7 comments

  1. Naumadd

    Simple “need” is insufficient warrant to justify taking what does not belong to you with the exchange of value for value. If you believe so, and to be consistent with your belief, perhaps you will publish your home address so those who simply need a roof over their head can move in without compensation. Perhaps you will simply leave the keys in your car so any who have need of transportation can drive off with it. Perhaps you will put your stores of food on tables outside your home to be taken by those who simply need it. Perhaps, you make your bank account available to any and all who need funds. Keep in mind, your need of what you happen to own takes a back seat to the needs of others, however, do not fret – you can simply enter the home of anyone around and take what you need – space, food, water, furniture, bed – you can simply take whatever vehicle is handy. Need a twenty? Just take the wallet of whoever is near to you and insist on their ATM access.

    If you could boil down Rand’s philosophy in one statement as it is described in much more detail in “Atlas Shrugged” it would be this: “Need is insufficient warrant to demand what does not belong to you.” It’s been my experience there are two kinds of persons who respond negatively to her thinking – those with a grossly inadequate understanding of her work AND those who truly believe they have a right to anything not belonging to them simply because they want it or simply because they have need of it. As Ayn points out many times in her recorded expressions, her philosophy has nothing to do with arguing against VOLUNTARY assistance to others and even makes good arguments for why one can justify doing so, however, she is most adamantly opposed to the contradiction that is “mandatory charity”. Destroy the right to private property – to profit for one’s labors – and you reduce a human being to mere “property for the sake of a common good” … whatever that is. Take away a man’s right to profit from his labors and you take away his best motivation for those labors AND you destroy his good will toward his fellow human beings. Make him a slave to the well-being of everyone else and will only loath them all. “Charity” becomes impossible.

  2. John

    Naumadd….Very clearly said. Your insight about those criticisms from ill-informed critics and the examples you provide these critics to demonstrate how hypocritical they are are brilliant; it is only OTHER PEOPLES WEALTH they want distributed to the deadbeats.

  3. Marisa

    Stephen Colbert is an idiot. Ayn Rand is a fucking genius. Why can’t anyone pronounce her name properly?

  4. Kyle Hagedorn

    Have you ever, Mr. Colbert, considered that there is a difference in offerin aid to the needy of your own volition, and being forced by threat of imprisonment to give that aid?
    The Objectivists that follow Rand’s beliefs are not the heartless scum you portray them as- most of us are relatively nice people. We just want to be able to CHOOSE how our wealth is allocated, instead of the ‘mighty leaders’ of this country.
    Because the entire notion of taxation is some bigshot in Washington (or London or Paris or Moscow- irrelevant which country you speak of) saying- “I’m a leader of this country, with a fancy law degree and sufficient force to make people do what I say. And I think I know how to spend your money BETTER than you do. So give it to me now, or I’ll lock you up in jail and take it anyway.”
    And honestly, I have seen no evidence to suggest that a POLITICIAN knows how to do much of ANYTHING better than me, nevermind spend money WISELY.

  5. laurierogers

    Colbert’s entire argument is derisive ridicule. I used to watch him a few years ago until I saw through the humor to the underlying arrogance and far-left elitism.
    Colbert ignores the entire point of Ayn Rand’s argument. All he can do is poke fun at it. He sets up a “straw man” fallacy, which is to assert that people are angry with Obamanomics because they have to subsidize “losers” and “deadbeats.” No doubt some people do feel this way, but this is not the reason for everyone’s anger.) Having set up this straw man fallacy, however, it’s a simple matter to knock it down. Now, everyone who laughs with him can comfortably ignore every solid argument for putting the brakes on the currently limitless tax/spend mentality that is driving America to bankruptcy.
    If Colbert actually tried to present counterpoints to the brilliant Ayn Rand, he would fail miserably.
    Colbert is a putz who should be ignored.