Ayn Rand did not say that "man must find his ethical code from his own search". She wrote that ethics -- a code of values to guide man's choices and actions -- is a science of principles which must be formulated as a branch of philosophy. Any science must be understood by each individual; that does not mean to ignore what has already been discovered and validated, and to eclectically start over in a search among contradictions to "find his ethical code". Ayn Rand published her principles of "The Objectivist Ethics" over 50 years ago and first described them in Atlas Shrugged.

Each individual must choose his own particular values and make his own choices for his own life in accordance with rational philosophical principles of ethics, which he must understand himself and which are the "guide". She advocated what those principles should be in "The Objectivist Ethics" and they have been discussed ever since. It does not mean to become an eclectic intellectual hippie pawing through everything from Mill's collectivist utilitarianism to Sartre's irrationalist Existentialism in search of unintegrated, contradictory nuggets of an "ethical code".

And it does not mean to never read anything but her work; that is a strawman that no one does, but which is invoked by eclectics as a distraction to avoid consistency and objectivity. And it does not mean your equally strawman insulting accusations of "hatred of other people" and "some snobby pseudo-intellectual self love fest" that has you so "frightened". You seem to be "frightened" of a lot, and project all kinds of imagined threats.

Condemning extreme immorality, such as a Hitler and Mao or a stridently collectivist ethics, as "evil" does not mean a "religious connection" and does not mean we are not living in the "real world". What world are you living in? Ideas have meaning in the real world. Hitler had no redeeming qualities. Defending the good against the evil is a requirement for justice on behalf of the good.

Every one else who has read Ayn Rand knows that she did in fact "criticize other people", particularly their ideas, when they deserved it and in accordance with rational criteria established in principle. She is famous for her philosophical, principled approach. She wrote, "Judge and be prepared to be judged", not be a dreamy eclectic who will accept anything in the name of the good claimed to be found in something evil. In particular she drew sharp distinctions between her philosophic principles of reason and individualism contrasted with irrationalism and collectivism.

You have branded yourself as a political conservative through your own politics embraced here, including being a follower of the known religious conservative DeWeese and his obsessive UN conspiracy theory claiming "Agenda 21" is the "root of all our problems" (though there are many more sensible conservatives who know better than to follow such bunk). You falsely stated that "DeWeese is completely an Objectivist longer than some of our readers have been reading". That is patently untrue. You can believe whatever you want to but please do not misrepresent Ayn Rand's philosophy as hippie eclecticism absorbing all kinds of contradictions wherever found in a life of dip and sample reading and refusal to judge the ideas of others. And no that does not mean not to read anything but Ayn Rand.

Rand said that man must find his ethical code from his own search and from within himself - a process. If you are living in the real world, not in the Gulch, you will find a great overuse of the word "evil" usually with a religious connection. Rand's characters based their view of others on how much they followed reason, but did not criticize others, knowing they had to find that ethic on their own. Rand never said don't read anything but hr work, she did know a lot about other cultures. Wide reading gives a person a basis to understand other people, to see how likely they will be to become an Objectivist, or one who might harm that goal for another. If one comes from a background other than Objectivism, how can we best relate to them and encourage them to take that journey toward Rand, if we only have this haughty, narrow minded view of no reading is worthwhile but what one member approves? Is this not a site for growth, is it not about the journey toward Rand, not some snobby pseudo-intellectual self love fest? No wonder Objectivism scares so many people. Just because my life is based on the beliefs of Objectivism, which it has been for many years, does not mean I will give up learning with an open mind. Your hatred of people worries me. Your statements about conservatives puzzles me, as you have branded me as one, which I am not, any more than i am a liberal. I am me, I live for me, and you won't even say anything about how you live, just cast negative comments, as I have seen in the past from you.. You answer no questions, you deflect like a liberal. That is not the way of Rand.

"Evil" is a moral concept. Used by rational people for evaluation in accordance with rational standards it has nothing to do with religious dogma. There are no redeeming features to Mao, Marx, Hitler, Soros, Mill's collectivist ethics, and the rest of them. They are all evil. Eclectics don't want to "judge" and accuse others of being "judgmental", wiping out the purpose of ethics and in their injustice slapping the face of every decent person, to say nothing of the direct victims of the evil.

No one has to read Sartre or Mill to understand Ayn Rand or see that she knew what she was talking about. Anyone can see the contrasts all around him every day. Mill's collectivist utilitarianism and Sartre's hippie-like wallowing in his "authenticity" have nothing to offer and are the opposite of Ayn Rand's philosophy and sense of life. She did not get her philosophy from a "communist childhood". She rejected collectivism because it contradicted what she knew. The "labels" you reject in your eclecticism are names designating concepts. They have meaning. Communism, Mill's collectivism and ultimately his socialism, and Existentialism are in fact all evil as false anti-individualist ideas that only lead to destruction.

Your eclectic approach to philosophy and 'sampling' approach to Ayn Rand rather than systematically understanding it have prevented you from understanding any of this.

The reasons for rejecting Mill, Existentialism and UN conspiracy theories and why they are not an answer to the original question of this thread have been given to you. The crackpot UN "Agenda 21" conspiracy theory you emphasize in particular as the alleged "root of all our problems" has also been debunked on this forum several times before and has been explained to you in detail. There are no documents showing the UN rules the country either intellectually or politically.

Despite your repeated diversions trying to personalize this, there are no hidden "real" motives lurking in secrecy behind what is written here. You apparently find conspiracy even in that. As Ayn Rand put it, "judge and be prepared to be judged".

You aren't politely asking questions. You are a conservative stubbornly proselytizing UN conspiracy theories, and recommending collectivists and Existentialists, in answer to a serious intellectual question from someone trying to understand politics in terms of Ayn Rand. Your promotions are not "light", they are contrary to what Ayn Rand stood for, and you don't seem to even realize it.

Pointing that fact out to you is not "rabid attacking" with "labels and insults". We discuss things here in terms of facts and concepts. The facts about DeWeese are his own emphasis in his own speeches.

Watching Ayn Rand on TV does not mean you understand her philosophy, which you demonstrate that after 50 years or so that you don't. Ayn Rand's philosophy is not whatever conservative beliefs you brought with you when you were attracted to some aspect of what she wrote or said. You are enthusiastic about that aspect, but she emphatically rejected the overt collectivism of Mill's utilitarian ethics, which so many conservatives embrace, and the overt irrationalism of the Existentialists.

Above all she emphasized the importance of ideas and rejected the anti-intellectual 'evil men' theory of history, conservativism with its tradition-faith-family substitute for philosophy, and in particular conspiracy theories such as the John Birch Society and anything like the current conservative fad blaming our problems on the "UN" and "Agenda 21".

When I think of "Evil" it seems to call up a religious judgement, thus I find it hard to give much credence to it. Philosophers are more off the rails or under- informed or some such thing. Marx was awful, he let his own family starve, but I think he was lazy as well.Murder is as close as I come to evil, with intent and planning - that may fit the description. However, then we get into one of the 10 Commandments as well, back to religion..
I have read some really goofy philosophies, but, some make me angry, some I want to shake, but to call them evil is a stretch. Still, I am always glad I read them as I find something worthwhile, maybe one good intention, and a hoard of garbage to take from it. I have rad Mao's Little Red Book clear through at least twice, what he did was awful, but learning about the person is interesting. I was prepared to hate him, and he did awful things, but I learned many in today's business and education have copied him, which gave me something to watch out for. Hitler was awful, he used children, he used the environment, any excuse for power, yet George Soros has said on talk TV it was the best time of his life informing for him. I don't understand it, but maybe I am missing something. Some of the things done in the name of religion over the centuries have been close to evil. But then we have to expand that to rulers over the same periods. Before long, the term is so overused, it ceases to mean much. I mean, pretty son we have a list that includes the Pope,CRF, CIA, drug dealers, crooked politicians, rapists, and on and on endlessly. All I can do is try to live my life in such a way I can respect myself, for my own sake.

My conversations with deWeese showed good understanding of Objectivism. Why don't you tell me what turned you against him really?
My study of philosophy may have started when we translated the works of the ancients from Latin in high school, but I majored in philosophy as part of a double major in college as well. I studied many philosophers, I tried to take something positive from each, tried to see if there were similarities between some, and was horrified by the humanism of others. Sartre made sense on personal responsibility, which actually is a quality exhibited by Rearden. He took responsibility for what he did, and he was sure in himself why. Actually, I have read Peikoff, have his books, seen some tapes, but I prefer Rand directly from her won writing.
Why do you deep referring to the UN as "conspiracy? Have you read UN Agenda 21 or some of their document which I have on my computer? As I said, I don't like second hand, I want the document, the video of the speech or a transcript. In the case of the law enforcement, that was first hand interaction, the guy told me what he was asked, interpret it if you will, he is a good person.
I try to stay out of religion, and don't advise others in that area, that is their business, but I am not going to condemn them either way, Their journey, I have my own Objectivist journey.
Why are you so judgemental, are you part of the UN, do you hate religion beyond Objectivist issues? Rand never talked like this.

I saw Ayb Rand on TV several times, and she did not rabidly attack those who questioned her or disagreed with her, as you have in drawing conclusions about DeWese. Have you talked wit him even? Then you tell me what a sight I paid to join should be about, but which you never committed financially to join. Is it a commitment issue? Ayn Rand was for capitalism, we should be expected to protect that capitalism. None of Rand's main characters told others how to think or live. Roark and Reardon allowed those they hoped could reach the ideals of Objectivism to find that goal in their own time and their own way. Wynand did not make it, and it was sadness, not contempt, felt by Roark. I do not recall labels and insults such as you put out as any part of either Rand's main characters nor Rand herself. And what is your issue with conservatives, and how do you define them, as a cookie cutter one person? Lighten up, no one on this sight has likely reached the high idealsl set by Rand, we all try daily, and we believe in it, but your actions show you are not yet where Ms. Rand was either. She was a joy to watch and listen to. One wanted to emulate her ideals. Our goal should be to make this philosophy, which scares many on first sight, something they want to use to guide their lives. However, we live in a real world, equally fear causing, and we should have each othe'rs backs if danger threatens Rand's ideals. We should also give people the chance to grow into those ideals in their own way, without being judged. Roark and Rearden knew it was an internal journey of growth, some make it, some never do, most of us are on the road somewhere.

I do like using EVIL. Mill is after Locke, Newton, the American Revolution, Bacon, so he had plenty of information.

DeWeese's own writing, speaking tours and advertising for them obsessing over UN "Agenda 21" as the "root of all our problems" clearly show that he is a-philosophical, is not an Objectivist, and doesn't understand how the political system functions.

"Sharing" Ayn Rand's philosophy does not mean emoting with dollar signs and stubbornly promoting conspiracy theories. Neither he nor apparently you understand what philosophy is, its role in the culture, or what Ayn Rand's philosophy is. None of it is conspiracy theories.

If you want to understand how the history of western philosophy evolved and how it relates to Ayn Rand's ideas -- including the role of the irrationalism and collectivist ethics of Mill and Existentialism, start by listening to Leonard Peikoff's History of Philosophy lecture series from the 1970s. It is not a "vacuum".

Understanding the nature and role of ideas does not mean embracing religious conservative politics and slogans, regurgitating snatches of whatever you still remember from high school, and rationalizing from testimonials on UN conspiracies as the source of all our problems, while accusing everyone else of being in a "vacuum". That is not an answer to the person who started this thread asking for help in serious understanding.

This is an Ayn Rand forum; it is not for UN conspiracy theories, promoting collectivists like Mill and the irrationalism of French Existentialists like Sartre, and waving dollar signs around in the name of Ayn Rand, while ignoring Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism. It is also not for your personal attacks.

It there a reason you have not put your $ where your opinion is and become a paying member if you want to tell me what is the right topic for the site?

Tom explained to me long ago how much Rand's philosophy meant to him, and the dollar sign was his way of sharing it with others. Have you actually talked with him? There seems to be hostility over something? We do NOT live in a vacuum, and we had better understand other philosophies. How can we share Rand's work with others if we do not know why she is the answer and from what philosophy they might come, and what they might find in Rand which is familiar to them? The UN "conspiracy" is real enough when a real person I know told me he was asked during law enforcement training if he would be willing to use a gun against US citizens to enforce UN Agenda 21. This is first hand exchange. I have seen video and direct quotes of UN officials saying capitalism has to go. Do you suggest we not do all possible to honor Rand's love of Capitalism by fighting to protect it?

I don't like throwing around words like "evil". Yes, much of what he wrote is not consistent with my ultimate philosophy, but, philosophy is not about giving labels to such thinkers.
Neither is it my place to give people "talking points". I do suggest wide reading choices, which will lead one back to and show them why Objectivism is the place of reason. In Mil.ls case, he did talk about altruism, and how too much of it was harmful to people. He said helping was fine, but if it weakened them, made them dependent instead of free, it was wrong.
Just as Sartre became tired and sick and fell into Marxism (hell on earth in my mind), his promotion of knowing we had choices and that wer ultimately were responsible for our decisions, does have value. It is only after you study other views, see where they led, and where they agree, can you see for sure that Rand knew what it was all about. I would hope no one goes directly into Rand, without knowing why those around them have not evolved to that point, and why it is best. This is the broad knowledge approach that no longer exists on our schools, but did exist when Tom DeWeese and I were in high school in Ohio. We might study Mill in one class, US history in another, and Plato or Socrates in Latin. When that ability to read widely is discouraged, we end up with a stupid society hungry for talking points provided from others who have never read widely. Rand came from a communist childhood, she inherently learned from that and was ready to form her philosophy and to embrace capitalism. If you did not have her background, you might not appreciate capitalism as she did.

This is not the place to promote UN conspiracy theories as explaining the "root of all our problems". "Feelings" about Ayn Rand and a "giant dollar sign" in front of a store are not Objectivism. Ayn Rand's philosophy consists of serious ideas and principles as she explained them, not floating abstractions and feelings. Her philosophy is not whatever some religious conservative or anarchist happens to be partially attracted to while contradicting the rest.

Tom and I have shared our admiration and feelings about Rand during telephone conversations. He even prominently placed a giant dollar sign in the front of a business he ran in Ohio, as a sign of his objectivism. I think we among those on this signt have had different opinions on religion, which I leave each to his own.
As to UN Agenda 21, it is the root of a LOT ov evil, and if you had been following it for the last 25 years, you would see how it is creeping in to our society, undermining capitalism (as a stated goal of UN officials) and undermining property ownership rights. I have seen the grants the city here has taken, which include sustainability clauses, population density clauses, and the mayor has nto a clue when he take them that he is endangering the private property rights of citizens. Do you even have any idea how the kids are being taught this same stuff in school, how they have no regard fro property ownership and hate capitalism? If the UN says it is about "control" of people, not about global arming, what more do you need. Rand did not want us to stand back and watch someone tell us capitalism was not sustainable, or that governmnet should be owned by government only, as the UN has said. Tom has been an Objectivist for years.

DeWeese is a religious conservative who thinks UN "Agenda 21" "Sustainable Development" is "The Root of All Our Problems". He not an Objectivist.

Then be clear that Mill is not Obejctivist, he is not consistent with Rand, he is not consistent with the founding principles of the US and he is evil.

Of all the things to be read you mention like 4 and put Mill on that list. Sorry, the explanation does not seem to fit.

No one is claiming all the sources are Objectivism, however you have to read beyond it to put together a clear picture of where we came from and where we go, with Objectivism as the guide. I read much about Mao and his society, not because I agree, but from the standpoint of know your enemy, since may today want to employ his tactics. Mill explains a lot about our history, DeWeese is completely an Objectivist longer than some of our readers have been reading! We went to the same high school. He also has immersed himself in how the UN wants to destroy capitalism (their words) and are willing to use faux environmental decrees to do so. The more you study, the more you see how important learning many schools of philosophy becomes, it allows you to appreciate those like Rand, and dismiss some as complete humanism or nonsense, and you know why. This is what I try to tell people who come with me with talking points, tell me in your own words, because if you have not thoroughly studied other sides, you cannot defend your side. Bottom line, the N has in public, declared war on capitalism, and said they want only to control people. Rand would not be pleased!.

And don't confuse it with conspiracy theories claiming to have found the source of our problems in "Agenda 21" surrounded by UN black helicopters, or with European Existentialism like Sartre.

Mill ended his life as an advocate of socialism.

Don't confuse Objectivism with Conservativism.

Mill is a disaster and not at all part of Objectivism. His ethics are utilitarianism (Greatest Good for Greatest Number), about which Rand said some of the most evil acts in history were perpetrated with this slogan as the justification.


Religious influences are not the only villain behind the censorship legislation; there is another one: the social school of morality, exemplified by John Stuart Mill. Mill rejected the concept of individual rights and replaced it with the notion that the “public good” is the sole justification of individual freedom. (Society, he argued, has the power to enslave or destroy its exceptional men, but it should permit them to be free, because it benefits from their efforts.) Among the many defaults of the conservatives in the past hundred years, the most shameful one, perhaps, is the fact that they accepted John Stuart Mill as a defender of capitalism.

The Ayn Rand Letter “Thought Control,”
The Ayn Rand Letter,


Mill’s] On Liberty is the most pernicious piece of collectivism ever adopted by suicidal defenders of liberty.

Philosophy: Who Needs It “An Untitled Letter,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 114

Hello ewv.

Thank you for your response to amhunt. You did much better job than I would have been able to do it.

As we are gradually beginning to glimpse, all living organisms are basically defined by their genetics. That applies to humans too. It seems to me pretty visible that trial and error (mutations) is at the base of the life process. And, by the way, of all the industrial innovation and development. That implies that there is a variation of characteristics among the individuals due to this, in addition of the continuous "remixing of the pot" due to pairing of parents' genetics in procreation.

Human society is not a self-selected club of "chosen". It has to handle "all comers", including "bad apples". The various utopias end up being just incompatible with human nature.

I have been asked by liberal interlocutors many times: "Why can't we all live in harmony and piece?" Which really translates to meaning that I should not disrupt or oppose their joyful building of their utopia, subtly suggesting that I should be forced to cooperate. They ignore that each human being is a unique, unprecedented and never to be repeated individual instance of the species. No wonder that all the monsters, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Tito and Mao all found it necessary to talk about "new man". If you did not conform to their mold, of course, you ended up in a version of gulag or in a more or less indecorous grave. My answer to them: "Because we are humans."

I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that we are not talking about some esoteric, intellectually dreamed up ideas. This is a very serious subject and these ideas and their understanding (or lack thereof) have enormously serious consequence.