"Introducing Objectivism" by Ayn Rand
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.ย. 2024
- Ayn Rand explains her philosophy.
Why does philosophy matter? Start your journey with us today: bit.ly/whyphil...
In 1962, in answer to the question "Will you tell us briefly, what is Objectivism?" Ayn Rand recorded an 8-minute introduction to her philosophy. In this video, Ayn Rand explains her position on the nature of reality, the efficacy of human reason, the nature of man and the ideal political system for man.
---
Subscribe to our TH-cam channel: / @aynrandinstitute
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism.
We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world - and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.
Subscribe to ARI's TH-cam channel: / @aynrandinstitute
Explore ARI: www.AynRand.org
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Like ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Her books provided my mind and my reason with the healthiest kind of philosophy I've ever encountered and thought of.
AS A RADICAL LEFTIST, I HATED AYN RAND WHEN I WAS IN COLLEGE AND NOW 40 YEARS LATER, I REALIZE SHE WAS RIGHT
Are you a Libertarian now?
+Wizard Brackenbury I hope so. lol
+garybsg why would you hate anyone for their views.... if they don't act against you their is no problem.
No one on the left starts off a comment with "as a radical leftist". You're fooling no one but yourself.
take off the capslock, bro
"The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, is that her critics must distort
everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason,
not force; the individual’s rights to freedom of action, speech, and
association; self-responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; and a
live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an
END, not the MEANS of others’ ends. How many critics would dare
honestly state these ideas and say, ” . . .and that’s what I reject”? --Barbara Branden
The problem with Ayn Rand’s philosophy is it’s reliant on ceteris paribus to work. The world isn’t like that, which is why she’s widely dismissed. Not only that, Rand was not an empiricist. Her philosophy was based purely on her opinions. It simply doesn’t work in practice. Neither does socialism in its purest ideological form.
@@pricejoss Widely dismissed? lol
Her books continue to sell 300,000+ per yr.
How do you dismiss, what she advocated, an individual's right to his own life?
@@johngalt173 - I was shooting my mouth before being properly informed.
@@pricejoss /neither does capitalism in its purist form.
@lalala this kids, is your brain on marx
A few years ago I read Atlas Shrugged. When I was reading Francisco D'Anconia's monologues on money and on sex, then John Galt's speech, I realised that I have always held those ideas on reality, knowledge, morality and politics since the age of four, but could never formulate my ideas explicitly - partly for cowardice, partly for being educated to contrary ideas and values. When I studied philosophy at the university, a professor introduced Aristotelian metaphysics - I immediately knew that I have been an Aristotelian since the age of four; but when I read Galt's speech, I instantly get convinced that I have been a specific kind of Aristotelian, namely an Objectivist since the age of four.
I wish I was thought this philosophy few years ago college would have been so much better for me. The pursuit of self interest over others leads to increased happiness. And also understanding the fact that other people also have to pursue their own happiness
except you don't live in a vacuum, you life is a constant interaction with the other
@lalala Being selfless actually made my life miserable and led to poverty. I am now all about the self. Because if I don't take care of myself noone will.
lalala ok but if your a good person helping people makes you feel good, therefore even helping others so long as it makes you feel good is selfish. Sometimes we help each other to get a favor back, we call those deals and are def based on self interest. If your a bad person who gets no joy in helping, sharing or interacting nice with others than objectivism may suck for the ppl around you lol.
@@eveharris30 as long as you are not hurting others by taking care of yourself first.
Lalala, you're not taking into account the fact that if you wrong someone, you lose her as part of your support network. So the self interested action is long sighted enough to value morality. This is why the state jams itself between individuals. To obscure such a truth.. among other things.
I will be forever grateful to Ayn Rand. Her moral defense of capitalism changed my philosophy so completely at the age of about 25 years old. It was the section in Atlas Shrugged where the "bum" recounts the events of the motor factory and how communism was put into effect. I did not fully understand until that passage was over. I put down the book and said out, "Oh my." It was distressing to change my politics and philosophy, but it had to be done. Almost 25 years later, my youthful infatuation with Ayn Rand has not gone away. I don't agree with everything, but so much still resonates.
KLJF Hopefully you will see the light one day. Objectivism, in no way, denies anyone the ability to provide assistance to those in need.
KLJF that’s why your mother didn’t abort you ??
I do not understand why some people get Ayn wrong when she was talking about self- interest. She stated clearly that " no man initiate the use of physical force against others. Self - Interest is an initial basic mean of the pursuit of one's happiness. How could you make other people happy if you are not ? Well, It is just my interpretation tho
These things seems very interesting
?Which of her books focused on these things the most?
Hello World Jealousy and hatred, pure and simple. There are a lot of people in the world who hate it when people live their own lives the way they see it.
She is a MAN!
Jesus said "Lord forgive them for THEY don't know what they are doing". In THIS case THEY know what THEY actually are doing. Period. Do THEY deserve ANY forgiveness? THEY just DON'T. THINK about it. DON'T forgive them for WHAT THEY want is ALL you have EARNED by useful work in return for THEIR poverty, STUPIDITY, incapacity to think intelligently, unable to do ANY useful thing for ANYONE in ALL their LIVES. THEY call it "ACHIEVEMENT", progress, development, even REVOLUTION.
@Jason Rougeau no such thing as a man having more than he deserves in a free country
Genius... Ayn Rand was a genius. I dont care about all that she was meant to have done or not done. She is a standout genius amongst men and women. I have never known of another woman with such profound philosophical offerings.
Arthur Schopenhauer
She as an immature extremist, who lacked the capacity to see anything real, as her arrogance claimed to know what was real. Extreme self-interest is the opposite of objectivity, FFS.
Fred Freddy ... Ayn Rand's self-center ideology has no practical application in a real society.
de Beauvoir?
Ayn Rand echoes the voices of our founders. She should not be ignored.
I've always knew somewhat of the philosophy of Rand but actually researching in to it has brought me a lot of closure as I struggled for a while on how I identified politically going between ancap mincap libertarian and agorist but Rand's philosophy has perfectly summarised my economic, philosophical and state beliefs
Introduction of Ayn Rand's philosophy, summed up in 9 minutes. Amazing rendition from the ARI. It is such a thrill to hear the voice behind the mind.
yea Ayn Rand neaded only 9 minutes to convince me,
That she is full of shit
A very brief (but BRILLIANT) summary of the bare-bones basics of Objectivism. Tragically, so few people take the time and/or make an effort to study and understand it. Thus, we get so many ignorant comments such as those posted here.
Throw away your pre-conceived notions about concepts such as reality, reason, selfishness, altruism, rights, government, Capitalism etc. and discover their proper meanings (as Rand has, and has illustrated NUMEROUS times in her fiction, and EXPLICITLY her non-fiction works).
