See that? It was obvious Wallace disagreed with her, but he remained respectful, gave her every opportunity to think and respond, and didn't try to shut her down. THIS is how you conduct an interview.

The magic in this interview is not that they are speaking with each other, rather, that they are listening to each other - a dying art.

This interview is such a brilliant illustration to what degree journalism TODAY has degraded.

"I am in love with him selfishly" There's a lot honesty in that

If this was the standard for interviews on television I would own a television.

It really says something about our current state of affairs that most of the comments are about the quality of the interview rather than the merits of the ideas being discussed.

This is journalism - not a bought and paid for clown - a true journalist. Kudos to Wallace.

Fascinating. Wonderful conversation because Mike W is actually asking difficult questions but allowing her to answer, giving her a platform. Unlike today's "journalists", he closed out the segment with a footnote that encouraged open-mindedness rather than a discrediting statement to which the guest could not respond.

“May I interrupt now.” Not said with anger, vice, or snarky sarcasm.

All fair questions, sincere answers, no gotcha questions, just the way interviews should go. I respect them both. This interview should be studied by all journalists.

My experience with Ayn Rand and objectivism - When I was 20 - I owe much of my personal change and better understanding of creativity through her writings. I’ve read much of her work. She inspired me to achieve. Not be entitled. To be free and creative and uncompromising towards takers. When I was 40 - With all this I succeeded to quite an extent … except in my soul. I felt empty from a lack of faith, relying on rationale towards love. Life became clinical and course. I could not see highways with billboards and admire them. I needed trees and brooks and streams and mountains. I needed a wider sense of creativity, a cosmic sense, a consciousness if you will. When I am 67 - I see her theory in essence in the support for uncompromising creativity as paramount. But I also see a wider power within man, something of being a co-creator with love and joy. A final version I think that comes from Abraham Hicks. Ayn talks of no compromise with people who take, I agree with that. But added to that is AH’s system of understanding the law of attraction and how this works in reality. How Wayne Dyer points to everything we see today was dreamed by someone. And how dreams and creativity and work are an enjoyment cycle, AH explains this brilliantly. It is amazingly captivating how these immense minds / powers work to provide myriad perspectives and how most of it (not all of each) seems to fit in perfectly towards one end - well being, ease, joy and happiness. We live in fascinating times.

Incredible journalism !! Mike was a legend..You'll never see intellectual discourse like this nowadays..

Imagine a show on TV of this quality today. Impossible.

This guy’s puffing away on a cigarette and he’s still a thousand times more professional than tv interviewers todays.

RAND IS A BRILLIANT WOMAN. SPECTACULAR VISION, HONESTY AND A FEARLESS INTELLECT

Every freshman in college should listen to this interview. It would shock their systems, but hopefully some of them would agree with Rand's philosophy - you succeed based on your ability. We would all be better off.

When conversation at the adult level was still a thing.

I wish we had this level of integrity in intellectual debates today in media instead of the garbage on networks these days. I respect this woman’s courage and intelligence.

This woman predicated the mess we are in! Amazing. This video should be shown to all people.

BEAUTIFUL sharp back-and-force interview. “If a natural resource is that scarce, it can’t be vital” that was beautiful.

So this is what a civilized interview looks like.

Back when a journalist with integrity could disagree and yet show accurately his guest’s opinion.

The most intellectually stimulating interview I have ever seen !

What a fascinating interview. Unlike anything you will see on todays media channels.

" No because I am in love with him selfishly" that smile on her face, that was good lol

An educational interview, he gave her time to explain her views and then challenged her views, both gave the viewer an introduction to a subject of interest. I wish we still had that kind of interview style available to us today. We would have a more enlightened, less entrenched debate than we currently enjoy amongst opponents.

Unbelievable interview, extremely hard to find someone like her today. Wallace did a great job by just getting her to answer questions staying respectful.

