@InfamousCrimes Only idiots. That's why polarization is good - the people who have different values disappear. The cowards who don't express their values freely have around them people who have way different values and should not be there.
@chespokotota I know little of Evola to say much. What are the fundamentals that make it more useful? Rand is far from perfect but did much great work.
Republicans too. All people caught up in the dog and pony show that is full of ridiculous and criminal demoblicans and republicrats could benefit from true freedom principles.
@jon doe - "The failure of collectivism"? Show me the individual who can make an automobile from raw materials to finished and on the road. Show me the individual who can make a jumbo jet, again from raw materials to finish. Go back to Romans versus Barbarians - who wins, the barbarians who fight as a mob of individual or the Romans who fight as an organised army? Whether you like it or not society operates on a planned collectivist model. Rand's problem is how to deal with those who are surplus to requirements, whether absolutely or temporarily, and her solution is - "let them starve." You should read the social and economic history of England. After a couple of hundred years of Rand's philosophy England was forced to conscript men to fight in the Boer war, the establishment were shocked at the physical state of the male population and that was a major reason for the introduction of the welfare State. Unregulated Capitalism destroys people and ill health and disease is a drain on the very fabric of the nation. Whether you like it or not, a modern Nation is a joint enterprise in which all have a share and it pays for each to look out for the other.
@psykosonikwarrior - With the collapse of the Soviet Union I spoke with various communists and proposed to them the Communism doesn't work and that the collapse was proof. The reply was an inevitable -"No, that wasn't Communism, real communism hasn't been tried." or words to that effect. At an earlier date we had Ayn Rand writing a book - "Capitalism: The UNTRIED Ideal" Same excuse for Communism not working, Capitalism doesn't work because "real" Capitalism has never been tried. Rand is very appealing and persuasive to the naive and economically ignorant but to the others she is a purveyor of fairy tales. And furthermore, she doesn't even begin to understand the underlying problem with Capitalism and apparently neither do you. I quite agree with you that top-down control of the economy only serves to destroy the natural order, but a society living without disturbing the natural order will never progress much beyond a comfortable subsistence level. It is a society in which no great works will ever get done and I challenge you to show me an example that proves me wrong. Capitalism is power through wealth. The wealth can be money, plant and machinery, land or a combination of all three. Power always corrupts and it inevitably seeks to control or collude with, in one way or another, all its rivals. Adam Smith mentions this when he says that whenever two or three people of the same trade get together, even for social reasons, the conversation always ends up in a conspiracy to defraud the public. Consider the USA after the civil war, before the end of the century a handful of men controlled just about everything - the railroads, oil, coal, steel - and could screw the public. Such was the resentment among the general population that the government had to intervene and legislate anti-trust laws and once the government intervened - more power for politicians and no bureaucrat ever put himself out of a job. That is the natural outcome of Capitalism, you either have government intervention of revolution. So to paraphrase Machiavelli - stop dreaming about ideal economic systems that never were and never will be and deal with the real world.
@@fredgillespie5855 I agree that power corrupts, but if you read Rand she talks about the difference between the power of money, and the power of violence. The government has the use of the latter. And corporations buy it with the former. She was opposed to corporate control of the country and recognized that the corporations actually caused the reaction against them in the early 1900s. Her answer to those issues you mentioned with the railroads, oil, coal, and steel is to stop the purchasing of monopolies by corporations through the government. NOT to nationalize those industries, or allow the (still today) purchase of practical monopolies.
@Artisan They like corporate property rights so long as they allow monopolies to people who had nothing to do with the inventions. (Cough drug companies.)
Marx turned the Heglian Master & Slave dialect and Reason into the Dialectic of Materialism. Last Century that cost 120 MILLION Chinese and Russian and Ukrainian lives in peacetime. Murdered by fellow "Socialist Citizens" by forced labor, stavation and disease ! Voltaire “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” Benjamin Franklin "It will herald the end of the republic when the people learn they can vote themselves money." Lord Byron 1805 "All governments steal from their Citizens." John Adams "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by sword. The other is by debt." Franklin Delano Roosevelt “All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”
george george My claim is NOT that entitlements are like servants. My claim is that the right to entitlement is like the right to servants. Your long explanation didn’t even include the word, “right.”
Rights are owed? TO WHOM? "Entitlements are earned?" Isn't that a contradiction in terms? How does one become "entitled". By whom? To what? You are playing with words, whose MEANINGS you have 100% bass ackwards. Useless tools. I'd say you have a RIGHT to the fruits of your labor. NOBODY is "entitled" (unless they have a gun to your head) to TAKE them from you. SEE?
@@michaelshapiro1543 Rights are owned by human beings. Entitlements are earned because nothing is free in life. Where is the 'contradiction' ? What you're doing is trying to play with words, because you're not very bright... (sigh)
@@willnitschke : Words often have more than one meaning, and WE get caught up or caught out by them. Changing word meanings is often agenda driven, & that is what I OPPOSE, esp. with "Entitlements". What we agree on is that something "earned" is deserved; something demanded & taken by force (from one who "earned" it, is NOT OK, and should be opposed.
@@michaelshapiro1543 There is nothing confusing or misleading about the way Rights and Entitlements were used in the poster's statement so what are you babbling about?
@@willnitschke : Sorry, I should not have been so polite. Dictionary: "Entitlement" - the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program." Who gives Government the power to confer a "right"? How will governments PAY for "rights" they confer, since governments have little or no "money" in their own - ahem - right? According to some "folks", foreign border-jumpers, for example, have MANY "rights" - right to jump borders; right to drivers' licenses. They are also "entitled" to free rent, free English lessons, a job & a vote. (Maybe 3 votes.) REALLY? NOPE.
You will find the same with Thomas Sowell. A lot of the questions we have today were answered 30 - 40 even 50 years ago. I think the issue is that people spend more time talking and not enough time listening and pondering.
True principles of actual Free Market Capitalism should be taught to our children in public education institutions... But they are not, so now we are here.
You are absolutely correct, if everybody understood the principles actual Free Market Capitalism instead of that knowledge being confined to corporate management and investors then we would not have ended up with capitalism being replaced by corporatism (or crony capitalism) in which the business of business is to reduce competition, information and rational thinking, eg by lobbying for excessive regulation of production processes to price start ups out of the market, lobbying against consumer information regulations and investing heavily in emotive advertising and marketing to persuade consumers that their wants are needs.
In fact, the opposite views are taught openly. Social studies teachers in the US now teach kids that the American Revolution was bad because it was "white men not wanting to pay taxes". I am not kidding, seen it firsthand.
I hear her saying you have a responsibility to take care of your life. You are not entitled to being taken care of by the government or others. I'm so tired of liberal politicians telling everyone what human rights they are entitled too. Who listening? Those looking to get what they are not willing to work for. And what right does someone have ( i.g., Bernie Sanders) to make another provide his labor to grant these entitlements?
Something that deserves comment is the interviewer - he was sharp, prepared, not argumentative, but presented tough but genuine questions in a very fair manner. Kudos.
The only real rights, at least as far as government is concerned, are negative rights. That is to say, things that government is prohibited from doing to you.
