Ayn Rand on the Death of Innocents in War

[@AynRandInstitute]

Read Ayn Rand’s 1966 essay “The Roots of War” here: aynrand.org/the-roots-of-war/

[@VaraLaFey]

Thanks for posting that. I hadn't read it in maybe 30 years. I kept thinking "Putin", "Putin", "Putin" literally almost every paragraph. That's the normal timelessness of her thinking. Your post also led me to re-find the Lexicon. 🙂 OTOH the link for the Russian writings book takes me to a 404 error. 😞

[@kimobrien.]

@@VaraLaFey Yes if only Any Rands heros the capitalist bosses would not form gangs and fight for maximizing profits. Seems that the bosses prefer profits over taking Rands advice and returning to the ideal days of free competition but instead prefer the protection of a democratic state politically corrupted by the incumbent bosses business interests. Unfortunately for Rand and others who lecture the bosses on how to make capitalism into a heaven on earth the bosses are driven by the profit motive and greed for the surplus value produced by labor.

[@adrianainespena5654]

Well, so the roots of war was the desire to have what others owned and to take it by force. Funny that she did not see anything wrong with the policies of indian removal, because the indians were too primitive and had no right to the land. So that was not the cause of war? Isn't that called selective morality? Or rather making an exception when it benefits you?

[@kimobrien.]

@@adrianainespena5654 It's all a bunch of baloney based upon a so called rational mind seeking to maximize profits. The so called rational minds of the Imperialist power had decided to enter into military alliances to take the others colonial possessions when war broken to redivide the world among the Imperialist powers based in capitalism. All it is is a theory about how capitalism could work if the capitalist followed Rands moral code instead of being driven by greed and profits. If anyone is altruistic its Rand for believing the capitalist won't become a collectivist group who will use fascist gangsterism to stay in power.

[@cemilokumus4559]

Once again, I adore her devotion to logic and common sense. Those who accuse her of betraying her own individualistic philosophy and speaking like a collectivist when it comes to war don't get the point at all. She doesn't talk about killing innocent people in a war for no reason or merely for pleasure. She simply states that if someone attacks you in order to destroy you, you can't give up your right to defend yourself because you might harm or kill some innocent people. If you don't retaliate when you are attacked because you worry about innocent people in enemy side, you will be destroyed. But your first and the most basic moral obligation is to defend and maintain your own life. If you are attacked, you should react by force till you destroy your aggressor and human casualties in your enemy's side might happen. It doesn't mean that you deliberately intend to kill innocent people or enjoy it. If you have to defend yourself, you shouldn't be concerned about possible casualties in enemy side, otherwise you will be destroyed. But if you attack and kill innocent people for no reason or just for fun when you have no need to defend yourself, of course you are not justified.

[@Paretozen]

Thought provoking, for sure. In no way am I capable of engaging in an argument for or against her thought, but I'll allow it to simmer in my mind for a while.

[@DeeperWithDiego]

Right on point. Citizens think that they can both VOTE in Democracy and be ABSOLVED of that they've voted for is compartmentalizing and evasion of the highest order. If your country has gotten to the point where it initiates wars based on the purpose of destruction, then leave. There are over a hundred countries on the planet that, although aren't morally perfect, are better than most, and don't initiate wars. Her point is, and this is lost on all the anti life libertarian brigaders in the comment section, is that it's a government's job to protect the rights of IT'S citizenry, not the enemies. You go to war, destroy the enemy, which destroys their confidence in their barbaric ideas, and leave. That's it. Not a single human being on the planet has a fear of dying to Imperialist Japan's terrorist, the Kamikazes. No one. Why? Because America defended the rights of it's citizens, blew Japan up, and told them like a dog hit on the nose with a rolled up news paper "No!". Kamikazes of the east don't exist anymore. Kamikazes of the middle east, do. If America just blew up the Iranian Leadership by turning that country into glass in 1979, life on this planet would be 1000% better than it is now, and there would be little to no Kamikazes of the middle east.

[@user-yl7kl7sl1g]

You can't just live in whatever country you want. Visa's are very difficult to obtain, and require getting a job in that country which the majority of people won't be competitive for, especially since you're competing with the native population of that country for any job.

[@maurices5954]

You do realize that there are also people who don't vote and thus don't view themselves as citizens under a government, which they didn't support. They therefor don't see themselves as responsible for "their country", since they never openly showed it any support to begin with. If such a governmental organization then claims that it's job is to protect my rights, while at the same time it takes away my property without consent via taxation then it's clear that this is an inconsistent position to hold. They have become the aggressors in this scenario, which is the case for all existing governments today. To then say that i, the non-aggressor, should leave, makes no sense at all. You are simply siding with the aggressor. This has nothing to do with Objectivism.

[@maurices5954]

@aaronalfeche So in your view of reality property rights become meaningless and theft is justified when you desire an outcome that lies in line with your subjective preference, gotcha.

[@nockianlifter661]

Hear hear. 👏

[@terrorists-are-among-us]

Now America is just importing them and claiming diversity is our strength, while they shoot up places for sport 🤯

[@jafco9]

Thanks!

[@DexterGraphic]

Wow! Such moral clarity. I'm impressed.

[@lights473]

I mean surely it's not, right? Like this entire video is Rand's endorsement of altruism

[@DexterGraphic]

@@lights473 Would you please explain where and how you see Ayn Rand endorsing altruism?

[@kimobrien.]

@@DexterGraphic Like Milton Freedman and others they lecture the bosses on following a moral code because the bosses only moral code is profits and in chasing profits the creates the capitalism described by Karl Marx in Das Kapital and Lenin in Imperialism the Highest Stage of capitalism. It is the logic of capitalism that leads the ruling capitalist class to attack to attack the working class for the capitalist goal of profit maximization. The capitalist took the Democratic Republic though control of the political parties such that they can say may the best man win since both are in my pocket both ideologically and materially. Underlying the breakdown of the gentlemans game of two party politics lies the decline and crisis of world capitalist trade and production.

[@TrollAxeThrower]

​@@DexterGraphicaaand he's gone 😂

[@DynastieArtistique]

@@TrollAxeThrowerjust like all of them😂

[@Mlai00]

The word "innocence" actually means ignorance, passivity, and helplessness. They are deadly sins, not virtues.

[@TeaParty1776]

Im innocent, Judge. I was not there.

[@MrJm323]

Being a toddler is a deadly sin?!? Having a lack of knowledge and being truly helpless is a sin?

[@chriswright9096]

I imagine you live in a country where you are unlikely to be picked up off the street and tortured for expressing an opinion. Clearly you think that if you did live in such a place you would have the courage to resist, to risk your own death and that of your loved ones. Maybe. But I can't help but wonder. Same for the 12 idiots who 'like' your post.

[@maximtcaciuc2904]

@@MrJm323 Yeah I don't know in what kind of utopia they are living in where everyone including toddlers are these highly intellectual beings that aren't predisposed to bias. That's not the reality in 1st world countries and it's far from being a reality in countries where the only thing most of the population can think about is basic survival.

[@rachellevy7038]

@@MrJm323 The Arab Nazi's occupying Gaza ,Judea ,Samaria ,Y'rushalayim ,Beit Lechem etc ,are taught from birth to hate and murder Jews from generation to generation for over a hundred years now !

[@rowmac]

Just brilliant

[@kimobrien.]

She shamelessly defends the US Imperialist invasion of Vietnam. A nation that had been the victim of French and Japanese Imperialism. No Vietnamese every went to war with the US state.

[@EricSmith9000]

There are no countries, only individuals, but individuals can be collectively punished for the actions of an adjacent warlord? Sounds like undue collectivist abstraction.

[@chriswright9096]

Agree. It turns out Objectivism is very subjective.

[@EricSmith9000]

@@chriswright9096 I like that they at least acknowledge an objective reality, even if they don't always approximate it perfectly.