While I find Rand's philosophy to be cold and uncompromising, she defends it quite adeptly while Wallace listens and engages very courteously. If only this style of interview was prevalent today!

I’m impressed with how rapidly and crisply the questions are both asked and answered.

The camera spends most of its time fixed on the interviewee, unlike on modern tv, where the center of attention is the questioner.

Whats scary is now 2023 she has proven to be 100% correct. We are in a mess , Government control is out of control .

It's a philosophy that walks at the face of all oriental philosophies as well. I liked the depth of questioning and the reasoned level headed responses. Very good 26 mins investment 👌

I read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" in my 20s. I don't really know what made me start reading them in the first place but I'm glad I did. It was so easy for me to picture, in my minds eye, what she described because her writing style is "picturesque", for want of a better term. It's just beautiful writing. It was never about politics for me - I wasn't into it back then. I admit now that Ms Rand's books probably helped to teach me HOW to think - if I'm making any sense. She helped me pay attention to logic when considering emotion. Anyway, thanks so much for posting this interview. Cheers

- She has intense laser focus and isn’t the least bit thrown off her opinion or point. Good for her. Regardless of whether you agree with her or not she is a unique individual. Not many people present as sure minded as her these days, and able to back up their opinion with intellect .

Great journalist. Good questions. Love how he smokes during the interview

Agreed - the dumbing down of our culture is palpable.

A significant interview with two eminently articulate individuals with laser focus and formidable analytical powers, yet with the humane capacity to be respectful of one another. This is a joy to experience.

She was against 'group think' and she was right. She was so brave to make those statements back then. Her philosophy has integrity and value, like it or not.

I used to hear people debate her philosophy. Now we have this great clip. Thanks.

Wow! Very interesting conversation. And here we are.

Everything about this interview is excellent. Wallace is asking great questions and Ayn Rand giving very intelligent and poised answers. Wallace challenges her intelligently and Rand responds eloquently. Two humans having a rational and intelligent conversation to come to truth.

I started Atlas Shrugged over 14 years ago and still have not finished it....don't need to as we are now living the book!

Amazing 1959 interview is as if it was conducted today! Monopolies are created by or protected by the nation state include the allowing of unlimited money printing or limitless wars as well as subpar for profit medicine. This woman is ahead of her time possibly by 100 years.

Great interview. I read Atlas Shrugged about 20 years ago. It applys to what is happening here in America more than ever! You should read, if you haven't!

Wow. Thanks for posting. “The individual is the most important minority.” Is my favorite Rand quote.

Whatever you may think of Rand and her philosophy, there is no doubt that this is a great interview.

I feel that Wallace did an excellent interview. I read “Atlas Shrugged “ and have been interested in Rand for many years. This gave me the most insight in to her philosophy. Thank you.

I think we’ve moved from serving others to serving ourselves at the cost of others.

I remember much of Mike's work from seeing him in the 60's & 70's growing up. I'm struck here by the comparison to his son, and the recent sham he made of the Trump/Biden debate. The apple really fell far from the tree, then rolled down a hill, fell in a stream, and ended up in a different universe. True enough that the participant's character has fallen as well, but journalism has died and this reminds me of what it was once like.

Alan Stang, my late husband, was a writer for Wallace during this time. He could have written this interview. He was a regular attendee at her meetings and read one of his articles to the audience.

Over the course of my life, I've gradually come to realise certain aspects about myself-acknowledging both faults and emotions. Objectively observing these traits, I've become aware of their impact on my life and those around me. Several years ago, perhaps more than a decade now, I reached a pivotal moment when I finally recognised my limitations and my dependence on others to fulfil my needs. It was then that I compelled myself to take full responsibility for my actions. This shift marked my escape from victimhood and the role of persecutor. Embracing accountability allowed me to confront the flaws that arose from my self-interest. Taking ownership became a significant stride in addressing, and perhaps overcoming, my own tendencies of reliance, guided by the principles of personal morality.