Trump is doing exactly what she's saying, he's cutting regs and setting the market free and it's benefiting everyone, thus reducing dependency. If only the other half of the country could see that, then TDS would go away.
@MSONA Everything in society that you benefit from and take for granted is created by business. Business is what gives everyone jobs. You can't just magically expect the government to care for you like your parents did. The government gets all its money from business too. Sure, you think business is 'evil' because you're a fucking moron, LOL.
@MSONA And black Americans suffer the most poverty because there are no opportunities and horrible schools that teach them nothing. But you as a democrat do not seem to care about those items since it all deliberate anyways.
Trump has cut a tiny, tiny, tiny part of our massive amount of regs and conservatives say its a big part. Trump was a big govt Dem. Now hes a big govt Rep. Trump has not cut SS, Medicare, the Fed, Federal Income Tax, Antitrust, EPA, etc, etc, etc. Conservatives are big govt statists.
That was outstanding. I dedicate this video to all of the leftists and morally bankrupt politicians. This made me really happy. Thank you liberty pen!!
@@moremoneyfordreadnoughts1100 Just mean I enjoy her philosophy, as not many in uk understands individualism, capitalism with reason. UK understands about individuals and capitalism, yet doesn't follow it consistently, as uk has a mixed economy. So it's bizarre in uk, hearing people like the Conservatives talk about free market, yet praise the NHS, as well talk about individuals, yet being continuously push to think of others dogmatically. With respect I mean no harm or problems with you, as I do agree a lot of Ayn Rand's points on collectivism and altruism. If I'm bias or wrong then do tell me, I'm not a liberal or conservative, I am a individualist as well big fan to reason.
Such a beautiful mind, I miss her. She wasn't perfect, but she was perfectly wonderful. A full set of her books and writings are here in my reading room.
9:55 History repeated itself 75 years later in 2008, Slick Willie *mandated* the lowering of lending standards in 1999 (NY Times source) which directly resulted in the mortgage crash.
They are fair questions. At no point in human history did we just cast off the old and infirm because they couldn't go hunt their own food, we wouldn't exist otherwise. To accept Objectivist philosophy one must be willing to let a fellow man die for no other reason than the people around him refuse to help no matter how much excess they have, to be willing to accept the potential for EXTREME income inequality. Most people are not willing to accept those outcomes because most people are hardwired with empathy and a sense of 'there but for the grace of God go I' when they see tragedy befall their fellow man.
@Metallic- Except that you won't EVER meet that woman. Women's entire existence is predicated on making a man responsible for their well being & the well being of her children. Yes, I said, HER, because she does not see them as yours as well, just your responsibility. Doubt that ? Observe the many instances of judges, & society's expectations that a husband/mate support her children with another man. In a divorce, a woman keeps the child/ren, almost always, & the man keeps the burden of their support.
Hmm...how is that absolute capitalism going, Randiots? In less than 13 years, the huge corporations, their banks and wealthy owners have had to be massively bailed out by the middle class. In Rand’s utopia all of the failing banks and industries would be ignored and they would cease to be. I am sick to death of supporting the wealthy in this country. Capitalism is a loser mechanism. The corporations and the wealthy individuals should be put back on the 95% tax on any earnings over $2 million dollars. The past thirteen years have proven that laissezfaire capitalism hasn’t worked in the past and has destroyed our society twice in under 13 years. “Oh but it was the poor who signed on for bad loans and a virus, which cannot be predicted are the causes. 1) the banks lobbied Clinton to end Glass Stegall, they set up the bad loans and investments in them. 2) the virus could have been prepared for. Do you remember the Ebola virus killing millions of Americans? No? That is because President Obama believing the science poured as much resources as need to limit the Ebola outbreak to a few dozen. Unregulated capitalism has got to go, and go fast.
I don’t understand. How can you say “Laissez-faire capitalism hasn’t worked in the past and has destroyed our society twice in under 13 years”? How can something we have never had, never even been that close to having, and certainly haven’t had in the past 13 years be responsible for something? That makes no sense.
@MSONA Yeah, I was thinking you might be one of those silly communists who never learn that their way simply doesn't work. Now you have proved it. Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other system ever has or ever can. Socialism has never done anything but enslave the poor and murder them by the millions.
@MSONA One does not have to be clairvoyant to see what you are and what you are trying to accomplish. First by deriding Ran's writing style to attempt to discourage people from picking up her books, and then by insulting the only system that works, capitalism, by calling it a childish name-"malignant selfishness." I'll bet your heroes are Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, all brutal murderers. No thank you.
@MSONA I never "gushed" over anything, and you never offered any valid criticism. Only trollisms. My point is made, and you have no point. Feel free to have the last word, as I am done responding to your nonsense.
Your "rights" should never come out of someone else's pockets. This is why I stopped referring to America as a free country the day Obamacare was passed.
@MSONA Nobody forces you to work "for the wealthy". Millions and millions of people in Western societies run their own small businesses and work for themselves and have complete control over their means of production... but hold on... wait... that's really hard work.... easier to just collect a wage and bitch that you're being "oppressed". LOL. Do you even have a job? Or like most Marxists, do you live in your parent's basement and watch porn and play video games all day?
Thank you for posting this. As I listened to this I was struck by similarities to those thoughts and ideas I see in Cicero's De Officiis. Cicero argues that the rock on which our non material rights (freedom of speech, writing) directly rest upon property rights. These, property rights, he considered absolute, if rights are to be protected. He makes it reasonably clear that eminent domain is dangerous. For this, eminent domain, means that a person owns their property at the pleasure of local, state and federal governments.
That is my girl! She set my collegiate creeping lefty head straight, back in the day (my 70s days). Oh. what joy!! Ty. Will always be relevant. I claim she is our best American authoress, bar none...both in fiction and non Hot damn! Thx again for the snippet🖤🇺🇸💯
@@lostinspace699 Oh yes! how bout a constitutional lawyer in congress today. Ha! Hell, that woman coulda tried her hand at gynecology. stirrups would never be the same. Smh and lolz.. thx for commenting 🖤👏
The more I hear and read her views, the more I agree with her standpoints, she mainly defends the souvereign individual in the broadest sense possible. That's how I feel everyone must be able to live and act.
@MSONA Why is it that every sanctimonious, self righteous and entitled Marxist thinks he is a 17th century French aristocrat, sniffing his nose at those "filthy" traders and peasants... LOL.
''... rational law of morality applicable here is that every man is responsible for his own survival and that he cannot become a mortgage on the life of another man that to have the right of life does not mean that someone else has to lose his right and spend his existence supporting you..'' its very profound on many levels.
If you're in a car, and all you've ever known to sit in that car is the passenger seat, provision is second nature to you, but you've never known what it is like to be the driver... to take initiative.
So at the end of her life in 1974 she was diagnosed with lung cancer from being a heavy smoker. She was broke and had no healthcare so she finally applied for medicare and social security that she needed. What a hypocrite, the very "Entitlements" she criticized provided the very social support she needed that allowed her to live another 2 years. If she was so smart and such a intellect why didn't she take some obvious advise and stop chain smoking.
