I think that Ayn Rand might have been reacting to the ideas expressed by sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858-1917): "...traditional cultures experienced a high level of social and moral integration, there was little individuation, and most behaviors were governed by social norms, which were usually embodied in religion. By engaging in the same activities and rituals, people in traditional societies shared common moral values... In traditional societies, people tend to regard themselves as members of a group; the collective conscience embraces individual awareness, and there is little sense of personal options."

Contrasted with that, our modern life endorses a fair set of personal decisions that determine the course of an individual's life; the scope of this set is increasing with the passage of time. In a primitive society, your life was planned out from the moment you were born. You never needed to ask, "What am I going to be when I grow up?"

Any Rand's whole philosophy was the antithesis of this. I believe that the above quote is a reference to that philosophical dichotomy.

Jan

I think the NSA scandal makes this self evident. A true civilization is one where you are allowed to be your own person and not constrained by the rule and eyes of the majority.

Many years ago, before any of us were born, wise men had a motto that has worked down through the centuries. It is easy to remember and was probably invented during the early days of this country. M.Y.O.B. Mind Your Own Business!

Civilization allows for polite society, affording its denizens the freedom to be who they are without apology or explanation, therein the privacy aspect.

Confusing phrase, it must be put into context. Civilization is, fundamentally, the benefit of living as a society, as a tribe, as a pack, as a community. This last word may sound ill, but it´s true. No man is an island, since the very dawn of the homo sapiens we´ve depended on each other to survive, and today we depend not only on one and other but on the history of man. No one is free from men, we depend on each other. A capitalist entrerpreneur of horizontal monopoly needs blue collar workers just as much as an inventor of patents and new technologies needs investors, and vice versa. This is obvious, but some may have forgotten. The problem Ayn Rand states is the presence of the state and it´s inevitable corruption, both of the system and of men.

The "state" is an abstract concept, sometimes personafied buy leaders or rulers that seldom respond to interests much greater than their own. This is true, no matter what we may believe. Hitler had power because it was lent to him, not only because he achieved it. An Emperor has the power he is permitted to use, and once abuse takes place his days are numbered. This happens in all scales, for leaders are servants and not the other way around. The state, therefore, is a system of warranty and not an enforcer of dues. If ever a state confronts it´s own people and takes from them without return, then that state, whatever system it may be, has it´s days numbered as well.

We are a collectivity of individuals, and though I much rather like the metaphor of "a pack of wolves", some succesfull societies work more like "ant farms". What we don´t want to become is a "heard of sheep", individuality is crucial and despite us being part of a greater whole, we must also look out for ourselves. There shall always be spies, thieves and cheats to this ideal; and that´s why we must never subdue. "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you" is a paraphrase I´ve always liked, by the great Dave Mustaine. If we don´t demand our rightful returns and benefits, then we are responsible for the missuse of taxes, welfare and public investments. But Anarchy, I believe, is not the solution. There must be an equilibrium.

Perhaps worth noting that along with the loss of privacy in America, we also have the society Rand predicted in which there are so many laws that on paper, at least, everyone is a criminal.

We are a liberty, so to speak, only as long as it suits the authorities to permit it.

100,000 years ago, if you were going to survive, it was because you were a member in good standing of a tribe, clan, or family. The growth of Civilization toward private property provided the wherewithal to be independent. Ironic that recent technology, created by private individuals, if you will, is now the greatest threat to privacy.

This is correct. The whole point is that the establishment of America is unique in the world. For the first time in human history, we live in a society founded on the principals of enabling Individual Liberties, and protecting them from the Tyranny of the Majority--referred to by some as the Government.

You will soon realize under Obamacare, that other people will now have a say in how you live your life, because they are now paying for your health care to some degree. Here, in Canada, your lifestyle falls under scrutiny because of our "universal healthcare". People feel very comfortable telling you how to live your life as a result. Then come the campaigns and the high "sin" taxes. Problem is... everything becomes a sin sooner or later.

Basically it means that civilization is a movement towards a more individual life. A life free from coercion by others or the group. You are allowed to be free and live your life. You only have to share your life with those you choose to share it with. it doesn't take a village in other words.

