 |
| Peikoff.com > Essays and Articles > Library of Congress > Support |
|
|
|
| Selected Letters in Support of My Stand This incident is no longer a current event, but a historical fact. But
I think it is important enough to keep the crime and my defenders in
print and on the record.
"The pooh-bahs at the Library who
profess to value Ayn Rand's legacy ought to acquaint themselves with her
writings." To: James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress In the
Los
Angeles Times of 3/5/02 I read about the Library's despicable treatment
of Ayn Rand's legal heir, Dr. Leonard Peikoff. Ayn Rand bequeathed her
papers to him, not to the Library (about which she had her doubts—rightly,
it seems). Your confiscating those manuscript pages truly beggars belief.
The pooh-bahs at the Library who profess to value Ayn Rand's legacy ought to
acquaint themselves with her writings. Therein they will find that their
action—abrogating an individual's property rights—is vehemently condemned.
"Never give 'em anything." "Dr. Peikoff, her heir, was
under no firm obligation to deposit her papers with the Library. Since her
papers are physical property, they were his to dispose of in any manner he
wished." Mr. John Sayers Dear Mr. Sayers: Thank you for your reply to my query of 6 March regarding Dr. Leonard Peikoff and the two "missing" original manuscript pages of Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead."
1. It completely neglects the issue of property rights—specifically Dr. Peikoff's. While Miss Rand may have had some communication with the Library regarding the donation of her papers to the Library at some point in the future, after she died in 1982, Dr. Peikoff, her heir, was under no firm obligation to deposit her papers with the Library. Since her papers are physical property, they were his to dispose of in any manner he wished. Dr. Peikoff has exerted great efforts to preserve the intellectual and artistic integrity of her work, and it was his generosity, coupled with a view to preserving physical evidence of her work perhaps better than either he or his successors could, that led him to deposit the works in question with the Library. 2. Your letter neglects to mention that the Library had Miss Rand's papers for several years before it took cognizance of the missing (but substituted) pages from "The Fountainhead" and became concerned. 3. It neglects to mention that an appraiser employed by Dr. Peikoff visited the Library to estimate the value of Miss Rand's papers. In a report which he left with the Library is a notation that the two pages in question were photostats of the originals, which remained in Dr. Peikoff's possession. 4. Your letter reflects the assumption by the Library of Congress that Dr. Peikoff was somehow negligent and remiss in not having donated the balance of Miss Rand's papers to the Library, and that this comprised somehow a breach of promise. Your letter, however, fails to take cognizance of the fact that the papers that remained in Dr. Peikoff's possession are his property. Your letter reflects the Library's unwarranted claim on the balance of Miss Rand's papers. 5. Your letter fails to address the report of Dr. Peikoff's appraiser on the condition of Miss Rand's papers, and of the Library employee's disparaging attitude toward Miss Rand's papers. It is doubtful that this person, who was a professional book and document appraiser, would invent such a picture. 6. Aside from the moral issue associated with this matter, perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the affair is why the Library, after a period of several years, abruptly took cognizance of the missing (but substituted) pages, and became concerned. I am sure that no one in the Library of Congress is exclusively employed to scan every article in every edition of every newspaper and magazine catalogued by the Library in search of evidence that the Library is being "cheated" or "bilked." Why, some six or seven years after you received the 11 boxes of papers from Dr. Peikoff, did the Library home in on the Los Angeles Times article of August 16, 1998, and see Dr. Peikoff's jocular remark about the "stolen" pages—unless, to employ your own term, it was "alerted" to that article? From a perspective of detective novel writer, this is an engrossing aspect. I suspect that Dr. Peikoff was the object of someone's malice, and that the Library served as a vehicle of that malice. In conclusion, I suspect that unless the Library had been "alerted" by such a person, it would have remained ignorant of the "missing" pages (whose substitutes, undoubtedly, were of good quality, good enough to reproduce on microfilm). I am hoping that you can shed some light on this twist of the story. Thank you for your attention to these issues. I hope to hear from you soon. Sincerely,
I just read in the Los Angeles Times, what you folks did to Ayn Rand's heir—Dr. Leonard Peikoff—in order to get two pages from The Fountainhead. Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they established The Library of Congress? Congress should rename you "The Library of Confiscation." How does threatening an old man with a heart problem, with a million dollar lawsuit aid the efforts of Congress? You must be embarrassed. Not to mention how incredibly inefficient you must be to spend over one million dollars to hold Ayn Rand's papers—why not save the taxpayers some money and return them? Anyways why do people like you wish to covet a manuscript that portrays you all as villains? (Why not chase after something that you cherish—like the Communist Manifesto?) I believe, that if Ayn Rand would have even fantasized that your Stalinist-like "Library" would have behaved like this toward her chosen heir, she would have preferred to have her papers torched to a crisp, than to have your "Library" vandalize their spirit by touching them. If your management had any rational sense of dignity, decency, and self-respect, you would return all of Ayn Rand's papers to Dr. Peikoff. It would be morally just—and it would save the taxpayers a lot of money. Signed, Dr. Peikoff, "It is baffling and extremely
