Ayn Rand - Individual Rights

[@LucisFerre1]

Realize people that this is not a twisted definition of altruism that Rand invented, rather the guy who coined the term himself, Auguste Comte, defined it this way and this is what it really means. Altruism means other-ism. It's not merely being nice or benevolent or caring, it's the idea that one CANNOT be a moral being unless one sacrifices "until it hurts". This is based on the false idea that you can't gain unless I lose. It's a false zero-sum view of existence that does not take into account that the things we value, because they aid our life in so many ways, are largely created rather than merely hunted and gathered static resources. When someone creates something of value, this action in and of itself does not impoverish you. And them keeping what they've created is not making you poor, though the envious leftists seem to think so.

[@timothyroth8272]

I love this comment , it is made in simple truth !

[@johnbrown3711]

Thank you for the lovely explanation .

[@rafeeqwarfield9690]

😮

[@monjiaitaly]

Ayn Rand would be sick if she was still alive and saw what is happening in America today.

[@morningwood801]

monjiaitaly She was sick back then when liberal agendas were creeping thru...every election we get farther away from the Constitution.

[@djlaureate1]

@Kyle Whitehead It's a repeat forever. People don't understand we are the same socially for the last 2,000 years (at least). The environment may have changed but we are the same and will always be the same.

[@jamesdavis9036]

She's become a centrifuge in her grave.

[@mtklaric]

I think this short speech captures in its essence the priciple of liberty and the rights of man....great speech

[@MrBenjamatic]

ONLY A SLAVE WILL BE PUNISHED FOR USING AND DISPOSING OF THEIR LIFE, MIND AND BODY WITHOUT PERMISSION. A permission can be revoked at any time. Anyone who is only allowed to act on permission IS A SLAVE.

[@chuska8383]

@Ipetratz Ayn Rand does an incredible job answering that question in her two books The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. Briefly, however, Objectivists observe that the rights to one's life, liberty, and personal property stem from the fact that all humans own their body, their actions, and their labor. To impose involuntary altruism (theft but the statist euphemisms are "welfare" or "taxes" or "fair share") is to infringe on the individual's sovereignty of him or herself

[@todocopiapo]

Wow. I just love her! The few things I thanks after what happened too our country (Chile), is that I started too listen to extraordinary people like her..

[@johnbrown3711]

So glad I listened to this as it added a level of clarity that I have been seeking for some time now. Thank you Ayn Rand! That, as of today, only 30-some-thousand people, out of many millions, have viewed/listened to this video, and of them probably only a portion understood it, might explain the difficult time our country faces today, as its founding principles are systematically ignored by almost all people in politics. Among certain politicians are operating philosophies not even recognizable as being remotely American. With so many unwilling to learn, our future bodes of doom and rebirth.

[@ahmedgilani8646]

M M M M M M,. M M M. m .. M.... .. .. M.. M . .. .. 😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😊😅😅😅😅😅😅😊😅😅😅😊😊😅😅😅😅😅😅😊.... M. . M. 😊😅😅😅😅😅😊😅😊😅😅😊😅😊😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😊😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅

[@ahmedgilani8646]

Im. l. M.. M...ml M. ll...l... mmm..l.ml... ...l.ll. M. ll.. ll....,. Mmm........ll,..l .. M l.l,.. M. m M L.....l.l... M .ll.l.. .l.l..l.l....l.l.l.l..ll,....l.m......... ..l.ml.. .... ..ll ..l M...l L...l .....l.m.l.ll.l.l.....m. .m...m.l.lll....ll....l..l....l.l .... .l.m,.. ......ll.l.....,.l. .ll M...m. M., ...l.ll...ll. M. m..ll......l. ..l..ll ..l. .l.mmm..,.....l .ll.l.l.l. Lll M....l L....... l.. .L.. ,...l....l.l.l .l..... M. m., M. m ..l.m .. .lmm.m. .ll...ll. ..l.l.... .ll.m. ...... M..m ...ll...m.m.....l M... ...l.. m..... ...ll.ll .l...l M..ll.l..l .......l. Ll.lm. ..l......l.l...l.lmll.m... M..l.l. .....ll.. ..ill.,...l.l,,..l, .l .,...l..,.......p.l.l.l...l.l...l..l.l..ll..l.l..l..l.l.l.l.😅

[@TheLegalImmigrant05]

@ElasticGiraffe "The woman was a miserable narcissist, who thought anyone who disagreed with her about anything was morally depraved." - What a brilliant refutation of Objectivism - relevant and detailed. Wait a second....