When people are free to do whatever they choose in the privacy of their homes or as private citizens without anyone interfering, especially government then shall people be truly free in society !

I'm either not getting it or I'm misunderstanding it.

I'm not trying anything. In fact, the idea that I have to qualify what I believe to you or anyone is offensive.

The odds of any single event happening in the evolutionary process is staggering (and there are hundreds, perhaps thousands), let alone the positioning of the planet in relation to the Sun and the atmospheric composition. Reason suggests that gambling or happenstance is absurd,no? Science deconstructs what already is in hopes of understanding and understanding how it all came to be. Science is incomplete AND has been known to make stuff up to support a viewpoint (man made global warming). So before you dump on someone for believing in anything other than pure reason perhaps you should re-check what you think you really know - the probability of a single step in the spontaneous life theory is beyond reason. Rand is a strong influence in my life not my god and objectivism, while useful in many ways, is not the primary driving force in my Conservative life.

So here's another question: what is meant by "privacy". Is "privacy" as many people use it a myth anyway?

Savages do not reason, but act on impulse. Some such savages remain to this day. However, American Indians were part of a system that saw individuals. Yes, they knew when they did not work for the good of the tribe, and they sent them out of the tribe to live on their own. Some, if they caused harm to a member of the tribe, were required to provide for that member's family from then on. We no longer live in a civilization, but are moving toward a Brave New World of total control.

When you are free in a just society you have the right to be left alone. Your front gate is a is a drawbridge, your front yard a moat.

If you commit no crime the state has no entry to your home. All others enter by your permission alone.

That's it. That's all.
I guess I'm late to the party, but I just had to chime-in since this is one of my favorite quotes.

This is not an easy one AJ.

For a savage living alone neither public nor private has any meaning.

It is only when a savage lives amongst other humans in a group that public and private becomes an issue.

From my readings, Ayn Rand used savages living in tribes as the earliest instance of civilization. Since these societies (American Indians, Australian Aboriginals, Tasaday, etc.) had no system of writing, we really have no idea if they conceptualized members of the their tribe as individuals having interests different from those of the group. Had she posited that civilization is a march from collectivism toward individualism, then "setting men free from men" makes more sense to me.

Think in terms of direction:

intrusion into our lives by other people;
intrusion into our lives by government trying to compensate for human behavior;
intrusion into our lives by advertisements and other media.

In which direction lies civilization?
Choice?
Or Intrusion?

Would a man with all the freedom to do whatever he wants short of infringing on the freedom of others be truly civilized?

Interesting quote. I tend to agree.

could we think of the timeline of homo sap for a second -- rising to the hind legs, doing the hunter-gatherer thing and donning clothes (increased privacy for the privates), then building tents (increased privacy for coitus), then building homes (increased privacy for talk), then building carts and using donkeys or horses (increased distance between us), then building the telegraph (further increased distance, while maintaining mutual advantage), then the phone and roads and the power grid (further relative independence and separability) -- these advances have led towards greater relative privacy and "independence" and personal ("me-local") freedom. makes sense like this, doesn't it? -- j

This one to me doesn't make much sense.

The supposition that "civilization" sets men free must start with the concept of "civilization" in the first place, which isn't sufficiently defined here to comment on. Can someone please add to this statement to get an idea of what Rand was talking about?

I'm thinking of Seth Godin's tribes. Tribes are great. People must be free to enter or leave them without being bothered.

A civilization is a collection of people living under either set rules or beliefs (which place restrictions on conduct). A Civilization takes away from individual privacy,no? I would think a savage, not necessarily a tribal person, would be more free in his conduct and behavior since he's unfettered by societal norms. (consider Brave New World). Now a tribal person, that aspect of her statement I can mostly agree with.

A hermit has privacy. A man in a society or part of a civilization cannot have privacy.

Where did you get the quote? To me this means you can't be free without privacy OR being part of a tribe. The tribe will dictate. Freedom to choose who you want to associate with or not. Savages or the tribe or the collective will want control and it's easier done if they know everything about you. (I've had wine tonight so that's my disclaimer.)