She provides so much material, and so many examples, that there is NO excuse for misinterpreting what she means by any of it. And don't fall for the claims of the collectivists who deliberately distort and misrepresent Ayn Rand; they always resort to logical fallacies such as straw men, and ad hominem personal attacks. They have NO real answer or refutation to offer.
Those of you who are truly honest with yourself (after actually STUDYING Objectivism and carefully thinking it through) will come to understand that she was RIGHT.
Ayn Rand was Friends with Alan Greenspan; both celebrated in their time but Ayn Rand "Rocks on".
Objectivism is reality based like your enjoyable comment and others.
TNX for objectivism
👏🏼 👏🏼 👏🏼
What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds. A parasite asks 'Where is my share?' A man creates. A parasite says, 'What will the neighbors think?' A man invents. A parasite says, 'Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God...
Andrew Ryan
+Hisham “Komodo” Abdalla sounds like you described modern women
A parasite can also be considered someone who buys into excessive consumerism like an infant and who miscorrelates wish with necessity as is often championed in capitalism as INNOVATION.
Didn't Andrew Ryan's underwater city went to shit and he himself got beaten to death by a golf club?
Starlord The creators of bioshock did not paint objectivism in a nice picture they clearly are against it.
Hisham Abdalla I utterly despise that game for creating a brand new generation of Ayn Rand haters, we have enough of those already.
I hope that more people hear these words.
Look after yourself and take care of your needs first. Common sense.
Like what William Edward Hickman did?
Michael yeah fuck the poor. Me first. I earned everything I have.
@@natet9071 you sound like you're trying to be sarcastic here but why WOULDN'T you put yourself before a vague class of people 'the poor' ?
jimmy nuts Because I am an empathetic person. I can see my neighbor struggling. Unlike ignorant assholes, I recognize the cruel hand of fortune in people’s lives. I’m not going to let people burn in front of me under that pathetic excuse: “he made his bed”
Or even worse: “I get nothing out of this”
@@natet9071 you can help them but you cannot let yourself "die" because you give them your 100% effort and at the same page nobody can force you to help them. I do it so you must do it too (even if your vision is different) is a bad statement
George Westinghouse was an altruistic capitalist. The key is a healthy balance. One can be self serving without being ruthless. Your character has value.
that woudn't be objectivism, would it?
Anything done in self interest that doesn't harm others is good. Altruism , which is voluntary, is still objectivism.
@@jaysontadlock1871
Exactly, the very moment coercion is involved it becomes evil.
I have unknowingly lived with a very similar philosophy as objectivism for the past 30 years and didn't realize it. makes the most sense if you value responsibility and true freedom.
A key principle she states is "Just because you wish it so doesn't make it so" The "reality" we live in today and I hope will never change is that
1)This planet has seen many forms of government throughout its history
2)No other form of government has lifted more people from poverty than Capitalism
3)Democracy = Capitalism = Freedom of choice = Self interest
4) It is in our self interest to regulate the market to ensure what we eat, what we drive, what we buy, what we use are safe.
5) Regulation and Objectivism do not contradict each other when regulation prevents harm
6) Collectivism the alternative to Capitalism is compulsory, decision making is removed from the individual and in return is "forced"
7) It is amazing that in a collective state the biggest advocates for socialism the "Press" are usually the first to see "freedom" lost
8) As biased as new outlets are "fake news" does not exist in a collective state because the power of the state controls the dissemination of the news
9) How Ironic that Humanities are frivolous activities in a collective state
10) How ironic that the right protects the left from themselves in opposing the ideas of socialism. Intellectuals seem to misjudge their import in the society they yearn for as art, writing, creating music do not feed the children in a collective society
11) Think long and hard before compelling one to act against their will for the time may come you will be forced to act against yours
It is a real tragedy that she was not cryogenically frozen when she died. One of the greatest minds to ever exist is now gone.
No modern scholar listens her. She just branded her biased subjective opinions as "objectivism"
Kevin Lopez Those were objective facts though, not opinions.
Tony Montana what facts? Altruism being evil?
d8d8 She lives on by her ideas, which really comes down to "live and let live", just like in the early days of America.
"selfish" as Ayn Rand describes it, translates roughly into "passion", which might be riding a bike at 200 mph without a helmet, and it ain't nobody's business.
I recently became interested in philosophy around a year ago. And up until about 5 months ago I’d never really given thought into Objectivism as I’d never heard of it. But when I discovered it I’d finally found what I’d been looking for a philosophy that had taken all my thoughts and feelings and given them form, worded far better (even in layman’s terms) than I ever could. It’s beautiful and gives me chills. I’m self taught, I’ve never went to school for philosophy but I plan on doing so (as a secondary degree) but I’ve truly never understood the danger in self taught philosophy I think quite the opposite, that being taught how to interrupt or feel about a belief by someone else other than the originator is far more dangerous.
I would encourage you to not stop at Rand. And to study all the greats and even some of the not so greats. From what I've learned over time I would say that no single school of thought has all the answers. Nevermind one single philosopher. And I would caution you against a system of beliefs or ideas that are presented as the final word on everything. I'm afraid Objectivism can be a bit like that. Just from my own experience with reading Ayn Rand, it can be easy to get a bit too dogmatic with it. A lot of good ideas, but it's not the end all. Good luck with your studies.
Very powerful video.
It gave me goosebumps. I was introduced to something on which I never gave a thought.
She arose from the dead after 3 days...didn't you know?
Sacrifice for the state or anyone .. except “ I AM THAT I AM” … I’ll sacrifice for that . But… that’s my choice freely . In Jesus Name
Idk why people dislike her so much, her philosophy is simple and makes sense
Your Boi because it’s only half correct. She’s not a bad person, and a lot of the left hate her- which is childish. She is absolutely right to say that no one is entitled to anyone else’s money or empathy. No one can force you to be altruistic. The problem is she advocated a level of individuality that is not compatible with any given society. Her ideas are based off a world of rational, scientific people. Thing is, those people are a tiny fraction of the world.
The other thing is: you’re damn right to think you don’t owe me squat, but we should nonetheless have the empathy to go help our struggling neighbor.
The reason is they don't understand
@@natet9071 She's not against helping others, she's against people forcing you to feel morally obligated to do so. If helping others is what brings you happiness then go ahead but you shouldn't be guilt tricked into it.
Your Boi th-cam.com/video/mQVrMzWtqgU/w-d-xo.html You sure?
Your Boi she doesn’t make a rule against helping others, but she says only do it if it selfishly benefits you. That’s rational, but I think you’ll find sometimes people need help even when there’s no reward
A man chooses, a slave obeys
Would you kindly?
Im a Randian Objectivist and proud of it. No changing my mind
Listening again.
The further a society drifts from Truth the more it will Hate those Who Speak It - George Orwell
This philosophy should be introduced to people right from when they are young so they have an idea of how the world [ought to] works.
alternatavly, you could introduce them to some actual Philosophy
Kiss my axe like some mumbo jumbo out of this world religion which asks people to die for the sake of it
The greatest idea ever
A genius of the ages
I think it is unwise to criticise or praise a philosophy without living it.
I am pretty new to this. I have only read her works. It is quite Intriguing.
I pledge to live her philosophy for 1 yr. I will note the changes and only then will I open my mouth.
Okay objectivists question time!
1. How do you justify the exploration of Labour in capatalism i.e factory workers being paid 10 cents a day to make clothes
2. Who decides who owns land and who doesn't? How can one have access to resources if he is barred from land
3. Being born into a rich family - why should one kid have more opportunity to succeed based upon family success
4. How do you justify monopolies of money
5. If everyone is looking after self interest who looks after the sick and disabled (if they are left to die - is this not sacrificing others for the individual good similar to the common good)
Blueberry 1) By understanding it is the exploitation of capital by the workers that makes capitalism successful. The many benefit far more from the provision of capital than the few benefit from the provision of labor.
2) By earning it. Every allocation of capital has been rightfully earned by exchanging labor for currency, then exchanges for capital. Nobody is barred from this process, even as nobody has promised anybody any guaranteed outcomes.
3) Because it was likely out of a sense of obligation to provide for one’s family that drove them to pursue success. Additionally, given the wealth was rightfully earned, and therefore owned, it is the sole entitlement of the rightful owner to decide what is to be done with that wealth. In further addition, it is widely understood that most family fortunes rarely last beyond three generations. Starting wealth no more guarantees success anymore than starting poverty guarantees failure. There are almost literally countless accounts of individuals defeating the odds in both directions.
4) What exactly is a “monopoly of money.” We aren’t inventing terms for the purpose of deception, are we?
5) Nowhere within the tenets of Objectivism is anything prohibiting charity. The only ones suggesting anything such are those who refuse to comprehend what Objectivism is.
@@bradchristy8429
1. Sorry that doesnt make any sense to me - you would have to explain futher
2. But thats not how it started. In the US the Europeans did not pay the indigenous people for the land they took. And in the UK the landowners did not pay the poor for the land - they kicked them out and forced them into city's. In the beginning when land was not owned by anyone - why does an individual have the right to cordon off 100s of hectares of land and declare it his. Whom did he buy it from - nobody owned it - so how is that rightfully his?
3. Its a fair point that people do break the mold. But this is mostly allowed because people who are not rich have access to public schools - in an Objectivists world all schools would be private. If your parents where poor and you had no access to education how would you have the freedom to become a doctor, say, if that was your dream?
4. I meant monopoly of industry - sorry my fault. Everyone knows that monopolys can force individuals to accept lower wages/higher prices for goods (Ayn Rand was against monopolys and believed they would not form in objectivism). How do you prevent monopolys forming?
5. True, objectivists don't prohibit charity - but without state aid for disabled people. This means disabled peoples would have to rely entirely upon the altruism of those with capital. What if those people decide they do not want to support the disabled? There is no assurance that they would be assisted - is there?
(6. Another question. Say you have one community which manages an area of natural land sustainably. They are mostly self-sufficient, preserve the eco-system and work only six hours a day. A capitalist comes along and buys the land. He re-manages the land and turns it into intensive agriculture. Only one or two people are needed to maintain it. The community is expelled from the land and forced in to the city to find jobs. They go into factory's and manufacture clothes - working 16 hrs a day for a subsistence wage and live in dirty slums. Production is increased - more clothes are produced and more food is produced to feed the work force. But the standard of living has gone down. Basically increased production, when that production is superfluous, does NOT necessarily result in improved quality of life. I dont really now how this ties in - but my point is basically - there should be other values to consider rather than capital accumulation and over-production. Which seems to be the predominate measure of value in objectivism. Why doesn't quality of life, quality of community and quality of the environment - reign supreme over the madness of superfluous production and capital accumulation)
Appreciate that you answered by questions - and i'am interested to hear what you have to say. Ayn Rand was an amazing author and I find the theory interesting but i do struggle with it
Blueberry 1) I didn’t figure it would. People who sound like you rarely understand who is exploiting who. So, let’s set up a scenario. We have Bob, who has built a widget machine. He spent many hours conceiving, engineering and materially building said machine. It’s a nice machine. It makes widgets that many people find desirable. The man finds himself very busy making widgets. So he builds a second won (or pays to have a second one built), but he can’t operate both machines at the same time. So he hires Billy to operate the second machine. Billy shows up, with his shoes on, operates the machine, putting material in one end, and stacking the widgets that come in the other end. He gets paid equally whether the machine produces ten widgets a day or a hundred, the variance due almost entirely by the vigor at which Billy keeps up with the feed of material and stacking of widgets. Bob, however, gets paid far less when Billy produces ten widgets than when Billy produces a hundred, yet has direct no control over Billy’s vigor on the job, other than the continued agreement to keep paying Billy. Bob has his entire life invested in the machines, Billy has invested nothing but the time he has agreed to sell Bob. Who is exploiting who?
2) When Europeans came to the US, the natives laid no claim to the land. They didn’t even have a word for ownership. The Europeans offered to buy the land and were told “Nobody owns it.” That said, nearly every single square once of the Earth has been either taken by force or given by complacency many times since the dawn of man. Nobody owns the lands their ancestors did thousands of years ago. Additionally, when land is re-appropriated, as it was in Europe, it is done for the supposed “greater good”. The land is converted from minimally productive land to maximally productive land. This was the case in Europe as it was in the US. Even yet today, we have people whose lands are re-appropriated to make way for progress, only today we have laws that stipulate compensation. The universal prosperity that has resulted from such re-appropriation is undeniable. The fact that we, as a species, have progressed from sustenance farming to surplus production is plenty sufficient proof.
3) Public schools are providing no such tools for success. In most cases, those who upwardly “break the mold” are doing so from a position that most that sound like you are decrying as severely disadvantaged. Success is determined by the individual, in their refusal to settle for the conditions they were born into as acceptable. The “hereditary” success the wealthy seem to enjoy is due to parents who impart their desire for success, and the private school is part of that parenting, not simply the source of the success.
4) I am perfectly fine with laws preventing one company from buying their sole competitor or those that prevent a company from influencing companies outside their industry with their market leverage. If it is sheer competition that creates a sole provider of goods, I don’t see as there’s anything that SHOULD be done to “prevent” that. As soon as a provider of goods/services starts abusing their constituents, they will automatically, by their own efforts, create space for competitors, as witnessed by the fact that there are virtually ZERO monopolies, with the exception of the government’s you are expecting to prevent them.
