"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny
individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
by:
Ayn Rand
[Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum] (1905-1982) Russian-American novelist, philosopher, playwright, and screenwriter
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
I have this quote under my email signature and I get comments all the time of it's truthfulness.
 -- Sara, Christchurch     
  • 3
  •  
     -- warren, olathe      
     -- Michael Berman, Harker Heights, TX      
    It's a good quote. However it's wise to bear in mind that Rand was reacting to the policies and atrocities of Stalinist Russia, and not creating a blanket prescription for all time. Also for the fundamentalist Christians who have picked up Rand's philosophy as though it's a good explanation for their political beliefs and activities; Rand was very much pro-abortion rights. Personally I see eye to eye with Rand on that... but the right wing in America, in large part, do not. I know that doesn't have anything to do with that particular quote, necessarily... just sayin'
     -- Anonymous     
  • 2 1
  •  
    Another great Rand quote.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 3
  •  
    Anonymous, just because one says the truth it really doesn't matter what other differences one may have with the person who speaks it. For that matter the truth speaks for itself and is self evident. I don't know how many times I've run into people like you who, having nothing to contradict the self evident truth with, resort to either slandering the one who said it or pointing out other things said which is more opinion than anything else. How about if I put----"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Anon. ----Would that change or affect the self evident truth of the statement. I thought not.
     -- Anon     
  • 3
  •  
    Clear, concise and accurate to a tee.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  • 4
  •  
    As to abortion Anon,, it is nothing short of baby murder. Women should have the right to do with their bodies as they wish, but in abortion, there is another body involved, a helpless one at that.
     -- jim k, Austin     
  • 1
  •  
    Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" is happening right now!
     -- cal, lewisville, tx     
  • 2
  •  
    If individual rights were truly respected, then there would be no need for the preferential treatment of 'minority' groups.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 2
  •  
    Archer you make an excellent point. Rights that do not pertain to each individual are not rights at all. "Group Rights" is an oxymoron....believed in only by "Morons".
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  • 3
  •  
    jim k, sorry if I made you believe I was pro abortion. Actually, the smallest minority on earth is a fetus which somebody has to defend since the mother doesn't want to. Abortion is murder and there is no doubt about it. In terms of who has the first right it is the fetus because he/she is helpless and quite literally needs his/her mother. If it seemed I was defending Ayn Rand I wasn't. I was defending the self evident truth Rand had stated.
     -- Anon     
  • 2 1
  •  
    Archer, LOL, your remarks are tautological - how the hell can you call minority groups preferential when all they want are the same rights. Though I do agree in a perfect world when all are respected equally there would be no need for minorities to fight for equal rights. It's OK to kill millions in wars, covert operations, denied health care, etc. but dare you mention the rights of women to govern their own body.
     -- RBESRQ     
  • 1 2
  •  
    RBE still lives in the land of make believe. Many minorities and their race warlords don't want the same, equal rights. They want "preferences" and "special" consideration along with a little "redistribution" of wealth. Special rights are not rights at all. Abortion is also another one of these "special" rights. If a woman is allowed to kill her child, in all fairness maybe the child ought to have the right to kill the mother. Maybe the father ought to have the right to demand an abortion as well. After all he is legally responsible to give up a portion of his life to support the child to adult hood. That is no less slavery than a pregnancy unless he also gets to kill his child. The absurdity is endless.
     -- Anonymous     
  • 2 1
  •  
    Robert, women have an absolute inalienable right to govern their own body. Once that right is exercised so that her status changes from mere woman to mother (or expectant mother if you will), her rights end at the baby's proverbial nose. By the voluntary act of procreation, the woman gives silent notice that she is willing to be the host and (with the man) protector of third party life.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 3 1
  •  
    Women, mother, they are one of the same, the "inalienable right" is absolute. Why don't we kill those responsible for killing innocent women and children in the name of a force flag war. Why stop on the subject of abortion? I'm sorry, but I see a lot of hypocrisy on this blog and as for Anonymous I understand why its anonymous.
     -- RBESRQ     
  • 1 3
  •  
    Perfectly said Mike. Good explanation on abortion rights. I consider Ayn Rand a personal hero but that does not mean that I agree with every one of her opinions. She based her philosophy totally on reason and not emotion or morality. She lived her life that way also. Morality can not be excluded from the law or society for obvious reasons. That is the one big flaw in her reasoning and she suffered for it.
     -- warren, olathe     
  • 1
  •  
    Robert, a simple anatomy class may be in order. While all mothers are women, not all women are mothers. Substantive and legal status change is a lawful truism in most legal situations. All licensed automobile drivers are people; not all people are automobile drivers. Once an individual exercises his ability to be licensed, he is given privilege to perform an otherwise illegal act - his legal status and responsibilities change. If an inebriated licensed driver runs into an expectant mother's vehicle, killing both mother and unborn, he will be prosecuted for two (2) deaths. The "inalienable right" is absolute.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 2 1
  •  
    The natural law of morality, governs the aspects of responsibility. Each person must bear their own burden, regardless of being found contrary, to a wholesome life.
     -- Ronw13, 0regon     
  • 2
  •  
     -- Mary - MI      
    Mike in Norwalk likes to make false equivalencies. First, he does not address the fact that being a licensed driver is regulated by law, as is a woman's right to choose. Second, only 8 states have laws directly noting a fetus is regarded in vehicular homicide. While this is maintained regardless of viability, it reflects on the negligence of the driver, and not the state of the woman. Lastly, if you want to pick and peck over the rights of fetuses, go bang on doors of IVF specialists- they have HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of viable 'humans' trapped in frozen vials! Oh, the humanity!

    Everyone wants to tell women what they can or can't do, based on an emotion, yet keep telling themselves it's all about the fetus. Yeah.
     -- JJ, Salem OR     
  • 2
  •  
    JJ, WOW, there could have been more ridiculous non-logic, off topic word salad, miss-direction WHAT? ? ?; but I don't believe the human's imagination can go that far. How did you miss so greatly the legal examples I gave. First, ALL government licenses are hostile / contrary to "the laws of nature and of nature's God (natural law), constitutional law, originating common law, liberty, freedom, inalienable rights and justice. The title of nobility: "licensed driver", is not regulated by constitutional, natural, or common LAW!!! All government licenses in the de jure U.S. are regulated by theocratic canons and foreign corporate by-laws (masquerading as law). AND, I addressed a woman's right to choose and then, what the consequences are of that choice. Except for the reality of your statement, it is beyond belief that such stupid extrapolation can be made as to the legal examples I gave - trying to determine baby status in vehicular homicide. How many examples do you think you will need to understand what I was saying? JJ, can you agree or do you understand that currently: "while all mothers are women, not all women are mothers"? Is that beyond your grasp? What definition in English did you miss? I can explain it differently. In the same vain, what does: "all licensed automobile drivers are people; not all people are automobile drivers"; have to do with a regard for baby status in a vehicular homicide? The answer: NOTHING! ! ! Your in the ethos analogy fits perfect an Einstein saying: "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits" JJ, you may want to come out from your progressive enclave if you would like to dialogue at fact or law - something other than limitless emotionalism.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2018 Liberty-Tree.ca