"Is a man entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No,' says the man in Washington, 'it belongs to the poor.' 'No,' says the man in the Vatican, 'it belongs to God.' 'No,' says the man in Moscow, 'it belongs to everyone.' I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible; I chose Rapture."
Come on., GDF. The very nature of capitalism is one man enriching himself by the sweat of thousands people working for him, for he pays them for the sweat of their collective brow the smallest possible portion of what they make.
@BeGood 2Me Not everybody can be a businessmen, both for personal and general economic reasons. 99% work for someone else. They are our fellow human beings. Should we condemn them to poverty and misery, to powerlessness and unbridled exploitation?
@BeGood 2Me I was never self employed. I wouldn't know where to begin, What you described about upward mobility in America was true in the past. But globalization which relocated industries and jobs from West to East makes this upward mobility no longer realistic. Globalization also destroyed industrial unions, for the above mentioned reasons, so workers can no longer bargain for better wages and working conditions. So, where are we going from here - resort to self sufficiency? Move to rural arias, grow own food, make own clothes, own shoes, etc., etc., etc? Your idea is to move from 21 century to 12 century. I don't think it's very realistic to expect billions of people to do that. All over the world people still running from the farms and flocking to big cities. That's where the world is today. And we have to deal with it now.
@BeGood 2Me If I knew your real name I would wish you and anyone thinking like you good luck. Anyone who is happy makes me happy. The more happy people this world has the better it is. P.S. Next time you have a conversation with a stranger try to be polite. Don''t be so aggressive. it doesn't befit intellectual. I take this liberty because I'm sure I'm much older than you are. All the best
Except we're not little special created snowflakes; Homo Sapiens Sapien evolved as a social species, pod-based like all the Great Apes and Monkeys No Man Is An Island~John Donne No man is an island, Entire of itself; Every man is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, As well as if a promontory were: As well as if a manor of thy friend's Or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, Because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
@Humanity Galatica Man is by definition an animal; we are Homo Sapiens Sapien and we descend from the same common ancestor as that of chimpanzees, bonobos and the Great Apes. A chimp is 98% the same animal as Homo Sapiens Sapien. We are a social creature, however. The "Rugged Individual" is a delusion.
@@troyevitt2437 The "rugged individual" is the guy that creates value for himself and have the CHOICE to share this value with others in exchange for whatever someone has in abundance and he lacks, promoting a mutually beneficial exchange. Whenever such exchange is not beneficial for both parties, then there should be no exchange. To be social, should be in someones best interest most of the time, but to assume it is an inherent property of our species to extrapolate based on a single point of view. Correlation might be present, but to assume causality is a step too far.
@@ziguirayou I have not heard of many civilization / cultures in the world without "society". Is there ever been a culture with a single person, who lives, laughed, conquered, invented and lived for many decade by him/her self?
@@ziguirayou I guess there are plenty of example where exchange is not "beneficial " to both parties today. If someone is working (many actually, with degree too) with multiple jobs to just stay afloat and ruining there body, it's not actually beneficial in long run to one party. Unless you think shelter, food are not important for a human.
so, the happiness of the individual is the most important thing. But this works as a society because we each respect everyone elses right to pursue their own self interest. but exactly what happens when your interests and someone elses are in direct conflict
+Jack McLean In "The Virtue of Selfishness" chapter 4 is all about the "conflict of interest" situation. I would suggest you read it yourself. a TL;DR version goes something like this: There are no conflicts of interest among rational men, If two men are interested in the same thing, one wins one looses. Anyone who is interested in being successful when pursuing their interests should take into consideration four things: Reality, Context, Responsibility, and Effort. Taking these into consideration a rational man never imagines for something that is unearned, if he encounters competition he either wins or takes up an other interest. I'll post a separate comment with a short example from the reading.
+Joseph Benavidez about the two men applying for the same job-and observe in what manner it ignores or opposes these four considerations. (a) Reality. The mere fact that two men desire the same job does not constitute proof that either of them is entitled to it or deserves it, and that his interests are damaged if he does not obtain it. (b) Context. Both men should know that if they desire a job, their goal is made possible only by the existence of a business concern able to provide employment-that that business concern requires the availability of more than one applicant for any job-that if only one applicant existed, he would not obtain the job, because the business concern would have to close its doors-and that their competition for the job is to their interest, even though one of them will lose in that particular encounter. (c) Responsibility. Neither man has the moral right to declare that he doesn’t want to consider all those things, he just wants a job. He is not entitled to any desire or to any “interest” without knowledge of what is required to make its fulfillment possible. (d) Effort. Whoever gets the job, has earned it (assuming that the employer’s choice is rational). This benefit is due to his own merit-not to the “sacrifice” of the other man who never had any vested right to that job. The failure to give to a man what had never belonged to him can hardly be described as “sacrificing his interests.”
@@_GoldenGoat_ Lots of people are selfish but no one, literally no one is this perverse definition of "rational". You already exploit people by taking part in western society. Ayn Rand is a fool and her philosophy is a non-solution.
@@JD-jl4yy Being that these comments were made 5 years ago. I am not the same person who made them. However, this is a decent breakdown of the Philosophical point that Ayn Rand makes. I have personally taken more to stoicism in regsrds to dealing with issues like two men applying for the same job, as I know understand that most people dont act rationally most of the time. It is hopeless to try to break down a "why" from irrational thinking. Radical acceptance is a decent way to move on from it, rather then breaking ones brain over "why".
@@bayewkkebede1846 - - - - - There's nothing wrong with thinking. I think what is true is probably beyond human reasoning. I doubt the Universe will condemn us for being wrong about it one way or the other.
@@q7winq7If what's true is beyond human reasoning then the most rational strategy is: This life is all you have. Make the most of it. So you just contradicted yourself, well done.
@@sudilos1172 no, not even close. The main point is that you DESERVE happiness and attaining it should be a main purpose of your life. Others will tell you that is selfish, that you should sacrifice for the collective. Someone will say “can I have just a minute of your time?”, but the sum total of your wealth is the minutes and hours that you have on this Earth. And no one knows how much time they have. So why let them steal your most precious possession?
@@johnscott2746 Not to bright are we? Happiness is a release of chemicals in your brain, these chemical triggers are signalled when you feel satisfied, so if you feel satisfied with nothing you are happy. That means you can be happy with nothing if you so choose, and it has nothing to do with attaining goals, in fact the biggest reason for suicide is too much pressure to attain goals, or believing that you are worth nothing, and worth is SUBJECTIVE, it is FAR from an objective reality. Happiness does not require goals, you can be happy now, even in the worst circumstances. I also think if your mother died of cancer and could not get treatment cause you live in a selfish country you may indeed be unhappy, it is true even in dark times we can find a place to smile and be happy but that's very difficult if all your family die and you are put in a children's home at 6. Why let them steal your most precious possession? Simple, cause most decent people like to help people, but it's true most American's are brought up to be psychopaths nowadays, it may even explain the shootings of unarmed black people, as well as others including the much hated AYN RAND native Americans who she said had no right to live there - survival of the fittest! And back to the example of the mother, if others actually helped her in a society, you know like about every other country in the world even Russia, India, most of Europe and a good portion of Africa, the whole of America would be a lot happier, especially the 6 year old who's family died because America is a far right selfish society, from outside it is clear it is in moral and economic decline. Evidence, you can see it all around you. War, death = USA got to kill to stay number 1. If you only care about yourself - check out the DSM on psychopathy - congratulations you might even get high marks on this test. SCIENCE - even that is in decline with museums with dinosaurs. But that wont change cause everybody is promoted to be selfish and f the rest. And Trillions on war, but don't bother doing anything about it cause others don't matter.