Fascinating exchange! Very prophetic too.

I fundamentally disagree with Ms. Rand’s philosophy, but no one can deny the impact she has had on modern politics and policies, so understanding her in a deeper way is highly educational. Thank you for sharing the opportunity to hear from her directly.

As I've listened to Rand's critics, I've found that they've generally misunderstood the terms she used, particularly selfishness, and sacrifice. When people think of selfishness, they think of it in a derogatory way, that it's someone who acts narcissistically, greedily, childishly, and won't share with others. Later in life, when she was asked about gift-giving, she said that she had no problem giving gifts to those she loved, as I think is common to many of us. Her distinction was that it's not forced. As with everything, she said she did this because it pleased her. After listening to a portion of what she wrote, I found it rather easy to identify how my generosity to others pleased myself, and how I did not give of myself to those I didn't approve. In so many instances, I think it is true that when we act generously to those we wish, it all fits within what she really meant by selfishness. She didn't mean "hoard," nor did she mean "indulge oneself at the expense of others." She meant serving one's own satisfaction in all the human ways we actually do that, which doesn't fit exclusively into the derogatory version of selfishness we commonly think about. Her point was that what she called selfishness can serve the needs of others, even those who are in desperate need, and have little or nothing to give back. When someone volunteers for charity, and receives fulfillment from their work, she would say they were acting selfishly, because they were actually doing something that satisfied themselves in some way. I think what she called on people to do was to become conscious of how much of what they do in life is to satisfy their own wants and needs, and how that's actually good. It doesn't mean you're always in a state of joy. Providing something of value is hard work, and will lead to disappointment when you fail, as you strive. The point is you strive, and the more you do, and learn, the more those disappointments lead to your success in whatever you want to do, or become, so long as it is within reasonable possibility. Her philosophy of selfishness does not include the notion that we recognize as greediness, those who take gratuitously, who deceive to get what they want, who seek unfair advantage over others pursuing their best interests; who do not give value for value. Her notion of sacrifice also doesn't fit within what we commonly think. What she meant was completely denying your own self-interest or aspiration, in any capacity that exists, in an effort to serve someone else; meaning completely denying any desire, or aspiration within you, as if it's meaningless, even sinful; doing something exclusively because you believe it is your duty to others, commanded by some authority, like society. Put another way, sacrifice, to her, meant you've completely outsourced your heart, your mind, your agency. An example she used was denying your own infant the milk it needs, to feed the child of another, even to the point of starving your own child to death. In other words, utter selflessness--complete denial of self. What she would call selfless sacrifice, I think a lot of us would call sociopathic. That's what she was arguing against. Her frame of reference, I think, was the Soviet Union, what she lived under, until she came to the U.S. That could be why many Americans misunderstood her. They hadn't lived that experience. Having said all this, I don't consider myself an Objectivist. I don't find her philosophy complete enough to be taken in totality, but I think her philosophy is worth serious consideration for anyone desiring to see a free society flourish. It has something valuable to offer. One criticism I'd have of what she said here was her statement that she had faith in nothing. I think she had a lot of faith in her philosophy, because can we think of any society in which her philosophy has really been implemented to its fullest, and people have seen it work? I can't. I think America strived for it at its founding, but fell far short in some ways. It's always fallen short of its objectives, in some ways, but what's noble about it is it has tried. I think all she was really saying was, "Try harder, please!"

This interview has deepened my understanding of early Rush Albums. RIP Neil Peart.