You have the right to struggle for your existence. How successful you are at that determines everything else in your life. You ask for that which you are unwilling to earn. You expect respect and are, likewise, unwilling to earn it. The odds are against you in both cases.
Good video. Looks like we still don’t have thinkers and statesmen in government. Even the first reaction by people in a downturn is to demand government intervention.
If you have a cohesive Culture and a shared morality (regarding social responsibility), some "entitlements", are understood(agreed upon by the vast majority, and empirically proven) to be fundamental to efficient productivity, and high quality of life. These "entitlements" must be rare, carefully chosen, and closely monitored for abuse... they are Moral Hazards. Without unifying traditions, and a shared sense of patriotic duty, work ethic, and neighborly compassion, there will never be agreement on the nature, or extent of such programs.
Rights are inalienable, if you are an individual human, you have rights. They are a requirement for survival. They are not granted by "society" or the state, rights can only be protected, or violated.
When I hear talks such as these I think of how it would be if we actually had real capitalism. Government stepping out of the picture, the freedom to actually compete, no absurd laws to beget obstacles in front of you and a unimpeded flow of transactions. I do see regulations as important, but I also see there is only push for more regulations and never a simplification or removal of such regulations as to lighten the load.
@@willnitschke this is true on both points. Yet, when I see countries which are thrives without regulation, I wonder if we could do better. In fact it has been shown time and time again that without regulation (at least for workers rights) unions have stepped in to self regulate the market, thereby taking government out of the picture completely.
@@TheFirstTriplefife Crucial to successful societies is trust. Commerce is not possible (or at least extremely difficult) without trust. Western societies have trust. A society such as Somalia, has none. A regulation is typically a last resort for a society that has trust. Yes, they are necessary but they are last resorts. If there are lots of jobs because the economy is good, employers must fight to keep workers, rather than exploit them.
But if we do, the only way you have a chance is we have to knock out two regulations for every new regulation. - DJT Finaly putting those paper pushers to good use. If you have a army of people just making regulations all the time.... Well, things only get more complicated.
I think she makes an eloquent argument for the right to be left alone, which extends into all aspects in ways that need exploration. It goes back to an ancient question that has not been answered, Are we each others keeper?
How can a service or product be a human right? Products and services take materials and labor to create, and very very few people want to work for free on a daily basis, so in order for products and services to be human rights, either the suppliers have to be forced to work for free (slavery) or the money has to be extorted from the population. Both options are very very immoral and unappealing to me.
"Housing is a right" was used by 4 moms to take over a house owned by a larger corporation.. Since it was empty, they felt it was their right to take it. And City Council people supported them
That is because the house was owned by the Corporations "aka banks" but maintained by the tax payers until it could be sold for profit $$$. Capitalism 101... The people suffer instead while the Rich are frolicking.
@@scruples671 yeah, what we really need is a Big Brother or a Dear Leader who represents the will of the people. Sort of like a dictator or king. Hold on... didn't we try that idea already?
Scruples To my understanding it was owned by a real estate company. Where do you get that “the taxpayer” was paying for the taxes on it or that squatters were entitled to it? Who’s “the Corporation”? You sound like someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about, but loves repeating sound bites.
@@valsedonia Scruples is using the type of uninformed rhetoric to get her followers indignant/self-righteous so they feel good about themselves when they break the law and steal other people property. Yes we have problems, but it is really around lack of supply of housing brought on by decades of policy that make it hard and expensive to build. Simplistic rhetoric is easier than the hard work to address the real problems.
I'd like to see something similar to the Jewish "year of Jubilee." Whether it would be 49yrs or 7 (preferably), I think such a law to release peoples from regulations would really help out any country which implements it. I'm not even Jewish. Nope. I just see the good track record and realize its prudent and practical to fallow suit.
This woman is brilliant. I just do not agree that every collective has to be 100% voluntary. An individual is just as well part of the society he lives in as the society is comprised of the many individuals within it.
That momentous occasion that one relinquishes their GOD given rights that are self evident to men and the body of government. All freedom is you know it is dissolved with the stroke of a pen. And you are left at the mercy of your enemies. Imagine that..
She is mistaken in one major point, without the earth we would not exist, without the fruits of society the individual would have no access to modern living conditions. In reality we are all indentured to our respective collective with no choice, we can not live as the beast in the cave, such behavior defies sanity. As such, we are absolutely entitled to a reasonable standard of living for us to have any hope to enjoy our other rights. The nature of human society is the collective responsibility we share for each other as well as the world that provides us with air to breathe and land upon which to grow food. Yes, we all have a right to a reasonable standard of living, no exemption is possible.
@Ken MacDonald Exactly. Little arse goblins like this uses abstract concepts like "the collective" because he doesn't want to admit what he is really demanding. That other INDIVIDUALS be forced to provide for him. All of them, lazy authoritarians.
To see if a right is legit, do the island test. The test is whether or not will it work if a person is alone on an island. This holds true for economic or governemnt systems as well. The moment it requires more people to function then it is basically just a variation of some form of slavery.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers
No...? Why would they? I earned a million dollars, let's say, and I choose how to dispose of it, be it spending, saving, charity, or giving to my children upon my death. It's not an entitlement, it's me exercising my property rights for the final time.
This all depends on what you are defining as a right. It is very easy to say that a specific entitlement is a right, and it is no more or less true than saying that one has the right to live. Ultimately, what we call a right is a societal choice, or a preference agreed upon by society. .
No, a right is something you have that is entirely yours and cannot be taken away from you. As soon as you demand a right such as free housing, food, healthcare, etc., you're forcing others to provide for you. You are now taking other people's right to freedom away from them.
@@willnitschke Describe the difference between a Right and a preference. Explain why the following sentence is inaccurate. A Right is a personal preference that the rest of society shares, and agrees is important enough to protect with law.
@@greenkansas @greenkansas Ah yes, this is the "concepts are just made up of words so they aren;'t real" generic argument every moron uses to 'debunk' anything they want to 'debunk' because, well, they're morons, LOL.
@@willnitschke That's not my argument, nor am I saying that rights are not real. What I am saying is that rights are preferences that society as a whole agree upon. No need to call names, we're just discussing a concept. My question is can you point out the flaw in my statement? Rights are perferences that society agree on as a whole.
@@willnitschke No one is asking anyone for other people to provide for them. People are 100% free to not participate in the economy if they so chose. They'll need to be very good farmers, hunters and craftsmen. They'll also not want air conditioning or any of the nicer amenities that life within the economy affords... but people have done it!
Rights necessitate responsibility. The natural right of survival demands harvest of sustenance by the organism. If a male lion relies on the females to bring him food, he will be quite thin and weak. The ladies COULD demand certain actions or beliefs of him to maintain their contract. If survival is based on others demands, freedom and liberty is lost to the point of possible slavery. (The lions were used as a recognizable example of role separation, not a sexist metaphor. Gender isn't needed to support this situation.) Thoughts?
Moral claims based on 'laws of nature' are ambiguous at best. If nature was capitalist, the fox would show up at the hen house and try to figure out ways to please the chickens.
