From 1966–1971, Ayn Rand produced the monthly journal The Objectivist on the theory and application of her philosophy Objectivism. Volumes 8–10 (1969–1971) consists of the second half of the journal and covers a fascinating range of subjects, from her scathing critique of the Progressive education system in her essay “The Comprachicos” to her reverent reflection on the triumph of “Apollo 11.”

From 1966–1971, Ayn Rand produced the monthly journal The Objectivist on the theory and application of her philosophy Objectivism. Volumes 5–7 (1966–1968) consists of the first half of the journal and covers a fascinating range of subjects, from tackling the “Roots of War” to her unique perspective on “Basic Principles of Literature.”

The Objectivist Newsletter is a 224-page volume that contains penetrating, philosophical dissection of events and ideas dominating our culture. Among its contents: an elucidation of the two political issues with which the practical fight for freedom should begin; a moving tribute to Marilyn Monroe; illuminating reviews of books by authors as diverse as Victor Hugo and Mickey Spillane; and replies to questions about Objectivism in the “Intellectual Ammunition Department.”

Why did Ayn Rand say that “the pre-condition of inflation is psycho-epistemological”? What philosophical lessons did she draw from America’s disastrous involvement in Vietnam? Her superlative ability to untangle the intellectual significance of world events is displayed in full force in this 400-page volume.

Discussions of the First Amendment often focus on specific freedoms that the text cites, including religion, press, and assembly. But philosopher Tara Smith’s new book usefully reminds us that those particular freedoms—and many more that Smith and the other contributors examine—are united by a crucial principle: intellectual freedom. The book demonstrates that the free mind is indispensable for a free society.
—Nadine Strossen

Tara Smith’s masterful celebration of intellectual freedom is both subtle and forceful. She unhesitatingly carves out a place for herself as a warrior for freedom in the battles that Locke, Jefferson and Madison fought years ago and that require continued support today.
—Floyd Abrams

The shared framework for all of these essays is the secular, individualist philosophy of Ayn Rand. Tara Smith is professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, Onkar Ghate is senior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, and Gregory Salmieri is senior scholar of philosophy in the Salem Center of the University of Texas at Austin. Situating their analyses within the broader intellectual landscape, these scholars take up the views of such historical figures as John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and John Stuart Mill, while also addressing contemporary clashes over issues ranging from speech on social media, “cancel culture,” and the implications of “religious exemptions” to the crucial difference between speech and action and the very vocabulary in which we discuss these issues, dissecting the exact meanings of “censorship” and “freedom,” among others.

Where did defenders of Roe v. Wade go wrong? Why did they lose the moral high ground? What does it take to defend abortion rights in the United States?

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade because it claimed that “a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.” But if the intellectual tradition the American founders drew on was the doctrine of individual rights, then it is relevant that this doctrine has logical implications that even they might not have grasped. In that respect, the original philosophy of the founders supports an absolute individual right to abortion.

To defend abortion as an inviolable right, it has to be understood as a claim of uncompromising justice. The hard-hitting essays in this book make that case.

Challenging both defenders of Roe and its conservative critics, Ben Bayer lays out a rational, secular defense of the right to abortion based on Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Bayer shows how the principles of Rand’s individualist ethics enshrine a woman’s right to her own happiness, without limitation by any competing “rights” of the fetus.

Can the controversy over abortion be settled by scientific facts alone? No, Bayer explains, because philosophical reasoning is needed to interpret the relevance of the science.

Ultimately the right to abortion—which Bayer argues should be legal until birth—allows a woman to protect what’s sacred about life: her own life and future.

The Art of Thinking was a lecture course given by Leonard Peikoff at the Objectivist summer conference in Williamsburg, Virginia, in 1992. In the course description, Dr. Peikoff promised to “teach the student how to make the principles of Objectivist epistemology the actual guide of his own daily thought processes. This is a course in what to do with one’s mind during an act of thought, when to do it, and how to do it. The result for the student should be increased mental efficacy and greater ease in dealing with ideas.”

Leonard Peikoff is the preeminent Ayn Rand scholar. He worked closely with Rand in New York City for thirty years and was designated as legal and literary heir to her estate. He has taught philosophy at several places, including Hunter College and New York University, and he has lectured on Rand’s philosophy throughout the United States. Dr. Peikoff is the author of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand; The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out; The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America; and Keeping It Real: Bringing Ideas Down to Earth. He grew up in Western Canada and now lives in Southern California.

“Concrete problems cannot even be grasped, let alone judged or solved, without reference to abstract principles.”
—Ayn Rand

Why Act on Principle? presents fourteen of Leonard Peikoff ’s philosophic essays—his best articles and talks in his opinion. Most of them have never been anthologized, and many are hard to find. All are rich with fascinating observations and insightful applications of Objectivism.

“Why should one act on principle? My answer is: in the end, men cannot avoid it—some principle always wins. If the right principles, the rational ones, are not conscious, explicit absolutes in men’s minds, then their evil opposites take over by default and ultimately win out. That is why, in our pragmatist, unprincipled age, the wrong principles are winning. That is why every form of irrationality, cowardice, injustice and tyranny is sweeping the world.

“It is not enough, therefore, merely to act ‘on principle.’ Man needs to act consciously on rational principles, principles based on the facts of reality, principles that promote and sustain human life. If you accept irrational principles, such as religious dogmas or mystical commandments, you will find that you can’t live by them consistently, precisely because they are irrational and clash with reality, and you will be driven to pragmatism in despair as your only alternative.”
—Leonard Peikoff