[@justapleb4932]

​@@chriswright9096 Absolutely not. Objectivism is perfect in all its aspects EXCEPT politics, which is a result of them not embracing anarcho-capitalism. The philosophy is wonderful, but the consequences of embracing the collectivist lie that is the state are catastrophic and logically unavoidable.

[@davidkuperman2390]

You're missing the point. She's not talking about specifically targeting civilians during a war. Unfortunately, civilians do perish during armed conflicts because surgical strikes aren't always possible, even more so when they're being used as human shields by terrorist groups like Hamas. Are Palestinians morally responsible for the actions of Hamas? Absolutely. They've elected them and supported them.

[@DynastieArtistique]

You really thought you had an argument there lmao. The concept that an authority of evil can hurt people on a collective scale isn’t a philosophical one, it’s simply a fact of reality

[@donnasloane9031]

AYN RAND...her philosophy has helped me in my personal life...family members against you because they are under control of a narcissist?...there are no victims...only volunteers....so I just divorced the entire family...now i am happy, joyoue and free....

[@kimobrien.]

Really? Your family is probably the one group who will always be theer for you in capitalist society.

[@ivyimogene]

Yes, what she says in very true. If the people vote for a govt that begins a war and does not protect them, then clearly they are responsible. To quote her, "we have to pay for the sins of our govt".

[@anderseckstrand7033]

They should pay to, but usually end up walking free. The people need to be in charge of their government when it clearly becomes violent and corrupt.

[@jamesm.3307]

Ignorant. The Germans didn't elect Hitler, they elected Hindenburg who hated Hitler. The Nazis only controlled 39% of the legislature at their peak. Hitler was appointed Chancellor because the Nazis were the largest party, but never the majority party. Hitler became president when Hindenburg died by right of succession and oppressed the masses. Interestingly, Justin Trudeau has a similar story.

[@edwardvane8195]

Really? What about the people that do not vote for that government because of helplessness and are forbidden to leave that country? What about their individual rights? Agreeing with her amounts to a contradiction of the very basis of her philosophy: Individual Rights!

[@mannyjeanpierre4062]

If they truly opposed thst government they would never stay. Like she said they'd leave or be locked up. There's no way they'd be comfortable in a statist country

[@edwardvane8195]

​​​@@mannyjeanpierre4062do you not understand that THEY ARE FORBIDDEN FROM LEAVING. If they attempt to leave they get killed. Is there something about that that you do not understand? You do not have a right to equivocate being forced to live under a dictatorship with support for that dictatorship. That is a completely collectivistic equivocation and it is a violation of individual rights!

[@Publius-24]

"All war is immoral." "The point of war is to win." General LeMay

[@wh5254]

Very good points, and very relevant to the fact that the people of Gaza elected and supported Hamas.

[@edwardvane8195]

What if the elections were rigged? Elections are rigged all the time. Remember it happened in the USA already when the Clinton-Democrats screwed over Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton. And there are other examples in the US and all over the world. The election was rigged which makes this a crime of truly colossal proportions

[@johnnynick3621]

@@edwardvane8195 The Palestinian people have known for years that Hamas planned to attack Israel when it felt the time was right. They have watched Hamas build military fortifications and command centers right next to hospitals and schools within Gaza. Knowing these things, they had a moral obligation to overthrow their leaders and show the world they were ready to become a civilized member of society. They didn't do so because the people, for the most part, believe in the central tenant of Hamas/PLO/Hezbollah etc. that Israel does not have the right to exist.

[@lights473]

44% elected Hamas. So 56% didn't but they're still responsible for the actions of the government?

[@musicavozycanto8585]

They didn’t elect Hamas, Hamas took over Gaza from the Palestinian government in 2007.

[@sholoy480]

Exactly. I have yet to see even one palestinian or palestinian supporter on social media or in a news interview disavow Hamas

[@donnasloane9031]

This woman is so brilliant...RIP

[@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858]

I'm sure she's reincarnated and alive right now

[@GregoryBraziler]

@@anhumblemessengerofthelawo3858 Who is she?

[@kimobrien.]

@@GregoryBraziler She is just another theorist for capitalism. If the capitalist would follow her moral code than supposedly the we would live in the best of all worlds. Of course the capitalist only moral code is one of maximizing profits above all else and all this leads to is the creation of a small dystopia ruling classes based in nation states who go to war to redivide the world's markets and resources amongst each other. It's a very narrow view of the world by someone who was blinded by the bright lights of Hollywood. .

[@aaronison4751]

Extremely important comments from Ayn Rand here. In the current context of Israel and Hamas, I think that the population of Gaza is complicit in their governments actions. I haven't heard a word from anti Hamas Palestinians or opponents of the regime. Incidentally I haven't heard any supposedly moderate Muslim voices here in Britain either. The Israelis are perfectly entitled to respond to an unprovoked attack with overwhelming force and it might be a good idea to do so.

[@SK82W]

And people should be allowed to disagree with you. Keep in mind this woman came from a wealthy family and was well educated. Not everyone has this luxury.

[@afaqjanan7817]

Unprovoked 😂.

[@artnull13]

@@afaqjanan7817ah another supporter of Hamas and their crimes against humanity - proud of yourself?

[@sholoy480]

Yes unprovoked. From the day the state of Israel was established the Arabs gathered to try and annihilate Israel completely unprovoked. The Arabs living in Israel were welcome as evidence by the more than million Arabs living in Israel today. One thing is certain - as much as we hear about the innocent civilians in Gaza I have yet to see even one Gazan disavow Hamas completely. Never has a nation at war with a hostile state been asked to separate the people of the aggressive hostile state from the government. And the case to do that perhaps could be made -neven though Ayn Rand totally rejects that notion, but there is no unique factor in this instance demonstrating the people's rejection of their governments actions. Quite the contrary.

[@joshuafrank3803]

​@@SK82W Disagreements are welcome. We all grow up eventually and some educate themselves and work to stay informed and other don't. Being poor or having a lousy education system growing up does not absolve anyone of taking responsibility for themselves.

[@MrTomyCJ]

What if I'm a poor person that doesn't have the means to fight back against (or escape from) a majoritarian oppressive regime? What If I'm a child born into a prison? What if I'm indeed fighting and have always been, but my house gets bombed by the other country because they didn't bother to check anyways? You simply do not know the circumstances of every individual, you can't asume they're contributing by passivity to the regime's crimes, you can't guarantee that they are not responsible for their government, despite what Rand says. I don't think she's proven the opposite here.

[@k85]

And thus, someone being the target of your country's offensive should refrain from fighting against yours, surrender, and commit suicide? Do you see how empathy for these poor "innocents" is made to serve evil and disarm the righteous in this scheme? Sometimes it is just tough luck for the helpless citizens of the agressor country, but justice is always totally on the side of the free, and they may use force in whatever way they see necessary to bring down the aggressor.

[@chriswright9096]

You are completely correct. But Rand doesn't do nuance. There are no grey areas in her World. Dreadful sordid philosophy. Dreadful woman.

[@dameanvil]

She was so close to understanding, yet she preferred to weave her own god.

[@alwynpereira7363]

well said! except that I dont think we can be sure of anyone being close to understanding.

[@dameanvil]

@@alwynpereira7363 in her case we can. she perfectly understood the state. afaik she is the first one to put into words the attila and the witchdoctor, retold later by rothbard. but she could not stand the idea, so she went back to the drawing board and created her own god: the just state. and i can assume some proto-communists suffered the same crippling fear so they invented their own god: the equity utopia.

[@katherinekelly6432]

"When the freedom they wished for the most was freedom from responsibility than Athens ceased to be free". Edith Hamilton. No one is innocent from the responsibility to participate in the political world they reside in. Every single human being is a soldier of the country they reside in. The only choice a person has are the morals that will guide their actions as soldiers. All of life lives in a constant state of war. It may be between family members, community members or nation states but the relationship we have with conflict decides our destiny.

