What do you think?
Rate this book
Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A
After the publication of Atlas Shrugged in 1957, Ayn Rand turned to nonfiction writing and occasional lecturing. Her aim was to bring her philosophy to a wider audience and to apply it to current cultural and political issues. The taped lectures and the question-and-answer sessions that followed added not only an eloquent new dimension to Ayn Rand's ideas and beliefs but also a fresh and spontaneous insight into Ayn Rand herself. Ayn Rand Answers is a collection of those enlightening Q&As. Topics covered include ethics, Ernest Hemingway, modern art, Vietnam, Libertarians, Jane Fonda, religious conservatives, Hollywood communists, atheism, Don Quixote, abortion, gun control, love and marriage, Ronald Reagan, pollution, the Middle East, racism and feminism, crime and punishment, capitalism, prostitution, homosexuality, reason and rationality, literature, drug use, freedom of the press, Richard Nixon, New Left militants, HUAC, chess, comedy, suicide, masculinity, Mark Twain, improper questions, and more.
- GenresNonfictionPhilosophy
8 pages, Audio CD
First published July 23, 2009
2 people are currently reading
112 people want to read
About the author
Ayn Rand
592 books10.4k followersPolemical novels, such as
The Fountainhead
(1943), of primarily known Russian-American writer Ayn Rand, originally Alisa Rosenbaum, espouse the doctrines of objectivism and political libertarianism.
Fiction of this better author and philosopher developed a system that she named. Educated, she moved to the United States in 1926. After two early initially duds and two Broadway plays, Rand achieved fame. In 1957, she published Atlas Shrugged , her best-selling work.
Rand advocated reason and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism as opposed to altruism. She condemned the immoral initiation of force and supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system, based on recognizing individual rights, including private property. Often associated with the modern movement in the United States, Rand opposed and viewed anarchism. In art, she promoted romantic realism. She sharply criticized most philosophers and their traditions with few exceptions.
Books of Rand sold more than 37 million copies. From literary critics, her fiction received mixed reviews with more negative reviews for her later work. Afterward, she turned to nonfiction to promote her philosophy, published her own periodicals, and released several collections of essays until her death in 1982.
After her death, her ideas interested academics, but philosophers generally ignored or rejected her and argued that her approach and work lack methodological rigor. She influenced some right conservatives. The movement circulates her ideas to the public and in academic settings.
Fiction of this better author and philosopher developed a system that she named. Educated, she moved to the United States in 1926. After two early initially duds and two Broadway plays, Rand achieved fame. In 1957, she published Atlas Shrugged , her best-selling work.
Rand advocated reason and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism as opposed to altruism. She condemned the immoral initiation of force and supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system, based on recognizing individual rights, including private property. Often associated with the modern movement in the United States, Rand opposed and viewed anarchism. In art, she promoted romantic realism. She sharply criticized most philosophers and their traditions with few exceptions.
Books of Rand sold more than 37 million copies. From literary critics, her fiction received mixed reviews with more negative reviews for her later work. Afterward, she turned to nonfiction to promote her philosophy, published her own periodicals, and released several collections of essays until her death in 1982.
After her death, her ideas interested academics, but philosophers generally ignored or rejected her and argued that her approach and work lack methodological rigor. She influenced some right conservatives. The movement circulates her ideas to the public and in academic settings.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 29, 2024
AN EXCELLENT COLLECTION OF HER RESPONSES TO AUDIENCE QUESTIONS
The Introduction to this 2005 book by Editor Robert Mayhew states, “After the publication of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ in 1957, Ayn Rand turned to nonfiction writing and (to a lesser extent) lecturing. Her aim in giving lectures was to make her philosophy, Objectivism, more widely known, and to apply it to current cultural and political issues. Most of her lectures were followed by question-and-answer periods, many of which were taped. This volume is a collection of the best of that material.”