@@ghostlyphantasm2352 wow! You went bouncing around and didn’t actually say much. Let’s see, first I never talked about goals. I just said that you deserve happiness and attaining it should be your focus in life. That doesn’t mean accumulating stuff. You are right that one can be happy with nothing. There has always been misfortune in this world and it’s a shame. But Americans have been the most generous people in the world . Private charities do a great deal of good. But government has no place in this. Government has no money of its own, only what it gets from taxpayers. No person should be made to work to support another against their will. We used to call this slavery. The liberal ideas that have been expanding the scope of government for a century are the main reason I structured my finances the way I have so as to keep from having to help finance all of it. I agree with you about the military. It is excessive to say the least. Please note that I took a few minutes out of my day to respond. I spent some of my real wealth on you. Your welcome!
Hmm... It's pretty suspicious that this video neglected to include an explanation of the fourth pillar of objectivism, which is capitalism. More specifically, laissez-faire capitalism, in which regulation of corporations is kept at an absolute minimum to trust that corporations will self-regulate. This is the point where objectivism exits from the philosophical realm into the political realm, in which it occupies the space of far-right politics that would probably drive many, if not most people away from objectivism were the section of laissez-faire capitalism to be included in this video. The other three pillars of objectivism are a politically neutral ideology that could draw many people in, but capitalism sticks out. So why did this video only include the sections that would be appealing to the uninformed? I strongly suspect that this was intentional, motivated by the cause of selling books and memorabilia to those who would otherwise be driven away by this ideology.
Limited government so that the market (the people) will decide the fate of the corporation, not so the corporation can decide it for themselves even when they fail. It is sad that capitalism is associated with the far rights but their social views are identitarian (much like the far left). Seeing how anything remotely right of the far left is considered far right nowadays, this doesn't really surprise me. If you want to get into it, the far left believe in giving more control to the government (big government), which is essentially the opposite of objectivism, since youre letting the government to control your own objective view points. It is the big government that bails out corporations and create monopolies that will continue to oppress the people and you wish to give them more power.... But youre right on one point, the sad reality that Capitalism is considered to be a nagative marketing point for books nowadays is prevalent and the world will continue to bend backward to support socialism at the tunes of the people who actually support Socialism, the corporations.
I think that the morality of self-interest is more controversial, and more important, which is probably why the most emphasis was placed there. Objectivism as a philosophical system tends to be overly politicized in the eyes of many of its leading intellectuals. Politics is important, but it's derivative, and many people, including objectivists, spend far too much time talking about it and too little time thinking or speaking about the more fundamental branches. Most people don't even question altruism. They simply think of it as a synonym for morality. Capitalism, on the other hand, is already being advanced as an idea, albeit less effectively and in a philosophically compromised way, by very many public intellectuals including mainstream conservatives. Until you get into the nitty-gritty of it, capitalism as a feature of objectivism isn't even very distinguishing. And outside of this 2 minute introduction video there's PLENTY of content on objectivism's take on politics. Therefore I think Hunter Long's comment is way off.
Indeed...this omission was deliberate, as capitalism and corporations are based on elements that contradict the basic tenets of objectivism. Capitalism requires others than the capitalist to perform the objectives of the capitalist in an inherently uneven bargain. Corporations are authoritarian collectives with top-down hierarchies, regulations and cultures that shield participants from personal autonomy and responsibility. Objectivism assumes that everyone will always function rationally and in good faith, be well-informed decision-makers and abide by its idealized tenets, which has not and will not ever happen. This where the libertarian gurus are needed to rationalize these contradictions and allay its cognitive dissonance.
@@ivandafoe5451 You're blinded by envy, resentment of the rich, and a dogmatic commitment to the poisonous, false, religious based morality of altruism. You won't accept the obvious fact of life that it is often in the individual's rational self interest to trade unequally: to trade with someone richer than himself, someone in a superior bargaining position to himself, which may be a well earned position. Both parties do not need to benefit from a trade equally in order for both parties to benefit. For that matter, both parties don't need to benefit equally for it to be the best deal available anywhere in the world for both parties. Capitalism is based on these sorts of transactions. It is based on mutually beneficial trade relationships, and indeed mutual benevolence, between unequal parties. And don't conflate capitalism with the horrible mixed economy that conservatives created by compromising excessively with socialists. That is your system, not objectivists'. Objectivism does not "assume" that everyone will be rational. It understands that individuals are better off being given the opportunity to benefit from their own rationality, which does leave a lot up to their choice, rather than forcing them into some god awful system of mutual enslavement that seeks to "free" the individual from his obligations to himself, and from the reality of life.
To those who worry for others, you cannot help them until you yourself are good. If helping those which need it what brings you happiness, do it. That is the rational approach to your own self interest.
Robinhood rob from one and give to another makes him feel good too, what gov does. Robbery is wrong no mattery how or who does it. Real robbers have more moral than politicians. They jnow what they are doing is wrong, while politicians escalate themselves to godhood.
It took almost my entire life to understand what she was onto, but ultimately my interpretation is that there are things you can do at 15 you can’t do at 25. Things at 25 you can’t do at 35. Things you’ll never be able to do again by the time you’re 45 and so on. So, while you have opportunity in front of you, don’t lose sight of them over the impositions of others wishes who are peripheral to what will make your life more meaningful. Otherwise, you may forfeit the most productive years of your life for a cause that was ultimately self destructive by nature. Making those misspent years a tragedy twice over.
gees so depressing. I'm over 55 and can still do most of the things I could do at 15 as well as do a hole lot of things I could NOT do at 15. I strive to move forward, be better. I expect to be prefect when I'm dead.
The crazy part about her philosophy to me was; I was reading her book the Virtue of selfishness at the same time as reading Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. And they actually went hand in hand quite well. I think I know where she got some of her ideology from...
I've done the same. They are certainly areas where they connect. They are both virtue driven, they both value reason and self-improvement. One difference would be who you do it for. Do you live for yourself or for others ? As I see it, if you can marry the self-interest of Objectivism with the self-discipline of Stoicism, you have a pretty good foundation for a succesful life.
So assume you are a nurse or a doctor in these covid times - does it make better sense to quit? After all, you are entering a high risk area Or how about soldiers? I wish that question was asked when she was alive - why would anyone put his life at risk for others?
