical consistency way up and back.

In a pure capitalistic society, what force would prevent environmental pollution? In a pure capitalistic society, what force would prevent environmental pollution?

There wouldn't be any force to prevent anything. But if there were any valid fact to environmental pollution, some small scale pollutions are true. If you don't mean ecology now, which is an enormous political fraud. But let's say the pollution of air or water. If there were actual cases of pollution, then the force that would prevent it would be public opinion, which is not a force. It would be the power of persuasion. It would be people protesting and suing for damages. If physical damage to a city or its heir or to a neighbor's property can be demonstrated and if it's physical, it can be demonstrated, then there is recourse in the court of law. And it would be to the interest of industry to avoid pollution whenever it is humanly possible. But they would not try to avoid it, nor to try to save extinct bird species at the price of enormous unemployment? At the price of closing down industry. No, that would not come to pass. But not only in a free society. They won't get away with it even in a semi prison society so long as men are not insane.

Come on, Ms. Round, you've said who you're not very enthusiastic for. Could you comment on who you might be more enthusiastic for if they were running? Can you comment upon somebody who might arouse your enthusiasm if he or she were running?

No, I was.

I wish there were.

But in today's cultural atmosphere, the better type of people, the true intellectuals, would not go into politics. Not yet. The battle has to be won, or at least a foundation laid outside of politics. The battle is really in the colleges.

Come on, come on. I see a hand. Come on.

In your last letter you mentioned the public indications of the influence of Objectivism around the world and in this country. And you mentioned something about something going on in the Scandinavian countries that indicated your interest in Objectivism and you said that you were glad, coherent at that distance. I can't remember your exact words.

What I was wondering was whether you.

Meant physical or philosophical, philosophical difference or both.

In connection with your last letter you made mention of the spread of Objectivism and its influence throughout the world and you made particular reference to the Scandinavian countries. In what way has Objectivism made itself felt in that region?

This was specifically Norway. There was news report in the Times that I quoted that this part Conservative party in Norway, Conservative in the. Apparently the good sense, pro capitalist. It's a new parties was formed and won a significant number of seats in their parliament. And they quoted me as one of their, I guess, philosophical inspiration. They said they followed the philosophy of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. Well, Milton Friedman is practically my opposite. But what I said is that at that distance, if they're confused, I don't hold it against them since there are worse confusions intellectually, geologically right here in this country. That was Norway, it wasn't Sweden.

Come on, come on.

What is your opinion, if any, of Howard Hughes?

What is your opinion, if any, of Howard Hughes?

I have no opinion. I have never been particularly interested in him and have not followed his career. There are apparently he was a Talented man who really earned some of his money. He also had some dreadful faults if you observe the kind of movies he produced. So I truly can't say say that I have an opinion or much interest.

Come on. How do you explain two facts? One, that Sweden has a per capita income greater than ours, and secondly, that according to U. S Government statistics the productivity of a manufacturing worker is higher than you find in the United States today. How do you explain that the productivity in Sweden is higher than in this country and that the money taken back by the employee is higher than in this country? Is that it? Well, you have to have the money before you have the income.

Come I explain it by better press agentry. Seriously speaking, I do not believe it. You can prove anything with statistics. You would have to have the whole picture before you could truly say if their productivity was greater. You would have heard about it. That I would sooner believe that they're all walking on their heads because there's some indication of that than that they're productive when all of their best people have left them. That a country like that is on its way into the sewer, which apparently it has already reached. Come on.

Can you tell us if there any works in the offering of books by Dr. Peacock that we can expect in the near future or articles by you? Can you tell us if there are any books or articles by Dr. Peacock or anyone or any further book by you?

As to myself, I am now contemplating and sort of doing preparatory stages but have not yet decided on two different books. So I'm merely in the starting stages. Dr. Pikoff has not completed his book yet, but he's progressing on it wonderfully. And if there is only one book I can recommend in the future, that is the book, I would say you must all read it because what I've seen of it so far is truly magnificent and enormously valuable, enormously enlightening. Since Dr. Pico is here, I hope he blushes.

Quiet please.

Stand up. Dr. Pico. One second.

I might say that I regret not getting your name as it came across here. I made some. Some sort of a bird of you. How would the objectivist ethics resolve the dilemma in the following hypothetical situation if the United States were to defend itself in an aggressive. In a war against the Soviet Union. Soviet Union with the aggressor. Certain individuals in the Soviet Union who were innocent of aggression and had perhaps fought to oppose that aggression in the best way they could in that country might be murdered in that war. What is the ethical situation regarding their rights? I have trouble with that. How would the Objectivists approach the problem which this young gentleman has just stated? Assume that there was a war of aggression started by the Soviet Union and assume that within the Soviet Union there were many that opposed the aggressive work of the ruling group there. How would the Objectivists handle that type of problem?

I will try to pretend that I'm taking the question seriously. It's one of those questions which is so blatantly wrong that I cannot help not understanding how anyone can entertain that sort of question series. My guess is that the trick here is context dropping. The idea that an individual inside a country can be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts willingly or unwillingly, even if he's fighting it, he still accepts he hasn't left the country. The idea that others should respect that man's right and collapse to aggression themselves. In other words, not be goddamn pacifists who would not fight even when attacked because they might kill innocent people. Look, if this were so, nobody would have to be concerned about his country's political system. If you could have a life independent of the system which other countries and other nations respected so that you wouldn't be drawn into an unjust war if you're an innocent victim. If that were so, we would not need to be concerned about politics. Why is it important to be concerned about politics? Why should we care about having the right social system? Because our lives are dependent on it. Because those systems, good or bad, are established in our name and we bear the responsibility so that the Soviet citizens who are innocent, I hope someday will be destroyed in a proper war along with the guilty. There aren't very many innocent ones and they are not in the big cities. They are mainly in concentration camps. But right or wrong, nobody must put up with aggression and surrender his right of self defense for fear of hurting somebody else. Guilty or innocent. When someone comes at you with a gun, if you have one ounce of self esteem, you will answer him by force. Never mind who he is or who is behind him. If he is attacking you because he's out to destroy you, and this is what you owe to the sanctity of your own life. If you have self esteem.

I'd like to ask, Ms. Grand, what's your position on the Equal Rights Amendment? What is your position on the Equal Rights Amendment?

I'm against it. Come on.

As you have so brilliantly demonstrated. Wait a minute. The second question is why?

Because it is a dangerous, very dangerous redundancy. The Constitution has never made any distinction between men and women. When the Constitution speaks about rights, it does mean equal rights for men and women. And then it is up to the states to pass certain laws which recognize physical physiological differences between men and women. Those differences do exist. They are not intellectual, they are not moral. They're not an issue of different rights. But it is an issue of physiological differences. The Equal Rights Amendment wants to repeal a metaphysical fact of reality. It wants women to be drafted into the army, which I hope all those women laborers would be. Except that the country would lose any such war if they were. It is for the implications of what certain ambitious pressure group leaders want to make of that amendment under the guise of equality. That is the danger and why the Constitution should not be cluttered with nonsense like that.

Come on.

Mr. Ann.

Since you have so brilliantly demonstrated that the fate of the world rests upon philosophy, could you please discuss one of the most difficult categories in the whole science of philosophy, Namely the philosophy of science? Could you discuss the most cardinal principles of science? Could you discuss the most cardinal principles of the philosophy of science?

The answer is no, not in the time allowed in a question period. I would not undertake to give a single lecture on this. A subject like the philosophy of science would require several volumes of writing which I have not done. So I have certain ideas on the subject. But it's a special research and special undertaking which you can't ask or answer in a question period. But I can give you a little lead if you want, if you're interested in the subject. No, not about the country content. Just read the book of mine, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. And you will see the leads in it. Now, if you can't pursue them, then you'll have to wait until I or someone will work it out for you if we do. But the leads are there.

Come on. It has been shown that stimulant drugs such as the amphetamines. May prolong the ability to concentrate in tired individuals. Do you think it is moral to use these drugs under normal circumstances. Even though certain deleterious side effects almost always occur?

That's not immoral.

Wait a minute. It has been shown that the use of certain drugs benefits a given person. But if used to excess, certain harms result. No, that's misstating the question. State it again. Drugs can be used to improve the state and functioning of the human consciousness. When it is tired.

Yes.

Is it moral to do so under normal circumstances when you are not tired? Is it? This gentleman says, is it moral to use certain drugs that undertake to improve the intellect and cause A person who is tired to be able to function. You look unhappy. All right.

It's not a moral question. It's a medical question. You would have to ask a doctor as to when a drug can be taken with impunity, with small consequences, or with dangerous and serious consequences. It all depends on the context of a given person and a given state of health. Therefore, consult your doctor about it.

Come on, come on.