Ayn Rand was an author, as well as a philosopher and advocate of a philosophy called Objectivism. She was born in Russia in 1905 and later emigrated to the United States. Rand is primarily known for her novels, particularly "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead," which gained widespread popularity. Her works often explore themes of individualism, reason, and the pursuit of self-interest. Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, promotes these ideals and advocates for laissez-faire capitalism, limited government intervention, and rational self-interest as the highest moral virtue. Her ideas attracted a range of reactions and opinions. Some people admire her writing and philosophy for emphasizing individual rights, personal responsibility, and free-market capitalism. Many consider her a prominent figure in libertarian and conservative circles. However, others strongly disagree with her ideas, criticizing her for promoting a self-centered and amoral worldview. Rand's influence extends beyond literature and philosophy, and she is often cited as an inspiration by politicians, entrepreneurs, and professionals in various fields. While she has both admirers and detractors, other's pinions about Rand and her work are diverse and can be polarizing.

I wish this type of journalism still existed. Mike Wallace may not have been a match, intellectually, for Ayn Rand, but this interview was still lovely to watch.

So many watching are distracted by the constant movement of Rand's eyes as if something were wrong with her. I however am amazed and understand how brilliant she is as she is accessing so much information from her mind. Much like the arm of a hard drive moving back and forth at high speeds across the disks to access information. She listens to the question, assesses information, forms an answer, decodes the answer in simple terms so the receiver can understand the point she is making. Incredible!

Thank you for preserving,

And here we are 2023… what do you think? I think she was spot on.

Mike Wallace. Wow! The man really did his homework and conducted a superb interview here. Inspiring journalism.

What a fascinating perspective and interview. The world has certainly went from intelligent to belligerent.

Wow... Mike was so sharp with his questions, but Ayn managed to answer him without even stuttering

Awesome interview.

This interview really shows how far backwards we’ve gone in the past decade or so. A fine demonstration of intellect, good manners, no swearing or talking over each other. Look at this & then try to suffer Piers Morgan ..🙄

"I do not believe that the majority can vote a man's life or property or freedom away from him. Therefore I do not believe that if a majority votes on any issue that this makes the issue right. It doesn't." A remarkable statement.

I read Fountainhead in high school and it made a huge impact on me. For years, Rand’s philosophy guided me in my life and career. But I was never truly an objectivist because I always knew it was missing an important part of reality. And that reality is human nature. True selfishness lies in looking out for others. Because when you look out for others, they will also look out for you. In a connected world, it’s important to recognize that all our actions have repercussions. If we impact others negatively with our actions, they will respond negatively. If we impact others positively, they will also respond positively too. The key to living a good life I’ve found is to forge our own destiny, to owe allegiance to no one, to be true to ourselves and most importantly, to love our fellowmen. The latter not because we want to be our brother’s keepers or for altruistic reasons, but because we want to surround ourselves with love and goodwill. This is the part that Rand missed. Human nature Is intrinsically selfish, why should others show love to me if I don’t show love to them? Unless of course if you believe in the myth of unconditional love which is a form of entitlement. A life of pure selfishness where we’re only looking out for ourselves is a very lonely life indeed.

I enjoy watching Wallace conducting such a professional interview. Her whole point is confusing and not something a public will even consider. I guess it was a fun book to ponder but she didn’t live in the same world as the rest of us.

fascinating discussion. This can't happen these days; society became too dumb for an intellectual debate.

"A majority cannot vote a man's rights, property or freedoms away" That is, they cannot morally do so.

SPECTACULAR INTRODUCTION

I Read Ayn Rand at age Eighteen. Ive Grown Up 40yrs more. So OUTGROWN her philosophy. I APPRECIATE Mike Wallace in this interview. 🙏👆🇺🇸

It says a lot about who is watching too. People back then had a long enough attention span to watch the entire interview without screaming, insults, name calling, and constant interruptions. I don’t know if today’s audience could sit through this type of interview or even follow what she is saying. The type of TV programs that are popular reflects a lot about the population that is tuning in.

“I have no faith at all, I only hold conviction.” Damn that went hard

Wonderful interview. 😊

I'm yet to see a philosopher as direct as Ayn Rand. No flowery language, no cryptic messages, only her direct views

Imagine Don Lemon treating someone he disagreed with at this level of curiosity and respect. Imagine a thinker of her caliber and controversy even given 10 seconds on the air to begin with. We are in a worse place than we were back then.

