Alvin Toffler 1964 Playboy Interview III

 
 

1964 Toffler Playboy Interview with Ayn Rand
*******************************************
Part III

 
 

Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand www.playboy.com /articles/playboy-interview-ayn-rand
This interview originally ran in our March 1964 issue.

The interview between Alvin Toffler and Ayn Rand continues with the third segment
of their commentary where they discuss sacrifice, writing, and literature, as well as government and politics.

(Alvin Toffler)   Would it be against the principles of Objectivism for anyone to sacrifice himself by stepping in front of a bullet to protect another person?


(Ayn Rand)   No. It depends on the circumstances. I would step in the way of a bullet if it were aimed at my husband. It is not self-sacrifice to die protecting that which you value: If the value is great enough, you do not care to exist without it. This applies to any alleged sacrifice for those one loves.


(Lone Cypress Workshop)   Why would anyone wish to give up their life for something that holds no intrinsic value for the individual? Objectivism doesn’t say don’t do it, only that one should use their mind to think and determine the best course of action. The final decision is yours alone. If someone wishes to do such a thing, they should feel free to act accordingly. Why is it so important for some individuals to want to ‘force’ someone to do something against their wishes, and their self-interest? Does it bring some kind of perverted pleasure to have someone else die for what they deem appropriate? I would have to ask why they have not already sacrificed their own lives for someone else, since there is always a need, and why are they still alive? Why have they not sacrificed themselves before now for someone else? There is almost always someone who needs assistance and possibly a need for sacrifice. I fail to understand why it may be good for me to die for another, but not them. Why does anyone need to die for another? It's a fascinating question to ponder.


(Alvin Toffler)   Would you be willing to die for your cause, and should your followers be willing to die for it? And for the truly nonsacrificial Objectivist, is any cause worth dying for?


(Lone Cypress Workshop)   The questions seem to be getting less reasonable and more confrontational. Would I be willing to die for my own cause? Of course I would, wouldn’t you? In any case, it will be the individual that makes such a decision and comes to such a conclusion. I have possessed a life-long interest in objectivism, but I am no 'follower' of Rand or objectivism, and I am not sure that I would be willing to die for either. What would be accomplished? If I die, unless I achieve some relevant and significant benefit through the loss of my own life, I will cease to have the option or opportunity to do anything for myself or anyone else in the future. Sounds like an inarguable act of self-destruction without a purpose.


(Ayn Rand)   Should objectivists be willing to die for my cause? Why do you ask? That is for them alone to decide. My cause is not necessarily their cause, and as opposed to collectivists, I would never assume that someone else would sacrifice their existence for me, under almost any circumstance. It would be ludicrous to do so unless they had some strong motivation and compelling moral and ethical reason to do so. Certainly not simply because I would like them to, which I would never dream of doing.


(LCW)   Is any truly nonsacrificial objectivist able to find a just cause worth dying for? Well, you would have to ask them, because ultimately, it is their personal choice to make, for whatever reason. I would not expect anyone to do so without a rational and compelling reason, and even though it might benefit me personally, I am not sure I would want them to do so.

Would you die for me, sight unseen? It would be irrational if I did not represent something, anything, of value, and one would need to know me to know if such a reality exists. I find it hard to believe that you would, and if so, I would question your sanity and motivation.


(Ayn Rand)   The answer to this is made plain in my book. In Atlas Shrugged I explain that a man has to live for, and when necessary, fight for, his values—because the whole process of living consists of the achievement of values. Man does not survive automatically. He must live like a rational being and accept nothing less. He cannot survive as a brute. Even the simplest value, such as food, has to be created by man, has to be planted, has to be produced. The same is true of his more interesting, more important achievements. All values have to be gained and kept by man, and, if they are threatened, he has to be willing to fight and die, if necessary, for his right to live like a rational being. You ask me, would I be willing to die for Objectivism? I would. But what is more important, I am willing to live for it – which is much more difficult.



(LCW)   First of all, how does one die for objectivism? Is there some kind of physical or psychological confrontation going on, or is just a matter of theoretical disagreement? Is it based on philosophy or some level of intellectual imperative? My impetus, and intent, is to live my life as I see fit, and objectivism is a part of that expectation. Without further data, I can find no reason to do anything but what I am doing now, which is living according to my own interpretations and conclusions. Does anyone do something different? Do you ask others before you decide to move or breathe, and do you inquire or care if they are in agreement with your intent? How does one live a life such as that?


