Donor of Ayn Rand Manuscript, U.S. Are Not on the Same Page

LA Times ^ | 3/5/2002 | BOB POOL

[jennyp]

Ayn Rand wrote the book on the chasm between personal happiness and a heavy-handed government. Leonard Peikoff illustrated it.

That's how Rand fans say the empty picture frame on Peikoff's wall figures into the fight over two pages of her original handwritten manuscript of "The Fountainhead."

Federal officials seized the pages after Peikoff joked that he "stole" them from the Library of Congress. Peikoff, a writer and philosopher, was a lifelong friend of Rand and is an expert on her philosophy of objectivism, which teaches that individuals--not the government--are the key to the development of a healthy society. He inherited the scrawled first drafts of "The Fountainhead," "Atlas Shrugged" and two other books when she died in 1982.

[Burkeman1]

No- not at all- every civilization needs a moral grounding in which their laws ultimatlely reside. Ours is Christian/Judeo law. Randists believe law comes from no where but the force of a gun. And yet they want a nearly anarchist system in which "law" is limited to anything that the culture of consumption rules is ok.

Law or "rule" comes from the strongest. Randists want us to be free of such rule- but they are just as pathetic utopians as Communists are. A free economy can only exist among a people or peoples who agree on certain frameworks, values, ethics, and rules- and the libertarians offer none of that.

[Equality 7-2521]

bump

[Burkeman1]

I don't think the Hero of "Atlas Shrugged" would have had anything to offer humanity without the associations, groupings, hatreds, and wars of the past that he used to build his invention. There is nothing in the present that does not derive from the past.

[elfman2]

"Rand- is at heart- a leftist- as she jettisons all of the collective knowledge, institutions, associations, groups, and natural proclivities of man for her "theory". "

That's ignorant at best. In "The Virtues of Selfishness" which most succinctly outlines Objectivism, she applauds the exchange of ideas and trade of services that result from social systems. You don't understand what you hate. Your emotional problems are overshadowed by limitations in your reading comprehension.

[NatureGirl]

You haven't read any Rand, have you? If you had, you certainly couldn't have said something like this:

Randists believe law comes from no where but the force of a gun.

Good Lord! - that was the whole point of her fiction - to show how the socialist/second-handers could produce nothing of their own, and had to take it from the producers at the point of a gun!! You've got all this completely backwards!

[PhilDragoo]

I saw a movie poster for We The Living on the Holzers' wall and learned they knew her. And helped produce that movie or that version of that movie. Erika Holzer wrote "Eye For An Eye" and relates how knowing Ayn Rand affected her life. Hank Holzer was on O'Reilly Factor tonight discussing their new book Aid and Comfort: Jane Fonda in North Vietnam. I don't have cable, but Bob in New York City said Hank "kicked Tom Hayden's a**".

My older brother the engineer was moved to leave RCA and succeed as an independent engineer, I'm sure in no small part due to a resonance he found in Ayn Rand. As for morality and "leftists", he and his family are Christian Republicans.

I have enjoyed her Atlas Shrugged the large opus most well-known, and particularly the very thin Anthem.

The individual is simultaneously most free, and most required to be responsible.

And of course the enemy of totalitarianism.

[Burkeman1]

Would such social systems even exist in a Randian world? No- she takes nothing of human nature into her thinking but of greed- when there is so much more to humanity! You are obtuse. Rand is the extreme of Marx- both were utopian fools.

[Burkeman1]

Where does law come from? Tell me? From a Randian point of view?

[elfman2]

" Sorry- I am using the sad values of middle class Americans to "judge" her and her personal life. That is disgusting to you and yours?"

Oh, I see. It's the value's of the majority that you think justifies you behaving like a unstable jerk. I have no opinion on your values, just your judgement on hurling insults on this thread. I may dislike several aspects of several religious, but I'd have to be a hate filled immature fool to jump on one of their threads and call their leader's "insects".

[NatureGirl]

The individual is simultaneously most free, and most required to be responsible

Exactly.

[Burkeman1]

I will assume you know nothing of her personal or business life. For if you did and did not call her an insect then I would assume you are not worthy of even spitting upon on the street. The woman was a moral worm. Oops- I know, we shouldn't "judge" people. Sorry.

[elfman2]

"Would such social systems even exist in a Randian world?"

Of course. If you understood it, you'd see that she makes it clear that it's in our rational interest and should therefor be maintained. I agree with you that she overlooks or denies too much of human nature. That's why I'm not an Objectivist.

[dheretic]

"Sorry- man is not a "theory" and we will never bow to that idea- that is what conservatism is about! We don't have the answers! We are against those who think they do!"

So what you're saying is that you are even less qualified to lead because you don't have a clue what the right direction is? I hardly think conservatives lack a "plan" or "theory" for how things ought to be!

[breakem]

Pathetic is when something in your comment is pointed out to you and you get defensive, namecall and attack the person who pointed it out. Based on your responses, I defer to your knowledge of what is pathetic.

[Prodigal Son]

Randists believe law comes from no where but the force of a gun.

You just described what Rand is against and since you also seem against this idea I take this particular comment to be an area that you and Ayn Rand are in total agreement. That post actually only demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about. I commend your fervor, but as you say, perhaps your beliefs, in this case, would be better served if they were grounded in something- preferably something at least resembling the truth.

[Burkeman1]

That is what we are about! We don't have a "master" plan and prefer to look at things from experience and History! Sorry- what did you think we are? do you think we have all the answers? Join the other team then because they think so!

[Burkeman1]

Where does law come from?

[LarryLied]

We don't have the answers!

You haven't read the Libertarian Prime Directive or whatever they call it. The initiation of force thingie. It explains everything. Even what kind of toothpaste is best. Honest.

[Burkeman1]

And from where does that "responsibility" come from? And who defines it's parameters?

[meyer]

Your emotional problems are overshadowed by limitations in your reading comprehension.

I like that line!

Of course, my limitations in reading comprehension are overshadowed by my emotional problems. :^)

Needless to say, I'm going to steal that one.