She states that the state DOES have the right to interfere with parents who abuse their children: “Yes, in a case of demonstrable physical abuse, like beating or starvation. This is an issue of protecting individual rights… Since the child is dependent for his survival on the parent, the government can see to it that the child’s life is safe. But this does not extend to intellectual issues…” (Pg. 3)
She explains, “men have the right to retaliate by force against an INITIATION of force. But if men wish to live together in a free society, they must delegate that right to government. Personal retaliation is improper, because in a free society the government functions under objectively defined laws… Therefore, the government properly acts as the arbiter and agent of an injured party, protects him, and retaliates in his name.” (Pg. 6)
About pollution, she argues, “I’m against all PREVENTIVE government controls. Let people demonstrate an actual harm, and then sue the individual polluter. For instance, you create unsanitary conditions on your property that … create an actual health hazard that affects your neighbor’s property. He can sue you if he can demonstrate that the damage comes from your property.” (Pg. 9) Later, she adds, “The ecology movement is a political fraud… Industries should NOT avoid pollution or save endangered species… at the price of massive unemployment or the destruction of an industry.” (Pg. 10)
She says, “I do not approve of any government controls over consumption, so all restrictions of drugs should be removed (except, of course, on the sale to minors). The government has no right to tell an adult what to do with his own health and life… It is the moral responsibility of the individual not to take substances that destroy his mind. I would fight for your legal right to use marijuana; I would fight you to the death that you morally should not do it…” (Pg. 14)
Of school busing, she comments, “The government has no right playing politics with children, or disposing of a child’s education against his parents’ wishes. It’s a terrible infringement of rights… I don’t think the government should run schools. Education should be private, and children should go wherever their parents decide to send them.” (Pg. 24)
Of some famous economists, she states, “[The Austrian School] has a great deal of truth and proper arguments to offer about capitalism---especially von Mises---but I certainly don’t agree with them in every detail, and particularly not in their alleged philosophical premises… They attempt---von Mises particularly---to substitute economics for philosophy. That cannot be done… [Milton Friedman] is not for capitalism; he’s a miserable eclectic. He’s an enemy of Objectivism, and his objection is that I bring morality into economics, which he thinks should be amoral.” (Pg. 43)
Of political parties, she says, “The alternatives to the Republican party are totally unspeakable. If you’re thinking of the Conservative Party or the Libertarian party, I’d say join the Communist Party, you’d be cleaner intellectually.” (Pg. 52)
Of Barry Goldwater, she observes, “Regretfully, he’s mixed---just like his economics… I agree with him almost completely about foreign policy. Here, he’s been magnificent. But I disagree with his domestic policy. He advocates a mixed economy, though he’s for fewer controls than the other Republican candidates. But we can’t merely go back to a stage of fewer controls.” (Pg. 58)
Of William F. Buckley, she comments, “Buckley and the conservatives advocate an organized religion very interested in politics ---that is, a theocracy: a society ruled by religious functionaries, as in… the Middle Ages. This is one of the most primitive types of society. Religious conservatives hold that man is a low-grade helpless sinner and worm, that life on Earth is a den of iniquity or vale of tears, that man must not aspire to solve his problems by using his mind.” (Pg. 64)
Of Solzhenitsyn, she argues, “I regard him ideologically as lower than the rulers of Russia. He is the worst public caricature of a monster that has emerged in this age… he is a totalitarian collectivist. He says so openly---only not in those words… He wants Russia to remain a dictatorship, but a dictatorship run by the Russian Church. He wants Russian religion… to be a substitute for Marxism.” (Pg. 64-65)
She says of Libertarians, “Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed… I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left… So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement.” (Pg. 72)
On feminism, she says, “I am profoundly antifeminist, because it’s a phone movement… It wants ‘independence’ for women—government-funded independence, supported by taxes. Extorted from whom? From men, whose equals they claim to be. But men did not get established in this country with the help of the government. If women want to be equal---and of course, potentially, they are---then they should achieve it on their own, and not as a parasitical pressure group…. [The ERA] is a dangerous, very dangerous, redundancy.” (Pg. 106)
These comments provide a very revealing side of Rand that is not always shown in her formal writings. This book will be “must reading” for those interested in or studying her philosophy.
The Introduction to this 2005 book by Editor Robert Mayhew states, “After the publication of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ in 1957, Ayn Rand turned to nonfiction writing and (to a lesser extent) lecturing. Her aim in giving lectures was to make her philosophy, Objectivism, more widely known, and to apply it to current cultural and political issues. Most of her lectures were followed by question-and-answer periods, many of which were taped. This volume is a collection of the best of that material.”
