Below is the text. August 1967 and October 26, 1967
See the interview HERE… And HERE.
Johnny: Can you give us some basic idea of Objectivism and the principles of philosophy that you believe in?
Ayn Rand: All right, now I’ll make it very brief, with the understanding that anyone who really is interested would look it up in my books, particularly in Atlas Shrugged, because otherwise I can’t give a long discourse and proof here. So just as mentioning the highlights: The basic principle of Objectivism is that man must be guided exclusively by Reason. Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses. That’s a formal definition. Reason is man’s only tool of knowledge; his only guide to action, and his only guide to the choice of values. As a consequence of that, man’s proper ethics or morality is a morality of rational self interest, which means that every man has a right to exist for his own sake and he must not sacrifice himself to others or sacrifice others to himself, that the achievement of his own rational happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. As a consequence of that the only system, the only political system which expresses this morality is the system of laissez-faire capitalism, by which I mean full, unregulated, uncontrolled capitalism, a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is owned by private individuals. The principle which ties morality to politics is the principle that no man has the right to initiate physical force, violence, compulsion against other men. Men certainly have the Right of Self-Defense but no man, no group of men, that includes the government has the right to initiate force and to force a man to ct against his own judgment. Now this is the essence of the philosophy, but if you want to illustrate what it means, it means that very beautiful song which we just heard (the Impossible Dream, from Man of La Mancha, sung by Florence Henderson) which was sung magnificent, only in reverse. It means that man, if he chooses his ideals rationally can and must achieve them, here on earth in reality that there are no unreachable heights for man, there are no un-rightable wrongs. In other words I approve enormously of that which makes people like the song, but I don’t approve of its content. I say man can be happy, can achieve the ideal here and on earth.
Johnny: Your Objectivism is in a way, of course, why there is so much controversy. It is… it is almost contrary to I guess the cultural beliefs as people have been brought up. True? As to sacrifice, the good of your fellow men, and not to have the self-egoism and self-sacrifice as you call it?
Ayn Rand: Not almost contrary, the exact opposite.
Johnny: And you’re saying that man should first serve his own self-interests and be interested in himself first?
Rand: I wouldn’t say first, I would say: “only”. But you would have to I have to explain this. Other men can be of interest to an individual if they represent values, moral values. You serve your own interests best by finding, associating with, working with the right kind of people. Therefore other people can be a value, a great value to a man but only when and if they correspond to his moral ides, not otherwise. In other words, man does not have to serve anyone except himself, but he does in effect serve others when their interests and their values agree.
Johnny: Now you say serve yourself. I think you said that the… you discuss values quite frequently and why men need values and how they get their values because you say man comes into the world without any pre-set notion of values or concepts and learns. Why is it that we were discussing youngsters this afternoon that you find very young children who are by nature selfis, young children are completely self-oriented. Now do they learn that or is that something that is inherent in the very young, that they are completely self-oriented?
Rand: Well, I think that’s inherent in everything that’s living. It’s inherent in any living entity. An entity which was not concerned with itself or put it better, an entity that did not value itself would not exist for very long. But now, children are below the understanding of the issues. They in effect do not yet have a choice. It is when children begin to speak, when they begin to acquire ideas that their choice begins. And the idea of self-sacrifice is a totally artificial, very evil idea which children and adults learn from others, which is passed from person to person. Now this doesn’t mean that if a child were left alone that he would naturally be selfish peoperly. No.. Because it is an enormous achievement to discover rational selfishness not acting on whim or pleasure of the moment, but knowing what is rationally an important goal of what value is it to you and how to achieve it. The ideaof being rationally selfish is not available to children. It would take a long period of thought or the proper teaching for them to discover it.
Johnny: You say man is an end to himself. You say A is A and existence is existence and we are here as an end to itself. Why is it that man throughout I guess at least recorded history needs, seems to need, something else, a belief which you do not believe in, I assume.. You do not believe in existence of a Supremen Beilg or a God or aa Creator or whatever
Rand: No, I do not.
Johnny: you want to label it. Why does man then seem to need that ever since man has been on earth? Is it to rationalize his existence here?
Rand: I wouldn’t call it a need. I would say he has resorted to it by default, because all the content of man’s consciousness he has to acquire. He has to acquire it by thought, by knowledge. He has to discover it. By default of a proper understanding of life, which means a proper philosophy of life, men resort to blind faith. It is a phenomenon of default. Men have not yet progressed out of it.
Johnny: You don’t think it serves a need for any people? You say it. You say it’s a need but it’s a wrong need. Is that it?
Rand: It’s a need that fills a vacuum in the sense that the actual need is for a conscious philosophy of life. Man is a conceptual being. He can’t exist range of the moment. He needs a larger view, a long-range plan. By default of proper rational principles he falls on religion because that is all that is offered to him, so I regard religion as the infancy of mankind. It is the pre-philosophical stage and a great many people are still in that infancy.
Johnny: You have many lectures at colleges. What is it? Do you find the feeling that type of a feeling away from religion per se and more in your, as you say, completely rational reasoning without faith?
Rand: I never attempted to take a poll of those issues but here is what I find: that young people particularly in colleges are enormously anxious to find rational answers. This is not to say they will all necessarily be rational but they need the quest to understanding, for an integrated consistent view of life is here enormously and tragically. If you begin to speak to them about faith or religion or any form of mysticism, most of them will not listen with great interest.
Johnny: When you talk about morality setting as sense of values does each individual set his own standard of morality? Because one person’r morality affects those around him, does it not?
Rand: No. Oh, it affects is alright… no, but to say that each person sets his own standard would simply mean subjectivism. No.. What sets the standard is the science of Ethics. That is a branch of philosophy. Its particular task is to define moral standards then it is up to each individual to decide that he agrees with, which standards he considers right if he thinks, which standards he considers rationsl. Now an individual may discover a new set of standards but it is not subjective. It is not just up to him. If he discovers such a subjective code, this is not really morality. This is not Ethics. It’s just what we call whim worship.
Johnny: You think it’s immoral, if that’s the right word, for somebody who is not productive to not produce to capacity.
Rand: I wouldn’t say that.
Johnny: Well suppose somebody didn’t want to say, work. Maybe his self-interest is served by not producing or working to capacity.
Rand: Oh. One moment. Now if you’re asking me should every man be productive? Yes. And that is not
Johnny: To the limits of his ability?
Rand: Yes. But it does not mean that he should work himself to death. He may have other interests in his life too. But as his primary goal, if you mean should every man’s first value, top goal should it be productive work on any level of ability? I would say yes, certainly. And if a man does not want to be productive he is immoral.
Johnny: I think the word you use is an emotional parasite?
Rand: If he places other people above his own productive career his own creative mind then he is an emotional parasite.
Johnny: Hmm.. Have do you have emotionally have, are attached to people, friendships, close friendships?
Rand: Oh, yes!
Johnny: But you don’t place their interests above what you do?
Rand: There’s never any clash because I would be friendly only with rational people. And among rational people there is no clash.
Johnny: Now Ed did you want to say something?
Ed: I was just wondering if in our culture, it seems that everything springs from family, the family relationship. The tiny individual groups of husband, wife, child or whatever. How does that grouping fit in with your philosophy? In other words, how do you share?
Rand” Optionally. I don’t think that the family is the necessary unit of society. But I think it’s precisely independent individuals that would make the best husbands and wives. If they share the same values and the same interests they would form the proper kinds of unions that would be the lasting unions but I would never maintain that the family is an obligation on the individual. A man cares to marry? That is fine. Or a woman. If not, it’s fine also provided they have rational reasons for their choice.
Johnny: What are the greatest hangs you find that young people have today? I suppose guilt, anxiety. You find a lot of anxieties? That is a word used by psychotherapy today: anxiety. It that protest? You find that a lot of anxieties? That is a word used by psychotherapy today: anxiety.
Rand: Yes. It’s above all confusion, and consequently and very often, unearned guilt. Some of it is earned all right if people onsciously do what they know to be wrong. But the more tragic thing is un-earned guilt. Young people and older one’s too, who accept guilt because of the wrong moral standard who are really not guilty but are made to feel guilty by today’s culture.
Johnny: Who sets the moral standards? Now they say people say the churches should set the moral standards. The parents should set the moral standards. The Philosophers. The philosophers set them?
Rand: Properly. Now you say who should? Historically, yes, the churches set them to much too long and with disasterous consequences. But if you ask me who should? Philosophers.
Johnny: Are they?
Rand: Not as they should today no. No. As they would be ideally..
Johnny: But not all philosophers have the same judgments, do they?
Rand: No and therefore what is the arbiter? Reason.
Johnny: Well, it has come down to the individual again.
Rand: Each individual has to decide what he concludes is right. But then how will they determine who is objectively right? The one who can prove his case. The one who can prove the kind of code of morality he advocates without any contradictions.
Johnny:
I’ve read an article of yours recently. Someone sent it to be about youwere talking about the draft, freedom, and the war et cetera. About that the country should now require or has the right to require of an individual now maybe not having the context quite right to serve… You said it a while ago that if a country is attacked, people will defend and people will fight but you didn’t think it was right for a country to demand of it’s citizens a conscripted army was not a good idea.
Rand: No. It is a very immoral idea. It is unconstitutional.
Applause.
Johnny: Can we explore it a bit. We got a few boos there. Which is to be expected. Anytime anybody has any views that fon’t go according to the norm you’re gonna have some antagonism. But that’s why we want to talk about these things.
Rand: Surely. My views would probably be the norm of the future but not right now.
Johnny: You say a conscripted army, an army by conscription, that’s drafted, is usually not as as effective army and
Rand: I that military authorities have repeatedly testified. It is not and effective army that a volunteer army of men who know what they are fighting for. Speaking in practical terms is much more effective, a much better army. But the first moral issue underlying it. I say that no single individual has the right to demand the life of another individual. Each man is the owner of his own life. That is the meaning of the idea that a man has the right to his own life, not anybody else’s. Well, if no individual has the right to your life or mine, ten million of them or two billion do not acquire that right by ganging up on one man. No man has the right to demand the life of another. Therefore neither has a group nor a nation nor a country. Men do not have the right to the life of another human being.
Johnny: Now of course your opponents will say: But you’re born in a country and freedom and people are trying to take over the world and if people do not stand fast now and protect our freedom’s we may be lost. What is your answer to that?
Rand: That this is a contradiction, because what it amounts to saying: since people are trying to take away your freedom, give it up yourself. That is the sole meaning of this kind of argument. You do not descend to your enemy’s level in order to defend yourself morally speaking. Practically speaking, of course it doesn’t work.
Johnny: Well, war first of all is terribly stupid. You are not saying of course that if this country was not attacked the people would fight.
Rand: O would say if it was attacked, yes, people would because people have always fought for a free or even a semi-free country. If you ask me the proper, to fight when your country is attacked in self-defense, yes, I would say certainly, and men should volunteer to fight is such a case because it is in defense of their own rights and their own freedom but a country does not have the right to compel them to fight, particularly in a war like Vietnam, in which the United States has no interest whatever. We have nothing to gain by that war and it is draining this country. Therefore I am enormously opposed to the whole but for the opposite reasons from the one those beatniks are yelping about. I do not agree with them, but I am against the war in Vietnam because it is useless and senseless war and it does not serve any national interest.
*********************************
Johnny:
Ayn Rand A great interest among our viewers. She is well known all over the world. Her lectures at universities, colleges throughout the country are always standing room only. She’s one of the most widely discussed and debated philosophers in the intellectual scene today. Miss Rand, it’s a pleasure to have you back with us this evening.
Rand: I’m delighted. I feel like coming back home.
Johnny: Do you? Good. I’m glad you’re comfortable. I’m always interested when someone appears on this show especially when they have very positive views and absolute views on things. What kind of reaction you get from viewers? Are they either vitriolic or do they agree one hundred percent or are they completely reverse or?
Rand: Well it is an honor to you really. I think it’s a tribute to you more than me. I received an incredible amount of mail on this show, more than I’ve ever received on any one appearance. They were predominantly supporting. They were agreeing with me. There were very few nasty ones and those I usually don’t read very carefully. They go into a special file of that kind but they were enthusiastic about the way you handled the interview and for that I myself and very grateful.
Johnny: Well I don’t believe in bringing somebody on a program who has certain views and then either debating or trying to bait you into something, because that’s pretty easy to do. Because whether I agree with your views or not is really not the important fact. It’s that we have some place, at least to say to them without arguing back and forth.
Rand: I’m always ready to discuss ideas but not to debate them.
Johnny: Let’s talk about some of the subjects in your book, which is, I have here called: “Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal”. And you in one chapter in here is called: “The Roots Of War” in which you discuss the causes of war throughout civilization, why people seem to have to resort as they are right now, and have been, I guess, throughout recorded history to kill each other to solve their problems. Do you think there’ll come a time in our world where there will not be war as such?
Rand: I don’t know whether it will come in our lifetime, but I know the only way that would achieve peace in the world, of which we have had indications in the past. The necessary precondition of peace is that man renounce the idea that good, any kind of good can be achieved by force. So long as man believes that they have the moral right, for an alleged noble purpose to force other men for their version of the good, you will not put an end to war, and wars will continue. As an illustration of it observe the very peculiar and very ugly phenomenon of today that all of the supposed peace movements want to abolish war, they oppose a fight between two armed adversaries but they support or condone or advocate dictatorship which means the use of force against a countries own citizens, which means against disarmed victims. They condone the use of force against the disarmed, for an alleged social purpose. 3:36 So long as you have that phenomenon, you will have wars.
Johnny; And most wars have been carried on in the name of a c=good cause, have they not?
Rand: usually, yes. And the aggressor, if you observe history is always the controlled economy of the time as against the freer economy. It is always the dictatorships that start wars. Observe the last two great examples in this century: World War 1 which was started by Czarist Russia and monarchist Germany and then World War II which was started by an alliance of Soviet Russia with NAZI Germany and their attack on Poland. In both cases it is the dictatorship that starts the war.
J: I think you mentioned that the country that has the least to gain is usually the Capitalist country.
Rand: Capitalism has nothing to gain by war because Capitalism is the productive economy capitalism which is the only system that does not permit the use of force in social relationships. Capitalism is the system which protects individual rights and that means that the use of force is barred from a society. This means that people have no right to enforce their ideas by initiating the use of physical force.
J: When you say capitalism, that’s a word that’s used very often. You mean from what I understand in your book, a completely free society with the government providing only protection for individual rights and the government whould have no other interest in enterprise whatsoever otherwise, other than protecting the individual citizen, the police, the fire and those services.
Rand: that’s right, protecting the individual citizen from the initiation of force whether by criminals at home, aggressors abroad or settling disputes among citizens by peaceful means, that is the law courts. That is the only function.
J: We do not have a true capitalistic society now, do we, in this country?
Rand: No, we don’t. we have a mixed economy, which means a mixture of some freedom and a great number of controls.
J: Which way do you think we’re drifting?
Rand: As we’re going today in fact and drifting is the right word we are drifting towards totalitarianism, towards a statist, specifically a fascist form of government. But intellectually stateism and collectivism are dead. Philosophically or morally they have lost their power about the time of World War II and therefore there is hope that the trend, the philosophical trend which precedes the political trend will be going the other way. If mankind is to survive that is the only way it can go, namely towards freedom, individualism and full laissez-faire capitalism.
Johnny: Capitalism. Statism, liberalism, fascism, all of these ism’s when you say stateism, what exactly do you mean by stateism?
Rand: Statism means any system which believes the individual has no rights, that all rights belong to society and society can dispose of the individual in any way it pleases. Statism means unlimited majority rule. It means collectivism and in practice it simply means gang rule. Such systems as Socialism, Communism, Fascism, NAZI-ism and the welfare state. And every dictator of course is a statist because he does not recognize individual rights of the citizens.
Johnny: A lot of people say the way to get along with the communist countries is to co-exist. Your feeling is that for a communist country to take over you should have no dealings with the free countries. True?
Rand: that’s right.
Johnny: In other words you would advise us not to have any diplomatic relations with Russia whatsoever and your feeling is that we shouldn’t even be a member of the United Nations because countries are in there that are dictatorships and..
Rand: I do not think that the United Nations should exist at all because it is an organization based on an impossible contradiction. Observe: It’s supposed to be dedicated to peach, to protecting the rights of nations and yet Russia which is the worst offender against peace, the greatest violator of Individual Rights on the largest scale, is one of the charter members. Now that really amounts to having a crime fighting committee in a town with the gangsters as part of the committee.
Johnny: So you would say have no dealings whatsoever..
APPLAUSE!
Johnny: Well now some people will take the other side and say, well, now, the UN did go into Korea and stop that conflict and they have shored up certain trouble spots in other parts of the world. It’s not perfect but it’s the best we have.
Rand: It isn’t the best we have. It’s the worst we have because by their discussions they are sanctioning the kind of aggression which without the United Nations may not take place. Just as a current example look at the Arab-Israel war.
Johnny: Now I watched that the other night when those conferences were on and they went on to two or three in the morning and one country or the other would get up and say; Israel is wrong. One country or another would get up and say the Arab countries are wrong and it didn’t seem to resolve anything.
Rand: And they won’t because they’re not concerned with an issue of principle or legality or International law. There is no such principle in the UN. The Arabs were blatantly, openly and obviously the aggressors with Soviet Russia’s help. They were about to throttle a small international country which is the only civilized country in that part of the world, namely Israel. They were guilty of open aggression and when that small country wins an amazing victory, what does the UN do? It asks Israel to give it all up and it has done that in every major encounter in which Soviet Russia is involved.
Johnny: Now you say if we do not trade or we sever all relations with a communist country the economy of that country would collapse of its own weight. But wouldn’t they trade with other countries?
Rand: With other communist countries or other statist countries who have nothing to trade, who are perishing themselves. The Soviet-NAZI pact at the start of World War II was just one of those arrangements where they thought they could trade with each other and they broke up because they had nothing to offer each other. A dictatorship is non-productive.
Johnny: You think if all the free countries of the world just said, all right, we will no longer try to co-exist with you, we will not trade goods with you, we will have nothing to do with you, that that would be the answer and all the dictatorships would by that nature collapse within themselves?
Rand: Within a very short time but today there are no free counties in the world, really, there’s only semi-free countries and in order to bring about a firm policy like that what is necessary is an entirely new philosophy. What is destroying the world today are the kinds of philosophies that have been preached by the Collectivist-Altruist-Statist philosophies. It the free or even semi-free countries took a firm stand against Communism and Statism, to do that we would need a new philosophy, a philosophy of reason, of individual rights and of freedom. Without that you can’t have a world policy, nothing but destruction.
Johnny: Those are the objections of your principles of Objectivism, right?
Rand” That’s right.
Johnny: Now your view as you say we are not a true capitalistic society here and you believe and you are very consistent in your beliefs when you say a true capitalistic because you don’t believe the government should control any business whatsoever, true?
Rand: true. I believe there should be complete separation of State and economics in the same way and for the same reasons as there is between state and church. You had centuries of religious wars so long as various churches had the power of the state, the political power behind them. When that connection was broken and it was broken really in America observe that various religions can li8ve in peace with one another and they don’t have such a phenomenon as religious wars which destroy millions of people or thirty year religious wars. You don’t have it any longer because no particular religion has the power to force its views on others and therefore can co-exist peacefully.
Johnny: What do you say to people when you say if you had a completely free, with no government control that businesses would become so large, not that large in itself is a sin, but they would drive the other people out of business and have a controlled economy?
Rand: You mean that capitalism would lead to monopolies?
Johnny: this is what people say, monopolies therefore are bad and have to be broken up.
Rand: This is one of the greatest fallacies which originated really with Karl Marx. Because a free, unregulated economy, Capitalisn, does not lead ot monopolies. It makes in fact coercive monopolies impossible. Behind every monopoly there is always an act of government. Monopolies are created by government interference into the economy in the form of special privileges, franchise, licenses, special exceptions which give a power to one company that no competitor can enjoy. In fact, under capitalism, no field of production can be closed to competition not in a free trade. All the evils ascribed to monopolies were really not the result of a free economy but of government intervention into the economy. It is the government interventions that create monopoly and maintain their power as it is doing today.
Johnny: Miss Rand, you recently undertook a task that most people would kind of shy away from, you rather took Pope Paul to task on his recent encyclical on the development of peoples. Exactly to what did you object?
Rand: Well, it’s a very large subject but I can give you the essentials but I would strongly suggest that those interested read my statement on the subject in The Objectivist which is my magazine in the July, August and no, excuse me, I forgot, August, September and October issue of the Objectivist and if they want a copy of the magazine they can obtain it by writing to The Objectivist, Empire State Building, New York. I’m prefacing my remarks because it’s a very serious subject and I don’t want to treat it too briefly. I can give you here only the essentials. The details, the documentation, the quotes you will find in my article. To begin with, this encyclical is a complete, complete condemnation of Capitalism. A great many commentators tried to evade the fact but the Pope unequivocally condemns Capitalism as an evil or woeful system and he condemns it on the ground of its essential principles: profit motive, private ownership and competition. These are the elements of Capitalism which the Pope regards as vicious and which are not the essential elements of any other system. The encyclical does not condemn any other system, only capitalism.