sad that the Library of Congress has chosen this course of action." We are writing to express our condolences at your loss of the property of such personal importance to you. It is baffling and extremely sad that the Library of Congress has chosen this course of action. Indeed, as you indicate, you have been victimized by a government seeking "omnipotent power." Be assured that there are many others who share your outrage and pain. We will contact the Library of Congress to express our opinions of this incredible abuse. In the meantime, we feel better knowing that you will continue to create values—to be the embodiment of the opposite values represented by the current government of the United States. Best Wishes, P.S. If you have time, please come back to the Ford Hall Forum "The story would make a good news
magazine segment, as showing the horrendously worsening tyranny of the
government." Dear Leonard: Outrageous. The bastards. It is hard to believe that even they would do this if they weren't anti-Ayn Rand. But maybe they don't need a reason any more—things are getting worse and worse—the Elian Gonzalez raid naturally comes to mind. The story would make a good news magazine segment, as showing the horrendously worsening tyranny of the government. All the best, Steve Jolivette and Diana Carter "My heart aches for what they have
done to you." "We have met the enemy and they is
us." "What
really makes [the Library of Congress] tick is not any kind of love for the
objects they collect, but the sheer lust for power." "The God-damned bastards." RE: Library of Congress Dear Dr. Peikoff: The only appropriate response I can offer— because he faced an almost
identical situation —is to quote Hank Rearden: "The God-damned bastards." Sincerely, Steven Brockerman, MS March 17, 2002
Buffoonish
bureaucrats with tiny souls, With guns concealed but there behind the threats, Two hundred years ago Minerva's owl Is this the golden age of mindless men, William Greeley "...the very actions they take fuel
more opposition to their immoral and unjust behavior." Dear Dr. Peikoff, I read the article in the LA Times about the Library of Congress confiscating your property. I just wanted to add my voice to the outraged responses as a show of support and respect for you and your work. In the long run the very actions they take fuel more opposition to their immoral and unjust behavior. With deep respect, Joseph Kane "...[E]mbarrassing a pipsqueak
with power, let alone doing something illegal, is cause for government
invasion of our homes." Those looting bastards! Somewhere in the caverns of the Library of Congress one bureaucrat must have chided another about how dumb he was to be taken in by your clever "theft", never mind that before your publicized innocent joke, he knew of and cared less about the copied pages. So now we learn that just embarrassing a pipsqueak with power, let alone doing something illegal, is cause for government invasion of our homes. Outrageous. Les Jordan "You stated that a friend
recorded this unconstitutional act and I would love to show it to others." "The consequences on the
Library, that result from your treatment of him, could be far graver than
just minor effects from attacking a particular individual. Anyone who
values their right to distribute their property as they desire, will think
twice about the Library of Congress as a recipient." Dear Library of Congress, It was with horror that I recently read of your treatment of a gentleman (Dr Leonard Peikoff) who had kindly donated some priceless Ayn Rand manuscripts. (Los Angeles Times, 03/05/2002) It made me wonder what sort of institution the Library of Congress has become. The course of action you took against this individual is antithetical to the spirit from which the Library of Congress sprang. The Library was conceived to serve American citizens, as your Web-site is so eager to point out. The converse is certainly not true — the American citizen does not serve the Library. While I hold the same desire as most Americans for the Library of Congress to continue with its grand mission to "sustain and preserve a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future generations", I urge you to ensure that the methods you use to procure materials, especially from donations, be conducted in a manner suitable for a respectable institution. Using strong-arm legal maneuvers only a large governmental bureaucracy can afford, to seize materials from individual gifters, absolutely violates the spirit of your illustrious beginnings. To make my point clearer, contemplate this hypothetical scenario. Suppose that when Jefferson offered to sell his personal collection to the Library after its own collection was destroyed in 1814, he decided to keep a couple of volumes (exclusive of the 6,487 specified) for himself. (This