[@LucisFerre1]

It's fascinating to me that that collectivists see Rand as a totalitarian, utilitarian ogre, when actually she was the exact opposite. She was obsessed with morality, good vs evil, and the rights of individuals and the protection of those rights against those who would threaten it, i.e. the mob and/or governments. She was profoundly against slavery, racism and injustice.

[@fzqlcs]

@032125 Again, words mean things. By definition, an action taken for a reward, whether social status, acceptance or plain cash, is self-interest, not selfless behavior. It was in Mother Teresa's self-interest to take actions she believed would lead to a heavenly reward.

[@SwordOfApollo]

I find that most who dismiss Ayn Rand’s morality don’t really understand it. Her “selfishness” is long-term, principled self-interest. People are a combination of the physical and mental, and your self-interest includes psychological values. Self-interest is not to be reduced to only the physical, such as money. Other people can be of tremendous psychological value (i.e. friends, lovers, children.) Rand recognized that benevolence toward strangers is in one’s own interest, in a free country.

[@vidyanandbapat8032]

Benevolence towards strangers is okay only when it is not at the sacrifice of your own interests. If you are sacrificing your own selfish interests for a total stranger(i.e., someone who is of no use to you in the present time and space) is as good as consciously helping your enemy. Totally absurd. This rationale applies only at the personal level, not while fulfilling the duties of one's designation or out of fundamental human decency. It's like marriage instituition, consciously destroying your own Freedom. That is the essence of Collectivism. Destruction of the individual. This is sought to achieve through brainwashing of the individual through unnecessary socialization with unwanted people, taking notice of even their existence. That's utterly ridiculous. It's a sign of tremendous inferiority complex. The most ridiculous thing in the world is taking notice of the existence of people having tremendous inferiority complex, who are trying to unnecessarily attract your attention by some foolish means or by showing that they are taking notice of your private matters. HAHAHA...The most shameful thing in the world. Living for others. Taking notice of existence of unwanted people. Even an amoeba will not do that.

[@vidyanandbapat8032]

The gist is that all rights are always individual rights and there is no such thing as a collective right. Because what exists in reality is only the individual. So there can be no any other kind of rights because there is noone out there to possess them.

[@gmilitaru]

Our genes are pooled in the genome and what keeps evolution going is the selfish genome, rather than the selfish gene. However, the human genome depends on each individual's effort to learn during his lifetime how to overcome the obstacles he encounters in his attempt to pass along his genes. How viable would the genome be without this individual ability? The bad news is that genomes change slowly, and we have started using learning and problem-solving in earnest 100,000-50,000 years ago, our abilities took off only 5,000 years ago with the spread of writing and we have been reaping significant benefits for only 2-300 years at the most and less than 100 years ago for most peoples on this planet. So, unless genetic engineering achieves unexpected breakthroughs, the instincts transmitted by our genes will need several thousands of year more to adjust to the new conditions. In the meantime we need to rely on learning and on teaching to promote life-saving individualist values that go against some of our deepest feelings.

[@216trixie]

@ElasticGiraffe Rand spoke up for individualism, and freedom, when much of the world was being swallowed by communism. Just because you don't like her personality, doesn't make her brilliant observations irrelevant.

[@MrBenjamatic]

The concept of freedom is an absolute. It is a matter of either-or. Either you are free or you are not free. If you are not free, it is due only to the force of another or others to whom you are enslaved. Incidentally, I replied because I was bored. I find it incredibly impractical to argue with anyone who has renounced reason, such as you who claims there can be such a person as a free slave. Most O'ists, to the extent of my knowledge, only argue with evaders to prove things to themselves

[@LucisFerre1]

@victoriahessco7,a man has the right to be a racist in his own mind, but he does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of others. The so-called right to deny rights would be a self contradiction. This is what is meant by that old chestnut, "your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose".

[@SwordOfApollo]

With partial socialism, like what is in the US, Canada, UK, etc. we have partial slavery. With near full socialism, like in Cuba and the USSR, comes near full slavery. The only effective difference between such systems and the institution of personal slavery is the form of punishment for rebelling or not producing. In personal slavery, the slave might be whipped or killed. In socialist slavery, the slave might be imprisoned, exiled, or left to starve.

[@johnbrown3711]

If there is a failing in our US Constitution, it is that no provision is made to ensure the educating of all new Americans with a fluency of our country's underlying moral principles and how they work. There has been education about government, which is not at all the same. Apparently, if not taught about liberty, its importance and what causes it, people forget. (I'm not advocating for any other education by the government.)

[@StopFear]

@eluminated No, there is a clip called Ayn Rand on Altruism uploaded by LibertyPen, where she says Altruists are evil (literally) and that it is wrong to help others if it puts their needs above your own, that the person who is helping is wrong in any case. I can cite many examples why I think it is not the case, nor wrong. But that is where she says this on the recording of a talk show. I am sure she also says it in books. Note, she is not simply talking about "forcing" other other do it.

[@216trixie]

@StopFear Wrong, she promoted "charity and help from those who had......".......As long as the giving was voluntary, and not self-sacrificial.

[@LucisFerre1]

@perdondaris said, "Individual rights are based on collectivist cooperation not individualist competition. " That's impossible. Rights are imprescriptable. If a group, governing body (or 'god') could arbitrarily create rights, it could just as easily retract those rights, which contradicts the meaning of rights. BTW, cooperation between individuals isn't collectivism. Collectivism suggests that the group has more rights than the sum of rights of the individuals that make up the collective.

[@fzqlcs]

@032125 Merriam-Webster: ALTRUISM: UNselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others By definition, altruism cannot be self-interest. Ayn may not be perfect, but she was on this point.

[@Deadwind002]

There's a lot of holes in your argument - firstly - a prisoner is essentially a slave. If not, explain the difference. Secondly - no one must work for anyone else in a free market - being employed is not an obligation, it is a choice and a 'national living standard' is an erroneous concept - who decides what a standard of living is but individuals? Just because the standard of living has increased doesn't mean you are owed a wage to meet this supposed 'standard'.

[@thememaster7]

The prisoner initiated force and was imprisoned by retaliatory force. The slave was imprisoned by the initiation of force.

[@haemolysis]

@StopFear you are only partially correct. Yes, she says altruism is evil, but you're not applying altruism as she defines it, which is critical to understanding her meaning. Altruism is not "giving" or "helping" others, but it is "sacrificing" for others, ie, sacrificing a higher value, for a lower one. By putting it in those terms, it is obviously indeed evil. "Giving" or "helping" however is not necessarily sacrificing one's values, if the joy they receive in return is equal or better.

[@haemolysis]

@ElasticGiraffe on one hand I agree, but I think such ideas are more ground-breaking when you hold them up against popular philosophical trends. Yeah, we all know that... but modern philosophers argue the exact opposite routinely! They state that we have know way of knowing, and condemn us to a life without intellect because it is to them invalid. However more than this, she also provided a moral basis for self-interest and Capitalism. Agree with her or not, it is indeed "profound insight."

[@raymondeaton5692]

Wow. What brilliance. She summed up the intentions of the Founding Fathers better than they did. I don't like her anti-religious ideas but overall she was a genius.

[@nathanngumi8467]

Individual rights are the means to subordinate society to moral law.

[@LucisFerre1]

@mooeythemooseman, some capitalist would create a business that sold to minorities at a good price because they would gain all the market share by doing so. The racist could not form a monopoly without government corruption, which is a fault of government, not capitalism. Rand was not an anarchist. She said that the proper role of government was to protect people's rights. That includes policing criminals like the racist in question. Laissez-faire does not mean wild-wild west lawlessness.

[@Tyrant_13]

You should compile short excerpted ratiocinations of Mises and Rothbard, LP. Perhaps, from Anatomy of the State, For A New Liberty, or Human Action. The two were in a whole 'nother universe compared to Rand; they had very strong philosophic foundations.

[@LucisFerre1]

It's hard to imagine that I have comments to this video that are 4yrs old and 8yrs old.

[@EthicalCrackpot]

@StopFear Her view was that it is wrong to sacrifice yourself to others. If you value the gain of the person you were giving to more than you value what you give to them, it is not a sacrifice.

[@jeffmonc2]

Can't wait for the movie

[@StopFear]

@216trixie wait, are you saying voluntary cannot be self-sacrificial? To me the term "self-sacrifice" doesn't really make sense in how she uses it. One can view any helping action as "self sacrificial" because you sacrifice resources and time, on whatever it is. I think it all comes down to the idea that the person decides whether they want or do not want to help someone, and then they create a reason how any given action would have been sacrificial which is why they would not have done it.

[@Bigturns33]

All your great libertarians loved her. As a woman she was probably the brightest the century has seen. She copied no one because she was an egoist which is quite remarkable if you ask me. YOu also do not have to go to college to learn philosophy. The intellectuals there where the exact problem of the virtues that have been carried out. THis was her argument.

[@LibertyDownUnder]

@StopFear, Rand clearly advocates the use of private charity. Even if you found a few controversial sound bytes or quotes, this does not discredit the whole idea that people should be self sufficient and responsible for their own lives.

[@tmvga]

Forgotton truths are being reborn!

[@deathlessteepee]

What a solid argument against her you've made.... I find it humorous to hear the insult "childish" within your empty statements. Empty statements being childish...

[@basicscholar5538]

This should be taught in schools!

[@SwordOfApollo]

Further explanation of Ayn Rand's theory of rights: /watch?v=sTN8jjxah0c

[@xmoroseguyx]

@sbank Ayn Rand 5:37-5:40 "Without property rights, No other rights are possible" That would imply that without owning a property, You have no rights in society? And you need proof that the hard working masses are not well housed? She even says afterwards Theirs no guarantee that a man will own property, Only you can if you earn it, You can work hard all your life and not afford to buy a property, So the term "earn" is as you say "derogatory" to their efforts

[@jeronimotamayolopera4834]

EXCELLENT.

[@LeightonsLibrary]

@MaryJo1950 Whoa there, someone's a tiny bit butthurt. I'm not trying to do anything but correct the notion that Hitler's Germany had no connection to socialism. Hitler himself said that "private enterprise cannot be maintained in the age of democracy; it is conceivable only if the people have a sound idea of authority and personality." Many industrial powers supported him, but for the same reasons corporations today support big government - government takeovers eliminate competition.

[@LucisFerre1]

@TheSuigeneris1986 said "if being a racist is not a right, how do you enforce the opposite?" Don't do business with him.

[@catsaresocute650]

This connection between alturism (what does that even exactly mean politicaly? But it appears to just be care for others) and despotism is so disturbing

[@LoneHeckler]

The rights of the individual cannot precede society, for it is society that grants those rights in the first place. Example: an American citizen has the right to the freedom of expression but then travels to the Middle East and for some reason gets arrested for expressing himself. The American citizen's right changed the moment he changed societies

[@oscarcastaneda1066]

Awesome video 👍

[@Jazzper79]

Brilliant book

[@LeightonsLibrary]

@MaryJo1950 Indeed, the line between communism and socialism may have been blurred by the persecutors, but that's beside the point. You said that socialists were targeted by the Nazis; that is false. Communists were, and if socialists ended up in jail, it was because they resembled communists, not because they were socialists. He rejected Marxism and the notion of pure private property. Right-wing socialism is not a misnomer - it is simply a different manifestation of socialism.

[@fzqlcs]

@032125 Love is a selfish act. Is your wife of no value, but you love her anyway because you are so unselfish? Do your children mean nothing to you, but you love them anyway as a noble act of selflessness? Altruism, or self-sacrifice, is the opposite of love.

[@fede2]

@xmoroseguyx "she always tries to justify her viewpont by padding out her greed based waffle with universal statements" the correct wording is: rational self-interest derived from a proper and integrated understanding of reality. "Margret Thatcher was condemed for saying that" giving primacy to public aproval as a standard of proving a proposition to be true? people hate gravity, ergo gravity is false. nice job.

[@StopFear]

@eluminated She criticized charity and help from those who had more resources to the weak and needy ones, yet she received help when escaping to USA from Russia, received help from people when she was sick with cancer just to name few examples I knows.

[@patrickbodine6010]

Why hasn't KZbin deleted this!?!? 😉

[@Riellysdad]

@victoriahessco7 ......Capitalism RELYS on the fact that one is not alone in the world and that one can exploit that fact by trading with those others and making THEM richer to gain wealth yourself by doing so....its a win/win system.

[@fzqlcs]

@ElasticGiraffe One so-called libertarian seems to be choking on the concept of individual rights. Or, are you just a fanboy of personalities rather than a champion of philosophic integrity?

[@fzqlcs]

Two willing slaves of the state did not like this video.

[@jeviosoorishas181]

Altruism has always been about self-sacrifice, it's what separates it from mere charity. Altruism is a measure, it attaches how much you give based on how much you have. If you have a 100 dollars and you give 50 to someone that's altruistic; yet if you have a million, and you give a 100, it's not considered altruistic...you should be able to give more. Under an altruistic morality, the honor is not in attaining wealth, but giving wealth away. So if you have a million dollars, it's more moral, under altruism for you to use it to feed the needy, than invest it in some small start-up and make 2-3 million in the process, This is why the altruistic morality, is incompatible with capitalism, a society where the money goes more into creating subsistence rather than growth and investment, creates a stagnating society, and it never ends, until there is no more wealth to be passed down.

[@fzqlcs]

Hold on. You seem to imply that self-sacrifice is a virtue. Do I have you right about that? If so, who decides the cause for which you are to be sacrificed? And what values do you place above your own life? Isn't sacrifice the trading of a higher value for a lower one (otherwise it would be self-interest)? And if so, why would anyone want to do that? Just curious. If the presumption is that one should not have all of their money/property, why not just burn it rather than giving it away?

[@jeviosoorishas181]

I don't actually lol. Read the whole post till the end, and you'd see why I'm against altruism. It's the whole argument that counts, not just the parts of it.

[@fzqlcs]

Jevioso Orishas where is the rest of it? the part where you are against altruism.

[@jeviosoorishas181]

fzqlcs "Under an altruistic morality, the honor is not in attaining wealth, but giving wealth away. So if you have a million dollars, it's more moral, under altruism for you to use it to feed the needy, than invest it in some small start-up and make 2-3 million in the process, This is why the altruistic morality, is incompatible with capitalism, a society where the money goes more into creating subsistence rather than growth and investment, creates a stagnating society, and it never ends, until there is no more wealth to be passed down" Basically, an altruistic society will eventually consume itself.

[@LucisFerre1]

Jevioso Orishas *"Basically, an altruistic society will eventually consume itself."* That's why Rand described it as self-cannibalism.

[@peterclark4685]

If Ayn is right then reversing the Socialism Light of the Western world would be a difficult process. Furthermore the concept of state would have to survive until all nations were on the same pathway. It would still remain a multi-generational process. The core element is enabling the power of the people and their capacity to express their will *upon* the current regimes in a timely and precise manner. I suggest only a complete democracy is capable of doing that, see: facebook.com/Vision-Representation-A-Humanist-Government-262619170609120 OR demvision.wordpress.com for such a government system. By whittling power from the state back to the people incrementally (revolutions have never, and will never work) also gives the people time to build up their own Capital contribution and the mindset to look after their own business. BTW When everyone is a Capitalist there cannot be many John Galts or Henry Reardens because finding that one idea that is a whole new concept will be supremely difficult. Even deeper is the problem of belief. But reducing that to a personal decision should see Atheism (until any real god decides to explain himself - in person) become the norm. However the issue is of the fallibility of man, a knocked up evolutionary product with flaws that can take up to 25 years to train.

[@JeffersonDinedAlone]

@SwordOfApollo Very well stated. However, her utter dismissal of the disabled and mentally challenged as being not worthy of any consideration is barbaric, and more than a little surprising considering her views in other areas.

[@sbank]

@xmoroseguyx "And she always tries to justify her viewpont by padding"/ "most people who own property, Never earn it" Proof? If you are going to debate, provide proof and while doing so quote Rand plz. However, I know you won't take specifics... it's probably over your head... keep living in that word where you are a slave to others which drives you to use derogatory words to express your own contradiction instead of stating a legitimate point of view with facts, quotes, and real arguments

[@georgemay8170]

Jesus Christ elevated the individual above the group.

[@xmoroseguyx]

@KingDingaling090 For a start, If Hitler wanted too, He could have walked into britain anytime, But he chose to go East, As for the Americans, They only joined towards the end of it, The fact is the Russian communist Army were key to winning the war, Yes thier options were bad and Stalin was lunatic, But they fought for a great ideal, And as you also know, Stalin was no communist, You cannot judge these things by the leaders, I mean Hitler was properly voted in so? Democracy worst?

[@fzqlcs]

@ElasticGiraffe My point is that you seem so blinded by your perception of her personality that you cannot affirm her explanation of individual rights, the very basis of libertarian thought. That suggests someone who is more of a personality fanboy than a principled thinker.

[@cbgaloot]

Young DouChe needs to get a grip.

[@ElasticGiraffe]

@Bigturns33 I really hope you mean the brightest female libertarian and not the brightest woman. lol Rand claimed she was influenced by no one but Aristotle (no classical liberal philosophers, not even Locke). If this is true, then how remarkable that she her political philosophy is pretty much just classical liberalism with an iconoclastic, Marxist-like attitude. And as for her logic and metaphysics, I'm so glad she came along to tell us that A = A and that existence exists. Profound insights.

[@ElasticGiraffe]

@fzqlcs So you accuse me of being a pseudo-libertarian because I dislike the person of Ayn Rand, and yet I am the fanboy? If you're looking for a personality cultist, you have no further to look than the mirror.

[@fourstringthing24]

How can someone be so right and so wrong at the same time?

[@ElasticGiraffe]

I may be peculiar in that I am a libertarian who abhors Ayn Rand. She is not taught in college philosophy classrooms because nothing she said was particularly novel, even though she claimed her one and only influence was Aristotle -- yeah sure, Enlightenment thinkers had no impact on her -- and most Objectivists are little more than card-carrying members of her personality cult. The woman was a miserable narcissist, who thought anyone who disagreed with her about anything was morally depraved.

[@Mike10four]

I take issue with Ayn Rand’s statement: “rights are a moral concept.” Individual rights are not a moral concept; they are part of the Laws of Nature and existed before humans. See my channel for the proof.

[@blist14ant]

@TheLegalImmigrant05 yea someone who believes in what thery are saying

[@KEVLANEW80]

GOOF SPEECH.

[@WhoIsJohnGalt4279]

@SNIPERSTEVE420 I can see that you know absolutely nothing about Ayn Rand. If you take everything you just said and said the opposite you would be closer the Rands objectivist philosophy.

[@riethc]

What about truth? This is the political code of nihilism.

[@passingpoor]

This video probably has the most sophisticated comments section on youtube, however let me up the ante somewhat by reminding everyone that it is all bollocks. never be too sure of what you know and be sure that what you do know is bollocks. we paint pretty pictures with word, we spin wonderous webs with words. these words provide a narrative that is bollocks. you are behind , under and above the words but you are not the words.

[@miriamrokeach2910]

all minds inthe universe are completly interconnected ala Plato Kant Critique of Pure Reason and all of Schopenhauer ayn Rand was mistaken like Aristotle she could not see this because she was not a genious only a very brilliant mind Iam the smartest person inthe world not the most intelligent agenious like Norman Mailer Nietzsche and Schopenhauer if you would meet me you wouldsee my genious on my face Sincerly Sheldon Shalom Rokeach

[@jimmarcinko3323]

Nonsense

[@marcpadilla1094]

I don't have individual rights.I don't own my body or the fuel it takes to maintain it. My mind is a liability and bound by my physical needs. I'm a yes or no button.

[@mrduck12345678]

at 3:20 rand looks creepy and possessed...

[@ElasticGiraffe]

@fzqlcs I was only criticizing her miserable personality and cult following, not her ideas, which (as I pointed out) are neither original nor innovative, however unprecedented she might have thought they were. I just don't understand why so many libertarians think she was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Classical liberalism and ethical egoism were around long before she started pontificating about how evil all other views are.

[@AmiJurgl]

Blah, blah, blah. She was one f'd up individual.

[@Spiritof-nn1fh]

The right has no meaning if not given by God.

[@basicscholar5538]

This should be taught in schools!