Of course. The point was made more fundamentally: a savage, qua savage, equals non-reason.

That is not the first time that consonance between Ayn Rand and Emil Durkheim has been revealed. She never mentioned him in her writing. Nothing exists in her published notebooks, as far as I know. It just may be that great minds think alike. However, in their time - just before he died, she was at university - Durkheim was impossible to ignore. Another phrasing is that the state holds a monopoly on physical force. Since Plato and Aristotle, others have formulated theories that presented that idea implicitly, but Durkheim said it in those words. (He said it in German, of course, in "Politik als Beruf" but Rand read German.)

Some savages had to employ reason at some time to some extent, otherwise we would all still be savages. Man's reasoning faculty likely evolved over an extended period of time, and the rise from savagery to civilization proceeded slowly in incremental steps.

My Dad looked at me as a youngin' and said that to me a few times. Boy M.Y.O.B. Good one Herb.

Geeze I even read your "snowmen" as "snowden". No wonder I'm lost.

snow-the icelandics have a million words for it...

Effing kindle auto correct! I even read it before I asked what and missed it.

You may be right. Appreciated.

read your comment above

This is not true. All those people are those you are trading with; and unless you are sacrificing yourself, you are a winner in those trades.
Your definition of "privacy" is too broad: info shared with others about yourself is no such loss; they are not taking anything from you.

One should be concerned when others or govt. takes and uses info about him that he has not authorized and cannot be proven to be necessary for national security - where privacy could be somewhat restricted in the name of freedom for all of us.

What?

Maybe so. Perhaps its just the way I define civilization, society, community, and individual. Anything short of you and those you choose to share your life with is someone taking a degree of privacy from you. Society in general, working for someone, selling ones services, applying for anything (mortgage, electricity, telephone, Internet service etc) is voluntarily relinquishing a level of your privacy. Through this view I'm sure you can see where her quote can appear contrary to her philosophy.

I guess you just need to read more of her. ☺☺

Her last sentence says a boat-load.

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.

Until recently.

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

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.

I could argue this but I don't feel like being seen as contrary. :)

The quote itself just doesn't line up with what I've read of Rand. Its kind of like when you first read Abe Lincoln's first inaugural address and he says "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

He is subjective, not objective. His actions are based on emotions, not reason. What is left of the quote that you still have a problem with?

I sure hope it was. Its bugging the crap out of me. All I wanted was a good segue quote for the time transition in the novel I'm working on.

Great point.

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.

Exactly, I illustrated this nicely in my novels. It doesn't take much to see how quickly THEY, if they are given the authority, seek so erase you while keeping you profitable to them.