She states that the state DOES have the right to interfere with parents who abuse their children: “Yes, in a case of demonstrable physical abuse, like beating or starvation. This is an issue of protecting individual rights… Since the child is dependent for his survival on the parent, the government can see to it that the child’s life is safe. But this does not extend to intellectual issues…” (Pg. 3)
She explains, “men have the right to retaliate by force against an INITIATION of force. But if men wish to live together in a free society, they must delegate that right to government. Personal retaliation is improper, because in a free society the government functions under objectively defined laws… Therefore, the government properly acts as the arbiter and agent of an injured party, protects him, and retaliates in his name.” (Pg. 6)
About pollution, she argues, “I’m against all PREVENTIVE government controls. Let people demonstrate an actual harm, and then sue the individual polluter. For instance, you create unsanitary conditions on your property that … create an actual health hazard that affects your neighbor’s property. He can sue you if he can demonstrate that the damage comes from your property.” (Pg. 9) Later, she adds, “The ecology movement is a political fraud… Industries should NOT avoid pollution or save endangered species… at the price of massive unemployment or the destruction of an industry.” (Pg. 10)
She says, “I do not approve of any government controls over consumption, so all restrictions of drugs should be removed (except, of course, on the sale to minors). The government has no right to tell an adult what to do with his own health and life… It is the moral responsibility of the individual not to take substances that destroy his mind. I would fight for your legal right to use marijuana; I would fight you to the death that you morally should not do it…” (Pg. 14)
Of school busing, she comments, “The government has no right playing politics with children, or disposing of a child’s education against his parents’ wishes. It’s a terrible infringement of rights… I don’t think the government should run schools. Education should be private, and children should go wherever their parents decide to send them.” (Pg. 24)
Of some famous economists, she states, “[The Austrian School] has a great deal of truth and proper arguments to offer about capitalism---especially von Mises---but I certainly don’t agree with them in every detail, and particularly not in their alleged philosophical premises… They attempt---von Mises particularly---to substitute economics for philosophy. That cannot be done… [Milton Friedman] is not for capitalism; he’s a miserable eclectic. He’s an enemy of Objectivism, and his objection is that I bring morality into economics, which he thinks should be amoral.” (Pg. 43)
Of political parties, she says, “The alternatives to the Republican party are totally unspeakable. If you’re thinking of the Conservative Party or the Libertarian party, I’d say join the Communist Party, you’d be cleaner intellectually.” (Pg. 52)
Of Barry Goldwater, she observes, “Regretfully, he’s mixed---just like his economics… I agree with him almost completely about foreign policy. Here, he’s been magnificent. But I disagree with his domestic policy. He advocates a mixed economy, though he’s for fewer controls than the other Republican candidates. But we can’t merely go back to a stage of fewer controls.” (Pg. 58)
Of William F. Buckley, she comments, “Buckley and the conservatives advocate an organized religion very interested in politics ---that is, a theocracy: a society ruled by religious functionaries, as in… the Middle Ages. This is one of the most primitive types of society. Religious conservatives hold that man is a low-grade helpless sinner and worm, that life on Earth is a den of iniquity or vale of tears, that man must not aspire to solve his problems by using his mind.” (Pg. 64)
Of Solzhenitsyn, she argues, “I regard him ideologically as lower than the rulers of Russia. He is the worst public caricature of a monster that has emerged in this age… he is a totalitarian collectivist. He says so openly---only not in those words… He wants Russia to remain a dictatorship, but a dictatorship run by the Russian Church. He wants Russian religion… to be a substitute for Marxism.” (Pg. 64-65)
She says of Libertarians, “Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed… I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left… So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement.” (Pg. 72)
On feminism, she says, “I am profoundly antifeminist, because it’s a phone movement… It wants ‘independence’ for women—government-funded independence, supported by taxes. Extorted from whom? From men, whose equals they claim to be. But men did not get established in this country with the help of the government. If women want to be equal---and of course, potentially, they are---then they should achieve it on their own, and not as a parasitical pressure group…. [The ERA] is a dangerous, very dangerous, redundancy.” (Pg. 106)
These comments provide a very revealing side of Rand that is not always shown in her formal writings. This book will be “must reading” for those interested in or studying her philosophy.
April 7, 2012
Very fun to read, almost like knowing her personally.
May 2, 2013
Recommended for those who want to get deeper in Ayn Rand philosophy beyond her novels.
January 31, 2015
This book is quite useful for research on a very unnerving figure.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews