"Objective Law" by Ayn Rand

[@Bullseye_Mike1]

♡ Ayn is blunt , honest & realistic

[@johnmicheal3547]

I disagree. She can be blunt and she will tell you when she is being blunt. But almost all of the time she is very detail and careful. Her thought is very clear. I have never heard ayn rand trip in her thought. There are things she will admit she doesn't know. She won't say like 'I'm not a scientist so i can't answer that question'.

[@MrRyanmcmahon]

Every member of congress should be able to recite this in in deep understanding before being elected. If this was the case, many on them would fail miserably.

[@TheOrdener]

I at first thought this was going to be a talk by Tara Smith, which would’ve been great. But Ms Rand herself? Even better! Thanks!

[@RationalMorality]

Brilliant questions

[@RohitKumar-pu2pb]

She is a absolute philosopher, I enjoyed😊 it. Amazing👍 mam mrs ayn rand brilliant👍

[@bretnetherton9273]

At what point do I cease to exist, and at what point do I know that I am? Can there ever be answers to questions that falter? To be is to be that can never be altered. Empty your mind for clarity of view the absence of thought is not the absence of you. We come not out of the world, nor whither away. If all is oneself where does one stray?

[@marlobimmey2901]

Notice how no media ever have news shows like this. Seems like they use to..

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

I can shed light on the "primary" cause of non-objective law. I was born in 1945. Sherman; set the Wayback Machine for circa April 1958 First, however, I will make a stop in 1959 when Miss Rand said in an interview "The intellectuals are trying to put themselves out of business" Continue; Sherman... Ah. here we are. I'm listeinging either to the radio or the TV, but not looking at the screen. What am I listening to? A report on the "post-Existentialist Intelligentsia". They "...are trading Existentialism for Nihilism because Existentialism is 'not providing answers'" Off to the dictionary I go to look up "Nihilism" what I see scares the hell out of me. Two images are brought to mind: 1. an airport beacon the light of which is swallowed by a black fog 2. One of the giant searchlights, first used in WWII, then, in the 1950's used at the openings of things like supermarkets. In this use, they are shined into the sky and revolved so that the spot of light they make moves in a large circle, visible form miles. Now I got the image of something happening, not a blag fog swallowing the light, but to the nature of light itself causing it to lose its ability to illuminate and finally go dark But Mr Peebody; what has that to do with objective law? Well in three generations. the Left would scream bloody murder that unsupported claims msut be accepted on faith that "women never lie" which bears out a claim of Miss Rand's made about 49 years earlier about the ancestors of modern feminasties, that they are "trying to start a sex war" and that they were complaining about being "sex objects" when "they are in no such danger" Mr. Peebody why weren't the claims accepted? Becuase they couldn't stand up to vertting and everyone knows that a "vet" beats a Ford

[@greg_austin]

Funny!

[@daniele81]

She is just great. I feel however a certain difficulty in applying her philosophy of law to common law. It seems to work better with written Rome-style laws

[@MrJoeybabe25]

Are there any of Ayn Rand's broadcasts from Pacifica radio, WBAI in New York, available?

[@gift6117]

Following.

[@lamalamalex]

Download the Ayn Rand University App! Tons you may find there!

[@lamalamalex]

Check out this lesson on Ayn Rand University Lesson 1: Philosophy: Who Needs It share.aynrand.org/D9DGCw7yq5

[@caiomarciorodrigues1551]

With all due respect, every Principle of Conduct is either moral - rational - or imoral. Every moral Principle is objective "per se" - it stands independently of any "intrpretation" but only depends os the circumstances. Any Law written by a State should stay within the boundaries of morality, never going further into the realm of conveniences, into "preference of a certain group or worse: into the choice of an arithmetical majority. Rationality and Morality are the basics for any Law defining conduct. Otherwise, it is not "law" but only a "desire or statement" of one or multiple groups of power.

[@garryallison4716]

Logically what you say would come down to ARs objectivity interpretation which makes sense. So if you are accused of committing a crime then the facts and evidence will provide the objective outcome of whether one is or is not guilty of a crime.

[@NATHANIELTYLER-m2f]

And do not explain more than once whenever time is running out; as a matter of fact, everyone will grasp the idea of what you are not looking for and what they want otherwise. I will not wait for them.

[@greg_austin]

Disagree that capital punishment is ever just, short of treason during times of actual war. In fact, a government should never be instituted to kill its own unarmed citizens, especially when already apprehended., and not a threat to anyone. To continue the institution of capital punishment under any circumstance short of war, is the act of a desperate and tyrannical government.

[@riokriok2863]

she is playing with words i thing she lives in another planet

[@garryallison4716]

In what respect. She makes a lot of sense. I might not agree with entirely but in general she is pretty spot on from a philosophical or jurisprudence perspective

[@johnnynick6179]

The fact that you do not understand what she is saying is a reflection on YOU.... not on her. You might be better served reading her books in order to understand what she is saying. You then avoid needing to listen to her accent, which might make it more difficult to understand what she is saying. Just a suggestion.

[@MrSmackdab]

Ayn Rand was an intellectual Godzilla

[@abramgaller2037]

Ayn Rand was wrong,a psychiatrist or other expert should not take a major roll in a legal decision.

[@greg_austin]

Agreed. A psychiatric diagnosis should neither excuse a parking violation, nor a murder.

[@davidkerr9016]

@@greg_austin what run scared of

[@greg_austin]

@@davidkerr9016 Authoritarianism. State-authorized lack of expertise by licensed fools. License is a title of Nobility, so is unconstitutional.

[@greg_austin]

@Nakulan Balasubramaniam Nope. If "involuntary traffic infractions" do not exist, then certainly involuntary murder doesn't exist either.

[@greg_austin]

@Nakulan Balasubramaniam Oooh. So because the government says people are safe to drive cars, then they are safe to drive cars? If that was true then we would need no car insurance, or no traffic police--since the government already licensed the driver. People are accountable for our actions. Period. "Licensed" by the nanny state, or not. Ignorance of the law is not, and never has been, an excuse for breaking the law.