What if life continues after death? I guess it makes her philosophy kinda silly doesn't it? She is basically another form of godless humanism. It always leads to dictatorship
But soldiers get discounts on home purchases and at restaurants, don't they? And medical staff get good benefits so really if you look at it at this angle, it can be for self interest that they keep doing what they do despite the risk/consequence
@@rachelschendel2476 Those benefits don't outweigh the risks. I highly doubt any soldier would go to war thinking, "I get a discount at certain restaurants; yep, that's definitely worth endangering my life." You're clutching at straws here.
Nice short video of the basics, especially the part about selfishness not including the right to exploit other people or prevent them from pursuing their own self-interest. Many critics overlook that, or pretend that the philosophy doesn't say that.
@@calathan Invoking the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Thus, your critique fails. Also, since "selfishness" isn't the axiomatic basis or premise of the Objectivist philosophy, but simply a side aspect of it, you're Straw-manning it. Thus, you're critique fails on 2 counts.
@@kathypeterson7967 Can you give an example? I can't think of a Rand follower who knowingly violates the rights of others or justifies the violation of rights. And if you're not violating someone's rights, it's difficult to see how you're 'exploiting' them.
@@macsnafu corporate greed that exploits workers to acquire their profits to the point the workers have no means by which to better their own situation?? Does that make sense?
SlimeGGKing What do you mean by nationalism? You seem to express nothing but frustration with the difficulty in expressing yourself. Nothing in this video contradicts the ideal of having a nation, the sense of belonging to a nation, or the valuing of your nation above foreign nations. So in some sense of the word nationalism, we do embrace it.
*The dumb bitch Ayn Rand was a chain smoker who ended up being dependent on government health services as well as food stamps and government housing when she got lung cancer. She was such an evil person no one loved her and wanted to bail her out. What does that say?*
I left a bad relationship and ended up in a shelter. I've busted butt to get a job and an apartment and they hate me. I used to be a liberal, not any more
Two logical problems stand out to me. 1) Reality is not just what it is, but also can become what we can imagine, which is important. Humans can change things. 2) Selfishness definitely CAN mean exploiting others for their own gain. Ignorance of that means you are not equipped to deal with psychopathy / sociopathy, and that is why many communities founded on utopian ideals do not succeed. An extension of this relevent to world problems today is - for direct democracy / organising power to transcend monkey brain limits, any system must have engineered into it awareness of these limits. Democracy 2.0 will need to understand the flaws within ourselves and build parity into collaborative decision making to have a better immune system against corruption.
1 - Reality is measurable and objective. Your interpretation of reality is your own, but thinking the you can project your interpretation and make it something concrete by just force of argument is something that should warrant you with either a place as an X-Men or a diagnostic of mental illness, depending on the results you achieve. Secondly, of course humans can change things through work, that was never in question, but the change you make, is exactly the result of the work you put in, so having clarity about your impact on reality is key to understanding it. 2 - Exploiting others is wrong, that is a very strong point of the whole concept of objectivism. All interactions between self governing humans must be mutually beneficial, otherwise they shouldn't take place. Exploitation happens when someone uses force or coercion to make an interaction be beneficial only to one of the parties. Selfishness in the sense of objectivism is related to prioritizing interactions that are good for you, and understanding that if all other people with the same capabilities do the same, everyone benefits in the end. Whenever people use democratic means, backed up by force (law, police, arms, etc) or coersion (threats, psychological offense, taxation, unfair business practices, etc) to force part of society to interact at loss, to benefit a chosen group, this is exploitation plain and simple.
1:36 just a note, this is the aim of life under objectivist ethics. The virtues, the actions taken to meet these results, are rationality, productiveness, and pride.
Amongst the virtues enumerated by Rand you are missing a few; beyond rationality, productivity and pride, there are also honesty, integrity, independence, and justice. These virtues are a shield to one's values: reason, self-esteem, and purposeful action, and ultimately, life itself.
Terry Goodkind sent me here. I don't understand why people have such troubles with an objectivist philosophy. Reason should be your only ruler. Reality is what it is. It's up to us to use reason to determine the value of reality.
Ayn Rand on Native Americans: „I do not think they have any right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and lived like savages.“ You might say this is de-contextualized. But I cannot for the life of me think of a scenario in which saying something like this would ever be justifiable. I think the appreciation of oneself and selfishness to the degree to which Ayn Rand subscribes, can lead one to say such things that clearly show signs of fascism.
Life update, I came across this video when I was reviewing for my Master in Public Admin Compre Exam. Guess what!!! I'm now and MPA, Major in Fiscal Admin. Whooho
It will not worth it, it's just wasted time. Read my comment over yours and you will know why I think her Philosophy is full of lacks and mistakes in thinking. Its about what drives her to write such a philosophy, this is why it would not make you happy living this way, not even make you successful or any of that.
Thinking for yourself using logic. Existence exist. Reality Exist. Live your existence by Rational Benevolence as base for your values which direct your action in the real world for creativity, joy, success. Irrational believe in a Malevolent-Evil world as base for your values direct all your days for sacrifice and altruism - obedience to some floating destiny in suffering and ugliness. Objectivism denied subjectivism, the duality mind-body. Existence is one objective truth. Selfishness is preserve our existence in the real world: Anyone volunteer for sharing alive the coffin with someone?
if i can legally claim your belongings leaving you on the street that is justice because i did not harm you by taking your ability to produce money and food. if you than try to create a shelter or a farm on my land i will claim everything you produced on my land. because that is the Rational system Ayn Rand supports. You have to find your own Plot of land to produce stuff.
@@MT-2020 Your perception defines what you see as a reality and two people can look at the same thing only to make different deductions. She came from a communist country, had some trauma with it, so wanted to prove that capitalism is best, not seeing the havoc capitalism wreaks, how the mindless consumerism is literally destroying the world and her ''objective liberterian'' world depends upon suffering of others. And she basically says ''I don't care, I'll be just fine''
If Rand cannot define "rational," then her so-called 'Philosophy' has no foundation in "reality." And, if Rand cannot define either term, with some universality and decisive objectivity, her work is more 'eclectic prose' than philosophy. Of course, inner city sybarites and beneficiaries of the Cantillon effect would disagree. Mr Hendry?
What I do not understand is how she approaches conflict. In the pursuit of my personal happiness I'm bound to interact and maybe even oppose others in their personal pursuit of happiness. In such cases what does Rand say. Should I be assertive and try to overcome this opposition or should I be flexible and sacrifice my own directive to being true to my own pursuits. In a world with limited resources how do we balance some people's pursuit to amass a great deal of resources, sometimes at the cost of other people's happiness. If we are all just trying to live free how do we cope with the inherent conflict that arises. Are we to devolve into anarchy and have the weak ruled by the strong, or are we to sacrifice our selfish pursuit of individual happiness for a stable social order?