(AT)   In your emphasis on reason, you are in philosophical conflict with contemporary writers, novelists and poets—many of whom are self-admitted mystics, or irrationalists, as they have been called.

Why is this so?


(LCW)   While it may be true that my existence conflicts with so many other individuals for any number of reasons, I find that I am not in conflict with that most important individual, which is myself. I don’t live for the affirmation of others and do not accept the condemnation of another individual, especially when those individuals do not measure up to my own personal expectations. If I value their opinion, for whatever reason (if I respect their values) then their concerns will be an important consideration as to the issues we contemplate for resolution. If not, then there is no decision to be made, it is a moot point. If the opinion has value, it will become a part of my evaluation, and if not, the information will be rejected or at the very least, held in reserve for future thought. The point being that I will be the one who determines what constitutes that value.


(Ayn Rand)   Because art has a philosophical base, and the dominant philosophical trends of today are a form of neomysticism. Art is a projection of the artist’s fundamental view of man and of existence. Since most artists do not develop an independent philosophy of their own, they absorb, consciously or subconsciously, the dominant philosophical influences of their time. Most of today’s literature is a faithful reflection of today’s philosophy—and look at it!


(LCW)   I am not sure that I am in complete agreement with her position, nor do I disagree in principle with what she has to say. I believe that artists have their own unique perspectives, as do all individuals, and even if I think they are mistaken or misguided, they have the right to make their own decisions, and to own those decisions, and live with the ramifications. Some may ‘absorb’ the philosophical influences of their time, and others may march to the beat of their own drum, their own perceptions and perspectives. Who am I to judge? But I take no responsibility for their thoughts or their actions. Only they can do that.


(AT)   But shouldn’t a writer reflect his time?


(LCW)   Why in the world would you expect that? Does the science-fiction or fantasy writer ‘reflect’ their time and its grasp of reality? Or do they see life differently from virtually every other person and act accordingly, to their own perceptions, their own philosophies, and their own conclusions? Anything else would be, at the very least, hypocritical and probably irrational.


(Ayn Rand)   No. A writer should be an active intellectual leader of his time, not a passive follower riding any current. A writer should shape the values of his culture; he should project and concretize the value goals of man’s life. This is the essence of the Romantic school of literature, which has all but vanished from today’s scene.


(LCW)   I agree. A writer, as well as all artists, often lead and do not reflect. Should it be a matter of simply creating wealth (a legitimate goal) or creating alternate realities and insightful possibilities? It is up to the writier to be true to one's own sense of integrity. If the individual wishes to subjugate their own identity to reflect others, they may do so, but at the risk of losing their own value. Various arguments could be made, but in the end, one works for their own visions, their own reality, and their own purpose. Did not Rand speak of purpose? What is the purpose of one who only reports on what others do, and has no opinion and no vision? I guess that a need exists to document the reality of our time, and there are those that can do an exceptional job of it. It all boils down to purpose, does it not? it is a matter of choice, and not to be determined by outside influences or by other individuals.


(AT)   Leaving us where, literarily speaking?


(Ayn Rand)   At the dead end of Naturalism. Naturalism holds that a writer must be a passive photographer or reporter who must transcribe uncritically whatever he happens to observe around him. Romanticism holds that a writer must present things, not as they are at any given moment, but, to quote Aristotle, “as they might be and ought to be.”


(LCW)   I would argue that the writer has no obligation to present anything as things 'ought' to be, but that is certainly the intent of the philosopher and the individual with a vision for the future. What they determine is a personal matter, between themselves and reality. There is no obligation that comes from the outside, only the inside.


(AT)   Would you say that you are the last of the Romanticists?


(Ayn Rand)   Or the first of their return – to quote one of my own characters in Atlas Shrugged.


(LCW)   Perhaps I am the first of the new individual realists, the first of the philosophical idealists, that see possibilities and explore new alternatives and present ideas and concepts that may one day bring the changes that we need for a better social paradigm.


(AT)   What is your appraisal of contemporary literature in general?


(Ayn Rand)   Philosophically, immoral. Aesthetically, it bores me to death. It is degenerating into a sewer, devoted exclusively to studies of depravity. And there’s nothing as boring as depravity.


(LCW)   There are always glimmers of something of value, in all levels of art and philosophy, and yet, it is disappointing that so little makes a lasting mark on the personality of our society and our individuals. It seems like there is a disconnect between the individual and the social. Perhaps that is because the collective and the individual are incompatible, or so it seems. Maybe we should be searching for an answer to that paradox.