[@katherinekelly6432]

@matthewapsey4869 With group power comes great (individual) responsibility. All citizens who benefit by association with the state are responsible for what the state does. "Shared Responsibility". You are not responsible for what the state did in the past. As an example, slavery. You are not responsible to the degree that you are powerless. As an example, too young to Vote. Too young to protest. Responsibility is highly contextual. You are not "Free" from this responsibility and so those who ignore this responsibility are guilty by default.

[@whorlwinds.9750]

Ah, Edith Hamilton! Great quote.

[@TeaParty1776]

@matthewapsey4869 If your nation initiates war, you may become a target by the attacked nation, whether or not you supported the war.

[@kimobrien.]

@@TeaParty1776 Rand is full of bullshit. Which is why she writes fantsy novels. Man is a social animal who today is dependent on a world economy. Her ideas are nonsensical.. Capitalist trade and production means their must be social controls placed upon indusrty otherwise if only profits dictate actions then bosses will polute the air land and water to make the biggest profits.

[@Bamskki]

If a government wages a war against another government, then both the peoples of these governemtns and the governments themselves are responsible for the sins of one another. Resposibilty is on both sides.

[@hermanessences]

5:43 When she said "innocent" here, did she perhaps make air quotes with her fingers? When I heard someone else quote this quote, they quoted it as 'Quote innocent' - sorry for the quoteception confusion here.

[@XXMrHAtAndClogsxx]

Not sure. I can’t speak for Rand, but I would guess she would agree the number of true innocents in a given authoritarian regime like the Soviet Union is greatly over emphasized. As in many citizens actually do support them, and passive acceptance is another form of sanction. Though I do think she would say there are certainly innocent people in these regimes. Certainly the children are innocent, but this fact does not justify restraint or passivity when a country defends itself from force.

[@thomaswayneward]

This brings up a question I ask; why did the people of Israel allow themselves to be disarmed, and not be able to own private firearms?

[@rodgerhempfing2921]

Because the government was afraid of being attacked by it's own extremists.

[@Mrbobinge]

Her reasoning reminds us of fashionable condemnation of the British 'concentration camps' during South African war. Rural Boer women and children corralled away from the fighting and prevented from harbouring the Boer fighter. Brutal conditions quite probably but, as she said, War is War. Families were far safer in such camps. It weakened the enemy too.

[@islaadele1212]

Wise words.

[@AtangleOfneurons]

My grangrandparents left the USSR in the process of its formation because it wasn't acceptable to them. She is right; if you don't agree and do nothing about this, you are passively participating 😕

[@adrianainespena5654]

There again. If you do not fight off your rapist forcefully enought, it was consensual sex.

[@adrianainespena5654]

Your grandgrand parents were lucky to find a country that would allow them to stay. Go to the Southern border and see the people who leave their countries because they are not acceptable to them. They are not as lucky as your grandgrandparents.

[@adrianainespena5654]

Anne Frank and her family were not so lucky as your grandgrandparents. They tried to enter the US and were denied entry. It is easy to say, leave. Where to? A lot of countries close their borders and you are stuck. Please stop blaming Anne Frank's death on their parents not leaving.

[@chriswright9096]

Very mean spirited opinion. I'm sure many Russians would have been unable to leave.

[@Enjoytheshow435]

That is so relevant now! It’s like she’s seeing the future or we are dumb to keep repeating the same things after all that time!

[@sholoy480]

In regards to the Israel/Gaza war never has a nation at war with a hostile state been asked to separate the people of the aggressive hostile state from the government. And the case to do that perhaps could be made -neven though Ayn Rand totally rejects this notion, but there is no unique factor in this instance demonstrating the people's rejection of their governments actions. Quite the contrary.

[@tesserae-c2y]

Interesting point of view. Isn't it an individual's duty to preserve one's life? At what point will you sacrifice your beliefs for life? If you were an individualist in the Soviet Union you would be gulaged. Emigrating is not an option for everyone. Wouldn't it be better to resist within the system instead? And why would such a person be held responsible for a dictatorship government? He did not agree to it and if he fought back he would die.

[@Mr.Witness]

Then he should cheer on its destruction

[@XXMrHAtAndClogsxx]

Also it is not as if the person who does not support the the regime is necessarily responsible. Though I would argue that passiveness or paralysis is a form of sanction. But the one who resists and maybe sabotages the state or has already spoken up and put in the gulag, is truly noble and innocent. However, the state, whether you like it or not, is a representative of the citizens. That’s why you must be concerned, with politics. If your government is one in which is going to get you killed, you have to do something, resist, escape, etc.. If you can’t, your life is forfeit, of course it already is if you are under a boot. It may be true that in some cases a hostage has no moral obligation to get shot in the back to escape its captors for the sake of the one who must retaliate against the violence of the attacker and hostage taker. But neither does the retaliator have an obligation to the life of the hostage. True resistance fighters, I.e. the French resistance in WWII, knew that many of them would be killed when the allies took France back from the Nazi’s, but never would they wish that the Allies not do what ever was necessary to free France from the Nazi’s. They would be glad to die, if necessary not for Nobel self sacrifice, but because the alternative, “life” under authoritarian rule is worse than death.

[@jeviosoorishas181]

But that's kind of Rand's point, isn't it... Rand has often said that you don't pick a war, unless you know or believe you can win...I think that would be the response against a dictatorship government: if you believe you can overthrow it, you attempt to do so, otherwise you leave, knowing that if you don't either you will die at the hand of the government or at the hands of an invader.

[@1voluntaryist]

@@jeviosoorishas181 It's more complicated. I have remained in an unfree country, for 81 years, and fought back, suffered, but I was still better off IN EVERY WAY, for resisting.

[@RandFanOne]

Bottom line: You are asking the violated country to risk everything to protect the innocents of the aggressor nation. What you have to understand about Objectivism is that its moral principles, such as "rights" are not floating abstractions but are valid only in a clearly defined context. We are not Libertarians who invert the proper hierarchy of "rights" and "life as the moral standard." Life is the standard- not as a collectivist abstraction- your individual life. We form governments to secure the life of each individual in that country and part of that is to wage war in defense of each individual life. In theory, if you could protect the innocents and not risk undermining your war effort at all, then yes, protect them. But that is absolutely fantasy land. The stakes are too high and no rational man who values his life would subordinate it to such a principle. It would mean his life and those of his loved ones are no more valuable than the lives of innocent strangers. It is an unfortunate circumstance, but that is the nature of war.

[@ClassicalLiberalWarrior]

I think Rand is slightly wrong in her moral analysis and political policy. The "innocent civilians" who oppose their dictatorship are a touch innocent and those who are strong dissidents are much more so. They, the women, the children, the sick, and the old, etc. should be spared, if possible. But it may not be reasonably possible, in which case their deaths are pathetic, but still the responsibility of the dictators and the supportive or passive citizenry, as Rand indicates.

[@adrianainespena5654]

The final responsibility might be their government. But the ones who drop the bombs carry their share of guilt. If they did not carry guilt when contemplating the dead children, they would be monsters, not men.

[@tomosbon7347]

You just made her point. There is no morality in war.

[@adrianainespena5654]

@@tomosbon7347 There is no morality, except what we bring to it. YOu cannot say "this is war, anyway, so I will do as I please" You might as well eat babies after cooking them.

[@tomosbon7347]

@adrianainespena5654 don't quite understand what point you are trying to make. War is one thing but butchering babies seems to be the going thing in most western countries today. Butchering babies is legal in most states in America but no one wants to attach morality to that. Cooking and eating a baby would be immoral because it would be self gratification not an act of war.