Johnny: Why are those words applied, not only by men, by many people, that it is a vicious and they keep saying it’s a profit and it’s people, money, money all the time. Does that necessarily make it bad because there is competition and profits to be made?
Rand: that’s what makes it good. But don’t you see, Capitalism is a system which is based on the Rights of the Individual, of man’s right to pursue and achieve his values and to keep them if he achieves it. That is what the encyclical is profoundly opposed to. It speaks in the name of the morality of Altruism. It announces in effect that man has no right to exist for himself. It demands that the entire civilized world assume the burden of the entire globe and give up all its wealth to the undeveloped countries. The encyclical calls any wealth above the barest minimum required for survival it regards it as selfish greed. All wealth above the barest minimum is allegedly superfluous. And the encyclical never tells us what is the barest minimum necessary for survival and for how long a survival and of what kind. This is never stated. It merely states that man has no right to the product of his own work if anybody around him is in need which means if anybody around him wants the product of his work we must all sacrifice ourselves to others. The happier the more successful, the more productive we are the more we should sacrifice. It is a call to destroy Western Civilization and sacrifice to the rest of the world. And of course it is ridiculous to talk as if the Pope merely opposed the rich. He calls for higher taxes, incidentally, in the civilized countries to help the rest of the world. Well, we know very well that is isn’t just the rich who pay taxes. That’s the burden of taxation in this country falls predominantly on the middle class and poor. And these are the people the Pope wants to sacrifice. To whom? Anyone and everyone in the world. This means sacrifice the American standard of living, the miracle of the ages, the kind of abundance that the world had never seem before and if the encyclical had its way will never see again. And sacrifice to what? To irrationally, to helplessness, to incompetence, to willful stagnation.
Johnny: You say that charity is not one, you don’t think it is the greatest virtue of man and that’s the way many people are brought up for some reason, the man service to man, other men and charity and being charitable is the greatest virtues. And you take issue with that, do you not?
Rand: I certainly do. I think charity is a marginal issue. There are certain circumstances under which one would want to help others and it may be proper, provided is it not at the price of self-sacrifice. What I do not believe is that charity is a moral virtue or a moral duty and that it is not merely, I do not merely regard it as neutral, I regard it as positively evil if a man sacrifices his major values for the sake of another person to for any cause.
Johnny: What does one do with the less fortunate people in the world who cannot produce? Or person whatever the reason.
Rand: One leaves them free. If it is true, as you say, they cannot produce, the more reason to leave freedom to those who can produce. Then don’t tie up the producers. And those who cannot produce will then have to count on voluntary charity and the richer the country the more generous it is, as you can see in this country.
Johnny: I was asking Miss Rand if she saw the time where this ideology might take place, whereas you say man lived mostly with reason, and, as you say, that’s the only hope that man ultimately has is his mind and the rational reason.
Rand: His return to a philosophy of reason, which incidentally the encyclical is opposed to most profoundly. It’s really directed against the freedom of man’s mind, against Reason.
Johnny: Some people hold that your views I think sometimes they say it’s rather selfish, it’s not based on any emotional relationships between people, that’ it’s all going toward just one direction and that doesn’t leave any room for emotional involvement.
Rand: It depends on what kind of emotions. Do you mean that all emotions are necessarily irrational?
Johnny: No.
Rand: I don’t You see, it simply means that man has to be guided by reason, and if he chooses only rational values, he will experience irrational emotions then his emotions and his mind will be unified. I believe it’s only a fully rational man that can feel profoundly because he has no inner conflict.
Johnny: Would you ever run for political office?
Rand: Certainly not!
Johnny: Certainly not? Why not?
Rand: Because I think, particularly today that it would be the most self-sacrificial action that one could undertake.
Laughter!
Johnny: You may have a point there. Well, Miss Rand, it’s always most interesting having you on this program. As I say, whether people, you know, agree or not, at least we’re discussing a few things.
Rand: I enjoyed it immensely.
Views: 7