Notice that her statements are all very well thought out and expressed. But also notice that he interrupts her before she finishes, nearly *every* time.

Beautiful, I've read all her books... freaking love the books.. makes total sense to me.

My Goodness!!! was THIS how Americans conversed/debated? I guess that really was the "good old days".....I'm shocked how respectful and intelligent they both were.

Such well pointed intelligent nudges from Wallace, while she remains steadfast…so articulated and yes, we need economics separated from government. Their hands are in our wallets and their greed is forcing worldwide poverty, compromising the sovereignty of nations.

I hope this interview is part of the curriculum for journalists today. I'm not a Mike Wallace fan but what an incredible job he does compared to the stuff we hear today....on either side of the political spectrum. It's not geared to an echo chamber..he handles conflict maturely and truly listens and bases follow-up questions on those answers. I'm not always delighted with his own projection driving the questions...but it is still light years ahead of what we get today 24x7x366 in leap year.

What an excellent & exciting Television Broadcast

A brilliant exchange that seldom occurs in the 21st century.

"All monopolies in history were established with the help of Government". -- Ayn Rand -- Truth.

Mike Wallace and many of his journalism contemporaries, were "Murrow's Boys", either trained directly or by proteges of Edward R. Murrow. He revolutionized journalism with reports from the field. His reporters did live as well as printed reporting. Murrow said he preferred hiring folks with Liberal Arts degrees as their knowledge of Languages, History, arts, science, math gave them breadth and scope to whatever stories they were working on. Mike Wallace, Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Eric Severide, Ben Bradley, William Shrier were among those directly mentored or were trained by proteges. Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Charlie Rose (until he went off the rails), Christiane Amampour took up the mantle. Judy Woodruff and Gwen Infill ( I think that's her name - fantastic journalist) presented news without noise. Democracy will not last without objective, truthful reporting.

Great interview

Any Rand was a Genius and no one wants to admit that because she speaks truth and truth is hard to hear when change is needed in everything. Governments shouldn’t rule over people but lead and support people to be better not create a division in the very country they’re to lead.

20:08 the most sincere and honest words a loving person has ever said or could say

There's something personable and intimate about the interviewer lighting up a smoke. This interview is like an exciting conversation between friends who are genuinely interested in what the other has to say. There's no hype, no gotcha moments, no insults, no cynicism, just honesty and respect.

Beautifully respectful interview! 🌸

This is fantastic, the kind of political dialogue that matters.

She said this a long time ago. This is exactly what has happened in the United States today.

I’m listening to Atlas Shrugged on Audible it’s scary how prophetic she was 60 years ago. Everything is 180 degrees out of phase. The mind and rational thought have gone out the window.

Thanks for sharing

All her findings on how society can be benefitted can be tempered to our perfection. Quite a stimulating argument.😊

Not one time did they interrupt one another nor did she not answer any questions. She gave direct concise answers. When journalism was actual journalism

two professionals in a thoughtful discourse - no longer possible

Based on recent cultural and ideological madness, Anne's commitment to objectivity has merit... her understanding of general service to others, unselfish love is not possible without worthwhile virtue... makes good sense to me.

An excellent interview! I only wish that it could have been much longer, perhaps in the form of a whole series of discussions. A series would have given Ms. Rand an opportunity to respond to a variety of scenarios in which she could have given examples of how her objectivist philosophy, if applied, would achieve better outcomes than the societal and governmental solutions being enacted at the time. Ayn Rand has been proven right in her predictions about the evolution of American politics and government towards the evils of collectivism that are extant today. The erosion of freedom and personal liberty in our society are manifest and deplorable. It is apparent to me that the overwhelming corruption and oppressiveness of a bloated central government are propelling us towards an economic and societal abyss. The question is no longer whether man's exercise of free will can avert the collapse, but only when it will happen.