(AT)   Are there any novelists whom you admire?


(Ayn Rand)   Yes. Victor Hugo.


(LCW)   Sadly, no. Again, there are glimpses of insight and comprehension, but in the end, they do nothing to initiate change or even conversation, without which there will be no appreciable change, and no resolution to the impasse our segmented species finds itself in.


(AT)   What about modern novelists?


(Ayn Rand)   No, there is no one that I could say I admire among the so-called serious writers. I prefer the popular literature of today, which is today’s remnant of Romanticism. My favorite is Mickey Spillane.


(LCW)   Imagine that, Mickey Spillane as a modern novelist. Who would you even consider in the year of 2024? No one that I can think of. All posers and sycophants.


(AT)   Why do you like him?


(Ayn Rand)   Because he is primarily a moralist. In a primitive form, the form of a detective novel, he presents the conflict of good and evil, in terms of black and white. He does not present a nasty gray mixture of indistinguishable scoundrels on both sides. He presents an uncompromising conflict. As a writer, he is brilliantly expert at the aspect of literature, which I consider most important: plot structure.


(LCW)   I do admit to liking moralists and philosophers. Those who take the world head-on and try to make sense of a terribly senseless existence. Superficial entertainment is quickly losing whatever hold it once held on the masses. Dystopian paradigms seem to be the only thing that creates interest, but not in me.


(AT)   What do you think of Faulkner?


(Ayn Rand)   Not very much. He is a good stylist, but practically unreadable in content—so I’ve read very little of him.


(AT)   What about Nabokov?


(Ayn Rand)   I have read only one book of his and a half – the half was Lolita, which I couldn’t finish. He is a brilliant stylist, he writes beautifully, but his subjects, his sense of life, his view of man, are so evil that no amount of artistic skill can justify them.


(LCW)   I have little or nothing to say on either of them. Read bits and pieces, but nothing that keeps my attention.


(AT)   As a novelist, do you regard philosophy as the primary purpose of your writing?


(Ayn Rand)   No. My primary purpose is the projection of an ideal man, of man “as he might be and ought to be.”

Philosophy is the necessary means to that end.


(LCW)   I would have said yes, but even more so, I agree with the fact that philosophy is the necessary means to an end. The end is awareness of who and what we are, the meaning of right and wrong, and the implementation of those concepts into our lives. Nothing else matters in any real sense. We can talk and argue incessantly, but nothing will change until we actually 'do' something about it. Ah, but what is that something?


(AT)   In your early novel, Anthem, your protagonist declares, “It is my will which chooses, and the choice of my will is the only edict I respect.” Isn’t this anarchism? Is one’s own desire or will the only law one must respect?


(LCW)   Anarchism is the essence of every religion, ideology, and discipline that has ever existed. We all want what we want. The communist, the socialist, the liberal democrat, the republican, and even the objectivist. They all want something, and that is unrelated to whatever anyone else wants or desires. The objective is not to subjugate the anarchistic tendencies, but to control and direct them and make them work within the bigger picture, where we are all supportive of the right to do as we please, with the only exception being when we intentionally hurt another individual by those actions. Only then can true freedom be realized, and a harmonious social paradigm be allowed to flourish. Unfortunately, man is too immature to handle such a responsibility at this time. Perhaps in a few hundred or thousand years, it will be possible, but not now. Do you actually believe that we are capable of such a reality today?

The only law that must be respected is the one that does not impact another human being, or any living creature, in a way that is detrimental to their existence. What else can you possibly think can be more reasonable or appropriate? Do you have another alternative?


(Ayn Rand)   Not one’s own will. This is, more or less, a poetic expression made clear by the total context of the story in Anthem. One’s own rational judgment. You see, I use the term free will in a totally different sense from the one usually attached to it. Free will consists of man’s ability to think or not to think. The act of thinking is man’s primary act of choice. A rational man will never be guided by desires or whims, only by values based on his rational judgment. That is the only authority he can recognize. This does not mean anarchy, because, if a man wants to live in a free, civilized society, he would, in reason, have to choose to observe the laws, when those laws are objective, rational and valid'. I have written an article on this subject for The Objectivist Newsletter—on the need and proper function of a government.