I wonder if it would be possible for Ms. Rand to ever make the.

Transcripts of this forum when she comes available for prescription for, you know, a price.

To past subscribers to the Ayn Rand Letter for the Objectivist Newsletter.

This young lady wonders whether it would be possible to secure a transcript of what was said by you tonight.

Now, I don't intend to publish it, but if you are interested, this would be a good time to tell you. My former assistant and president still Secretary Barbara Weiss, is undertaking to start a publication called the Objectivist Calendar to inform people about our activities in various lectures, books, et cetera. If you get in touch with her at the address of the Ayn Rand letter, she might be able to arrange the publication of this speech as a pamphlet. Maybe, if there is enough interest in it, I don't know. I would be quite willing to cooperate, of course, if enough people were interested. But outside of that, I do not plan any publication for it.

Come on, come on. In the copyright bill that was just passed by the United States Senate, there are several provisions for compulsory licensing.

That is removing from the author the.

Choice of to whom he will license.

Will you comment on that?

Will you comment upon the changes in the copyright revisions which remove from the author the right to make certain or give certain licenses in connection with his product?

I think it is unspeakably evil and inexcusably immoral. It's interesting that that is one of the items I was going to include in the talk tonight, just that issue of the copyright bill, but I didn't have room for it. The vicious thing is the aspect you didn't mention, to whom is it that one would be forced to license our work that applies to to writers or composers, to the so called public service television and radio stations. In other words, here are parasites who are on salary. As a rule, those on salary get much more than they would be paid in commercial television. They're paid by taxpayers and by the government. They do not have a wide audience, just a small audience of their own cliques. And yet claiming to represent the public interest for some reason, they are going to violate the rights of writer and Composers of creative people. The bill, as it stands, proposes that the public interest stations will have the right to seize your work. But there will be a public board that will determine how much you will be paid for it. They do not ask your consent as to whether you want your work produced on those stations, which I would not. Certainly not on Channel 13 in New York. I don't know where the others are. But you should see what that station indulges in. That would be literally an occasion for a violent rebellion, at least on my part. Because I would. I would rather destroy all copies of my books than permit it, except that I am not in a position to do it. There are fortunately too many of them.

Question in the balcony.

May I add something?

Yes, go ahead.

The Senate passed it, but the House has not. And both authors and publishers, and I believe the Composers Union too, are fighting it. I know about authors and publishers. Therefore, if any of you are interested, please, for my sake and other valuable creators who might still and do still exist, write to your congressman opposing that particular clause. The copyright law otherwise is a very good law. But that clause is unspeakable and not only in regard to creative people. Just think of the precedent it's setting for public nationalization.

Come on. Ms. Rand, would you care to comment on the current balance between Israel, the Arab countries, the Soviet Union and its implications in Mr. Kissinger, Mr. Boyd. And the current treatment of Alexander Soldanessi? Well, now, I want to repeat that, not for your benefit, but for the benefit of the audience that will be hearing this on the air. Will you comment upon the situation between Israel, the Arab states and the Soviet Union? And. And will you include in your comment your opinion of Solzhenitsyn.

And Kissinger.

Being ignored? And I apologize for it? Kissinger.

Well, my real answer should be that if you came next Sunday and if the sundry were available and if I were able to come from New York, I would have to give you a lecture on that subject. You cannot cover all that in a question period. Let me give you just a few brief indications which I would like to say. I am certainly for Israel's battle against the Arabs. I support them even though they are a normal socialist state for the following reasons. They are being attacked because they are the vanguard of civilization in that part of Africa. They are being attacked for being industrialized and civilized as against the primordial ignorance and savagery of the Arabs who predominantly are still nomads, which is the lower stage of civilization. It for that reason that I am on the side of Israel Also for the fact that Soviet Russia is against it. That's not always a safe indication and not the proper standard of whom to support. But in this case it is significant. I think Mr. Kissinger is the most disgraceful and disastrous Secretary of State that we've ever had. Many because of his philosophical views. If you know he's an admiring, a follower of Metternich, which was the worst of the European approach to foreign policy and to power. But the question that I most want to answer is lower than Kissinger, lower than the rulers of Russia stands Mr. Solzhenitsyn. He is the worst public caricature of a monster that has emerged in this age which has an awful lot of public caricature and of unappetizing characters. Let me tell you why. If a Communist or a fascist or any plain powerluster tells you that he wants to enslave you, he says so he doesn't posture as a liberator. Solzhenitsyn, listen before you speak of him or ask anything about him, please read the letter which he sent to the Soviet authorities shortly before he was deported. And they were right to get rid of him. It's the world's laws to be settled with that sort of thing. Read that letter. It has been published. It has been translated. I read it in the original Russian. In it, that man claims in effect that he is a Communist. He says so openly, only not in those words. He is against Marxism. He would like Russia to remain a dictatorship, but a dictatorship run by the Russian Orthodox Church so that Russian religion, the Greek Orthodox religion, would substitute for Marxism. In other words, he wants to take Russia back to the stage before Peter the Great, which is to the 17th or earlier the 16th century. That is how far back he wants to go. He is anti industrial. He wants to take Russia back to being an agrarian country. And Russia left on her own, was tilling the soil with bare hands or horses. They didn't even get to the stage of tractors. They labored 24 hours a day and starved periodically. That's what Mr. Solzhenitsyn offers as an ideal. And that horrible, pretend, pretentious person is held as some kind of hero of liberation. He doesn't want to free the world. He's denouncing the West. He's denouncing Western civilization. He says in this letter of his he wants the Russian government, the Communist Party, to keep all their economic power, the power of production and trade and distribution over foreign relationships, over the army. And all he wants is for them to allow people to speak and Write freely now. Remember, he's a writer. And in the conclusion of this unspeakable document, he says the following. I want nothing for myself. I am sure, in effect, I'm quoting from memory that you, the rulers, have never seen and cannot imagine a man who is not asking something for himself. Well, here I am. Please look at me that as a selfless person. Well, that's as much as any religious mystic, altruist would ever project. That's all that his disinterest means. Give me freedom to write and all the rest of your activities and professions can be enslaved. I'm quite willing to put up with it. Look, I am very suspicious of anybody. And that goes for Mr. Bergman too. INGEMER Bergman, who rises to fame under a dictatorship or semi dictatorship, because I know how it's done. You have to do an enormous lot of compromising bootlicking and have a click of your own within the various cliques before you would be allowed to rise. Anyone who became famous in Soviet Russia as a writer deserves enormous suspicion. But after that, to come out here and posture as a prophet is really adding insult to injury. Sure, what he wrote about the concentration camps is true. Better people have said before we should believe them. And not a man who is philosophically the exact opposite of everything the west stands for or should stand for. He's a man against individualism and against reason. That's my opinion of Mr. Salzhenitsyn.

Miss Rand, do you have an opinion on the Patricia Campbell Hearst saga further on Who? Patricia. Patricia Campbell Hearst. It's been in the papers. If you said Patty Hearst, it would be simpler. If the person is coerced to act against their will, should they be held liable? If a person is compelled and coerced to act against her will, should such a person be held criminally liable? And the gentleman has reference to Patty Hearst.

No, I'm not interested in Patty Hearst. But I do have an opinion. If a Patty person is given a gun and a loaded gun by alleged abductors, you're not going to tell me that they are coercing her. Because all she would have had to do is if she were coerced. And if they were that insane, and I don't believe even criminals can be that insane as to give a loaded gun to an unwilling victim. But let's suppose they did. They're crazy. All she had to do was fall down on the floor and pretend to faint and then run to the first policeman. She is not in an enemy camp. She is in a civilized society. If she had that much of a chance to escape, you cannot tell me. Unfortunately, you couldn't tell the California jury that she did it under duress, that she was completely compelled to do it. No. If she were compelled to do it, you'd have to see to begin with, what kind of action. And then what would she do in the year following that? And the lady who is taking 42 Fifth Amendment, please. That she can't talk without incriminating herself. That alone, she has proved what she is. I don't have to prove it.

Come on, way in back. One of the foundations of capitalism and one of the foundations of private property is the sacredness of contract. Our country has made what I believe to be sacred contracts in the form of treaties with several peoples. And these contracts are supposed to run until the sky is no longer blue and until the grass is no longer green. I wonder if this mila would be fitting for the. The bicentennial to return some of the Indian lands which belong to these people by contract. The nub of the gentleman's question has to do with whether you believe in the spirit of the bicentennial, this country should return some of the lands that were seized from the Indians. And oftentimes under the guise of a country contractual relationship.