Mostly, your pursuit of happiness shouldn't conflict with others. If you want to buy a good house and live a good life, others can also do the same. If you are trying to achieve a goal or win a title, something only one person can get, then it's a competition. It would be your goal to overcome the competition, as well as the other person's goal. You can choose to be flexible, however it should be decided individually and not forced. Your goal should not be to tear down others or destroy their happiness, but to raise yours without lowering theirs. Your goal should not violate the natural rights of others, hence why Rand advocated for a government whose purpose was to protect those rights. If your goal violates the rights of others, you cannot pursue that goal, even if the violation is secondary, and not the main focus. I hope I was able to answer that question. Rand's philosophy as I've interpreted it is mostly a method or algorithm, and just like computers, Garbage input = Garbage output. If you know the facts, and apply the right method to those facts, you get the right conclusion. Rand's philosophy tries to make a consistent method and apply it to correct facts. Her conclusions may not be perfect, or maybe they are, but I think we do need to be consistent.
If your pursuit of happiness is based on reason the chances of true conflict with someone also rationally pursuing their happiness should be minimal. But in those instances where it does happen, if you’re not able to negotiate compromise between you, then this what having a court system is for. Note the operative word here is “rationally” - simply pursuing happiness is essentially hedonism which is not what Ayn Rand was advocating.
@@theotherotherjenny How is rationality determined. Reality might be subjective but perception is not. Humans are flawed and so is our perception. What might be rational to some, is lunacy to others. In the Reality / Reason / Self-interest / Capitalism model proposed by this video the conflict is built into each of those circles. Reality is perceived differently by each one of us, reason is limited by our inability to perceive reality in a subjective matter, self-interest will create friction with others whose interest oppose our own, and capitalism is competitive in its design. How, then, is conflict handled by Rand. What happens when a company who employs hundreds has to dam a river in order to produce electricity at a competitive rate to stay in business, but doing so will hurt the fishermen who live down-stream. How does Rand solve the trolley problem? There are finite resources available and infinite wants. Do we leave it to competition (Capitalism) to decide how those resources are distributed? How do we deal with externalities? How do we deal with the angst suffered by the losers?
EarlyGray Conflict is inevitable. Ayn Rand didn't say that there's a utopia, it's not possible for a human civilization to achieve that. What Ayn Rand opposes is the destruction of evil by use of an obviously greater evil.
@@ETBrooDDoes she though? All I've taken away from her approach is that we have to be true to our wants and pursue our happiness in order to achieve the greater good. But that is such a simple model that it's impossible to tackle many of the problems facing our society by following her advise. It's almost hedonistic in concept, but even hedonism hedges it's message by saying pursue pleasure as long as it's not causing problems for yourself down the line. If we follow hedonism we can achieve a balance because the pursuit of pleasure will be measured against the potential for displeasure caused by our actions. Rand does not even account for this in her message. If we follow Rand we are to pursue our greatest possible happiness, because to do anything else is to be untrue to yourself and that is seen as a great evil. But we don't exist in a vacuum. Our actions impact our surroundings. How is the greater good served by such a myopic approach to self serving actions. How do we regulate the impact caused on others by our personal pursuit of happiness. Are we to allow the invisible hand of the market regulate itself? How do we fight corruption, weakness of character, frailty of determination in ourselves and others, errors made by people who cost others their efforts. How does empathy, compassion, solidarity, even kindness fit in her model. Selfish pursuit of happiness and loving others only for what they can bring to our own lives reduces our society to a series of economic transactions. Following that path allows the individual to turn a blind eye to the suffering of the downtrodden. Because why should I worry about their suffering? If I'm busy pursuing my happiness. More than anything her approach to happiness seems so lonely to me. She seems so bent on carving out the individual and focusing on achieving the goals of the individual that acknowledging the other is almost an afterthought.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Adam Smith
@@cosmozappa3573 Nope, just facing the reality of existence. If you are a wage salve you might want to find out how you can be worth more as the world is telling you what you are doing isn't worth that much.
"Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values, his jouis nothing but rational actions."
I's a quote from the book called "The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concepy of Egoism". And I just came across this video bc of the views she has on public administration which reflected on the books Understanding Global Poverty- Causes, Solutions and Capabilities by Serena Cosgrove and Benjamin Curtis (2nd edition) and Public Administration (9th edition) by Jay M. Shafritz, et al.
My favorite part about her is when her niece asked her for $25 (this was when she was rich) she sent back a wall of text saying that she’ll lend the money, but that she has to prioritize paying it back, no excuse unless there’s a serious illness, must be paid back in installments, and that not paying it back will be considered embezzlement and she would never speak to her again lmao
A sound lesson in fiscal responsibility, good. The problem today is all the kids want to freeload off their parents, which partly explains the mess we're all in.
She is just saying make the most of your life. Nothing wrong with that. I wish I could have. I see her point now that I am 62 years old. Ive wasted a good part of my life worrying about others being happy instead of me. Honestly got me no where. I like her. I never read any of her books. Shes empowering somewhat.
I agree with "making the most of your life", but I see different ways to do that. A poet sitting under a tree is having as good a time making constructive statements about life, the world, and the heavens as a middle linebacker running onto the football field for a big game. The two guys might be incomprehensible to each other, but they have both found the niche that most suits them. I have reservations about Ayn Rand's definition of altruism. About the only profession I see as altruistic is that of a soldier, and that's debatable. I've been in the U.S. Army, and they said that soldiers were supposed to be altruistic, but the way we looked at it there were some good benefits from military service. I suppose the poem "The Charge of the Light Brigade" is the quintessential example of Ayn Rand's belief about toxic altruism, but that is only one example of the term. Usually, in jobs that require altruism they account for the risks a soldier or a fireman takes, and give benefits with them that are probably the real reason a person chose this course. A guy is likely to sign up for the military in order to pay for college, and he hopes no wars get started on his watch. On the football field a player supposed to be fearless. He is expected to risk injury to win football games, but it is not altruism that makes him do this. Pro players do it for money. College players do it for acclaim. That is the benefit of most altruistic behavior - acclaim.
I have nothing against Ayn Rand or you, but I think Ms. Rand and I are working with somewhat different definitions of altruism. There is a lot of "altruism" as she defines it, but it is my position that if a person does something that ultimately causes harm it is not altruistic.
@@georgepalmer5497 Interesting point. Rand's take here was meant for the "good of oneself". Take for example, the statement" I love my country, but I fear my government". It centers on one's own ambitions to be free from any outside intrusive intervention. Any "elected source" by an accepted majority STILL has no right to ANY directive in any man's ambitions within his OWN life. (Sorry, I'm hurried right now, I hope that makes sense to you.) ~Best
What if a man is a war profiteer, and he wants to get rich selling the army shoddy boots? Or what if a man wants to get rich renting apartments that are fire traps? We're too interconnected to say very many people exist apart from the effect they have on others.@@tymesho
Thanks for this video! Through it, I see Objectivism’s overlay of Atlas Shrugged, and of my personal dilemma. I was born and raised in the Midwest where honesty has long been one of the most important values, one which has always been foremost to me. But along the way I became a salesman in order to sell my thoughts and business to others. As such, I learned the most important truth in sales - “Everybody Lies!” To me, the Lyer is the most corrupt of all!