@@willnitschke I used lions to keep it simple. Put humans in the same relative roles. Not based on nature. Based on roles. I should have been more succinct and direct.
Aesop said that..."God helps those who help themselves". This does not mean that a person should not seek help or assistance if needed for issues of survival. Needs over wants for certain. Issues like free education, a safe place to live, income or wealth are not RIGHTS. These things must be earned by moral means by the individual seeking them. It should not be the job of one citizen to pay for the education of another. Why should I pay for the so-called education of a person who may well grow up to despise the very society in which I live and flourish? As we see today. I do not feel that school taxes should be charged against a person period. Certainly once a child is no longer a minor their parents should be opted out of paying school taxes. Most certainly after a citizen is a senior citizen no school taxes should be paid period. We see today the education system in America failing students on so many levels. If a parent wants to educate their child they best well pay for it themselves. If a child is not worthy of an education so be it. Then we would not need to import illegals to fill lower end jobs. We would have a never ending supply of workers for those jobs. It would be wonderful if this were a perfect world but it is not. We have gotten so soft as a result of 20th Century advances. We are now to the point of increasing our technology and losing our humanity. Word.
People need to listen closely to what Ayn Rand says--she is NOT proposing freedom, happiness, and liberty. She is proposing the bondage and unhappiness that Libertarianism imposes on people who cannot or will not discern her confusing writings. It's as I keep saying: Know why Atlas Shrugged? He didn't have a clue.
@Jeffrey Johnson, and you speak blather--another libertarian tactic. It's why Atlas shrugged. He either couldn't understand or wouldn't accept what you libertarians spout. Libertarianism has not worked. Even the French intellectuals have rejected it, though they propose things much worse.
@Jeffrey Johnson, if you're not an Ayn Rand expert, then I don't feel I should even comment on your reply. If you are open-minded at all, however, then you should read about the her life and her work. I think you will see the consequences of her philosophy in her own existence. I don't know of anyone except a nihilist who would want to live that way.
And what if his "values" are evil? The Catholic Church's true Social Teaching teaches that rights come from God and that nobody has a "right" to do wrong. Also that true Freedom of Speech or Religion is not to communicate or worship error but to communicate Truth and Worship the One, True God. What the moderns call "freedom" our ancestors would call chaos or license. God bless~
"(To be a man is to glorify oneself and to subjugate other lesser men)" - Orielle Kitai "(some men are held to a higher standard then are others)" - Heigo Damask the second
Our forebears, mine included understood that America is the promise to make your OWN way. Not be given free shit like nowadays. And all the signs were in English. People wanted to become AMERICAN.
The less that is forcefully taken from a person to support those less well off the greater the amount given willingly. Look at how many more resources exist for the poor when their help comes from voluntary sources. Religious groups making shelters, youth groups doing canned food drives, bikers doing toy donation runs, charity walks. Much of that goodwill stops once it's coerced. People don't see the need to give to those who government takes from them to provide for. The good that is done becomes less visible. I'm not saying that the point of charity is your own ego. But you will give more to an organization that makes a difference you cannotice. You feel like your investment helps.
“We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”
Ayn Rand
Bars im gonna steal that thank you
Funny thing. Feminists should love ayn Rand. A woman who escaped oppression, and developed a philosophy that is still very valid today.
Agreed
But they hate her because she doesn't support socialism
A philosophy that worked in fantasy novels :) A philosophy she could not follow.
@@krystynacarpenter9444
she also didn't hate men
@InfamousCrimes Only idiots. That's why polarization is good - the people who have different values disappear. The cowards who don't express their values freely have around them people who have way different values and should not be there.
All college students and democrats need to listen to this video.
@chespokotota 😂😂
@chespokotota I know little of Evola to say much. What are the fundamentals that make it more useful? Rand is far from perfect but did much great work.
@chespokotota Maybe, but I doubt you are going to convince women to be o.k.with rape as a male natural expression of desire.Haha
@chespokotota At work.
Republicans too. All people caught up in the dog and pony show that is full of ridiculous and criminal demoblicans and republicrats could benefit from true freedom principles.
Please do more of these. I do not think I have ever heard the concept of a human right explained so succinctly.
read Atlas Shrugs
@MSONA I feel sorry people as dumb as you exist, LOL. Shouldn't you be getting dressed so you won't be late for your job at McDonalds?
@jon doe - "The failure of collectivism"? Show me the individual who can make an automobile from raw materials to finished and on the road. Show me the individual who can make a jumbo jet, again from raw materials to finish. Go back to Romans versus Barbarians - who wins, the barbarians who fight as a mob of individual or the Romans who fight as an organised army? Whether you like it or not society operates on a planned collectivist model. Rand's problem is how to deal with those who are surplus to requirements, whether absolutely or temporarily, and her solution is - "let them starve."
You should read the social and economic history of England. After a couple of hundred years of Rand's philosophy England was forced to conscript men to fight in the Boer war, the establishment were shocked at the physical state of the male population and that was a major reason for the introduction of the welfare State. Unregulated Capitalism destroys people and ill health and disease is a drain on the very fabric of the nation. Whether you like it or not, a modern Nation is a joint enterprise in which all have a share and it pays for each to look out for the other.
@psykosonikwarrior - With the collapse of the Soviet Union I spoke with various communists and proposed to them the Communism doesn't work and that the collapse was proof. The reply was an inevitable -"No, that wasn't Communism, real communism hasn't been tried." or words to that effect. At an earlier date we had Ayn Rand writing a book - "Capitalism: The UNTRIED Ideal" Same excuse for Communism not working, Capitalism doesn't work because "real" Capitalism has never been tried.
Rand is very appealing and persuasive to the naive and economically ignorant but to the others she is a purveyor of fairy tales. And furthermore, she doesn't even begin to understand the underlying problem with Capitalism and apparently neither do you. I quite agree with you that top-down control of the economy only serves to destroy the natural order, but a society living without disturbing the natural order will never progress much beyond a comfortable subsistence level. It is a society in which no great works will ever get done and I challenge you to show me an example that proves me wrong.
Capitalism is power through wealth. The wealth can be money, plant and machinery, land or a combination of all three. Power always corrupts and it inevitably seeks to control or collude with, in one way or another, all its rivals. Adam Smith mentions this when he says that whenever two or three people of the same trade get together, even for social reasons, the conversation always ends up in a conspiracy to defraud the public. Consider the USA after the civil war, before the end of the century a handful of men controlled just about everything - the railroads, oil, coal, steel - and could screw the public. Such was the resentment among the general population that the government had to intervene and legislate anti-trust laws and once the government intervened - more power for politicians and no bureaucrat ever put himself out of a job. That is the natural outcome of Capitalism, you either have government intervention of revolution. So to paraphrase Machiavelli - stop dreaming about ideal economic systems that never were and never will be and deal with the real world.
@@fredgillespie5855 I agree that power corrupts, but if you read Rand she talks about the difference between the power of money, and the power of violence. The government has the use of the latter. And corporations buy it with the former. She was opposed to corporate control of the country and recognized that the corporations actually caused the reaction against them in the early 1900s.