If you ask me, as a principal, should one respect the sanctity of contract? Yes. Among individuals. Not that certain among nations. That depends on the nature of the other nation and on its behavior. But if you want to apply contract law to the Indians. I am the last person in the world you should ask because I feel very strongly against it. I will, however, try to speak calmly. The issue is the same as the one I made reference to another questioner. Namely, please read my article Collectivized Rights, in which I speak in detail about the fact that when a group of people or a nation does not respect individual rights, it cannot claim any rights whatever. The Indians who were savages here with ghastly tribal rules, including torture of a kind that is now famous as Indian torture. Tribes of that kind have no rights. Americans or anyone less than that have the right to come here and take whichever he could take because he's dealing with savages as they deal among themselves by force. We owe nothing to the Indians except the memory of monstrous evils and horrors done by them. Now, if you tell me that there is evidence, and I will question it very thoroughly. But let's suppose that. That you may be able to find evidence of the white people treating the Indians very badly, I would say that's too bad. But in the whole history of this country. It's an exception and I would regret it. But that would not give the Indians any kind of rights, because look at their own history, look at their ideas, look at their treatment of their own members. People who do not recognize individual rights cannot expect to have any rights or to have them respected.

Mark, do you have any opinion on the works or ideas of Thomas Oz? Thomas who?

Zas.

Do you have any words or ideas about the works of Thomas szasz?

You mean the psychologist? Psychiatrist. I have not read enough of him to form a full opinion, but what I have read is very interesting. He seems to be for individual rights, but I cannot always follow his argument. I have certain serious questions about some of his premise and therefore I have not read enough to criticize him. All I can say is he's promising.

Come on. The young lady. Come on.

Wait a minute.

Wait a minute. Come on. This young lady. Would you care to comment, please, on.

The issue of individual rights, especially women?

Comment upon the rights of individual women, particularly with reference to abortion?

Well, I have made one of my best speeches here on that subject under the title of living death, and it was a comment on the papal encyclical about contraception. I am certainly in favor of abortion, or rather not that everyone should have an abortion, but in favor of a perfect moral right of a woman to have it if she so decides. I think it is an issue to be decided by a woman and her doctor only. I am in complete agreement with the Supreme Court decision on this subject. And if you want another reason why I'm against Ronald Reagan in addition to the one I mentioned here, is that that so? And so claiming to be a defender of capitalism and Americanism has come out against abortion. If he doesn't respect that fundamental a right, he cannot be a defender of any kind of rights.

Gentlemen, in that. Come on. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. This gentleman. Wait a minute. The one who is. Now, please sit down. The one with the white shirt. Now this one.

Come on.

You don't have many good things to say about the college activists of the 60s.

Don't you think that their actions, though.

Childish, were not newsworthy and by being newsworthy kept war in Vietnam and Watergate in the news and hastened the end of the war, hastened the uncovering effects? Didn't the activists that you criticized in the universities really play a part in connection with Watergate in the subsequent reaction, at the same time of the attitude which prevailed contrary to the. The war in Vietnam?

No, I don't think they Contributed anything. I think they were spoiled breaths out after publicity. I think they were made by the media because they were given so much publicity, that that was their main interest and they contributed nothing except chaos and disorder. Why do I say that? Because you don't. Do not solve serious issues by physical demonstration. If you want to contribute, you argue, you persuade, you think of new arguments and you spread propaganda and ideas. You teach. You don't sit in the street or lie down to obstruct traffic and chant and look sloppy and dirty and by that means stop a war in Vietnam. No.

Now, before I ask Ms. Rand to make such final remarks as she cares to, may I ask you to refrain from doing what other audiences that have come here to hear Ms. Rand have liked to do? Come after the meeting has adjourned and secure her autograph or to thank her for what she has had to say. Ms. Rand is anxious to leave the hall immediately at the adjournment of the meeting because she is anxious to get back to the hotel where there is an anxious telephone that she wants to make. Now, it is a pleasure to ask Ms. Rand to make such final words as she would care.

On which subject? Anything. On anything. Well, I. The moral factor.

The moral factor.

If I. I would like to say something. I would like to thank the audience very much for their interest and attention. I'm sorry if I disappointed some of you in regard to my Washington appearance where I truly. If some of you know about it and wanted to come. I truly was not able then, and therefore I'm glad that I was able to keep my promise this year. And here I believe from some of the letters and calls we received that you did not think or some of you did not that I recovered from my illness. Well, I hope this will convince you that I have. What's more important, I'm still fighting and will continue to fight. Thank you very much.

Tonight's Ford Hall Forum, speaker from Boston, novelist and essayist Ayn Rand, author of the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.