Because, one lie labels everything as a lie, and without truth, there can be no value. Despite this knowledge, I have maintained truth as my personal value and rejected those who have lied to me. It would seem that it must be a lonely life, but it hasn’t been. The friends I hold dear, and trust, are truly remarkable people, and have made life a treasured experience. I am now in my mid-eighties, and still smile.
@T S I lost most of my response to you, but won’t retype it. Thirty-five years ago I was introduced to Ayn Rand’s works, and treasure the opportunity she has given me to see through the thick haze of lies and find the real truth. I’m 85, and for the first 50 years I struggled to understand what was really true, but that logic told me couldn’t be true. I was a student of history, which is always been written by the victor. And since almost all history is about wars, the truth is clearly slanted and often ignored. But I tried my best. I told a friend about a book I had written for my kids, which had received rave reviews. Yet I was frustrated - I hadn’t found the real truth to pass along to them. She told me to read Atlas Shrugged. She was sure I would find direction in it. I took a lengthy trip to Norway for the Olympics and took it with me. It knocked my socks off, after the first 100 pages. Suddenly all my research made sense and I could see through the haze and see the truth. I don’t know if you will see what I see, but it’s worth a look. There’s another book you may want to read, Ten Days on Jekyll Island by G Edward Griffin. The goals of that meeting are finding fruition as we speak. We are awash in lies that everyone accepts as true because they are too lazy to look for the truth and too afraid it might all be true. Our world we have known and loved is being trampled by those who will enslave us unless we open our eyes to the truth. Good luck!
American here who's family came from Poland around 1904. "We are alike, you and I." (a John Galt quote in the 1st part of "Atlas Shrugged" movie). Even though you are brown, and I am white, we are alike,---because we choose to think. :)
Shame on you Danish Ali did the prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h advocate selfishness as a way of life? Is this the only life that we have if you believe this then you are not a believer. Change your name or change your mind but you cannot have your cake and eat it. This so called piece of drivel philistine philosophy is absolutely opposite to faith. So wake up before it is too late.
Since no one is talking about this, I would like to mention that there are other priorities besides humanity, particularly the environment. Prioritizing ourselves over the planet we live on is morally questionable.
@@Alex-cw3rz Hey Andrew died with the courage of his own convictions, remaining true to himself. Rand died a hypocrite, taking out state medical care when she called others who did that "looters"
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 I suppose, he still wasn't a good guy. But don't worry I completely agree Rand is a hypocrite with damaging ideas all she cared about was herself. And it's obvious that they were invoking her in Ryan
If everything is subjective then you can make no claim such as “everything is subjective.” It purely your opinion and I have no reason to listen to anything you say.
@@jsak83-ro2cf As your answer relies on misquoting the original post it is a logical fallacy [strawman argument] and is, therefore, no logical argument at all.
@@AloysiusSchicklgruber because “you create your reality”, there are no concepts outside yourself to ascribe to in relating your experience to me. So proof is impossible if everything is subjective. Therefore, even I am just a concept of your imagination. You, in fact, are creating this very dialogue to yourself. If you disagree with me, then you disagree with yourself. Not my problem at all. It can only be yours, because how do you even know that you aren’t the only one who exists?
Fabrício Santana well when you consider that the cluster b personalities only make up a very small percentage of society, this is a pretty good number of subscribers. Lol
@@Uxi_ee doesn't really, it missunderstood what objectivism is about, but I'm still glad they tried make such game, it got a lot of people interested in philosophy and also the game itself is pretty good
Basically. And dont hurt anyone or coerce or explot them. If everyone followed these simple things life would be much better. Call it utopian but what ideal isnt? At least this doesent have a commanding heirarchy and it cant really, especially when u get into the economic side, laisse faire capitalism is all about living and let live, that comes with responsibility not to be a lazy fuck or youll starve. Charity can still exist independant of welfare states
Its WAY more than that. If what you’re both doing makes no sense, you’re both fucked. First you need two things. 1. You need to see and accept reality, an you do this through 2. reason. When these two ideas are realized and or put into practice, then you can each live for yourselves.
Juan McCoy the Sears Ceo that just cost 250,000 employees there jobs and is not giving them severance paid, that was promised to them and was paid in one hour more then his employees got in a year believes in this philosophy? Is this the utopia Ayn Rand was talking about? Capitalistic slavery where employees are paid dismal wages? It is almost slavery. How has pure capitalism benefited most? It works great for commodities the consumer can choose and pick from like shoes, but how does it work in healthcare, for example, where the product is not really available for shopping by the consumer the ways shoes are? Her philosophy is the embodiment of all that is wrong with our current government. Greed and fend for yourselves and let the rest die if they have to. I come from a science and medical background. The deeper you study biology and the human body the more you realize that Nothing in nature functions autonomously and alone. From conception an embryo depends on the health of its mother. The chemical reactions in the body all depend on each other. The organelles inside a cell all work together. Inside your body, your organs do not selfishly work alone. The heart doesn’t work without oxygen obtained by blood that passes the lungs and the lungs don’t work without the heart pumping blood to them. We can’t breath oxygen if plants don’t produce it and plants cannot use carbon dioxide if we don’t produce it. Nothing in this planet survives by being completely selfish and autonomous. That’s why this philosophy is such a failure and results in pure greed and disregard for even the lives of the most vulnerable in the population. In Ayn Rand’s world, a baby born with serious health problems, to a drug addict mother or from parents with low income, should be left to die if it cannot be taken care of. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is evil in its purest form. It explains a lot about the current administration in the White House. Thank God Ayn Rand never reproduced.
She’s not saying to be discourteous or completely ignorant of other people. Altruism is a dangerous obsession with the well being of others. Don’t neglect your own health just to make other people marginally happy.
MMMM, no, I don't think so. Making decision based on reason instead of emotions will give you a much better shot at guiding your life well, with direction, but I don't see a correlation with ethics. I guess, if one's "reason" was used to commit crimes with out being caught, than that person would have a problem with ethics. But thinking rationally to help advance your life---is human.
When I was young, I was rebellious against Reagan so I got into Marxism. Never even heard of Ayn Rand until someone mentioned that she was mentioned on South Park. In 2000, I read 'For the New Intellectual'. I thought she was alive since what she was saying. Little did I know that she was prophesying the future. Everything she said that was going to happen, has or being being fulfilled. Meanwhile, what Chomsky said was going to happen, hasn't yet he is totally expected while she, condemned.