[@adrianainespena5654]

@@tomosbon7347 It means that once you say that no moral considerations apply in war, then ANYTHING GOES. And babies have been killed by armies since the beginning. And cannibalism is not unknown either. You say that "this is war, and I defend myself by any means necessary" your opponent will say the same. You cannot have one sided moral condemnation,

[@gatewood-q6x]

Rand's position has until now made a lot of sense to me, but in this compilation she contradicts herself and at 5.43 she says 'I hope the innocent will someday be destroyed along with the guilty'.Does that sentence make sense to anyone? Was she having a bad day or what?

[@nockianlifter661]

Yes, she’s having a sarcastic pop at those who hold there a such things as innocents in a war against an enemy - from the perspective of a western country of individual rights.

[@equaltoreality8028]

Its about context. The innocent are those who while have not supported a government have done nothing to stop it or atleast get out of the way. We are responsible for are governments and to be silent while they commit evil is dame the innocent along with the guilty.

[@XXMrHAtAndClogsxx]

To add to some of the replies, I don't think this was the point she was trying to make, but it may be important to consider. That is many truly Nobel and innocent men under authoritative regimes have accepted that death is a better alternative to so-called "life" under these regimes. Think of many French resistance fighters in occupied France in WWII, who knew that they may very likely be killed when the Allies came to liberate France, but would not have dreamed of stopping the Allies from doing whatever was necessary for liberation. This is noble, not because they sacrificed themselves, but because they knew that life under Nazi occupation was tantamount to death already, perhaps worse, by the standards of life on earth and human and individual flourishing. Another example is a consideration from a Russian composer (I think it was a composer, I can't think of a name, if anyone knows who am referring to feel free to add), who lamented that many of the better more liberal-minded people that managed to survive in Moscow under Soviet rule would pray for the U.S. to nuke Moscow. For even if nothing survived that would be a better alternative than the status quo, and if something could be built from the ashes then even facing destruction on the scale of nuclear destruction was worthwhile for the chance at something better, or again at least to put it out of its misery.

[@1voluntaryist]

@@equaltoreality8028 How does Ayn know if "they have done nothing to stop 'it', or at least get out of the way." I have resisted authority since 5, boycotted 1st grade, got expelled twice, in 4th, 5th grades for refusing to "pledge allegiance". How many more are like me? No one knows? In Nazi Germany they existed, but practically couldn't be identified, saved. They certainly were not the Jews who choose to remain, who "went along to get along" and prove they were "good citizens before they were Jews".

[@VaraLaFey]

If makes sense if you assume sneer quotes around "innocent". Her point was that all truly innocent people have left or are in concentration camps. (I hadn't heard these talks before, and even after being an Objectivist for 30 years, she still managed to stop me in my tracks with that last. Nobody could do that like she could.) Not being a tactical thinker, she seemed to forget about the resisters. But they are a tiny minority and have various ways of knowing when destruction is coming anyway. EDIT: stupid misspelling. Sheesh.

[@Cudababa]

Hell yes, to everything she said.

[@afaqjanan7817]

Hell, yes to only good points she says , she is not omniscient.

[@kimobrien.]

@@afaqjanan7817 She shamelessly defended the US Imperialist intervention in Vietnam. Just when did Vietnam attack the US? Ah yes the made up Gulf of Tonkin incident. So you see as long as its a state that she likes no crime is to great in her opinion. She even went so far as to advocate nuclear war against the Soviet Union because of her idealism. That is the sum total of her philosophy a moral code of ideals everyone must accept or be shot dead.

[@dukelee3964]

in other words, if your from a western democracy don't go on vacation...

[@AtangleOfneurons]

I've listened recently to videos of North Korean refugees. The problem is the same. Their parents have chosen it, but children are burying the burden. Some of them even don't understand how it is to live differently.

[@kimobrien.]

The problems in Korea began with the US military takeover from the deheated Japanese Imperialist after making an agreement with Stalin to divide the Korea nation in half.

[@chriswright9096]

Rand would say it is their own fault.

[@Raj-nh3fc]

So true during the atrocities of Hamas on Israelis.

[@Randsurfer]

And justifies the murder of 10,000 Gaza children? What Hamas did was horrific so Israel is going to out-horrific them to show their moral superiority?

[@raystargazer7468]

well in one quote she says if they were a dictatorship another country would have the right to attack them, and right in the next quote she says whoever initiates the war is the guilty party. 🤔

[@kitchencarvings4621]

That's because a dictator initiates force against his or her own citizens. A dictator does not have a right to exist and anyone has the moral right to the RETALIATORY use of force against them.

[@dawnshipley6830]

the Nazis killed or jailed and tortured people who stood up to them. and if you cant afford to get out - ?? she is blaming the victim. There is an imblance of power that she does not address,

[@uzefulvideos3440]

no such thing as collective responsibility

[@nihadfilipovic9525]

In low, buit Rand speaks not from a legal but philosofical point of wiuev.

[@chriswright9096]

@@nihadfilipovic9525 No such thing as collective responsibility from a philosophical point of view either.

[@nihadfilipovic9525]

@@chriswright9096 Oh really? Of course there is collective liability without fault, both, as an issue in philosophical thaught and in practis...in civil law, for example when a state pays reparations to other states or individuals that's it.... collectiv liability without the personal guilt of each citisen...

[@chriswright9096]

@@nihadfilipovic9525 I think reparations can be justified where a group/race has been historically disadvantaged. I don't think it is necessarily an application of collective responsibility (at least not the kind that Rand espouses). You know, she could have simply stated the truth that innocents may be harmed when one party (in this case a country) defends itself against another. Unfortunate but inevitable and unavoidable. I think all but the most ardent pacifists would accept that. Instead of leaving it there, she comes up with this mumbo jumbo that the innocents are not innocent and that they have some responsibility for their government (whether they voted for it, or whether they are an oppressed population under dictatorship, or whether they are toddlers). It is so morally ridiculous, so reprehensible, so demonstrably sociopathic. And yet, folks in the comments nod in approval and call her a genius. It really is quite sad.

[@roberttroutman6780]

There is no such thing as innocence, only lesser degrees of guilt.

[@michaelshapiro1543]

Spoken like a True Christian. Or a cynic. Or a tax auditor.

[@DenkyManner]

This is complete nonsense. Bending reality to fit her paradigm

[@alwynpereira7363]

I'm glad to see a realistic comment on her video's. Religions want individuals is to be perfect. For e.g. All of us should aspire to be Jesus or be 'enlightened' or follow a book perfectly to the word. And its not a reality for 99..9999% And in the case of Ayan Rand, all of humanity have to be immediately figure out a way to be fearless, independent, clear thinkers. There is enough evidence of reality of over atleast 2000-5000years that indicates that that has never been the case. And for some reason, because Ayan Rand says to, its now possible.

[@waz3128]

“Its always the most controlled countries that attacks the freer”

[@kimobrien.]

You mean like how Western Imperialist conquered the world? In fact before the European powers conquered the world large terrortories had no fixed property owners. Private bourgeois property is a modern idea. Also her idea that men don't live their lives for others is complete nonsense. You live in a modern world that is tied together by trade and production carried out by billions of human beings. We aren't male orangutans that swing from tree to tree eating low hanging fruit.

[@adrianainespena5654]

So why did that beacon of freedom the US attack the Indian tribes to grab their lands?

[@adrianainespena5654]

Tell that to all the countries invaded by the British Empire.

[@chriswright9096]

@@adrianainespena5654 I know right? This comments section is full of glib statements like the one you just replied to. They sound wise but are totally inane and often factually incorrect. Just like Rand herself.

[@АртёмДубравин-ы6у]

some strong words for a lobotomy survivor

[@pezeron24]

I disagree with her because it presupposes that individuals have the power to change their government, which is not necessarily the case. In a democracy, the minority cannot overpower the majority. In a dictatorship, most individuals have no power. And then, there are the children, who are the main victims of wars and have no political voice.