5) Objectivism also doesn’t deny public assistance. I’m perfectly OK with programs we already have in place for those who cannot work, for the variety of reasons we are all aware of. What Objectivists oppose is the bandwagon effects these programs inevitably create. There are millions of people, perfectly capable of carrying their own weight, who are collecting safety net resources, and there’s nothing saying it’s just the destitute who are guilty. The thing with Objectivism is, with as many people pulling their own weight has possible, there is PLENTY enough surplus to provide for those who cannot, and neither Objectivism nor Objectivists oppose this.
6) You have painted a picture of what happens when there is very little competition, and I agree, it’s ugly. But you have to understand that those factories were almost all started by those who were fleeing the fields. It is empirically shown that, during the period in the US you are referring to, that real wages increased four-fold, even if it didn’t come without its growing pains. Discontent consumers and workers is a petri dish for entrepreneurship and innovation. With laws to prevent first mover direct interference, prosperity is the growth we see in that petri dish. Walmart, with all the accusations of being a monopoly, are far from it. I can drive you to at least five direct competitors, and dozens of minor competitors, within a ten mile radius of my home. Additionally, Walmart was started among fierce competition, by somebody who worked hourly for the store he eventually bought, has since come to dominate their market, and since relinquished that dominance to a relative newcomer, Amazon. It is a constant, ever evolving cycle.
Always interested in a healthy discussion.
Know this.... Objectivism, in a nutshell: Pursue your own interests. Don’t stomp on others’ pursuit of their interests. We are all self-interested. It’s how we’ve survived all these millennia.
@@bradchristy8429
1) Interesting - It depends. Bob has created more value - sure. If Bob pays Bill so little that he has to work 16 hrs a day 7 days a week, never gets enough money to afford a widget or nice housing. I would say Bob was exploiting him. If Bill works so little and Bob pays him enough to live a comfortable life I would say Bill was the exploiter. If Bob pays Bill enough that he can live a comfortable life and Bill works hard I would say fair deal. That just totally depends on how much you value unskilled labor - I tend to value it higher is all. Bob should be rewarded more for his value creation - but with limits.
What if using the proceeds Bob buys land and decides to build a water park. But he can only design widgits so - he pays architects and engineers to design it - then builders to construct it. Then he fills it with 100 employees. Its opening time. He charges very high prices so only rich people can use it. But the 100 employees who work there will never get paid enough to actually visit the water park. Bob earns millions in profits over the years - despite his only input was having the initial idea (And believe me its not that hard to imagine a water park - i just did it) - all the hard work: design, construction and maintenance was delegated. I suppose you still think that Bob is the one getting exploited.....
Interesting question for you - what happens if machines become so developed that no menial labor is needed. The means of production are all owned by 10% of the population, say. What happens to that 90% who's work is now superfluous. Do the 10% supply the 90% with anything.Or do the 10% only trade with each other an exclude the 90%.
2/4) We disagree about history and definitions of Ayn Rands obejctivism (the only state controls that Ayn Rand advocated where police and army)
In my view enriching the lives of others is in my self-interest - because i know that i'm happy when i see myself and the world around me flourishing - people around me are happy, productive and moral. Only a self-interested psychopath would be content to be rich among a miserable, competitive and impoverished wider community.
Blueberry 1a) I, too, value skilled labor. So much so that I don’t see how your scenario can possibly exist, Unless Bob is the literally the only widget machine owner. Skilled workers will always sell their labor to the employer willing to pay the most for their time. This makes it impossible for Bob to dictate to his help how little he is going to pay them, but rather it is the workers who dictate what their labor is worth.
1b) You’ve built quite the impossible scenario here. Purely hypothetical, I get it, but still.... Seeing as Bob is only catering to the extremely wealthy (I don’t consider myself wealthy by any measure, but I And the family hit one or both of the two local theme parks we have close every year), I’d say he’s charging a LOT for the entertainment he is providing, which is undoubtedly going to require a fairly selective staff population. Those employees are not going to be the average “unskilled” workers. They are going to possess personality and judgement qualities that are going to set them apart, which is going to require a considerably higher wage that employers who have no need for these qualities aren’t going to be willing to pay. But in the effort of humoring.... I’d say that off Bob can manage to assemble the conditions you describe, more power to him. We all buy what we need at the lowest possible price and seek what we can at the highest possible price, and the markets always rule.
1c) At some point, available sales opportunities will dwindle to the point where further cost/production efficiency will render no returns, and automation advancement will cease. This point is reached much sooner than most automation alarmists think. I would argue we are constantly at that point of equilibrium. Again, the market always rules. When the investment in automation is greater than the potential gains from said automation, it never happens. Seeing as the means of production is already owned by less than 10% of our population, and the depend on the remainder of our population to maintain viability, I’d say your scenario is utterly unreachable.
As a toolmaker, I have designed, built and implemented automation lines and cells my entire professional career. I have yet to see that single installation eliminate employees. That almost always involve additional staff, with many earning higher wages from the transition. The automation has always served to increase safety, precision and/or production, ultimately lowering costs, and thus prices, which can only serve to improve conditions for employees through job security and buying power.
2) Without preferring sustenance farming/production over the surplus production we have today, I don’t know how you could argue with the benefits of commandeering lands for the purpose of the greater good.
3) Are we on the same page here? Curious....
4) I’ve never professed to be an outright Rand disciple. I also don’t see Objectivist being these bloodthirsty, dog-eat-dog monsters, stabbing each other in the neck over every dime we find, that altruists like to paint us as. I just think that with as many as is possible seeing to their own needs to the best of their ability, the better society will fare as a whole I also think that most people, when given the opportunity to slack, will slack, knowing that somebody will cover their ass. I think I’m among the overwhelming majority among those who consider themselves Objectivists.
I would also agree with your last comment, as there is nothing within the tenets of Objectivism that counters that sentiment. It only states that we serve our own interests FIRST, not to simply ignore those in need. Rand specifically spoke to helping others, so long as it doesn’t force one to deny their own interests. I also think she understood that we would all likely, at some point need assistance, and that helping others meant that others would help you. There is nothing more Objectivist than the Golden Rule.
This is terrific. Thank you.
Shortest possible version: Liberty is good, coercion and submission is evil.
Submission is not evil, domination is.
I can’t believe I was brainwashed to believe this lady and her ideas were to be considered the devil reincarnated. She makes too much sense not to follow and understand her teachings. I came to similar conclusions on my own self journey a couple years back(a life well lived is a life where you have the freedom and ability to pursue your own selfish interests regardless of societal expectations) and feel validated that she has trumpeted the same conclusions for decades before.
This is what Milton Friedman talks about in his lectures when it comes to economics.