Let's cut to the chase. Unlike people with a healthy respect for history, science and intellectual inquiry, Ayn Rand brooked no dissent from her followers. She was not interested, in the least, with acknowledging any fault whatsoever with the supposed "capitalist ideal." She dismissed, out of hand, any consideration of institutionalized racism, sexism or classism. And she was quick to isolate and expel anyone who didn't agree with her. Serious scholars and thinkers understand, intuitively, that their theories and conclusions are not above reproach and that human intelligence is only advanced by critical thinking. Chomsky said it best when he was asked which of his theories would stand the test of time. "None of them," he responded. "New information comes along, new theories are proposed, new experiments are conducted. That's how science works." Rand wasn't a critical thinker, she was the head of a personality cult. In fact, if you compare her to the other great personality cult leader of the same period, L. Ron Hubbard, the similarities between the two are striking. Rand's only redeeming quality was her support for a woman's right to control her own body - a lesson contemporary right wing libertarians have completely abandoned.
Yes re her cult (still around - and posting here!). And she couldn't be bothered to walk the dozen blocks to UN development HQ (or travel to east Asia) to find out how development really works: high performance work teams, creating better systems, and NOT one-man-shows. She was right (if trivial) in perpetuating that most value is created in the early days of system-adoption S curves - but the REAL villain is not "the government" which in the US has a vast layer of politically appointed and very costly meddlers at the top she ignored, its the US oligarchs and big corporations that appoint those meddlers and create the scorched earth. In part because of her addled nonsense the US has about the worst Gini coefficient in the West.
Imagine how difficult it must be to use an irrationalist like Chomsky to try to vilify a rationalist like Rand. You have to twist logic into pretzels in order to do so. The ONLY thing you have right is that most "scholars and thinkers" today use "intuition" to support their theories and conclusions.... just as their predecessors did in ancient times. Rand relied on reason.
@@johnnynick6179 - Keep telling yourself that. Rand relied not on reason, but on her follower's willingness to accept whatever she demanded of them, particularly with regard to her historical revisionism and her selective outrage.
@@librarianeric You're just babbling brainless insults based on opinions pulled out of your arse. Basically it's just another sad attempt at a character assassination because you're too unintelligent to counter a single one of her arguments. 😅
@@bornkinggamer3347 *Perhaps the worst philosophy of all time.* Yet the most successful of all time, creating wealth and prosperity and happiness that the world has never seen. This must really hurt you feelings, eh?
"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."
@@trollpolice The world would be a much better place if everyone read and truly synthesized Tolkien, Lewis, Rand, and people like Aristotle and Augustine. Indeed a much better place.
0:28 It does NOT "advocate selfishness." It's egoism, NOT egotism. There is nothing wrong with standing up for yourself and defending your interests. If you want to sacrifice yourself to others, we won't stop you!
@@MrElionor Do you type with your right hand, and hold your left hand out for a social program like a beggar? Is other men living their life with achievement so you can exist and earn nothing moral, or is it slavery? It is immoral to consume more than you produce.
It’s difficult for me to accept making life more fair for those who come from vulnerable circumstances beyond their control is evil. We shouldn’t give everything we have away (which would be foolish), but to have a Dog Eat Dog mentality about life seems harshly unfair.
Rand did not propose a "dog eat dog" ideology; and even less a whole society based on that. Rand proposed recognizing and respecting the self-ownership of each and every individual; and that includes the government recognizing and respecting the self-ownership of everyone.
You're perfectly free to give away anything and as much of what's yours as you wish. The evil is in demanding that others do so as well and using the force of government to compel them, ie the welfare state.
People with ambition and want to live off their own efforts like her. People on the dole with no personal ambition, (or handing out the dole), do not like her. If you liked a vid, you will love her non-fiction books. The books by her shown in this vid----are eye opening to say the least. They will help fill in the voids between the peeks of truth that you do know, and it will all come together.
@@EarthSurferUSA people don't live off their own efforts - we don't photosynthesise. our society is based on specialisation - its more efficient than making everything you need yourself, but then you are relying on other peoples work.
Ayn Rand had sort of a point way back then, but she did not understand how development works which became clear with the Asia model. It's actually myriad teams and systems, not a few billionaire geniuses creating scorched earth, and governments helping to ensure populations are educated, housed and secure.
"If you know that this life is all that you have, won't you make the most of it?" Well, now we need to define "most". Then, why does it follow that one could not make the most of this life if he knew that after this life there was an eternity awaiting him; only differently than the one who believes that he only has this life? It reminds me of the old quote: what would you do if you knew you couldn't fail?
They're right selfishness doesn't explicitly mean to exploit others for personal gain. It just means you won't consider others in your decision making throughout life, which inevitably will lead to you exploiting others for personal gain....
As an individual in a group we are more likely to achieve better success of we cooperate than act completely in self-interest and ignoring the interest of others -Game theory But I don't believe altruism is the goal, self interest is also vital to success of the whole
I've been an avid reader of her books all my life. I keep reading Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged over and over and each time I discover a better explanation to clear the doubts I still carry. The moment I understood that the world has defined selfishness wrong, I realized a host of others too similarly obfuscated. To name a few, sacrifice is a virtue, I should love all indiscriminately, I should work for my neighbor more than for myself, and for my country more than for my neighbor ... Oh what a terrible world we have built over thousands of years! HIGH TIME WE BLAST ALL OUR MISGUIDED UNDERSTANDINGS!!
You're only choosing one extreme over the over. You don't have to be completely selfish or selfless. Also, you fail to realize that you rely heavily on other. Humans are a social species.
@@austinhernandez2716 Being selfish or selfless are more about being moral and are not extremes of behaviour or civic response. I'd want to be moral and naturally it is selfishness. So then being always moral is not an extreme stand, but just striving never to be immoral. In that sense, I am a very responsible human in society. Hence society too can reliably trust me.
@silicone unicorn to reply comprehensively to your several points above, the fundamental learning for all is the reality, laws of nature. These are true, whether u or I accept or not. That makes it objective, not subjective. The process is reason & logic. It is only correct to grasp & accept the truths given by others, the truth to be understood & not accepted in faith. R u with me? Use these to check if I am a blind follower of Rand.
@@danielkraus5560 It's a bit like saying: "Fascism is a great idea because it eliminates social unequality and allows to achieve big projects without annoying social debate due to strong centralized leadership". It's not completly wrong but just misses the point of it.
@@TheFeanor74 Burh this video was made by the Ayn Rand Institute. Obviously, they will be promoting her philosophy. If you want a critique of it, go somewhere else. That like watching a video by the Soviet Union and expecting a critique of Marx.