would not be inconceivable since he was a known bibliophile, and being a passionate man, was sure to have his favorites.) Then, suppose that at a media interview after the sale, he joked that he had in fact kept a couple of volumes for himself out of sentiment. Would the Library of Congress of the day have sent a federal agent to Monticello to seize the aforementioned volumes? These were, after all, part of Jefferson's 'personal collection'. Somehow, I do not think so. Why? Even though Jefferson received a financial benefit for his collection, it was recognized by all that his offer was a magnanimous gesture. For a man who loved his books so much to depart with his collection —the greatest in the land at the time, could not have been a casual decision, and any moneys received in exchange can have only been part payment. In essence, his offer was an act of benevolence and he must have believed deeply in the cause that is your institution. I am sure that the librarians of the day would have understood the full meaning of his act. Now, to return to Dr Leonard Peikoff. He is on public record as a most passionate valuer of Ayn Rand's philosophy and novels, and indeed, has spent much of his adult life developing and exploring her ideas. Furthermore, by the fact that he was Ayn Rand's heir, we can infer that she must have valued him in no small way. So, let me ask you: Can you conceive of what it must have meant for such a man to decide to donate the original manuscripts of Ayn Rand's at all, let alone, choose the Library of Congress as the sole recipient? You should be honored at his generous gesture, and happy to receive what you did. I strongly urge you to rethink the course of action you took against Dr Peikoff, and more generally, consider what sorts of actions befit a grateful recipient. The consequences on the Library, that result from your treatment of him, could be far graver than just minor effects from attacking a particular individual. Anyone who values their right to distribute their property as they desire, will think twice about the Library of Congress as a recipient. For example, take me. I study rare languages of East and Southeast Asia and expect that my collection, which includes recordings of previously unstudied or rarely documented languages, will grow as I develop as a scholar. Should I one day be in a position to bequeath part or all of my collection to an institution, I will now think very carefully about whether the Library of Congress deserves anything from me. Finally, your Web-site states that "the development of the Library of Congress cannot be separated from the history of the nation it serves. Nor can it be separated from the philosophy and ideals of Thomas Jefferson, its principal founder." I am sure that Jefferson would have agreed with me that the exact content of a donation, which is after all, an act of charity, rests with the donor, and not the recipient. Sincerely, Sarah Lee "Instead of protecting this
nation's self interests against its enemies (foreign and domestic), the
Justice Department was busy protecting the self-interests of a
non-consequential federal library!" Dr. Peikoff, I wouldn't call myself a "fan" per se of your work, but I have for a long time admired your use of reason and logic in approaching topics. Indeed, I would say that I agree with many of your opinions (probably around 90% or so). Anyway, I just read your article on CapitalismMagazine.com about the Library of Congress and I am, in fact, in SHOCK! I honestly believe that this is a truly amazing example of the ridiculous absurdity of "collectivism." More specifically, the Library of Congress was (no doubt) driven by some artificial notion of the "collective good" and was more then willing to sacrifice your individual rights in order to fulfill this vision. Examples of this same preposterous, unchecked use of federal power are numerous. However, examples such as yours are particularly poignant and relevant to the common citizen because it demonstrates how far federal institutions, operating under the seemingly benign collectivist notion of "right," or "fairness," or "good," will go to enforce their collectivist vision. I am also offended, as a tax-paying citizen, that the Justice Department would spend valuable man hours and resources on this situation. Instead of protecting this nation's self interests against its enemies (foreign and domestic), the Justice Department was busy protecting the self-interests of a non-consequential federal library! Again, this is an excellent example of the government not doing its job! This is not what I, nor millions of other tax-paying citizens, agree to pay for every April 15th. In sum, I think your predicament, although personally troubling (for which I am sorry), may serve as yet another example for the world of the dangers of unchecked collectivism. Thank you and take care, Thomas Joscelyn "It is heartbreaking to think
that Dr. Peikoff's generous, hospital bed gift of Ayn Rand's book
manuscripts (his most cherished possessions) would eventually lead to him