Her answer to those issues you mentioned with the railroads, oil, coal, and steel is to stop the purchasing of monopolies by corporations through the government. NOT to nationalize those industries, or allow the (still today) purchase of practical monopolies.
She clearly explains the difference between individual rights and government permissions.
And in a deeper sense, the difference between human rights vs. property rights.
Present Governments have little love for Rand’s rationality
Because it is Irrational.
@Artisan Didn't know she accepted abortion :[
@Artisan They like corporate property rights so long as they allow monopolies to people who had nothing to do with the inventions. (Cough drug companies.)
I don't think rationality and the current leadership of the USA are compatible.
but she's not rational. she's sentimental and on top of that misinformed about the nature of man
Entitlements being a right is like servants being a right.
Marx turned the Heglian Master & Slave dialect and Reason
into the Dialectic of Materialism. Last Century that cost 120 MILLION Chinese and Russian and Ukrainian lives in peacetime. Murdered by fellow "Socialist Citizens" by forced labor, stavation and disease !
Voltaire
“Those who can make you believe absurdities,
can make you commit atrocities.”
Benjamin Franklin
"It will herald the end of the republic when
the people learn they can vote themselves money."
Lord Byron 1805
"All governments steal from their Citizens."
John Adams
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation.
One is by sword. The other is by debt."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”
Entitlements are the same as Government Forced Christianity!
george george Servants are paid for, and entitlements are paid for. Does that make either one of them right?
george george My claim is NOT that entitlements are like servants. My claim is that the right to entitlement is like the right to servants. Your long explanation didn’t even include the word, “right.”
george george If those were actually “my words”, you would quote the exact words I wrote, and not build a strawman.
Rights are owed. Entitlements are earned. I exist I have rights. I labor, I am entitled to the fruits of that labor.
Rights are owed? TO WHOM? "Entitlements are earned?" Isn't that a contradiction in terms? How does one become "entitled". By whom? To what? You are playing with words, whose MEANINGS you have 100% bass ackwards. Useless tools. I'd say you have a RIGHT to the fruits of your labor. NOBODY is "entitled" (unless they have a gun to your head) to TAKE them from you. SEE?
@@michaelshapiro1543 Rights are owned by human beings. Entitlements are earned because nothing is free in life. Where is the 'contradiction' ?
What you're doing is trying to play with words, because you're not very bright... (sigh)
@@willnitschke : Words often have more than one meaning, and WE get caught up or caught out by them. Changing word meanings is often agenda driven, & that is what I OPPOSE, esp. with "Entitlements". What we agree on is that something "earned" is deserved; something demanded & taken by force (from one who "earned" it, is NOT OK, and should be opposed.
@@michaelshapiro1543 There is nothing confusing or misleading about the way Rights and Entitlements were used in the poster's statement so what are you babbling about?
@@willnitschke : Sorry, I should not have been so polite. Dictionary: "Entitlement" - the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program." Who gives Government the power to confer a "right"? How will governments PAY for "rights" they confer, since governments have little or no "money" in their own - ahem - right? According to some "folks", foreign border-jumpers, for example, have MANY "rights" - right to jump borders; right to drivers' licenses. They are also "entitled" to free rent, free English lessons, a job & a vote. (Maybe 3 votes.) REALLY? NOPE.
I didn't realize so many people agreed with Ayn and her beliefs...her ideas are just as appropriate today as they were when this was recorded.
You will find the same with Thomas Sowell. A lot of the questions we have today were answered 30 - 40 even 50 years ago. I think the issue is that people spend more time talking and not enough time listening and pondering.
True principles of actual Free Market Capitalism should be taught to our children in public education institutions... But they are not, so now we are here.
There shouldn't be public education.
You are absolutely correct, if everybody understood the principles actual Free Market Capitalism instead of that knowledge being confined to corporate management and investors then we would not have ended up with capitalism being replaced by corporatism (or crony capitalism) in which the business of business is to reduce competition, information and rational thinking, eg by lobbying for excessive regulation of production processes to price start ups out of the market, lobbying against consumer information regulations and investing heavily in emotive advertising and marketing to persuade consumers that their wants are needs.
In fact, the opposite views are taught openly. Social studies teachers in the US now teach kids that the American Revolution was bad because it was "white men not wanting to pay taxes". I am not kidding, seen it firsthand.
Blame the parents .
Yep, with trump and the capitalist suckling up all the money
I hear her saying you have a responsibility to take care of your life. You are not entitled to being taken care of by the government or others. I'm so tired of liberal politicians telling everyone what human rights they are entitled too. Who listening? Those looking to get what they are not willing to work for. And what right does someone have ( i.g., Bernie Sanders) to make another provide his labor to grant these entitlements?
Something that deserves comment is the interviewer - he was sharp, prepared, not argumentative, but presented tough but genuine questions in a very fair manner. Kudos.
The only real rights, at least as far as government is concerned, are negative rights. That is to say, things that government is prohibited from doing to you.
Trump is doing exactly what she's saying, he's cutting regs and setting the market free and it's benefiting everyone, thus reducing dependency. If only the other half of the country could see that, then TDS would go away.
@MSONA Everything in society that you benefit from and take for granted is created by business. Business is what gives everyone jobs. You can't just magically expect the government to care for you like your parents did. The government gets all its money from business too. Sure, you think business is 'evil' because you're a fucking moron, LOL.
@MSONA And black Americans suffer the most poverty because there are no opportunities and horrible schools that teach them nothing. But you as a democrat do not seem to care about those items since it all deliberate anyways.
Unfortunately the push away from government dependency is a bad thing. The government welfare state can be very addicting to most.
@MSONA dumber than a box of rocks😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. How many times do you need to make a fool of yourself? Please keep going though.
Trump has cut a tiny, tiny, tiny part of our massive amount of regs and conservatives say its a big part. Trump was a big govt Dem. Now hes a big govt Rep. Trump has not cut SS, Medicare, the Fed, Federal Income Tax, Antitrust, EPA, etc, etc, etc. Conservatives are big govt statists.
That was outstanding. I dedicate this video to all of the leftists and morally bankrupt politicians. This made me really happy. Thank you liberty pen!!
This is borderline brilliant, shame britan would barely even know objectivism, let alone use it.
Nothing "borderline" about it. This is the far right corner of the bell curve enlightening the rest of the people.
@@moremoneyfordreadnoughts1100 Just mean I enjoy her philosophy, as not many in uk understands individualism, capitalism with reason. UK understands about individuals and capitalism, yet doesn't follow it consistently, as uk has a mixed economy. So it's bizarre in uk, hearing people like the Conservatives talk about free market, yet praise the NHS, as well talk about individuals, yet being continuously push to think of others dogmatically.
With respect I mean no harm or problems with you, as I do agree a lot of Ayn Rand's points on collectivism and altruism. If I'm bias or wrong then do tell me, I'm not a liberal or conservative, I am a individualist as well big fan to reason.
It's strange that it must be objectives when it's thought that should come naturally. I already had these beliefs in kindergarten.
The voice of reason and wisdom.