(LCW)   My interpretation of anarchism is a much more compassionate and empathetic understanding of the concept. There is nothing in anarchism, as there is nothing in objectivism, that demands the individual be irrationally selfish, or oppressively coercive. Rational thought can easily be considered within anarchism if there are more reasonable and respectful individuals. This expectation that anarchism means psychotic and pathological behaviour is premature, superficial and simplistic. I understand why some people would think this, because there exists so much in our contemporary social environments, but it is not an imperative, even if it is an undesirable inevitability. Like capitalism, that has been all but overtaken by corruption and perversion of principles, it is not the system that is depraved and unworkable, but the individuals that populate the system. All systems, and only 'some' individuals.

Mankind may be technologically advanced, but they are woefully incompetent when it comes to morality, ethical behaviour, impeccable character, and integrity. It’s just the way it is. until this paradigm changes, there will be no resolution to the paradox of mankind.


(AT)   What, in your view, is the proper function of a government?


(Ayn Rand)   Basically, there is really only one proper function: the protection of individual rights. Since rights can be violated only by physical force, and by certain derivatives of physical force, the proper function of government is to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force: from those who are criminals. Force, in a free society, may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. This is the proper task of government: to serve as a policeman who protects men from the use of force.


(LCW)   A profound definition. If one looks at government in this light, then, what, perhaps 90% of government is illegitimate? If so, then, as the communists promote, maybe the only reasonable expectation or reaction is, in fact, a revolution. Not for the proletariat, but for the individual. The government does not exist for the direction of the population but for the preservation of the population, and the freedoms that we deem to be inalienable and irrevocable. Government is only a tool, and not a master, and the intent has never been otherwise, except in the minds of those that wish to control and oppress. Nuff said.


(AT)   If force may be used only in retaliation against force, does the government have the right to use force to collect taxes, for example, or to draft soldiers?


(Ayn Rand)   In principle, I believe that taxation should be voluntary, like everything else. But how one would implement this is a very complex question. I can only suggest certain methods, but I would not attempt to insist on them as a definitive answer. A government lottery, for instance, used in many countries in Europe, is one good method of voluntary taxation. There are others. Taxes should be voluntary contributions for the proper governmental services, which people do need and therefore would be and should be willing to pay for—as they pay for insurance. But, of course, this is a problem for a distant future, for the time when men will establish a fully free social system. It would be the last, not the first, reform to advocate. As to the draft, it is improper and unconstitutional. It is a violation of fundamental rights, of a man’s right to his own life. No man has the right to send another man to fight and die for his, the sender’s, cause. A country has no right to force men into involuntary servitude. Armies should be strictly voluntary; and, as military authorities will tell you, volunteer armies are the best armies.


(LCW)   Prophetic on so many levels. It turns out that a volunteer army has resulted in the greatest military force ever assembled in the history of the planet. Leadership lags centuries behind, but the fact is that it has been legitimately confirmed that a voluntary army stands without an equal. Why is it so difficult to understand that a voluntary taxation system would be any different? The heavy-handed government would be handcuffed into doing only the absolutely necessary activities that would ensure the security of the country, and all the inept, incompetent, and corrupt programs and aspects of government simply could not be funded and would shrivel up and die a timely death. We should find alternatives and should start immediately. We will never find success with the system as it stands now. The alternative today is dissolution and destruction, which unfortunately signals the fall of the greatest country to have ever existed within known history.


(AT)   What about other public needs? Do you consider the post office, for example, a legitimate function of government?


(Ayn Rand)   Now let’s get this straight. My position is fully consistent. Not only the post office, but streets, roads, and above all, schools, should all be privately owned and privately run. I advocate the separation of state and economics. The government should be concerned only with those issues, which involve the use of force.

This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else. Everything else should be privately run and would be much better run.


(LCW)   There is no hedging with her positions. Unequivocal.


(AT)   Would you create any new government departments or agencies?


(Ayn Rand)   No, and I truly cannot discuss things that way. I am not a government planner nor do I spend my time inventing Utopias. I’m talking about principles whose practical applications are clear. If I have said that I am opposed to the initiation of force, what else has to be discussed?


(LCW)   I believe that she is trying to make the point that these ‘other’ questions are irrelevant. She is focused on the role of government. She has made it clear that the government over-reaches with its authority and should be dealing solely with the issues of force by others against country and individuals. Nothing else.


(AT)   What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II …


(Ayn Rand)   Certainly.


(AT)   … And that any free nation today has the moral right—though not the duty—to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other “slave pen.” Correct?