being treated so unjustly." Mr. John Sayers Acquisitions, I was outraged to learn that my tax dollars may have contributed to the seizure of the private property of a man who defends our nation's founding principles so eloquently. You used government force to take two pages of Ayn Rand's manuscript of The Fountainhead which were rightfully in Dr. Peikoff's possession (The Los Angeles Times, 3-5-02). You had them taken forcibly, here in America! Dr. Peikoff wrote an excellent book which was featured at the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. called Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America (1982). In this book he warns us of the consequences of a government which moves away from its proper function: government should protect the individual's right to act for his life, liberty and property. How could he have imagined becoming the victim of government gone amuck within his lifetime in the country on this earth where such unrightful seizure should never have occurred? You would think that after the events of September 11 that the U.S. Justice Department would have better things to do than strong arm a decent and law abiding American. It is heartbreaking to think that Dr. Peikoff's generous, hospital bed gift of Ayn Rand's book manuscripts (his most cherished possessions) would eventually lead to him being treated so unjustly. He kept two pages -- two only -- and gave The Library of Congress the rest. I urge you, please give Leonard Peikoff back his two pages of Ayn Rand's manuscript. Ayn Rand loved and trusted him enough to leave him everything she had. She was a great American. Ayn Rand loved this country. To her America was the opposite of the tyranny she fled in Russia. Dr. Peikoff deserves to have his property returned and with apologies. What is happening to this nation that such government caprice could happen here? Written in sadness, "You used extortion against a
citizen by virtue of harassment and the threat of exorbitant damages." Re: Your response to my letter regarding the seizure of Dr. Peikoff's two pages of Ayn Rand's manuscript of The Fountainhead. I cannot understand the audacity of your assertions. Ayn Rand never agreed by contract to donate her manuscripts. By the length of time in which Ayn Rand chose *not* to document her clear intention to give the Library of Congress the manuscripts one can be clear that she wasn't comfortable leaving them to the Library. Further, it is clear she changed her mind by her last will and testament which left everything to her heir, Dr. Leonard Peikoff. Anything Dr. Peikoff sent to the library was his decision. His deliberation about his intentions were purely his to make. Your assumption that he had contracted to send you everything because he entered into discussions with you is quite disingenuous. The two pages which Dr. Peikoff wished to keep did not effect materially the value on the collection you received -- and besides -- you had no right to them, since they were not yours. Clearly they belonged to Dr. Peikoff. The decision about what you were to receive was only his to determine. You used the full force and power of the United States government to confiscate property of the legal inheritor and owner of that property. You used extortion against a citizen by virtue of harassment and the threat of exorbitant damages. He owed nothing to you except what he was willing to give. The two pages he kept were his to keep. Shame on you. Rather than spend so much taxpayer money to confiscate his property, why didn't you offer to pay for them at a time chosen by him to part with them. Even if you had so done, he still would have been under no obligation to sell them to you. The whole episode has shaken me. I now mistrust my government. Imagine a repository of knowledge achieving this -- shaking the understanding of a patriotic American of 57 years. Outrageous! I will not be fooled. Sandra Kydonieus "They can seize, lock up or even
destroy all of Miss Rand's manuscripts, but we will still have her ideas
with us." It saddens me to hear of your incident with the Library of Congress, but it saddens me even more when you say "I, on the other hand, am 68 and a heart patient, and could not accept the prospect of being further weakened physically by the stress..." They can seize, lock up or even destroy all of Miss Rand's manuscripts, but we will still have her ideas with us. You, however, are an irreplaceable individual, perhaps with many insights yet to come. And although the manuscripts are a valuable piece of history, you are a priceless piece of the present. I am anxiously awaiting "The One in The Many". Edward Rogers P.S. Here is my message to Mr. Sayer of the LOC: Mr. Sayer: Please do yourself a favor and read the works that you have stolen from Dr. Peikoff. Only then will you understand the irony of what you have done, and that you are a destroyer of knowledge, not a caretaker of it. Edward Rogers A Gift from Leonard Peikoff? It was sad to see the pages of the manuscript in the Library of Congress. My outrage came when the caption next to the description read "a gift of Leonard Peikoff." In the comment book outside the exhibit I wrote the following: "Please remember these pages of Ayn Rand's manuscript were taken by legal force and should not be considered a gift." Dr. Peikoff, I have been a student of Objectivism for many years and I
want you to know I am angry about this and have written the Library for a
reason (doubting I'll get one). "After reading about what you
people did to Leonard Peikoff, however, I will tell my students not to worry
about suspect material with LOC marks. I'll tell them that you probably just
stole the material from someone else."
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2002 Leonard Peikoff.
All rights reserved. |
||||||||||||||||
Your
letter, however, neglects to address a number of issues, to wit: