For the Ayn Rand lovers

[SirRealism]

If we accept Rand as the final arbiter of Objectivist philosophy, I have already done so: she believed in gun control, as I stated somewhere upthread.

Can you cite this? I've found no statement attributed to Rand, explicitly supporting gun control. I've found a few conflicting statements, none of which plants her firmly on either side of the issue.

Ayn Rand Biographical FAQ

Raymond Newman: You have stated that the government ought to be the exclusive agent for the use of force under objective rules of law and justice --

Ayn Rand: That's right.

Newman: -- and yet at the same time today we see an alarming rise in violent crimes in this country and more and more people applying for gun permits and wanting to protect themselves. Do you see this as a dangerous trend, number one; and number two, do you favor any form of gun control laws?

Rand: I have given it no thought at all and, off-hand, I would say, no, the government shouldn't control guns except in very marginal forms. I don't think it's very important because I don't think it is in physical terms that the decisions and the fate of this country will be determined. If this country falls apart altogether, if the government collapses bankrupt, your having a handgun in your pocket isn't going to save your life. What you would need is ideas and other people who share those ideas and fighting towards a proper civilized government, not handguns for personal protection.

 

[Fletch]

Can you cite this? I've found no statement attributed to Rand, explicitly supporting gun control. I've found a few conflicting statements, none of which plants her firmly on either side of the issue.

Ayn Rand Biographical FAQ

As I stated upthread, it's in her book [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Signet-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451163931"]The Virtue of Selfishness[/ame]. In it, she describes an ideal society by way of a metaphor where all citizens are men sitting around a table, trading freely with one another, and the only one with a gun (or allowed to have one) is the sheriff. I find it difficult to believe that this is just a sloppy metaphor on her part: she was far too careful in everything she wrote for it to have been an accident. She wanted every sentence to have profound meaning, and I don't think she would slack off when presenting an idealized society.

Even the quote you cite shows that she took a dim view of being armed -- she didn't think it would do a whole lot of good. Compare her statement with that of thousands of modern gun controllers in debate, who say that your deer rifle or handgun is a meaningless tool for resisting oppression and tyranny. It comes from the same mindset.

These are not major points by any stretch of the imagination, but then she never spent much time on the subject, because she didn't think it was as important as the rest of what she had to discuss. As your quote above states, she thought ideas were far more potent than weapons, and this is demonstrated in Atlas Shrugged: some weapons were used (most notably Dagny Taggart's use of a handgun) to pursue the revolution, but the real agents of change were the ideas put into motion by the principal characters.

With regard to her assessment, I agree with her, but with a caveat: The power of ideas is in fact far greater than the power of weapons, but having weapons doesn't hurt.

 

[jeremy]

I have found that most who claim to have read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged really need to re-read it...

 

[Expat]

My position is more that freedom is a prerequisite for morality. Indeed, freedom has no purpose without morality; morality is the point of freedom. In this way I am exactly like Rand: we both believe that morality (perhaps even Morality) is an imperative, not an option. What exact shape that Morality takes is of course open for discussion and debate, as it should be.

The Founders seem to feel you had it backward. One can not have true liberty and freedom without morality.

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence "[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

"Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof." Continental Congress, 1778

 

[Fletch]

As I stated upthread, it's in her book The Virtue of Selfishness.

I went to the text, but am having trouble finding the exact passage I'm thinking of. However, I did find the following in [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_7"]Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal[/ame]:

There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement.

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Fletch]

The Founders seem to feel you had it backward. One can not have true liberty and freedom without morality.

I believe they were wrong in this regard.

 

[CarmelHP]

Whitaker Chambers famous (infamous?) defenestration of Ayn Rand. I think Chambers was a tad unfair, but only a tad.

Big Sister Is Watching You - Whittaker Chambers - National Review Online

 

[dross]

I'm not ignoring you; I've been trying to figure out a way to put it. If you read your post that I responded to, and mine that immediately preceded it, there's a subtle difference. From my perspective, yours says that freedom is the ultimate end, and if it results in morality, that's a good thing. My position is more that freedom is a prerequisite for morality. Indeed, freedom has no purpose without morality; morality is the point of freedom. In this way I am exactly like Rand: we both believe that morality (perhaps even Morality) is an imperative, not an option. What exact shape that Morality takes is of course open for discussion and debate, as it should be.

I like your statement, "freedom is prerequisite for morality," but I differ with you that freedom has no purpose without morality.

I'll put it slightly differently. Freedom is the first moral principle. Without the freedom to choose, there is no moral choice in the first place, and therefore no morality.

Restricting others' freedom by force when they haven't violated anyone elses, is the heighest immorality.

 

[dross]

Some Ayn Rand detractors suffer from the same sickness as the Ayn Rand worshippers. They expect her to be perfect. The worshippers treat her as perfect, the detractors discount her contributions because of her personal failings.

It's enlightening to watch interviews with her, especially those where there is give and take. She doesn't come across nearly so dogmatic, and she shows a flexibility of thought that isn't apparent in her writings.

Again, though, I don't need her to be perfect or even good in order to appreciate her contribution.