Amy Peikoff earned her BS in math/applied science and her JD at UCLA, where she served as an editor on the UCLA Law Review. After completing her law degree she went to USC, where she earned her PhD in philosophy. She has taught at Southwestern Law School, Chapman University School of Law, the United States Air Force Academy, University of North Carolina, and University of Texas. In addition to several opinion pieces in leading newspapers and online publications, she has published academic articles on the right to privacy, Searle’s theory of rational action, and aspects of the novels of Ayn Rand. She has been a frequent guest on Tucker Carlson Tonight (Fox News), and appeared in the documentary, Ayn Rand & The Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged. Her goal in her writing and activism is to find issues and problems where her Objectivist perspective allows her to make a unique and valuable contribution. She is currently writing a book, Legalizing Privacy: Why and How, which discusses the value of privacy for the virtuous life and the proper means of protecting it.
Book A Speech:
In addition to her experience lecturing at Objectivist conferences, Amy Peikoff has spoken to campus and community groups in several states throughout the United States, as well as in Brazil. Speech topics include: Legalizing Privacy: Why and How, Objective Law, Hope, Civil Discourse, and Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights.
Email bookingamypeikoff [at] gmail.com or fill out the contact form, below, for more information.
Don't Let It Go 
Thank you, Amy, for being, for existing in a world fraught with those who would deny man of his freedom to exist as he sees fit. For me, that’s all I want, to be left alone to pursue my own ambitions and dreams. I do not wish ill of any man but I will fight to the death any man who even tries to impose his will on me. Again, thank you.
-Mike Baraniecki, Murrieta, CA
Mike, thanks for joining in for my first show over at BlogTalkRadio. I’m glad you enjoyed it!
Hi Amy,
Just a quick note as a follow-up to the feature you did on Ann Barnhardt:
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2011/11/17/thank-you-ann-barnhardt-we-need-a-lot-more-people-with-her-courage-like-this/
I find this very disturbing, and a harbinger of all the damage that will come of Corzine & his ilk.
Howard Roerig
Denver
Amy,
For those of us who choose not to expose ourselves on the various social networking sites, there is no obvious way to send you an email from your website. Just a thought–you may also want to post an email address or link.
Thanks! Appreciate your hard work & strong stomach (I could not read all of today’s news without getting physically ill!)
Howard
Thanks, Howard, I really appreciate it.
Toward a Society of Privacy sounds excellent! Very fitting for the times. I was working on a philosophic treatise–Toward a New Diction. My premise was to create a work composed of only words that mean what is good–like baking a cake of only the finest ingredients with no unwanted particles. It became one sentence, ultimately–“I am perfect”–though it took me over a year and numerous ripped-up dictionaries. I hope your work proves to be longer….
best premises,
Joseph Dimon
Amy, I enjoy your podcasts, but have been unable to find the most recent ones on iTunes. I did find them on BlogTalkRadio, but it took me a while to figure out how to get them from there to my iPhone. Is there any way you could make them available on iTunes as well? I find iTunes much easier to synch. Keep up the good work!
Richard
Richard, thanks for listening to the show, and sorry the transition to the new platform made it harder for you to access the show. This post should help you to set up a new iTunes subscription, using the feed directly from BlogTalk Radio. Let me know if you have any problems.
Thanks!
Pingback: Workplace Privacy: An Individual Rights Perspective | Information Privacy Law
For lack of time, I’ve only heard bits and pieces of your previous podcasts. But I listened to tonight’s (9/2/12), in its entirety—and found it to be entirely refreshing. I have to say, your calm deliberation is practically “therapeutic” (to me)…. (And, by the way, you have an extraordinarily mellifluous voice, if you’ll pardon my saying so. It’s quite like the speaking voices of operatic sopranos, which always seem to exhibit a melodious undercurrent, at least to my ears.)
My thanks to you.
Thanks for listening, for the compliment and for teaching me a new vocabulary word! 🙂
I am a UK based Objectivist. Amy, “nihilism” is the direct logical consequence following on from NeoDarwinian premises. Evolution is not gene led. You cannot separate Nature and Nurture, except under controlled experimental conditions. Check out the research findings of the ‘Encode’ project, just published, to read about the extent of switching that goes on at the level of cell molecular machinery. Following Rand’s lead, humans have no automatic instincts. I want Objectivists to make the case for conceptual thinking by explaining that we have learnt to switch genes on and off by means of language and therefore have a much more dynamic and energy efficient means of survival than stereotyped, automatic, instinct dependent animals. The received wisdom on evolution has been a gift to religionists of all stripes and has produced the egalitarian trend in politics that is destroying individualism. They key, as Rand identified, is that language is not primarily a means of communication, as is generally accepted; it is primarily a tool of mental organisation. We use it to switch on and off our own genetic processes and thus to integrate our ideas according to our ’emotionally felt’ values. This is Rand’s “emotional mechanism”.
Amy, I have been saving and retweeting your tweets for a long time now, I am such a HUGE fan of Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead. I didn’t realize you had a blog, so great to connect. CHEERS! Coco
Amy,
I just discovered your podcast, and I’m really enjoying it. The only thing that can save this country now is for Atlas to Shrug.
Regards
Amy,
First of all, great job on the show. It has been part of my week since inception.
I recently heard mention of a talk you gave in Houston some years agon on the corruption of the American Bar Association. Is the talk available anywhere online?
Regards,
Joe
Thanks, Joe! In the talk you mention, I criticized some of the ABA’s Model Rules; I didn’t talk about the organization apart from those rules. So far as I know, the talk was not recorded, sorry!
$
Hi Amy,
This isn’t really meant to be published, but I thought you should be aware, if you aren’t already, of an interesting antitrust case, which isn’t settled yet, according to the information i see. https://ebooksagsettlements.com/
The victim this time is publishers for $160+ million. Since you’ve published, maybe you would have an interesting take on this. As a customer, I’m perfectly fine paying what I do for ebooks. The antagonism, which the state attorney general claims exists, is completely fabricated. Don’t they think I notce that the state brought up this case and not the supposed “victims,” which the state is claiming to defend.
Pingback: TAMCON 2014: A photo essay of my TAMily! | Temple of Mut
Dear DLIGU,
Possibly good capitalistic jurisprudence…..
Thank you $. : from web article:
“Symposium: Supreme Court leaves patent protection for software innovation intact
David Kappos is a partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP and the former Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He is a senior adviser to the Partnership for American Innovation.
From the perspective of the parties involved, this week’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision held that a process that lessens settlement risk for trades of financial instruments is too abstract for patenting. However, to the leagues of interested onlookers holding their collective breath across our country and indeed around the world, the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling subtly conveyed a much more significant judgment: software, as a class, is every bit as worthy of patent protection as any other medium in which innovation can be practiced.
Despite the loud and sometimes shrill calls from various quarters to curtail “software patenting,” the decision is deafening in its declination to do so. The Justices clearly chose not to condemn software to the realm of abstraction, or otherwise express any manner of discrimination against software patents as a class. Instead the Court simply followed its ruling in Bilski v. Kappos: to be patent-eligible, an innovation must be patent-worthy in and of itself – regardless of the language in which it is conveyed. In so doing, the Court maintained fidelity to the purpose of the U.S. patent system – that patentability is awarded based on the merits of the invention at hand, whether the medium in which it is built is a concrete structure, ceramic shape, metallic apparatus, molecular composition or computer language.
This week’s decision reaffirms that from the point of view of the patent system, software languages are no different from other vernaculars – they are a medium of expression that can be used to capture and convey ideas. The distinction between patentable software in Diamond v. Diehr and unpatentable software in Bilski and CLS Bank is not about software at all; rather, the difference is the presence or absence of a definitive invention versus abstraction. Diehr’s new and useful process for curing rubber was held to be innately patentable – the fact that it happened to be manifest in a software language was tributary.
Wisely, rather than labor through a lengthy discussion about software, the Court focused on the abstract nature of Alice Corporation’s claimed “invention,” declining to delineate a wooden rule for what constitutes unpatentable abstraction. Revisiting a conundrum that has confronted the Court numerous times in the last fifty years, this decision recognizes that rigid boundaries regarding innovation are simply inappropriate. The goal cannot be to articulate a one-size-fits-all definition precisely separating that which, across the entire reach of human creativity, is worthy of patent protection from that which is not. No one is flattered by one-size-fits-all. Flexibility is invaluable in our patent law precisely because it permits necessary adaptation within a system that must continuously evolve to remain vital at the ever-advancing intersection between ingenuity and the future. Inflexible rules inevitably stifle innovation and pick technology winners and losers in blind bets destined for regret. Today’s rigid decrees cannot possibly account for tomorrow’s as-yet-unknown advances. Thankfully, the Supreme Court showed deep sensitivity to these issues.
What we can account for today is that the most valuable advancements in technology are increasingly reduced to practice in the language of software. Powering the latest technologies in every field, from business services to automobile manufacturing to chemical production to medicines and medical diagnostics, U.S. software innovation is among our most important economic drivers. The U.S. software market not only has grown well above $150 billion annually, but also has created immense value in all other industries that rely on software — which is to say virtually every industry that exists. Software enables companies across a wide range of industries to create all manner of modern products – from cars to advanced polymers to medicines and medical devices. Companies rely on software to enable their largest endeavors; those that create the most jobs and drive our nation’s economy forward. It is thus not surprising that some U.S. states have made software piracy the basis of their efforts to combat international trade-secret misappropriation using unfair competition laws. Massachusetts’s 2012 watershed action against Thai-based Narong Seafood Company, for example, demonstrates that software use is vital even in Asian fish markets.
As software has increasingly become a core driver of competitive advantage in every corner of the business world, it is clear that maintaining appropriate incentives and protections for software-based technological advancement is critical to innovation in every sector of the U.S. economy. We are living in the Age of Software, as the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. bears testament.”
Thank you,
An Objectivist. $
Stumbled on your site. Enjoyed the Freedom App thing. $10. Very funny. By the way…. don’t tell anyone….. you can reboot if you finish your task ahead of time apparently.
Hi Amy,
I just heard you guys discussing a quote on a Chipotle bag. It’s
anyone’s guess what Chipotle thought they were doing but you
folks need to know that George Saunders is an American humorist
and satirist who says his influences range from Tolstoi to Marx,
no, not Karl, Groucho.
I think I’ll give Chipotle the benefit of the doubt.
I look forward to hearing you and Bosch each week.
Paul
Here is the quote in context:
Two-Minute Note to the Future
by George Saunders
Amazing to think that I am here in my time and you, future
reader, are there in your (future) time, reading this! By the time
you read this, I may be in grave (!). Maybe you, in your future
clothing, can drive your jet car to my grave, hover over grave,
think fondly of time you read these words, leave weird cloned
flowers, go scooting back to own life. But beware: you too, future
reader, will someday be in grave. All, in time, will be in graves.
Unless you, in future time, have defeated death. If so, please
revive me (!). Also revive Kate (wife) and kids (Sally, Kip).
Hope that, in future, all is well, everyone eats free, no one
must work, all just sit around feeling love for one another.
Speaking of Sally, Kip: what parenting like in future? Still difficult?
Even though your kids not brought to term in womb, but in small
hygienic chamber attached to mother, even though your kids born
speaking several languages + playing violin, due to tiny chips in
brains, future parents still find parenting hard?
My boss just came, asked what I was writing. EnderCO report?
Ha. No.
Note to future generations: Still have “bosses”? Bosses still
intrusive? Still have “offices”? Future offices = high tech? All you
have to do to raise temperature is think, “Raise temperature in
office,” computer does? People move from place to place on
invisible air-cars? People think: “AirCar, take me to Copy Room,”
soon are soundlessly proceeding to Copy Room? Except there is
no Copy Room, because paper obsolete, all documents projected
on to screen inside brain? Sometimes, for prank, future person
sends ton of random copies into brain of friend, friend cannot
walk/see, has to feel way to AirCar, say: “AirCar, take me to
Frank’s cubicle, am going to kill Frank for flooding my brain with
random copies.” In your (future) time, boss can just stay in own
(plush) office, nosing into what (excellent, responsible) worker
might be writing in own spare time? Worker can send boss mental
message: If you are so smart, Mr. Kenner, why branch shrinking,
why did you have to lay off Jerry Ringer?
Jerry = good guy. Really miss Jerry. Jerry = dear friend. People
still get fired in future? Even person with new baby? Hope not.
Hope that, in future, all is well, everyone eats free, no one must
work, all just sit around feeling love for one another.
Peace be with you Amy,
Indeed, Ayn Rand was a modern day prophetess who predicted 911, as well as the subsequent collapse of the world system which is now taking place.
http://marques.co.za/duke/prophetess.html
Hope you will not ‘moderate’ this comment 🙂
https://ebooklawsuits.com/mainpage/CaseSummary.aspx
Looks like more on the antitrust case against apple. Interesting that Amazon is the one who notified me again.
m0
Oh and they are claiming I’m being represented as the “victim” (my word). Is this one of those cases where remaining silence is sanctioning this activity since they are claiming to speak for me?
Amy– Congrats to you and Bosch as you embark on this joint venture! I have enjoyed the times you’ve guest hosted for Tammy Bruce. Anyone who is a friend of Tammy is a friend of mine! I am honored to support your very worthy cause. Godspeed!
Nancy K. NY/AZ
https://www.engadget.com/2017/02/17/germany-bans-my-friend-cayla-doll/
Amy, excellent representation on Tucker’s show tonight! I found your stance to be very rational and well articulated. Consider myself a supporter.
M Campbell
Annapolis, MD.
Sorry I’m just getting to this now. I went on vacation a couple days after the appearance. Thanks, M 🙂
Amy, I just watched your interview with Tucker Carlson and two things: I now know you exist and I am absolutely blown away by your interview to the positive. Amy as a man I search continually for true, honest, objective and intelligent women and so far have found very, very few. To communicate with a woman concerning what many would consider deep and thoughtful subject matter is refreshing to the wholesome. I applaud your objectives and cause – I feel as if I am in like-company. A point I would like to make is the Tucker interview. As I watched, you displayed unwavering respect for his opinions while making yours. During this exchange I absolutely watched with mouth wide open how Tucker would attempt to shut you down at his every opportunity and I found that aspect quite strange – coming from Tucker. What struck me so, was the entire conversation hinged upon placing oneself in another’s shoes and seeing the world through their eyes. I was fascinated at how he would agree with the premise and yet overtly not agree with the actual practice. Clearly if this would have been a scored debate – Tucker would have lost handily providing the panel were of actual intelligent mettle. It is my honor to met you, even though it was by proxy.
For some reason I’m just seeing this comment now. Perhaps it’s because I went on vacation two days after the appearance? In any event, thank you, Jonathan. I’m hoping to be invited back for more thought-provoking discussions!