@chespokotota you seem to have the freedom of opinion and thats great. What did she say that brings you to that opinion?
Holy cr*p! What beautiful logic and simplicity. What genius clarity! Everyone on Planet Earth needs to learn these things.
Such a beautiful mind, I miss her. She wasn't perfect, but she was perfectly wonderful. A full set of her books and writings are here in my reading room.
She wasn’t perfect? By what standard?
Intelligent and well spoken. Great respect for this woman.
I'm loving this channel
9:55 History repeated itself 75 years later in 2008, Slick Willie *mandated* the lowering of lending standards in 1999 (NY Times source) which directly resulted in the mortgage crash.
The interviewer is trying to use exceptions to make rules.
They are fair questions. At no point in human history did we just cast off the old and infirm because they couldn't go hunt their own food, we wouldn't exist otherwise. To accept Objectivist philosophy one must be willing to let a fellow man die for no other reason than the people around him refuse to help no matter how much excess they have, to be willing to accept the potential for EXTREME income inequality. Most people are not willing to accept those outcomes because most people are hardwired with empathy and a sense of 'there but for the grace of God go I' when they see tragedy befall their fellow man.
This woman was a genius.
If I ever meet a woman in today's world who speaks to me like Ayn Rand, I'm marrying that woman. A heart and mind of gold.
@Metallic- Except that you won't EVER meet that woman. Women's entire existence is predicated on making a man responsible for their well being & the well being of her children. Yes, I said, HER, because she does not see them as yours as well, just your responsibility. Doubt that ? Observe the many instances of judges, & society's expectations that a husband/mate support her children with another man. In a divorce, a woman keeps the child/ren, almost always, & the man keeps the burden of their support.
Hmm...how is that absolute capitalism going, Randiots? In less than 13 years, the huge corporations, their banks and wealthy owners have had to be massively bailed out by the middle class. In Rand’s utopia all of the failing banks and industries would be ignored and they would cease to be.
I am sick to death of supporting the wealthy in this country. Capitalism is a loser mechanism. The corporations and the wealthy individuals should be put back on the 95% tax on any earnings over $2 million dollars. The past thirteen years have proven that laissezfaire capitalism hasn’t worked in the past and has destroyed our society twice in under 13 years. “Oh but it was the poor who signed on for bad loans and a virus, which cannot be predicted are the causes. 1) the banks lobbied Clinton to end Glass Stegall, they set up the bad loans and investments in them. 2) the virus could have been prepared for. Do you remember the Ebola virus killing millions of Americans? No? That is because President Obama believing the science poured as much resources as need to limit the Ebola outbreak to a few dozen.
Unregulated capitalism has got to go, and go fast.
you're onto it !
I don’t understand. How can you say “Laissez-faire capitalism hasn’t worked in the past and has destroyed our society twice in under 13 years”? How can something we have never had, never even been that close to having, and certainly haven’t had in the past 13 years be responsible for something? That makes no sense.
@@JoinTheTemple The has never been capitalism, its a myth. Every time big corporations take a down turn the get supported.
I'd love to hear her thoughts on the modern family court system
Hearing her voice is such a wonderful experience
Excellent..
One smart lady. Her books are not "easy" reads, but they are very worthwhile.
@MSONA For anyone who may see the above, IMHO it is incorrect. The writing is clear and eloquent. The subject can be a little difficult.
@MSONA Yeah, I was thinking you might be one of those silly communists who never learn that their way simply doesn't work. Now you have proved it. Capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other system ever has or ever can. Socialism has never done anything but enslave the poor and murder them by the millions.
@MSONA One does not have to be clairvoyant to see what you are and what you are trying to accomplish. First by deriding Ran's writing style to attempt to discourage people from picking up her books, and then by insulting the only system that works, capitalism, by calling it a childish name-"malignant selfishness." I'll bet your heroes are Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, all brutal murderers. No thank you.
@MSONA I never "gushed" over anything, and you never offered any valid criticism. Only trollisms. My point is made, and you have no point. Feel free to have the last word, as I am done responding to your nonsense.
@MSONA Projection? Only person in these comments who incessantly whines here is you, LOL.
Your "rights" should never come out of someone else's pockets. This is why I stopped referring to America as a free country the day Obamacare was passed.
So instead you prefer the money goes to the .1% hole instead of the people? Because that is the only two choices you got. That's logical thinking...
@@scruples671 Presumably "the people" being you in particular, right? LOL.
@MSONA Nobody forces you to work "for the wealthy". Millions and millions of people in Western societies run their own small businesses and work for themselves and have complete control over their means of production... but hold on... wait... that's really hard work.... easier to just collect a wage and bitch that you're being "oppressed". LOL. Do you even have a job? Or like most Marxists, do you live in your parent's basement and watch porn and play video games all day?
Thank you for posting this. As I listened to this I was struck by similarities to those thoughts and ideas I see in Cicero's De Officiis. Cicero argues that the rock on which our non material rights (freedom of speech, writing) directly rest upon property rights. These, property rights, he considered absolute, if rights are to be protected. He makes it reasonably clear that eminent domain is dangerous. For this, eminent domain, means that a person owns their property at the pleasure of local, state and federal governments.
That is my girl! She set my collegiate creeping lefty head straight, back in the day (my 70s days). Oh. what joy!!
Ty. Will always be relevant. I claim she is our best American authoress, bar none...both in fiction and non
Hot damn! Thx again for the snippet🖤🇺🇸💯
Would be good to be represented, by Ayn Rand in the family court ,,The Judge would be scathing his head ;;;
@@lostinspace699
Oh yes! how bout a constitutional lawyer in congress today. Ha! Hell, that woman coulda tried her hand at gynecology. stirrups would never be the same. Smh and lolz..
thx for commenting 🖤👏
The more I hear and read her views, the more I agree with her standpoints, she mainly defends the souvereign individual in the broadest sense possible. That's how I feel everyone must be able to live and act.
Religion has clouded man’s mind of his relationship with reality.
No....
Ideology makes reality harder to identify. Religion is just one type of ideology.
Define religion
@@peacheskong2245 Belief in super human deities.
@MSONA Why is it that every sanctimonious, self righteous and entitled Marxist thinks he is a 17th century French aristocrat, sniffing his nose at those "filthy" traders and peasants... LOL.
''... rational law of morality applicable here is that every man is responsible for his own survival and that he cannot become a mortgage on the life of another man that to have the right of life does not mean that someone else has to lose his right and spend his existence supporting you..'' its very profound on many levels.
my god do we need a woman like her today
If you're in a car, and all you've ever known to sit in that car is the passenger seat, provision is second nature to you, but you've never known what it is like to be the driver... to take initiative.
She just explained and blew up the welfare state with this.
This massage should be send to every Democrat across the country
Dont waste your time, they are some sick puppies.
Since I've learned about Ayn Rand philosophy I'm more compassionate of people and I care more about others. Why is that? (Inot sarcasm)
Personal Responsibility. If you think it's the government's job to fix people's problems, then other people's problems don't need to involve you.