[@victoriabasmova8751]

I also strongly disagree with her - mainly because of the children. This whole view is extremely simplistic and detached from reality - which seems to contradict her own philosophy. (I'm not talking now about any specific war here.)

[@MrJm323]

And, so, what are the citizens of the attacked country supposed to do about that?!? They are burdened enough with having to protect their own "innocents" (babies, the infirm elderly, vulnerable women, etc.). It's absurd to charge them with the responsibility to avoid innocent civilian casualties (such as babies -- whom everyone will agree are by definition innocent) among the enemy population. In total wars (...and just to give an example, by contrast, to what is NOT a total war -- the Falkland Islands War was not a total war -- civilians did not get embroiled in the conflict as both sides were able to contain it), all of the economic assets of your enemy become legitimate wartime targets. Everything that contributes to the war effort of a belligerent nation is a target in such a war (a total war). The simple, unavoidable fact is that innocents (babies as well as political dissidents of the enemy regime as well as those who are simply powerless to challenge the aggressor regime) live in cities, in close proximity to economically valuable targets of war. ...To demand that the victim nation take care to avoid children and other innocents of the aggressor's nation from becoming collateral casualties in their own effort to secure THEIR children's lives and freedom is just ridiculous.

[@chriswright9096]

@@MrJm323 By talking of total and limited wars, you are already taking a nuanced approach to the issues. Rand seemed incapable of this.

[@SK82W]

This would be great if everyone was educated and had access to education. What about countries where almost 50 percent are children and dont have the right to vote.

[@MrStuv]

Rand talk from the ATTACKED side. She is saying that the country that is being attacked have the right (AND MUST) to attack as hard as needed to protect its civilians, and should definitely not spare the life of its enemies in the expense of its own people. My take from her saying is that the ATTACKED side should not ask these question that you are asking.

[@chriswright9096]

@@MrStuv Actually she doesn't seem to be saying that at all. She actually goes out of her way to assign responsibility to the people, and denies that they can possibly be 'innocent'. Their government is their responsibility, she argues, even though we all really know that is nonsense (the children, the oppressed, the disenfranchised are not responsible for their government, they are victims of it). Now, what she should have said is closer to what you said; that defense is permissible and, unfortunately, the death of innocents might occur. You know, the more I see of Rand the more I understand that she simply was not very bright.

[@mac2105]

This is insane.

[@microy]

it is sad that your wisdom and moral superiority is so jelously guarded. Only to be invisibly paraded fleetingly to the delusional in such concise quips.....

[@dranelemakol]

This kind of AI noise suppression is awful and inferior to the original

[@mrhumpty]

I can't tell how this would work out... though I think she'd agree with me. Even if a country has aggressed. It should be all but the most extreme cases that you don't *target* civilians specifically. Target military targets first. Only as a last resort should the general populations be purposefully targeted. Am I wrong here. Is this in line or out of line with her points here. It's hard to tell.

[@hondinatos]

Her point is be the most effective possible. End the war as fast as you can with the fewer casualities of YOUR side possible. Let those who are experts decide how to achieve It. If It means bombarding hospitals, so be It.

[@VinnyBloo]

A government must target enemy civilians if it knows it will save the lives of its own people. Japanese cities were bombed justifiably because it prevented having to put tens of thousands of American citizens into a ground invasion.

[@mannyjeanpierre4062]

War is war. A country attacks you defend yourself. The longer the war the more deaths will happen. Ending the war as quickly as possible is best for both sides

[@Biologist19681]

You generally don't deliberately target civilians in a war, but not because it's immoral to do so. You don't target civilians because it's ineffective. Look at Russia targeting Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure. Not only is it not in any way effective, but it also is a waste of their limited stocks of long range cruise missiles. Of course there are exceptions, cases where it might actually be effective to target civilians to bring the end of the war faster. Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind. The Palestinians in Gaza are 100% responsible for the actions of Hamas. They elected Hamas. They allowed Hamas to build an arsenal. They allowed Hamas to fire rockets into Israel on a regular basis. They did nothing to stop it. In fact, many of them supported Hamas and cheered them on. Israel owes them nothing. Deliberately targeting them is a waste of military assets. But if Hamas hides behind civilians or stores weapons in a hospital, then Israel has every right to target those valid targets even is civilians might be killed.

[@tooitchy]

@@Biologist19681 Russia has not specifically targetted civilians in Ukraine, they've targeted infrastructure, but there is no delineation between civilian infrastructure and military, it is all strategically useful for the military, and therefore is always a viable target, outside of highly specific, very localized resources that have no real ability to be used by military, like someones personal well, or a river that feeds a small community, things like this. But power plants, communication equipment, etc. is fair game regardless of its use to ciivlians, because the gov't is using that same infrastructure. Contrast that with Ukraines attacks inside Russia that have been entirely targetting civilians, drone attacks on residential buildings in moscow, their pathetic incursion into Russian mainland, and short lived takeover of a small village, the targetting of a russian blogger with a mail bomb, the car bombing of Darya Dughina, Russian journalist, and daughter of russian philosopher (her father could be argued as a legit target for assassination, but killing his daughter was just disgusting, and wasn't condemned by literally anyone). There's also the bombing of multiple bridges, particularly the one where they turned a truck driver into a suicide bomber without him knowing, filled his truck with explosives, and blew him up as he drove over the bridge, killing an entire family in another car... this was one of the most despicable things I've ever seen in my life, and it was celebrated in america, and especially in ukraine. Ukraine has almost exclusively targeted civilians, with absolutely no strategic importance in most cases, even the bridge bombing could have been done in manners that didn't involve blowing up an innocent truck driver.

[@chrisalex001]

The principle of Ayn Rand is right, but the reality is that killing innocent people cannot truly be justified by any kind of philosophy. Taking a life is far too sobering, far too real (for normal individual) to simply ignore through any kind of mental process to arrive at a philosophical justification. It is true that wars do have many civilian casualties. But that truth cannot be undone through a philosophy of war. If that were so, war would not be war. War is horrible. The act of attempting to argue otherwise (which deep down is what this video is doing if we're truly honest) is unjustifiable. Ayn Rand is one of the best authors I've read, but when it comes to her philosophies I feel her to be too detached from emotions sometimes.

[@johngalt97]

Perhaps you value emotions incorrectly. Are you familiar with her view of the value and proper role of emotions? Living in a society is usually better than trying to live independently, but it has caveats, such as taking politics very, very seriously.

[@MrJm323]

The purpose of philosophy is to serve as a guide to actions. One thing a person needs to acknowledge is the fact that some things are out of your control. So, your contention that killing innocent people cannot be truly justified is a contention that ...cannot be truly justified. Suppose that there is a baby nursery next to a munitions factory (or some quite legitimate military target). If the babies die in your bombing attack on the legitimate target (becomes a "collateral casualty" -- as it was not the intended target), that doesn't mean that you are a murderer. The MORAL and LEGAL culpability for the babies' deaths belongs to the aggressor nation (and perhaps even with the babies' parents if they were supporters of the aggressor regime). Yes, wars are horrible, but the actions we take to defend our own lives and liberties (including wartime actions) need a moral justification. Otherwise, we will be immobilized by the sophistry of our enemies or enemy sympathizers or even by avowed pacifists, and then made vulnerable to being enslaved or even killed by a genocidal enemy.

[@edwardvane8195]

I cannot believe that she stated this. Her statements completely disregard individual rights. Her statements should be used as a basis for arguing in favor of Anarchy or at least Anarcho-Capitalism. What she says here makes it clear, whether anyone admits it or not, that the very existence of government is a violation of individual rights which throws her political philosophy into a contradiction.

[@mrhumpty]

She's not an anarcho-capitalist. Her statements are in line with Objectivism

[@maurices5954]

Exactly, Ancaps have been pointing out this contradiction for many years.

[@johnnynick3621]

There is NO SUCH THING as Anarcho-Capitalism. It is a contradiction of terms. You cannot have a Capitalist society without having laws protecting private property and individual rights; and you cannot have such laws without some form of government enforcing those laws. You CAN have a government that is LIMITED to ONLY protecting private property and individual rights and THAT is what you ANCAPS should be advocating.

[@maurices5954]

@@johnnynick3621 Good luck funding such an organization without the ability for it to rely on taxation, which is what a free market could solve from an Ancap theory. You stating that it can't happen doesn't make it true, neither you or i can predict the future.

[@johnnynick3621]

@@maurices5954 The free market might go a long way in providing for security and individual rights, but eventually you will always have a clash of power-seeking groups contesting for regional control. That is why we need a final arbiter of justice based solely on enforcing the rights of individuals. I am not against the concept of individual autonomy; I am simply skeptical that humans can resist the temptation to gain power through force. I am adamantly against Democracy or any other form of tyranny by the majority and instead hold with the concept this country was originally founded upon; a Constitutional Republic; with separate, independent States governed by their own State Constitutions and extremely limited voting rights. Funding such a limited endeavor would be trivial. The wealth unleashed by such enormous freedom would eclipse anything ever seen on Earth. We already raise over half a TRILLION dollars a year through voluntary contributions for such things as animal care and public parks. I think we'd have no problem raising funds to pay for local police and courts. Sell off ALL public buildings and lands and use the money raised to start an endowment fund for local law enforcement.

[@doovalacky]

The people get the government, and therefore the country they deserve. Politics is downstream from culture. This is all collectivist in nature. Be careful when you relinquish your individuality. Choose your collective wisely, and if you make a mistake, leave immediately.

[@bigredracingdog466]

3:42 Absolutely applicable to what is going on in the world today.

[@hritizgogoi3739]

Palestinians elected Hamas didn't they

[@chriswright9096]

@@hritizgogoi3739 Whats your point?

[@quasab8723]

You were supposed to fight with collectivists, not join them. Collective guilt, hah...Such a disappointment.

[@PCHUANG-yk9pw]

You share the benefit, then you pay the price. Innocent or not, irrelevant.

[@thatsthewaythecookiecrumbles]

Good points. This applies to all the clueless people protesting for Gaza. BTW they couldn't identify Gaza on a map.

[@rodgerhempfing2921]

But it's not ' fair', it's not nice.

[@Randsurfer]

How does a Gazan go about leaving Gaza?

[@joshuafrank3803]

Who else shares a border with Gaza again? Oh Egypt! That’s right… soooo Egypt isn’t sealing off the Gaza, it’s only Israel that does this? I think not. Incidentally, before Oct 7th hundreds of thousands left Gaza daily and went to work in Israel. The idea that people couldn’t leave is just an easily debunked lie.

[@daninoy3915]

Amazing point and so so relevant to why Israel is morally right to defend itself.

[@kimobrien.]

Israel has right to exist as a homeland for the Jews because liberal democracy can not protect them. Both the UK and US shut their doors before and after the second Imperialist war to Jewish Refugees. The worst world crisis of capitalism since the Great Depression means Jews will be blamed for it by fascist movements.

[@adrianainespena5654]

I had not heard it. I did. Well, I got to the point when she described a potential innocent victim as a "blob". Human beings are not blobs. Of course that human being abetted the Communist governmen. How? By not actively resisting? Knowing what we know of the gulag and other methods that the Russian regime used to squelch oposition, I can only say that she is as wicked as the Communists, but fortunately, she never held power so we were spared her Terror.

[@Calidastas]

Individuals get caught on the currents of history and usually can do little to change the course of the ocean. AR has had a few insightful ideas here and there but this take is absurd.

[@ScottishLibertyPodcast]

This is Ayn Rands worst and most collectivist takes not consistent with the rest of her philosophy

[@ChrisBamborough]

I’m wondering, has anyone in the comments who follows Rand’s ideology lived under an oppressive state regime that they did not vote for, and what did you do?

[@kokehri]

We all live under oppressive regimes where power is centralised into few hands and voting does not have much or any effect. Calling a system a democracy does not make it humane.

[@adrianainespena5654]

@@kokehri kokehri, your comment shows that you do not know what a repressive regime is like.

[@kokehri]

@@adrianainespena5654 I have lived in the Soviet Union.

[@adrianainespena5654]

@@kokehri And yet you equivalence our system with the Soviet one... strange.

[@kokehri]

@@adrianainespena5654 Open your eyes.

[@CubeO]

I admire her and agree on many topics... but I do not agree in all the ideas here. How is it that a person with good morality but trapped in a dictatorship country deserves to die because of his passivity, but the same people who voted for the dictatorship and then went abroad when things got complicated, deserve open doors and a prosperous life just because they were able to fly away?... Should we say then that any dictator leaving the country in its ruins and flying away with the money of many leaving blood behind is morally superior than the most virtuous man left in that country?

[@thewkovacs316]

rand was right, however, in a monarchy or a dictatorship, do the people really control what the government does?

[@tooitchy]

No, but they are responsible for their leaders being in power. No system of governance can rule without the consent of the governed. Just because a dictator is brutal, doesn't mean if the entirety of the population revolted, he could remain in power, and we've seen this countless times throughout history, it's just more often than not, the people want to keep their heads down and stay out of trouble, and just live their lives.. That's fine, but when your go'vt goes and fucks around, the consequences may fall on you, and your choice to stay out of trouble.

[@ileanamuntean7338]

You could not oppose the communist regimes and you were not allowed to leave.

[@avneet12284]

So if someone has hostages we should be disarmed? 🤦‍♀️

[@joshuagould548]

Lie, runaway. What isn't clicking for you here? The whole idea is if you live in a dictatorship, then get the hell out for the sake of your own life.

[@VinnyBloo]

If you did not try to escape or fight, but continued to support an evil regime with your effort, you cannot expect mercy when said regime is being rightly destroyed.

[@avneet12284]

@@VinnyBloo Even if you tried to fight you are still in that region. It's sad when you don't survive but that's the fault of your own regime which necessitated retaliation.

[@johnnynick3621]

Rand was born in a communist regime and took drastic steps to escape, subjecting herself AND the family she left behind to severe repercussions if caught. She left because she recognized how immoral Soviet Russia was and would prefer death over being a part of that society. Leaving a totalitarian society is difficult, but living in one is worse.

[@afaqjanan7817]

I strongly disagree with her, the children of that country are not the philosophers like her to know their moral obligations and must not be bombed.

[@artnull13]

What about all the child soldiers Hamas train? Or the child suicide bombers they use? Do you consider them innocent?

[@almostafa4725]

@@artnull13All children are innocent by definition.

[@lights473]

You saw it first here folks! Be an individualist except when at war, then collectivism good and based!

[@terrorists-are-among-us]

How do you survive? Does your mother wipe your ass?

[@david-joeklotz9558]

You do not understand the difference between individualism and collectivism. Certainly you do not understand what war means

[@kphaxx]

Libertarians have been saying this forever. Hardly the first time we've seen this.

[@nockianlifter661]

You’ve missed the point of the role of Government in a capitalist social system.

[@nockianlifter661]

@valborg-5474Israel is a free country, a country of individual rights; Gaza is not a free country, it has no rights. They are not equivalent. It does not apply to Hamas.

[@tommyoster4541]

This woman was so mad, thank God she is no more among us.

[@SolarPlayer]

I'm sad to hear this collectivist babble here. This answer is so out of character that I sincerely suspect it was meant as a parody, a joke, or a test

[@natang1]

Let me guess. You're a libertarian hippie.

[@johnmcpherson5137]

Or generated by an AI clone of her voice? Ayn Rand will be deepfaked at some point, saying the complete opposite of her positions with a very convincing voice and video. We need to be ready for that.