After much thought I can say that as a person I see something that most of us can relate to and I think it has single handily caused more damage to our nation than anything else . What is it ? Hourly wage . Why ? I work construction and when I was younger I did work for an hourly wage but what I observed was this ; the owner of a company needs help so he/she hires people hoping that they will work cheap and hard and make the business owner as much money as possible . A person gets a job hoping the boss will be fair and if they apply themselves they will get a raise . These are hopes and dreams but more often than not it doesn't happen . What happens is a person gets hired at a certain wage wants to earn it and progress but he /she hears this from others who have decided they are going to do the least amount of work possible to keep their jobs "you are making me look bad , slow down" , or "brown noser" or if you are not willing to cover for their failures "you are not a 'team' worker" . Or jealousy sets in and the good worker gets lied on and smeared to the boss . All the above happened to me personally and I began to realize that no matter how hard I worked I would NEVER get full credit for what I had done but would inevitably have to 'give' much of what I produced to those who had not earned it ! We ALL know how 'bad companies' can and will abuse hourly workers ! THE FIX ? Piece work . I am self-employed , I give prices by the job NOT hour and I can tell you that it is total FREEDOM . If I choose to work hard I make money , if I do not then I don't , simple as that . My productivity is at least 3 times what most hourly workers would put out and I do not mean this to put them down but since I directly am affected by my efforts not only do I work HARD I also work SMART and as efficient as possible . In the near future I will start a manufacturing company and all who work for me will be payed piece work only down to even the janitor . Why ? I will not treat another person in a manner I wouldn't be treated and I am excited to be able to see others be free . My name is John Gault .
@@SK-tr1wo lol you are very observant ! That name was used for a purpose and if you can't understand it then I would only be wasting my time explaining it . I want you to imagine a place where you are free to do anything you want as long as you are not taking another person's freedom away to do the same thing . However with that freedom you will enjoy either the rewards of what you work for or if you don't work then you will reap the repercussions of that as well . No one is 'responsible' for you or your well being but YOU . No one is responsible for your 'needs' but YOU . However if you need or want something that you are unable to supply for yourself you must trade whatever you and the other person agrees it is worth to obtain it . You are not entitled to it simply because they have it and you do not nor should they feel it is their 'duty' to give it to you because you don't have it . For me this is not a hard concept as it is in line with the golden rule . Have a nice day !
And what's the alternative? Socialism, Communism, Fascism that got an estimated 100 million people in the 20th century killed, mostly starvation. I'll stick with Capitalism, champ.
Selfishness is the greatest thing in the world. Because successful people always says moral values and life quotes but in their journey they are selfish. But they won't to tell us these type of things.
Because 99,99% of the time is predicated altruism, false altruism or clumsy altruism. Like whe priests say being rich is bad, and they live in palaces with charity money. Like when your broker calls you to sell stocks options to make you rich, then gets his commissions and you lose your capital- Like when you help Jesus on the cross removing the nails from hands first, letting him swaying upside down, cause his feet are still pinned. Selfishness is at least true and honest.
@@ilmaio Thank you Past three years I’ve been in study Eschatology And All things Christ I now have a entirely different view And I am aware of the complete take over of these times where History is erased Laws are changed And we wrestle against the evil powers and principalities I know more now Thank God in Jesus name You can say I’m crazy. But. I’m not. I just believe I amhapppy I hope you see too I see the evil I see the inversion I see the symbols I know their language
@@ilmaio I have learned This earth is not a ball In my option No one gets past the firmament NASA is Satan And I do believe in nephilim returning In fact ghry are here More will come
I don't think you can reduce all human activity and pursuits to reason. It's actually quite the contrary... it is emotional in nature, passionate, sometimes even a calling.
When you hold rational values there are no contractions between emotions and your reason. This is based on both a misunderstanding of just what emotions are, and incorrect philosophies which separate morality from reality.
The basic logical contradiction of her philosophy is that freedom and participation in the decision making is reserved only for people who own corps... Everybody else besides the self employed- would work under a master ...
@@willnitschke I already said that it is not . Only the self employed without workers would be free... The rest would be divided between masters and servants ..( the vast majority) .
@@willnitschke Hey mr.... "Genius" he is not because he runs his own business ...so to speak ... ( he owns his tools etc) and he decides about his business, makes decisions how to repair it , etc If he is employed by someone else in a permanent base is just a servant ... This was actually a republican idea .. wage employment not so far away from slavery ..
@@dsgio7254 People prefer employment over self employment typically because of higher perceived security, higher wages, and less work. Given a person can choose to be employed or self employed at any time, they are not "slaves" are they? You're a very dumb person, sorry.
All this only reminded me of someone who is talked about a lot in the most successful book that was ever written. He really got most everyone baffled by stating that what we should do and the most important thing is to love your neighbor above all other really good things. Anyway that's how I remember that. Hmmm Oh and I wrote this exactly just this way to give back some love to some people cuz I'm sure they were smiling and were feeling better. Your welcome "Grammar Police"
There is a lot to like in Rand's philosophy but it never ceases to amaze me how highly intelligent people can still have such a narrow limited view of the universe. That there could be an existence beyond space, time, word communication and the extreme limits of the physical existence. No, there is no "burning bush" out there but much more if you know how to look beyond your meager physical senses.
Objectivism is the pseudo-intellectual man’s philosophy. Any rational being knows that. A society of unbridled, unregulated capitalism would be the equivalent of hell.
I'm proud to say that I have read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountain Head" and learned concepts in life that require thinking and doing what is right for yourself while not injuring others along the way. She was (is) brilliant.
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 Can you elaborate on what you mean by injured? How about lottery winners? People willingly buy tickets (they are a want, not a need) and the winnings weren't achieved through the backs of others. Sure, you can make an argument the winner didn't "deserve" the winnings because it's a matter of chance, but I cannot consider that injuring others.
@@Numbers_Game By injured I mean cutthroat marketing, lobbying and doing everything required to chock one's competitors. I don't think even any medium business can survive without those.
@@N1r0ak He asked for one multimillionare and I gave him one. Not my fault that in your commie mind every notion of profit is not possible without exploitation.
This philosophy is very interesting when you are a teenager, but then you eventually realize how childish it is. Pure capitalism doesn't work. Intellectual property is often stolen. Wealth and power often leads to corruption.
According to her the only moral social system was laissez-faire capitalism, which is BS. No lack of prominent economists and capitalists over the decades acknowledge that the philosophy of laissez-faire capitalism never was a moral social system not to mention would never be sustainable. It would only cannibalize its own markets and has to therefore always be expanding to a growing population, new markets, and emerging markets. But once globalization is achieved, it has no where to grow. As a capitalist, i recognize that every economic system has a cost to society even a so called "free market" one, as those that succeed in them control most of the resources. No economic system is escapable from some type of authority be it government or those that control the resources, which is why no free market economy exists; not even in Singapore, US, Switzerland, and New Zealand to name a few..
In reality, it is collectivism that young, inexperience, immature people are attracted to. Most college-age students identify as socialists or communists until they are old enough to know better. I don't know of ANYONE who identified as an OBIECTIVIST as a teenager. That is a silly myth.
0:06 - So you didn't know how to pronounce her name either?
lol.....The only conclusion I could come up with as well
Aye n
EyeN is how u pronounce her first name
I think it's open for debate, hence why they avoided it entirely.
😂😂😂
"Is a man entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No,' says the man in Washington, 'it belongs to the poor.' 'No,' says the man in the Vatican, 'it belongs to God.' 'No,' says the man in Moscow, 'it belongs to everyone.' I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible; I chose Rapture."