So at the end of her life in 1974 she was diagnosed with lung cancer from being a heavy smoker. She was broke and had no healthcare so she finally applied for medicare and social security that she needed. What a hypocrite, the very "Entitlements" she criticized provided the very social support she needed that allowed her to live another 2 years. If she was so smart and such a intellect why didn't she take some obvious advise and stop chain smoking.
You mean she managed to get a tiny fraction of her taxed income back? Sorry, where is the hypocracy?
This women is speaking like the founding fathers.
Anybody or group that steals my money with tax, license, permits, etc, ... or regulates trade, owes me a living. Period. Rights or no rights.
If you have skills that produce anything of value, you'll have a great living.
Ayn Rand for president!
@MSONA We worship RAnd ideals
@MSONA Focus your mind.
@MSONA Focus your mind.
You have the right to struggle for your existence. How successful you are at that determines everything else in your life. You ask for that which you are unwilling to earn. You expect respect and are, likewise, unwilling to earn it. The odds are against you in both cases.
Good video. Looks like we still don’t have thinkers and statesmen in government. Even the first reaction by people in a downturn is to demand government intervention.
ChadDad123 Rand Paul is one of very few.
Todd Rankles Definitely
She advocated abortion and disliked how conservatives allied themselves with religion
She's a Libertarian, not a social conservative.
We need more women like her today: articulate, insightful, and lastly feminine.
She’s an idealist and ended her life on social benefits, supported by others, as is our strength as a species.
If you have a cohesive Culture and a shared morality (regarding social responsibility), some
"entitlements", are understood(agreed upon by the vast majority, and empirically proven) to be fundamental to efficient productivity, and high quality of life. These "entitlements" must be rare,
carefully chosen, and closely monitored for abuse... they are Moral Hazards.
Without unifying traditions, and a shared sense of patriotic duty, work ethic,
and neighborly compassion, there will never be agreement on the nature, or
extent of such programs.
truth: if rights are granted by society, then one exists not by right but by permission and society can take away such "granted rights" on any whim
Remove the "if" and "then" and you'll be more correct.
Rights are inalienable, if you are an individual human, you have rights. They are a requirement for survival. They are not granted by "society" or the state, rights can only be protected, or violated.
Charity is a meal for the day. Jobs feeds a family for life
When I hear talks such as these I think of how it would be if we actually had real capitalism. Government stepping out of the picture, the freedom to actually compete, no absurd laws to beget obstacles in front of you and a unimpeded flow of transactions. I do see regulations as important, but I also see there is only push for more regulations and never a simplification or removal of such regulations as to lighten the load.
Regulations are good when they make the playing field fair. Regulations are bad when they do the opposite.
@@willnitschke this is true on both points. Yet, when I see countries which are thrives without regulation, I wonder if we could do better. In fact it has been shown time and time again that without regulation (at least for workers rights) unions have stepped in to self regulate the market, thereby taking government out of the picture completely.
@@TheFirstTriplefife Crucial to successful societies is trust. Commerce is not possible (or at least extremely difficult) without trust. Western societies have trust. A society such as Somalia, has none. A regulation is typically a last resort for a society that has trust. Yes, they are necessary but they are last resorts. If there are lots of jobs because the economy is good, employers must fight to keep workers, rather than exploit them.
@MSONA I'm not here to answer your questions, dickhead, LOL. Why does every Marxist arse goblin think he has authority over everyone else? ;-)
But if we do, the only way you have a chance is we have to knock out two regulations for every new regulation. - DJT
Finaly putting those paper pushers to good use. If you have a army of people just making regulations all the time.... Well, things only get more complicated.
Human rights evolve based on the level of our technology and it's ability to provide with ease said rights.
If only there were more thinkers like her
I think she makes an eloquent argument for the right to be left alone, which extends into all aspects in ways that need exploration. It goes back to an ancient question that has not been answered, Are we each others keeper?
How can a service or product be a human right? Products and services take materials and labor to create, and very very few people want to work for free on a daily basis, so in order for products and services to be human rights, either the suppliers have to be forced to work for free (slavery) or the money has to be extorted from the population. Both options are very very immoral and unappealing to me.
Exactly.
"Housing is a right" was used by 4 moms to take over a house owned by a larger corporation.. Since it was empty, they felt it was their right to take it. And City Council people supported them
That is because the house was owned by the Corporations "aka banks" but maintained by the tax payers until it could be sold for profit $$$. Capitalism 101... The people suffer instead while the Rich are frolicking.
@@scruples671 yeah, what we really need is a Big Brother or a Dear Leader who represents the will of the people. Sort of like a dictator or king. Hold on... didn't we try that idea already?
Scruples To my understanding it was owned by a real estate company. Where do you get that “the taxpayer” was paying for the taxes on it or that squatters were entitled to it? Who’s “the Corporation”? You sound like someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about, but loves repeating sound bites.
@@valsedonia Scruples is using the type of uninformed rhetoric to get her followers indignant/self-righteous so they feel good about themselves when they break the law and steal other people property. Yes we have problems, but it is really around lack of supply of housing brought on by decades of policy that make it hard and expensive to build. Simplistic rhetoric is easier than the hard work to address the real problems.
Ronald McDonald Amen!
I'd like to see something similar to the Jewish "year of Jubilee." Whether it would be 49yrs or 7 (preferably), I think such a law to release peoples from regulations would really help out any country which implements it. I'm not even Jewish. Nope. I just see the good track record and realize its prudent and practical to fallow suit.
I love this woman. She just lays it out.
A lot of Republicans and the whole democrat field disagrees.
Artisan if you agree with someone wholly, are you really thinking?
This woman is brilliant. I just do not agree that every collective has to be 100% voluntary. An individual is just as well part of the society he lives in as the society is comprised of the many individuals within it.
Hey Bernie!! Maybe you should take a listen here!!
Bernie does't care all he wants is power.
This is a SLAM DUNK responses to these hard issues!!!
Milton Friedman would’ve been proud.
That momentous occasion that one relinquishes their GOD given rights that are self evident to men and the body of government. All freedom is you know it is dissolved with the stroke of a pen. And you are left at the mercy of your enemies. Imagine that..
Yes!!!!!!!!!
This woman was brilliant. She could destroy Karl Marx in one minute.
True but that's not saying much.
Who is John Galt?
She’s so amazing I love her ❤
She’s talking about positive rights vs negative right: Isaiah Berlin.
She is mistaken in one major point, without the earth we would not exist, without the fruits of society the individual would have no access to modern living conditions. In reality we are all indentured to our respective collective with no choice, we can not live as the beast in the cave, such behavior defies sanity. As such, we are absolutely entitled to a reasonable standard of living for us to have any hope to enjoy our other rights. The nature of human society is the collective responsibility we share for each other as well as the world that provides us with air to breathe and land upon which to grow food. Yes, we all have a right to a reasonable standard of living, no exemption is possible.
@Ken MacDonald Exactly. Little arse goblins like this uses abstract concepts like "the collective" because he doesn't want to admit what he is really demanding. That other INDIVIDUALS be forced to provide for him. All of them, lazy authoritarians.
To see if a right is legit, do the island test. The test is whether or not will it work if a person is alone on an island.