Noone can make a PENCIL !!!!
Hey ARI, suggestion: make a video like this focusing on the proof of egoism. Talk about the "why" of egoism and the "why not" of altruism. Good idea right?
Ego can not access objectivity if it exist at all. Ancient greek philosopher's were saying that much. The existence of ego I guess we could consider objective, but nothing that comes of ego can ever be objective, even if coincidentally it matched objective reality (if it exist)
Logic is not objective itself nor is a million human individuals logic that agrees, not 100 trillion peoples logic that agrees.
Any observable & unverifiable claim on metaphysics is not objective. One cannot redefine objectivity and think it rational. If Rand were still around, the most push back I think she would be getting is on her idea of objective. I think it would go a little bit like Peterson and Harris's hashing out meaning of truth which I haven't heard yet. Was Rand a solipsist?
Who is John Galt? He is the results of his own thinking starting today.
I live under simple rules.
1 - Facts are facts, the sun is hot, the sky is above my head, water cools.
2- Man is inherent to always want self-interest in any degree from a large amount to even a small one, hence white lies.
3- Be good to a society that is good to you, not by the emotional content it provides but the factual knowledge you are sustained for physical life and to protect lives even if they aren't your own as long as you know its in your scope to do so.
4- Sacrifice can be influential but only because of the impact it gives and what message it sends, not of the action in it's self. Sacrifice can come in many forms from physical to moral and as always, it shall be only up to your discretion. (Don't do what people as you to do if it brings you harm without purpose.)
5- A person's faith is their own, however, if that faith details to bring harm to you, you may protect yourself depending on the severity of the danger...if life threatening, protect your life, if not, be alert and aware but not vigilant.
6- Be a living proof of yourself. Don't just talk about trying to be someone trying to achieve a perfection of self...do it, let people talk about you, not you of yourself.
7- Love and cherish the lives you choose to connect to...once they are gone, they are gone. Facts are facts.
8- Anger is only worthy in minute amounts, overwhelming anger is loss of complete control. Lose enough to fight back but not enough to lose yourself.
9- Never stand for a labeling philosophy. You are human and complex and intangible...Stop putting yourself in boxes. You aren't purely anything, hell, your own genetics screams this : All male are born female until an extra chromosome kicks in. It takes one chromosome to do that, imagine and abnormality where two or more actually occur. You can't put any labels because they simply don't exist. You aren't born with a label on your foot telling you which God owns you. You aren't purely donuts or bagels. Stop boxing yourself in when you can learn to shoot a gun, play a violin and learn a different language all in the same year...You aren't a shooter, a violinist and polyglot, you are just someone with interests and preferences.
10- Do not ever shove your opinions down people's throats, agree or disagree but to bully them with your opinions just makes you an asshole. Agree or disagree, do it physically, verbally, intellectually, don't care but just get the point across to the other person that you don't hate them but disagree and want to take a stand.
11- Violence is natural but too much violence is just a marker for a very troubled mind, punches exchanged in a drunken brawl is acceptable...they need to duke it out, but stabbing a guy in that brawl just reflects more on the troubled state of the attacker's mind. Killing is for war, keep it there and if insecurity is the factor...some one do us a favor and knock that guy's lights out, I'm talking to his friends.
12- You don't need enemies. Haters don't mean you are doing things right, just means you decided to do it loud for attention. Do you but leave all of us out of it if you can't handle harsh criticism.
13- Listen to music. Most us go on the grind with our ears listening to every bad news in the world and in turn spread them making the atmosphere shitty. Listen to music, change your atmosphere then engage with people properly because they didn't wake up in the morning to hear bad news, we all have to go on the grind...leave the drama for when we go out for a drink.
14- Charity isn't evil. Ayn Rand got this down perfectly...I give cause I want to give because I don't want to see someone suffer which obviously makes my life better. Now giving someone something in the hopes to coerce them to pay back or to manipulate their perception of me...that's down right evil.
15- Be a mentor when you can. We got enough bad eggs out in the world cause no one bothers to give them the time and to help guide them. A lot of the bad kids in the world could have been better people if only they had a big brother or sister to listen to them and help them weed out the weird skewed views of the world cause our media isn't exactly quality TV. (I had a kid once tell me he thinks that bragging and puffing his chest meant he was the coolest guy and cited people like Panda was a hero. If thought this was bad, a teenage girl once told me that she only goes for playas because she saw them as confident and girls "like dat"...I told them both, stop confusing Arrogance for Confidence.)
16- Smile more. It's nothing but it helps not fill the mood of the room with a feeling of persecution. Smile more, costs nothing.
Nearly a lot of these simple guidelines align with AYN RAND but at the same time, many don't. That's cause I'm human and don't belong to a Philosophy. Let's be human, saves us time.
Just knock out those bums who are all about politics in the politics and real life...you don't need to pick sides, you own the fence.
What it does to me as an individual? How to analyze it objectively? How to live this philosophy while acknowledging the fact that man cannot live in isolation?
The visuals in this video really aid the teaching process and highlight just how logical her mind worked.
How can you simultaneously argue for a state that protects man's 'rights' including the right to private property and also demand a complete separation of state and economics? The fundamental basis of capitalism is upheld by the state, as it it the state which enforces claims of property and which produces and distributes currency and enforces its value. As long as capitalism exists a complete seperation of state and economics is a literal impossibility,
A sincere question I'd like an Objectivist to answer:
While I find Rand's ethics sound in many areas of life, how would they work in the military? The virtues that are generally required of a soldier usually involve altruism. An ideal soldier (the kind that win conflicts) is willing to sacrifice both his independence, his comfort, and his safety for the well-being of his nation. How would you reconcile this with rational self-interest?
Matthew Campbell
I ask you, isn't the soldiers action an act of selfishness? Hes acting for himself, and him sacrificing himself is what he truly wants to do.
When a soldier is in the heat of the moment, he can run. He is not brainwashed to stay. Brotherhood is driven into the soldier's mind but he has every right to run away and save his life.
A soldier is still selfish if he sacrifices himself, since he is working under his own jurisdiction and desire. "No man left behind" can only work if the men themselves believe it on an individual level.
Matthew Campbell In one of her books a character says: "I would die for you, but I would never live for you". I think that should explain the situation of a soldier whose primary goal is to defend HIS country.
+Matthew Campbell You miss the point. She says that no one has the right to sacrifice YOUR life except you. I can be willing to sacrifice my own life for the country or my family but no one has the moral right to sacrifice me but me.
+OmegaSephiroth112 He raises a great point. Isn't a country just an arbitrary concept? Also, if we accept that coercion should never be used to extract property from others, what about the coercion used to fund the military? If capitalism is the best approach to human relations, why should security not be subject to the same principles. Doesn't consistent Objectivism lead straight to Anarchy?