[@Biologist19681]

This is in no way collectivist. Say that a corporation does something wrong and harms people and the resulting fines result in the company being liquidated and the employees losing their jobs. Would you say that that losing their jobs is wrong because it's collective punishment? They could have gone to another company. They could have fought the company's actions internally. They could even have become whistleblowers, even knowing that they were going to lose their jobs if the actions of the company were identified. Governments are created by the people and the people are responsible for their creation. They live in the area and they pay the taxes that allow the government to act. So by remaining in the jurisdiction of a violent, totalitarian government, they support its actions. Like the employee of the company above, they have options. They could try to change the course of the government from within. They could relocate to another country. They could pass along secrets that allow the enemy to overthrow the government accepting the possibility that they could be killed by the enemy in an attack or by their own government in . Or they could get together and violently overthrow the government. If they don't do any of these things, then they are complicit in the government's actions.

[@lights473]

​@@Biologist19681your analogy is only referring to economic negative externalities. But externalities aren't criminal. What is criminal is if you had to kill an innocent person who had nothing to do with the actions of politicians. To say man has to suffer punishment for the crimes of his government is endorsing altruism. Do you believe taxation is theft?

[@garywatson]

I’m not sure she is saying this situation is right or ideal, but just teaching you the sad fucking facts of life. If you have a feckless or belligerent government, you may individually have to suffer the consequences of that whether you like it or not. No government regardless of how tyrannical can long survive if it doesn’t have the tacit cooperation of the majority of its people, and if the people have the moral failing that they are willing to accept the benefits of that collectivism.

[@adrianainespena5654]

Death of innocents happens too often in wars. That's why wars are evil "Hell is Hell, and war is war, and of the two war is worse". There are no rhetorical tricks that will make it a good thing, or a justified thing. "Pagan justos por pecadores" "The just pay for the sinners" as the Spanish say. The only thing to be done is to mitigate the suffering. Blaming the victims for the suffering as she makes is EVIL, It brings to mind the question made to rape victims "Did you try to defend yourself?" and if she did not do it forcefully enough, then she was not raped but it was consensual sex. As for "choosing their government and going along with it" maybe she needs a historical refresher course to understand what a novel development was for the people to elect their government. They got the king, or dictator, and the successor, and that was it. It might be impossible to prevent the suffering of innocents in wars, but it is not a virtue.

[@mindofown]

Maybe she could use a dose of empathy to make her more human, I get why a lot of people didnt like her

[@tomosbon7347]

Facts matter and facts hurt sometimes- especially feelings 😮😮😅

[@mindofown]

I think your mistaking Rands beliefs for facts@@tomosbon7347

[@Randsurfer]

As a huge fan of Ayn Rand, I must say this is the biggest logic failure I can imagine her making. By her logic, every American is a war criminal because of the actions of the U.S. military at My Lai. The moral atrocities that could be justified by her viewpoint are appalling. This is the worst of collectivist reasoning.

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

Some of what she says about individuals who do not support and even fight against a dictatorship being "responsible" sounds like collective guilt. That needs tro be refined further to cleare that up. There is a difference between being "collateral casualties" and morally in the line of fire She does fully understand the nature of war as "anything goes", but that sort of blunts the complaint made here about Hamas killing women and children (the real issue is what Hamas is by nature rather than the specific actions and it is for that that they should be cleaned out). What of the Doolittle raids or the destruction of Hamburg, both to serve as a firey abject lesson. In the first case, the target was chosen because of it's civilian and flamable nature and Hamburg was of no military value. There are now claims that MacArthur saw no value in dropping the A-bomb. However, I take that with a rather large grain of salt since 2023 was the first time I heard that and who trusts the intellectual Establishment?

[@terrorists-are-among-us]

Your family votes for war while you play videos games, then you're guilty 🤡

[@allbionics]

Actually, you do :) and you seem to me quite an intellectual :) as in thinking (intellect) before speaking.

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

@@allbionics Actually, she hinted at two other defenses of the taking of "non-combatant" lives 1. "Collateral Casualtiies". In the proper prosecution of the war., the taking of innocent lives is sometimes unavoidable 2. As she stated elsewhere but not here "The aggressor is solely responsible for the consequences of his action"; including all collateral damage and causualties However, the claim that someone is in some way "responsible" for the actions taken by a group that he apposed, not only is collective guilt but also runs counter to the basic premise of the Objectivist theory of justcie: "Justice is the granting of the deserved and the witholding of the underserved". "Deserved" menas the earned consequences of one's actions based on the Law of Identity. How is opposing a dictatorship the same as supporting it: i.e."responsible for..."? By Rand" s reasoning that in war "aynthing goes", then to those Objectivists who support absolute gun onwership rights, such as Alan Gottlieb of Gun Owners Action League, Timothy McVey's bombing of the Muro building, being an act of retaliation against the government for its violation of the Constitution via the initiation of lethal force, was an act of heroism (independent of other acts that were objectively wrong). I have no problem with that since ALL deaths are to be laid at the feet of the government by virtue of its initiation of deadly force in l ine with principle #2 stated above and such act being a declaration by the government of war against its own people, earning retaliation by any citizen who can. The other operative principle was stated by George Mason "The attempt to disarm the opoulace is the final line of tyranny"

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

What I mentioned about Hamburg also goes for Dresden A check against the brutality is that most warriors have codes with regard to such things. It is considered unmanly to mistreat te defenseless by elite warriors. Also there is the fear of retaliation by the enemy against your defensless at this time there is a video on Simon Whistler's Sideprojects about such. You may also remember the STAR TREK episode about Emeniar 7 and Vedikar. Tw planets that waged "computer war" where no actual bobms or things were launched, but the "casulaties" were sent to "disintegration stations", I think it was called "Anon 7". THAT was grotesque Part of what has 'tamed" war is the reliance on professional armies. Prior to that the soldiery either as a a levy, volunteer or mercenary, drived the bulk of his pay from plunder. With the rise of professionals, they pay was a function of government. In addition this governemnt paid to train and house the solders. Since this was an expensive process, they would want to get multiple uses out of the men. So there would be agreements to forbid needless slaughter of defeated units to maximize the suervice life of these men. Th post-war generosity of US troops in italy is well-known and the benevolence shown to defeated nations as will. It served as the template for THE MOUSE THAT ROARED. In a previous vid about the Hamas war a former member of the IDF told a story about how he was treated by the more mature palistinians vas by the punks in the "Entifada". Perhaps the most bizarre twist to the Palestine issue is with Gene Burns, famous Libertarina talk show host. I documented that the quality of life for the Palistinians under Israeli rule was FAR better than that under their own rule. Yet. he kept saying that Israel should surrender its winning from the 6 Day War to a "Palistinian State" Thise lands were the spoils of war and were paid for by Israeli blood and sweat. Why turn them over to an enemy? However the indeterminate status should be fixed: They should be annexed by Israel

[@Biologist19681]

@@SpacePatrollerLaser The decision as to whether to annex those lands or surrender them to a Palestinian state should be based on what Israel gets in exchange. If they actually got peace in exchange for the lands, then it would be in their self interest to do so. Of course it's very unlikely for that to happen. I disagree that Israel should annex those territories, because then they'd be responsible for the shithole Gaza has become under decades of Palestinian mismanagement.

[@kimobrien.]

The problem with Rand's argument is that the Bolsheviks did come to power with a vote of the Petrograd Soviet and acted to prevent a military dictatorship by General Kornilov who was conspiring with Kerensky's Provisional Government. Note the word "Provisional" as it was suppose to be temporary. Rand and her father closed their shop and ran away to the white side of the civil war. Then when they return they cried about how the bolsheviks had taken the medicine from the shop without compensation in the middle of a civil war. Rand received her university education in a university that had been closed to women during the Czars rule and only opened to women by the bolshevik government. She was allowed to even go for advanced study despite being a self proclaimed bourgeois student and despite having been on the white side of the civil war. She lives in a world of fantasy where hero engineers like John Galt invent electrical perpetual motion machines.