This holds true for economic or governemnt systems as well.
The moment it requires more people to function then it is basically just a variation of some form of slavery.
Very timely for us now on the 31st of March, 2020.
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." John Rogers
Better those 2 books than the novels of the Bible and Quran.
@@mrwailingguitar The original fantasy series.
If entitlements are bad then shouldn't that mean inheritance should be confiscated and redistributed by the state (unless properly earned)?
No...? Why would they? I earned a million dollars, let's say, and I choose how to dispose of it, be it spending, saving, charity, or giving to my children upon my death. It's not an entitlement, it's me exercising my property rights for the final time.
Hey @libertypen I’m sure someone would voluntarily clean this audio up for you so it was a little easier on the ear drums
This all depends on what you are defining as a right. It is very easy to say that a specific entitlement is a right, and it is no more or less true than saying that one has the right to live. Ultimately, what we call a right is a societal choice, or a preference agreed upon by society. .
No, a right is something you have that is entirely yours and cannot be taken away from you. As soon as you demand a right such as free housing, food, healthcare, etc., you're forcing others to provide for you. You are now taking other people's right to freedom away from them.
@@willnitschke Describe the difference between a Right and a preference. Explain why the following sentence is inaccurate. A Right is a personal preference that the rest of society shares, and agrees is important enough to protect with law.
@@greenkansas
@greenkansas Ah yes, this is the "concepts are just made up of words so they aren;'t real" generic argument every moron uses to 'debunk' anything they want to 'debunk' because, well, they're morons, LOL.
@@willnitschke That's not my argument, nor am I saying that rights are not real. What I am saying is that rights are preferences that society as a whole agree upon. No need to call names, we're just discussing a concept. My question is can you point out the flaw in my statement? Rights are perferences that society agree on as a whole.
@@willnitschke No one is asking anyone for other people to provide for them. People are 100% free to not participate in the economy if they so chose. They'll need to be very good farmers, hunters and craftsmen. They'll also not want air conditioning or any of the nicer amenities that life within the economy affords... but people have done it!
Wonder what she’d say about intellectual property laws
Ayn Rand - the greatest Jew of the 20th Century and arguably, the greatest person of same!!!
She makes so much sense.
This should be read to school children starting in grade one and up.
Is it true she ended up using Social Security?
If a thief steals something from you and you steal it back does that make you also a thief?
@Ken MacDonald You'd be a real fool if you didn't try to claw some of it back.
Rights necessitate responsibility. The natural right of survival demands harvest of sustenance by the organism. If a male lion relies on the females to bring him food, he will be quite thin and weak. The ladies COULD demand certain actions or beliefs of him to maintain their contract. If survival is based on others demands, freedom and liberty is lost to the point of possible slavery. (The lions were used as a recognizable example of role separation, not a sexist metaphor. Gender isn't needed to support this situation.)
Thoughts?
Moral claims based on 'laws of nature' are ambiguous at best. If nature was capitalist, the fox would show up at the hen house and try to figure out ways to please the chickens.
Not a philosophical point, but female lions do hunt--at night, when the cubs are safely hidden.
@@willnitschke I used lions to keep it simple.
Put humans in the same relative roles. Not based on nature. Based on roles. I should have been more succinct and direct.
Perfect, Earth Angel, we Thank, Love and Appreciate You! 🕚🌌🙌🫀
Aesop said that..."God helps those who help themselves". This does not mean that a person should not seek help or assistance if needed for issues of survival. Needs over wants for certain. Issues like free education, a safe place to live, income or wealth are not RIGHTS. These things must be earned by moral means by the individual seeking them. It should not be the job of one citizen to pay for the education of another. Why should I pay for the so-called education of a person who may well grow up to despise the very society in which I live and flourish? As we see today. I do not feel that school taxes should be charged against a person period. Certainly once a child is no longer a minor their parents should be opted out of paying school taxes. Most certainly after a citizen is a senior citizen no school taxes should be paid period. We see today the education system in America failing students on so many levels. If a parent wants to educate their child they best well pay for it themselves. If a child is not worthy of an education so be it. Then we would not need to import illegals to fill lower end jobs. We would have a never ending supply of workers for those jobs. It would be wonderful if this were a perfect world but it is not. We have gotten so soft as a result of 20th Century advances. We are now to the point of increasing our technology and losing our humanity. Word.
Damn, your a genius. I like.
It's the exact opposite of communism. So good to hear.
People need to listen closely to what Ayn Rand says--she is NOT proposing freedom, happiness, and liberty. She is proposing the bondage and unhappiness that Libertarianism imposes on people who cannot or will not discern her confusing writings. It's as I keep saying: Know why Atlas Shrugged? He didn't have a clue.
@Jeffrey Johnson, and you speak blather--another libertarian tactic. It's why Atlas shrugged. He either couldn't understand or wouldn't accept what you libertarians spout. Libertarianism has not worked. Even the French intellectuals have rejected it, though they propose things much worse.
@Jeffrey Johnson, if you're not an Ayn Rand expert, then I don't feel I should even comment on your reply. If you are open-minded at all, however, then you should read about the her life and her work. I think you will see the consequences of her philosophy in her own existence. I don't know of anyone except a nihilist who would want to live that way.
@Jeffrey Johnson, so, and I giggle at this, what makes you think I'm a Marxist? I don't think you're very good at discerning people.
@@Azishome The reason why everyone thinks you're a Marxist is your butt hurt angry logic free personal attack on her. She triggers Marxists.
And what if his "values" are evil? The Catholic Church's true Social Teaching teaches that rights come from God and that nobody has a "right" to do wrong. Also that true Freedom of Speech or Religion is not to communicate or worship error but to communicate Truth and Worship the One, True God. What the moderns call "freedom" our ancestors would call chaos or license. God bless~
Kings, Gods, etc. We tried all that and humans lived a miserable existence under such concepts.
This means that I will never send them upon the earth again
"(To be a man is to glorify oneself and to subjugate other lesser men)"
- Orielle Kitai
"(some men are held to a higher standard then are others)"
- Heigo Damask the second
WE NEED SUBTITTLES PLEASE KN ENGLISH. PLEASE!
All of these insights came from a twenty year old girl who ever missed a meal. “ When I became a man I put away childish things”!
I wish I had been exposed to this type of rational thinking decades ago.
How's that boot taste?
Rand was a bona fide genius, on par with Aristotle and Einstein.
Our forebears, mine included understood that America is the promise to make your OWN way. Not be given free shit like nowadays. And all the signs were in English. People wanted to become AMERICAN.
The less that is forcefully taken from a person to support those less well off the greater the amount given willingly. Look at how many more resources exist for the poor when their help comes from voluntary sources. Religious groups making shelters, youth groups doing canned food drives, bikers doing toy donation runs, charity walks.
Much of that goodwill stops once it's coerced. People don't see the need to give to those who government takes from them to provide for. The good that is done becomes less visible. I'm not saying that the point of charity is your own ego. But you will give more to an organization that makes a difference you cannotice. You feel like your investment helps.
A free and unbiased natural mind has never existed past infancy.
Spot on thoughts from a thinker.