TheRosyCodex To answer the second question, Ayn Rand stated that military, police, and courts were things that must always be government/public services, and she hated Anarchism. So, there was a point where she thought that government was necessary.
How did the man who wrote Grapes of Wrath , a life long Socialist get Freedom and the Value of the Individual’s Mind so right in one of his seminal novels , East of Eden . It is dualism at its best:
“And this I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, ideology or government which limits or destroys the individual. This is what I am and what I am about. I can understand why a system built on a pattern must try to destroy the free mind, for that is one thing which can by inspection destroy such a system. Surely I can understand this, and I hate it and I will fight against it to preserve the one thing that separates us from the uncreative beasts. If the glory can be killed, we are lost.”
-John Steinbeck, Author and Life Long Socialist
Amazing philosophy....
yea amazingly ignorant
+gb997
Please elaborate.
he won't
Parodist Not without completely distorting Objectivism into something it isn’t.
It's not amazing, it is a narcissist explaining why he should be able to what ever he wants.
@2:25 Man she spittin straight facts 💯 😤
Awareness is known by awareness alone; is the sole irreducible axiom of reality. To put forth a syllable to the contrary is but to concede.
You meant to say 'syllogism' not 'syllable'. Also, a tautology is not an axiom. Stupid people desperate to sound clever...
I think we all have to remember where Rand got her contrast;
She came from an Altruistic society that existed through Force to a free society. She understood the imperfection that it was created on and the imperfection that still existed. But, the idea itself IS perfect. That's the struggle: ensuring the Rights of everyone to pursue their own self-interest without infringement.
The flaw in a free society is that it allows its enemy (Altruists) to exist within its boundaries. Which proves Rand's ultimate point: its not the Freedom itself; its what the Individual DOES with Freedom.
Don't ask what your country can do for you neither ask what you can do for your country.
Just ask: "How can I prosper and live a good life, respecting the lives and rights of others?"
We need some more stories or novels. Just like Isaac Asimov had a series of books incorporating his three rules of robotics, we need stories about a society and situations where objectivism's rules are applied just as strictly. Ayn Rand institute needs to commission works of fiction to bring objectivism to life on the page before it can come to life in reality. Directly teaching people has limited utility. Tell them a story and they never forget it.
***** dont forget anthem
Of course, but I meant new stories. I liked "Mister A" by Steve Ditko but maybe some creative science fiction of the world that could be if objectivism dominated society.
vszasz There is a video game series called Bioshock which deals with the aftermath of a failed objectivist society in the 1960s. It's actually a form of science fiction despite it taking place in the past. You should check it out.
Thanks did not know of it - and it sounds very interesting.
vszasz Glad I could help out!
she changed my life
Visited your site and subscribed.
Very thought provoking...
She was so so so close to figuring out anarcho-capitalism, sadly she remained with two feet at both sides of the fence in this respect. If you reject the initiation of violence as the means of relating among people you cannot justify the creation of an entity with a monopoly on the use of force, no matter how restricted or "legally" limited. We are living the un intended consequences of that very experiment everyday..
She explicitly stated that govt is to have a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. Govt is a necessary good.
Problem with Anarcho-Capitalism is it's just a short daydream before some azzholes form a totalitarian government or some already existing government invades.
Use of force is too tempting as a shortcut to $ and power.
Forming government divorced from $ you prevent this outcome.
Even some of the more reasonable ancaps conclude their system would work only if most of the population was reasonable enough already.
That's why they promote peaceful parenting as a measure to heal the psyche of most people.
Nothing wrong with peaceful parenting or reasonable population, however in the meantime your apathy to today's politics may make us loose even the last remains of capitalism.
Some less reasonable ancaps are like communists or RBE people, they want to change the system in order to change the people in hope it will make a New Man. That is false and azzholish because what they really mean is to 'world outta burn and people die'
Anarcho capitalism is not a moral code. Here Rand establishes a system of values. Only then she comes to the conclusion that her type of capitalizm is the only feasable political and economic system.
I would suggest reading Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux. Compelling stuff on the subject, and a relatively short read (it's also free as a pdf).
***** A free market presupposes that the initiation of physical force is already banned by an agency so constituted as to enforce the ban in an objectively proper and impartial way. There cannot be a free market when there are competing agencies that have arbitrary/subjective force at their disposal in the "competition."
Please see this essay for more:
objectivismforintellectuals.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/an-objectivist-refutation-of-anarcho-capitalism-market-anarchy/
Some people get shocked when they hear that altruism is evil but think about It. If you work hard to set yourself up in life, you'll probably do more good for the society than just die in some war for the glory of your god or a country. You don't owe anyone anything and nobody owes you. In a capitalist society you are free to do what you want and if you fuck up, there is nobody to blame but yourself, while in communist society you probably won't end up on the streets but that's because the government decides everything for you, you just have to obey and deal with everything because you can't change anything. Not everyone is equal but that's how life Is and that's what motivates us to become better.
If one were to actually read Ayn Rand's fiction, not just her philosophical works, there would definitely be a greater understanding of what Ayn Rand wanted and expected of her beliefs and of their future legacy. Ayn Rand did believe that objectivism was the only way to live in this reality and that perhaps, in order to be happy, one must 'conform' to the objective truth of it.. However, in theory (as I believe everything is theory), she probably did not want everyone to follow her ideals around like a clan of imitators, a bunch of Peter Keatings playing Manson family with her philosophies. She, perhaps, from what I've read of her fiction (Anthem, We the Living, halfway through The Fountainhead), believed that one should take her philosophies, the old, the not yet dated, and intertwine them with the new and novice or simply to consider them for a moment and throw them out the window with the morning trash. One thing, however, a thing seen through every word she has ever written, upholds the core of objectivism and was probably believed to be the most important thing an individual should embrace. It is not reason or capitalism or an objective reality at all, but the beauty and necessity of self interest. To want what you want simply because you want it. To say I and never we. And to dream without the influence of the masses.
Will you merely follow?
Will you say I or Ayn Rand?
Powerful.
I'm starting to really like Ayn Rand and her ideas.. which one of their books should I read first: The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged?
doesn't matter which one you read first, but Atlas Shrugged is better so i'd start with that.
Milton Friedman said of her, that she was: “an utterly intolerant and dogmatic person who did a great deal of good” but I am still not sure if he knew that Atlas was holding the Heavens not Earth, so Atlas couldn't shrug a flying...:))) This colossal mistake is making obviously her Objectivism a silly woman's opinions and for me personally she is the greatest nonsense of the 20th century. And don't let me start how she was collecting government money, while dying of lung cancer, but of course, under the name Ayn O'Connor :)))
Read Tolstoy instead :)))
None. The Virtue Of Selfishness.
i love her
Unfortunatiely, she did not mention here Esthetics, which kind of makes this incomplete
"Ayn Rand’s personal life was consistent with her philosophy of not giving a shit about anybody but herself. Rand was an ardent two-pack-a-day smoker, and when questioned about the dangers of smoking, she loved to light up with a defiant flourish and then scold her young questioners on the “unscientific and irrational nature of the statistical evidence.” After an x-ray showed that she had lung cancer, Rand quit smoking and had surgery for her cancer. Collective members explained to her that many people still smoked because they respected her and her assessment of the evidence; and that since she no longer smoked, she ought to tell them. They told her that she needn’t mention her lung cancer, that she could simply say she had reconsidered the evidence. Rand refused." Ask yourself this question: What would your life have been like as a child if Ayn Rand had been your mother?www.rawstory.com/2020/02/clinical-psychologist-explains-how-ayn-rand-helped-turn-the-us-into-a-selfish-and-greedy-nation-2/
Thank you
Reason to the end. (Salute)
*BEAUTIFUL!* brought tears to my eyes
Overreaction?
Wishing won't make it so.
Ok, then don't wish, make it so, and if you can't make it so accept this, and find what opportunities can come from this. After all, what is the worst outcome of things?
This guy John Oliver took a hit at Ayn Rand’s philosophy without any underlying context of her philosophy. Ppl mostly fixate on the words like ‘selfishness’ without any grounding on where the term came from and what it was meant to refer other than what is defined cos it’s quite abstract and is to be used in umpteen number of contexts.
How does anybody find it in them to judge her without reading a single book of hers? This woman is a blessing from god for ppl like myself who are being sculpted by the infinite kinds of pain this world/life is more than willing to give. It’s necessary pain. Men must read her works. Not to compare but to give a sense of why I say so- Jordan Peterson will look like a simp if compared to her body of work
The sad part about this video is that it only has a little over 100000 views.
This is striking ty
wow nice video and sound effect.
The fact that so many people seem to mock anyone who mentions Ayn Rand as an inspiration is quite telling. Common sense isn’t valued anymore. Statism abounds perhaps worse than ever before in the USA. Fight back with your mind!!!
Cosmosaic If Ayn Rand is an inspiration to you, then you’re a fucking ghoul. When you mention that she’s an inspiration, it tells everyone that you don’t give a shit about anyone but yourself.
Reality will not be "objective" until we fully understand reality
It is amazing that some educated people think Ayn Rand's childish philosophy makes sense. It's functionally equivalent to superstitious religion. She says here that "Reality exists as an objective absolute. Facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears .. reason is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, " and that man "must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself". What she did here is attempt to give her main argument credibility by first saying that facts are facts (which is true), and she uses that as a segue into her personal ideas about the value of reason. The problem is that reason is NOT by a long shot always based on facts, and that two intelligent people can reason very very differently about the same facts. Additionally her "facts are facts" statement is meant to give credibility to her OPINION that man must exist for his own sake, and not sacrifice himself or sacrifice others. This is NOT a fact, it is how she felt (emotionally) and how she reasoned things based on her own values. The fact is that some people want to sacrifice themselves for others, and this FACT suits their individual desires and makes them happy, although Rand felt otherwise, but both schools of thought are based on reasoning, not "objective reality". And you who blindly follow Rand and defend her adolescent statements are no different than others who partake of man worship or worship of a god like figure the way Christians or Muslims do. SMH.
There is another Wording in Hindu Philosophy that Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam means All world is a family.
Bharat(India) is the only country which never attack another country for just sake of imposing it's philosophy, at its good time in history.
But I definitely admire Ayn Rand for the beautiful novel like Atlas Shrugged.
well ayn rand never said to hurt others for their own benifit. indian philosophy also focuses on finding answers to one's own happiness while striving for self interest but that doesnt mean to hurt others .
so i guess ayn rand was also trying to say same thing. one thing also i find common in ayn rand philosphy and vedanta that they see man very high in contrast to other species.
Love this one. :)
How was Capitalism invented in the USA when people have been trading since the beginning of time?
trading isn't inherently capitalism
@@dylansingh3297 Voluntary transactions between free individuals who decide to celebrate a contract based on subjective values they both consider worth their time
One could consider the investment is the good relationship they’re building transaction after transaction. That’s the capital. The human action itself.
@@filarfragueiro my initial point was that there are other systems that use markets as well, but yes, i'm not sure why she said capitalism was invented in the USA
I don't pick sides. But when I was in college Marxism and the Communist Manifesto was required, but not Ayn Rand. What a shame I never learned much about her until after college and enjoyed several of her books.
In a world that weaponized morality and empathy against you; you may find yourself more agreeable with Ayn Rand's POVs
Ayn Rand's words should be preached in Colleges today.
I doubt that will happen, however it would be good.
Nothing should ever be PREACHED in colleges.
Equating capitalism and freedom is a HUGE leap. In its purest form, capitalism is more in line with absolutist feudalism: the rich have the econimic (and hence, political and even military) power to exploit the poor in whichever way they like. It's not a coincidence that the most capitalist societies in history (Pinochet's Chile, contemporary China, Singapore, etc.) are autocratic regimes where the average citizen is basically voiceless and powerless, and rich elites pull all the strings. Rand had this naive notion that economic success somehow equates talent, supreme ability and worthiness. But in a world where wealth (and, perhaps even more importantly, connections and infrastructure) are inherited rather than earned, and success more often than not results from unscrupulous exploitation rather than hard work and extraordinary skills, it's simply not true.
Most importantly, however, is Objectivism's total inability to see how interconnected and interdependent both society and the ecosystem are. There is no strength in atomization. Turning the world into a Hobbesian gladiatorial arena doesn't work to the benefit of the individual, but ultimately harms everyone - even those hiding behind thick walls guarded by paid security. There is a reason why our species evolved as a social animal, and why our instinctive response to anti-social behaviour is so strongly pronounced.
Whatever, just don't take money (by force) that you have not earned and we will be fine.
People who don't like Ayn Rand either don't understand her (willfully or otherwise), like exploiting others for their own gain, or are just plain evil.
I'm not saying that I agree with her 100%, but she is correct about most things.
Sigh... If only man had the moral strength to uphold a society like this. It would have been an utopia.
Can someone explain how Altruism leads to "Sacrificial furnaces"?
Mandatory altruism leads to socialism which leads to human sacrifice/abuse by government.
If you can read "Atlas Shrugged" all the way through,
you are incredibly patient.
Exactly
So i can look for my family first and not worry for the common good, except that of my family's, which tin turn leads me to sacrifice for them.
Allen Greenspan's adherence to the Randian Objectivist viewpoint and his failure to oversee and regulate the housing market is among the major causes of the mortgage crisis that tanked this nation's economy. It is a good example of how and ideological overarching viewpoints are detached from any analysis os what is effective.
I can only see objectivism and libertarianism as very dangerous for this reason among others. Libertarianism is good for those with means and bad for everyone else.
The Dark Ages and Feudalism were Libertarianism in action.
***** The reason you don't have lead poisoning is regulation. Most cancer research is carried by the government through NIH. Waste water disposal, roads, scientific research, NASA, funding of public universities, pell grants, the internet, etc. All created by the American government. Human beings are insignificant, but together we can get to the moon.
***** sorry, but not all scientists are rich enough to finance their own labs. Experiments are expensive. What private company would find the LHC? Non-profits? They aren't enough. We invest about 40 billion dollar in medical research. Private pharmaceutical only about 7 billion. There's no way to fill the gap
David J Gill Actually the dark ages were socialism/welfare/altruism in action. The crash in 2008 was caused by a socialist infiltration in our government. Libertarianism is good for everyone.
Kevin Lopez Legalize hemp in all its forms and see what can be done in a kitchen. It'd blow your mind.
The 40 Bil in government funded research have cost the industry a meager couple of millions to get the right politicians into the right positions to authorize the spending of your money for the benefit of an industry. A limited government would not distorted the market that way.
Tony Montana Altruism infiltration? WOW I didn't know wall street were giving out free money
Amazing👍👍👍👍👍👍 mam.
Safe to say she was certainly not a democrat...
Keep fighting the good fight
Like always,, thinking that just one principle, if it's purely liberal, or socialist, or conservative, leads to bad ends. And therefore it leads to a bad society. Rand is speaking about harms of altruism but she actually talks about despotism. Totalitarism or nazism is aiming at power, and only that, not altruism or any form of common good. So it needs to keep in mind of collective good in some sense, and (like we do in Nordic countries) at the same time to promote free market and society. This was the idea of e.g. J.S. Mill who created his "human considering" liberalism well before Ayn Rand. Rand's liberalism is really social darwinism in a way that Darwin himself would never supported. At the same time she supported pure capitalism which, as we all can see, does not really reward those who actually make the profit, meaning innovators and workers.
Rush 2112!!😎✌️
Robert Krober jr. you get it
4:27 would it not be hilarious if at the very end of the graphic presentation, and with no explanation, the dollar sign and the church move toward each other and merge into one church/dollar symbol?
I was in Charlie's position. I don't know if I was wrong for not snitching, but ruining someone's career for a victimless crime in front of a kangaroo court because you're afraid of personal loss? Well, it builds a hell of a lot of character taking the punishment for another person's mistake. Maybe it's wrong... but as I saw it, it was the person that did its responsibility to own up to his own actions. And I'm not gonna ruin his career, maybe his life for it...
Please, do add subtitles in english.
"Essentially Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” was to grab what you can. That’s not a philosophy; it’s a rationale for a morally bankrupt life...." - Al Rossi
One question I have for objectivists on objectivism: If you own a farm and there are people who are starving and unable to pay for your food, based only on objectivism would you give them the food? Assume that you have a surplus of food, so no-one will suffer if you do give the food away. Also, assume they'll never be able to pay you back or trade anything for the food.
That's something I'd like to know about, since the answer isn't obvious to me. If we're going by the capitalism part of objectism, then it seems you have to trade one thing for another. However, there are other parts of objectivism which might allow for giving the food away, but I'm not sure. The self-interest part might necessitate that you don't give them the food. However, the perception of other people on you might make it hard to you to do business if people found out you let people die. Anyway, it's a part of this particular philosophy that I don't understand.
EDIT: One possible outcome here is that it's up the that particular individual as to how they act. So, perhaps the answer, using objectivism, can be either. Give them food to save their lives or let them die. Objectivism might not play a part in the decision.
If you have a farm and excess food you give the food for people who starve in exchange for work. The excess food you have is the fruit of your labor. You sacrificed your labor and your time to have it.
The question you gave is extremely broad. If for example the starving person is a handicap and unable to work or provide anything in exchange you can of course donate food.
"Objectivism holds that there is nothing wrong with charity, so long as one is pursuing one's own values in providing it."
Also i think your idea / view of capitalism is extremely black and white when in reality is something much more complex.
Jon Snow
Thank you for the response.
"Jon snow" replied well. I just wanted to add that money is not the only value in objectivism. Like stated, goods can be voluntarily traded for other values such as work, other goods, or simply in recognition of the value you hold in the person receiving your goods.
Also, your question doesn't define who the "other people" are. Do you know them? Do they hold any personal value to you? I can't imagine any of my friends withholding food without payment from me if I was starving.
If these other people are strangers, there is certainly nothing immoral or even taboo about charity, provided you don't consider it your moral imperative to provide for them. (I.e. if you choose to send them away, you don't deserve to burn in hell)
Inactive
Thank you for replying.
I guess the important thing to remember is free will. The idea is that someone shouldn't be forced (or pressured) to "be good", because it may be unethical to force people to act.
Soulsphere001 lol....it may seem funny if I say but thanks to you for being polite.
It is fascinating that many people believe Ayn Rand's thinking should be the basis of our society. I understand her frustration, but extremes are not sustainable in society, either way. Calling it 'objectivism' does not make it make sense. Non violence does not mean the absence of domination and ruthlessness. The wicked Nazi's were for domination and ruthlessness, just in a different form than Rand's opposing ideas. Rand praised America's system and claimed to reject violence and force, but did she realize that America was established by way of violence, force, and plundering, SMH.
Well, you are right in a sense. But let's get specific: Slavery was not Capitalism. In fact, it was anti-Capitalist. It was anti-Constitution. This was the major concern of Founders like Hamilton, Adams and Jefferson. They all knew it would have to be dealt with in the future before a free society could be realized. Hence, referencing the 'struggle for a more perfect union.' The atruggle never ends.
But I notice you conveniently left out some other philosophies that are the very definition of tyranny.
Please read any of her books.
Please send names of her books
Now are you stating that Capitalism & Democracy are the same thing?
Yes. Capitalism is the utilization of the right for humans to determine their own destiny as independent individuals. This is the heart of _true_ liberty.
Edoardo Quarta you vote with your wallet each time you choose what to eat or where to live and you choose the size of your wallet each time you choose what work to do. Every action you take is both your choice and your vote and we all have the power to choose so we all vote, that is true democracy. Capitalism is no different. What the left claims to capitalism to be is simply propaganda in hopes you will submissively choose the tyranny of communism.
She says A = A and that concept was long hard to grasp for me. Some think that A = B can be true too on condition that A = B but that is not objective. If we are objective than the apple is the apple and the man is the man. The man can never be the apple.
The Goddess of Sense
Oh My God
Amazing Blessing to humans