[@thefrenchareharlequins2743]

1) Doesn't matter whether they were selling the medicine or not it is theft pure and simple 2) Do you also think Tolkien believed that there were hobbits on a quest to destroy a Dark Lord's magic ring? Lol

[@kimobrien.]

@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 The North stole all those slaves that the southerners regarded as property without compensation. The American, British, German, French and Russian capitalist had no problem when it came to destroying the other countries property. The only property Rand and her followers care about is their own property no matter how they obtain title to it. Rand is the one who writes fantasy novels Where John Gault invents a machine that violates the laws of thermodynamics. I myself don't like most fiction especially about nonsense like hobbits and dark lords. But you go ahead and live in your fantasy world with Rands nonsense and crazy ideas. In fact print more copies so every one gets a chance to have a good laugh. Like nonsense about the evil collectivists and productive inventors of fantasy products becoming victims of their own state apparatus. American Capitalist paid for the invented the nuclear bomb and cried when they lost the monopoly of the most terrible weapon of war ever invented. They still use the nuclear weapons to threaten the world in the ongoing war for American Capitalist domination over all other nations. They hold a special grudge against Cuba for taking their nation over form American Bankers and Corp Property owners and entering on the Socialist road without the bosses permission. .

[@thefrenchareharlequins2743]

@@kimobrien. I do not care whether others had wrong conceptions of property (slave owners, and you for that matter), or even if the core of Ayn Rand's property theory is false (it isn't, not like your interpretation would enlighten you to this fact), it is still unjust for Bolsheviks to take the medicine since they didn't produce it or buy it. You fail to recognise that Galt's engine is about as much of a perpetual motion machine as a motor powered by solar panels are, which leads to your complete failure as a literary analyst especially in reference to one of the greatest epics ever penned.

[@joescott8877]

War is a crime. And a punishment FOR a crime.

[@maurices5954]

Why even bother uploading this video? All it does is show the clear lack of logical consistency into the Objectivist political philosophy.

[@maurices5954]

@aaronalfeche Like i said, it's an inconsistent position to hold. The reality is that the smallest minority is the individual, Rand identified this correctly. But then this individual who supposedly has rights that are protected by a government, has effectively these same rights violated by the government when without consent, property is taken away to serve as means to their end, which is to enter into a war. The fact that you are either unwilling to acknowledge this, or are too blind to see reality for what it is, is what is logically inconsistent, or intellectual dishonesty from your side. If you want to enter a war, use your own means, not those of non-aggressors who did not consent to being under your supposed monopoly.

[@Mr.Witness]

@aaronalfechehe doesnt know. He just likes saying it

[@maurices5954]

@aaronalfeche Then what the heck is your position? You support individual rights when it suits you but when a monopolist decides to enter into a war an individual no longer has these rights? How is this a consistent position to hold?

[@illyavogel1660]

@@maurices5954 What are you smoking? So the government should just do nothing because it might offend someone? Should Israel just roll over and die because they might hurt someone's feelings or blow up a house? Get real.

[@maurices5954]

@aaronalfeche Oh yes, i fully understand, and completely agree that each individual has the right to defend itself, granted it uses his own means. But is it morally justifiable for the individual to be forced to part from his justly acquired property in order to pay for this war via means of taxation as is the case today? Do his property rights cease to exist when a government decides to finance a war? Wouldn't that make any government the aggressor by default?

[@JM-co6rf]

She's a collectivist

[@terrorists-are-among-us]

You are a 🤡🤯

[@Mr.Witness]

What is collectivism im new here

[@illyavogel1660]

​@@Mr.Witness Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group-whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.” “The Only Path to Tomorrow,” Reader’s Digest, Jan, 1944, 8. What goes over the heads of 1/2 the people making "she's a collectivist" comments is that they ignore the fact that during war, discussion and reason are out. That's what it means to be at war. As see says "no laws cannot be observed during total war" and she's right. The comments calling her a collectivist because she makes the very basic observation that it is not practical to try figure who is more guilty than others during war are beyond stupid. Only after war has ended can there be a more level headed application of reason when it comes to justice. Its why the USA bombed cities full of civilians during wars, but stopped after. While the cities were full of many civilians who just want to exist and be left alone, they are still ruled by those who actively WERE at war with the USA. That's why she stresses that war is the last resort and that "laws cannot be observed".

[@maurices5954]

@@Mr.Witness lol

[@raystargazer7468]

@Mr.Witness One who places a collective, a group over the individual.

[@SN-jh3bb]

Solid antipathic deontological thought

[@ladyjade6446]

She didn’t believe in God.

[@VinnyBloo]

Correct. Belief in a god is irrational.

[@izzykhach]

There are people who've read and listened to Ayn Rand who do believe in God and who are devout. So should they not be able to agree with her in areas of common interest?

[@VinnyBloo]

​​@@izzykhachPeople could certainly agree with aspects of her philosophy and not others and decide to utilize the parts they like and to work with other people in furthering the cause of spreading said philosophy. However, the foundational principles of Objectivism are that existence exists and that we can use our senses and our reason to understand existence. Belief in a god requires at some level a rejection of reason.

[@izzykhach]

@aaronalfeche the Soviet Union that Ayn Rand railed against didn't believe in God either. I'm sure Ayn Rand would not consider them objectivists and say that communism and leftism is its own religion. I'm just pointing out that it's complicated. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, who was a 20th century Jewish mystic who obviously believed in God, said that we owe atheists a debt of gratitude for disabusing us of magical thinking. There's no need to alienate people who agree with many of Ayn Rand's points but not necessarily all of them.

[@1voluntaryist]

@aaronalfeche Theism is a form of superstition. So is authoritarianism. All superstition is dangerous, a rejection of reason, our means of survival.

[@knswartz1]

Pure evil. If anyone ever asks about Ayn.

[@sybo59]

What’s your argument here?

[@knswartz1]

It's the same argument the Israeli are using to justify the slaughter of Gaza. The apple does not fall to far from the tree.

[@johnnynick3621]

@@knswartz1 So your argument is that she was born a Jew, so she must be evil. As long as you make your reasoning clear.

[@freesk8]

Nah, evil mixed with good, just like all of us.

[@johnnynick6179]

@@freesk8 What is it about her, precisely, that you deem evil. Let's see how much you actually know about her.

[@VaraLaFey]

Thank you for posting this extremely timely 'video'. Well done! I almost never disagree with Miss Rand; she was wrong about a female President (because the President is clearly defined as the head of the executive branch of the US government and thus is a bureaucrat and is not the "boss of all other men"), and I can't stand Roark and Dominique though I sympathize with their values (maybe they just needed to grow up like Reardon did - but Reardon was always cool). And.... well, that's about it. But I have to mull this one. I knew her general position, as I've been an Objectivist for 30 years, but hadn't heard these talks. The conflicting issues, near as I can tell right now, are the fact that people are ultimately responsible for the governments they allow to exist among them, versus the principle that morality ends where a gun begins _and_ the fact that people are individuals rather than a collective. I think she's conflating a collective with an aggregate. Hmm. I'll go have a smoke and try to sort this one out. I'm up for ideas. 🙂

[@johnnynick3621]

When you live among irrational people you only have four choices: 1. try to change the minds of irrational people, 2. live under their irrational rules and face the inevitable consequences when reality finally strikes, 3. violate their irrational rules and face the inevitable consequences of their laws, or 4. leave that area for one inhabited by people who share your values.

[@VaraLaFey]

@@johnnynick3621 You can also try to work within the system to sabotage it; this is resistance but is not a violation of the tyranny's rules. Other alternatives can probably be found as well. Regardless, this issue requires a better understanding, either on Objectivism's part or on my own. I haven't worked on it enough yet to even know which, but I hope to. But certainly the sheer collectivism in her position is shocking and needs to be corrected.