(Ayn Rand)   Correct. A dictatorship—a country that violates the rights of its own citizens—is an outlaw and can claim no rights.
But only, without exception, when these renegade countries cross a line that makes it inevitable that they will use, or continue to use, coercive actions to hold on to power. Otherwise, see below.


(AT)   Would you actively advocate that the United States invade Cuba or the Soviet Union?


(Ayn Rand)   Not at present. I don’t think it’s necessary. I would advocate that which the Soviet Union fears above all else: economic boycott. I would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet Russia; and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American life.


(LCW)   An important consideration. Losing citizens for political gain is not the same as protecting them from outside force. There has to be no other choice.


(AT)   Would you favor U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations?


(Ayn Rand)   Yes. I do not sanction the grotesque pretense of an organization allegedly devoted to world peace and human rights, which includes Soviet Russia, the worst aggressor and bloodiest butcher in history, as one of its members. The notion of protecting rights, with Soviet Russia among the protectors, is an insult to the concept of rights and to the intelligence of any man who is asked to endorse or sanction such an organization. I do not believe that an individual should cooperate with criminals, and, for all the same reasons; I do not believe that free countries should cooperate with dictatorships.


(LCW)   If we determine and define a nation as the epitome of what we are resisting, at the very least they should not be allowed into the conversation as to what should be done with such inappropriate players, if and only when they remove themselves from such a list with legitimate and verifiable actions can we even consider them for inclusion in whatever treaties we enter into with even more countries. It would be the epitome of hypocrisy to do otherwise.


(AT)   Would you advocate severing diplomatic relations with Russia?


(Ayn Rand)   Yes.


(AT)   How do you feel about the test-ban treaty, which was recently signed?


(Ayn Rand)   I agree with Barry Goldwater’s speech on this subject on the Senate floor. The best military authorities, and above all, the best scientific authority, Dr. Teller, the author of the hydrogen bomb, have stated that this treaty is not merely meaningless but positively dangerous to America’s defense.


(AT)   If Senator Goldwater is nominated as the Republican presidential candidate this July, would you vote for him?


(Ayn Rand)   At present, yes. When I say “at present,” I mean the date when this interview is being recorded. I disagree with him on a great many things, but I do agree, predominantly, with his foreign policy. Of any candidates available today, I regard Barry Goldwater as the best. I would vote for him, if he offers us a plausible, or at least semi-consistent, platform.


(AT)   How about Richard Nixon?


(Ayn Rand)   I’m opposed to him. I’m opposed to any compromiser or me-tooer, and Mr. Nixon is probably the champion in this regard.


(AT)   What about President Johnson?


(Ayn Rand)   I have no particular opinion about him.


(LCW)   These questions are irrelevant in the sense that they reveal little or nothing about the intrinsic focus and intent of the philosophy itself. The personal opinion of someone such as Ayn Rand, while marginally interesting, is simply that, a personal opinion or interpretation of a single individual. I don’t follow individual players, but am interested in the investigation of an overriding philosophy and ideology.


(AT)   You are a declared anti-communist, anti-socialist and anti-liberal. Yet you reject the notion that you are a conservative. In fact, you have reserved some of your angriest criticism for conservatives.

Where do you stand politically?


(Ayn Rand)   Correction. I never describe my position in terms of negatives. I am an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, of individual rights—there are no others—of individual freedom. It is on this ground that I oppose any doctrine which proposes the sacrifice of the individual to the collective, such as communism, socialism, the welfare state, fascism, Nazism and modern liberalism. I oppose the conservatives on the same ground.


(LCW)   Does this not ‘negate’ the incessant assumed connection between objectivism and the conservative republican platform? While aspects may be acceptable or of interest, she has always held herself away from a relationship with conservatives and libertarians alike, for similar reasons. They are willing to make compromises to which she would never acquiesce. Making a false connection between them does not make it so, and only reflects badly on the individual or group that tries to accuse and find one guilty simply by reason of association. I thought that was a fundamental point of contention when others do that, in relation to the communists, socialists, and especially the liberals. You really can’t have it both ways. Whatever those known as conservatives actually do, they do so of their own accord, and through no relationship with objectivism.


(Ayn Rand)   The conservatives are advocates of a mixed economy and of a welfare state. Their difference from the liberals is only one of degree, not of principle.


(LCW)   This does not sound like a friend or compatriot of those conservatives who attempt to manipulate the objectivist philosophy for their own personal self-interests (irrational self-interest), or those who oppose objectivism and would like to have that guilt rub off on objectivism for words and actions taken by unconnected conservative players.


(AT)   You have charged that America suffers from intellectual bankruptcy. Do you include in this condemnation such right-wing publications as the National Review? Isn’t that magazine a powerful voice against all the things you regard as “statism”?


(Ayn Rand)   I consider National Review the worst and most dangerous magazine in America. The kind of defense that it offers to capitalism results in nothing except the discrediting and destruction of capitalism. Do you want me to tell you why?


(AT)   Yes, please.


(Ayn Rand)   Because it ties capitalism to religion. The ideological position of National Review amounts, in effect, to the following: In order to accept freedom and capitalism, one has to believe in God or in some form of religion, some form of supernatural mysticism. Which means that there are no rational grounds on which one can defend capitalism. Which amounts to an admission that reason is on the side of capitalism’s enemies, that a slave society or a dictatorship is a rational system, and that only on the ground of mystic faith can one believe in freedom. Nothing more derogatory to capitalism could ever be alleged, and the exact opposite is true. Capitalism is the only system that can be defended and validated by reason.


(LCW)   One does not have to agree, but must acknowledge that her perspective is consistent and comprehensive. She sees the weaknesses where many do not even question the fact that this is even true. The clarity she offers is only confirmation of the fact that she is so focused on the issues, and not the politics underlying most of our society. She is simply making the attempt to define and determine those things that are being used against the individual in the name of who-knows-what.


(AT)   You have attacked Governor Nelson Rockefeller for “lumping all opponents of the welfare state with actual crackpots.” It was clear from his remarks that among others, he was aiming his criticism at the John Birch Society. Do you resent being lumped with the John Birchers? Do you consider them “crackpots” or a force for good?


(Ayn Rand)   I resent being lumped with anyone. I resent the modern method of never defining ideas, and lumping totally different people into a collective by means of smears and derogatory terms. I resent Governor Rockefeller’s smear tactics: his refusal to identify specifically whom and what he meant. As far as I’m concerned, I repeat, I don’t want to be lumped with anyone, and certainly not with the John Birch Society.

Do I consider them crackpots? No, not necessarily. What is wrong with them is that they don’t seem to have any specific, clearly defined political philosophy. Therefore, some of them may be crackpots; others may be very well-meaning citizens. I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for capitalism, but merely against communism. I gather they believe that the disastrous state of today’s world is caused by a communist conspiracy. This is childishly naïve and superficial. No country can be destroyed by a mere conspiracy; it can be destroyed only by ideas. The Birchers seem to be either nonintellectual or anti-intellectual.

They do not attach importance to ideas. They do not realize that the great battle in the world today is a philosophical, ideological conflict.


(LCW)   The focus is self-evident. The importance can only be determined on a case by case basis, and an individual by individual conclusion. It is not something that is decided by consensus or by vote, but by values and self-determination.


(AT)   Are there any political groups in the United States today of which you approve?


(Ayn Rand)   Political groups, as such—no. Is there any political group today which is fully consistent? Such groups today are guided by or advocate blatant contradictions.


(AT)   Do you have any personal political aspirations yourself? Have you ever considered running for office?


(Ayn Rand)   Certainly not. And I trust that you don’t hate me enough to wish such a thing on me.


(AT)   But you are interested in politics, or at least in political theory, aren’t you?


(Ayn Rand)   Let me answer you this way: When I came here from Soviet Russia, I was interested in politics for only one reason—to reach the day when I would not have to be interested in politics. I wanted to secure a society in which I would be free to pursue my own concerns and goals, knowing that the government would not interfere to wreck them, knowing that my life, my work, my future were not at the mercy of the state or of a dictator’s whim. This is still my attitude today. Only today I know that such a society is an ideal not yet achieved, that I cannot expect others to achieve it for me, and that I, like every other responsible citizen, must do everything possible to achieve it. In other words, I am interested in politics only in order to secure and protect freedom.


(LCW)   I find it ironic that one of the most well-known philosophical political personalities of our time is virtually a-political except in the sense that one must understand the imperative of being political in anything that pertains to their social interaction with others, or the social environment within which we can act as independent players and deal with our lives as we see fit, and not in the context of some oppressive political authority.




 
 
The interview continues with Part IV which should appear shortly in the folder. Feel free to observe and comment. Legitimate and reasonable commentary will be appended to the essay in the future.

LCW