Come on., GDF. The very nature of capitalism is one man enriching himself by the sweat of thousands people working for him, for he pays them for the sweat of their collective brow the smallest possible portion of what they make.
@BeGood 2Me Not everybody can be a businessmen, both for personal and general economic reasons. 99% work for someone else. They are our fellow human beings. Should we condemn them to poverty and misery, to powerlessness and unbridled exploitation?
@BeGood 2Me I was never self employed. I wouldn't know where to begin, What you described about upward mobility in America was true in the past. But globalization which relocated industries and jobs from West to East makes this upward mobility no longer realistic. Globalization also destroyed industrial unions, for the above mentioned reasons, so workers can no longer bargain for better wages and working conditions. So, where are we going from here - resort to self sufficiency? Move to rural arias, grow own food, make own clothes, own shoes, etc., etc., etc? Your idea is to move from 21 century to 12 century. I don't think it's very realistic to expect billions of people to do that. All over the world people still running from the farms and flocking to big cities. That's where the world is today. And we have to deal with it now.
@BeGood 2Me I achieved my upward mobility long time ago by writing and publishing 15 books. I am concerned with the future of the next generations.
@BeGood 2Me If I knew your real name I would wish you and anyone thinking like you good luck. Anyone who is happy makes me happy. The more happy people this world has the better it is. P.S. Next time you have a conversation with a stranger try to be polite. Don''t be so aggressive. it doesn't befit intellectual. I take this liberty because I'm sure I'm much older than you are. All the best
Actually it's only 1 sentence: I shall live for no man nor allow any man to live for me.It's only the definition of life that is in the question.
Except we're not little special created snowflakes; Homo Sapiens Sapien evolved as a social species, pod-based like all the Great Apes and Monkeys
No Man Is An Island~John Donne
No man is an island,
Entire of itself;
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less,
As well as if a promontory were:
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were.
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
@Humanity Galatica Man is by definition an animal; we are Homo Sapiens Sapien and we descend from the same common ancestor as that of chimpanzees, bonobos and the Great Apes. A chimp is 98% the same animal as Homo Sapiens Sapien.
We are a social creature, however. The "Rugged Individual" is a delusion.
@@troyevitt2437 The "rugged individual" is the guy that creates value for himself and have the CHOICE to share this value with others in exchange for whatever someone has in abundance and he lacks, promoting a mutually beneficial exchange. Whenever such exchange is not beneficial for both parties, then there should be no exchange. To be social, should be in someones best interest most of the time, but to assume it is an inherent property of our species to extrapolate based on a single point of view. Correlation might be present, but to assume causality is a step too far.
@@ziguirayou I have not heard of many civilization / cultures in the world without "society".
Is there ever been a culture with a single person, who lives, laughed, conquered, invented and lived for many decade by him/her self?
@@ziguirayou I guess there are plenty of example where exchange is not "beneficial " to both parties today. If someone is working (many actually, with degree too) with multiple jobs to just stay afloat and ruining there body, it's not actually beneficial in long run to one party. Unless you think shelter, food are not important for a human.
so, the happiness of the individual is the most important thing. But this works as a society because we each respect everyone elses right to pursue their own self interest. but exactly what happens when your interests and someone elses are in direct conflict
+Jack McLean In "The Virtue of Selfishness" chapter 4 is all about the "conflict of interest" situation. I would suggest you read it yourself. a TL;DR version goes something like this: There are no conflicts of interest among rational men, If two men are interested in the same thing, one wins one looses. Anyone who is interested in being successful when pursuing their interests should take into consideration four things: Reality, Context, Responsibility, and Effort. Taking these into consideration a rational man never imagines for something that is unearned, if he encounters competition he either wins or takes up an other interest. I'll post a separate comment with a short example from the reading.
+Joseph Benavidez about the two men applying for the same job-and observe in what manner it ignores or opposes these four considerations. (a) Reality. The mere fact that two men desire the same job does not constitute proof that either of them is entitled to it or deserves it, and that his interests are damaged if he does not obtain it. (b) Context. Both men should know that if they desire a job, their goal is made possible only by the existence of a business concern able to provide employment-that that business concern requires the availability of more than one applicant for any job-that if only one applicant existed, he would not obtain the job, because the business concern would have to close its doors-and that their competition for the job is to their interest, even though one of them will lose in that particular encounter. (c) Responsibility. Neither man has the moral right to declare that he doesn’t want to consider all those things, he just wants a job. He is not entitled to any desire or to any “interest” without knowledge of what is required to make its fulfillment possible. (d) Effort. Whoever gets the job, has earned it (assuming that the employer’s choice is rational). This benefit is due to his own merit-not to the “sacrifice” of the other man who never had any vested right to that job. The failure to give to a man what had never belonged to him can hardly be described as “sacrificing his interests.”
@@_GoldenGoat_ Lots of people are selfish but no one, literally no one is this perverse definition of "rational". You already exploit people by taking part in western society. Ayn Rand is a fool and her philosophy is a non-solution.
@@JD-jl4yy Being that these comments were made 5 years ago. I am not the same person who made them. However, this is a decent breakdown of the Philosophical point that Ayn Rand makes. I have personally taken more to stoicism in regsrds to dealing with issues like two men applying for the same job, as I know understand that most people dont act rationally most of the time. It is hopeless to try to break down a "why" from irrational thinking. Radical acceptance is a decent way to move on from it, rather then breaking ones brain over "why".
If your life directly effects others around you negatively then it's a self problem not society
This life is all you have. Make the most of it
No one knows that. So, it should remain a question. Ayn said "if," you thought you had only this life . . .
How about " Live this life well, and the after life will take care of itself"?@@q7winq7
@@q7winq7 I think it is
@@bayewkkebede1846 - - - - - There's nothing wrong with thinking. I think what is true is probably beyond human reasoning. I doubt the Universe will condemn us for being wrong about it one way or the other.
@@q7winq7If what's true is beyond human reasoning then the most rational strategy is: This life is all you have. Make the most of it.
So you just contradicted yourself, well done.
"My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose."
Anthem by Ayn Rand
Absolutely love that book!
Sounds allot like remarks satanists have said. That "it's all about self, self enjoyment. And if you can, then do." or something like
that?
@@sudilos1172 no, not even close. The main point is that you DESERVE happiness and attaining it should be a main purpose of your life. Others will tell you that is selfish, that you should sacrifice for the collective. Someone will say “can I have just a minute of your time?”, but the sum total of your wealth is the minutes and hours that you have on this Earth. And no one knows how much time they have. So why let them steal your most precious possession?
@@johnscott2746 Not to bright are we?
Happiness is a release of chemicals in your brain, these chemical triggers are signalled when you feel satisfied, so if you feel satisfied with nothing you are happy. That means you can be happy with nothing if you so choose, and it has nothing to do with attaining goals, in fact the biggest reason for suicide is too much pressure to attain goals, or believing that you are worth nothing, and worth is SUBJECTIVE, it is FAR from an objective reality.
Happiness does not require goals, you can be happy now, even in the worst circumstances.
I also think if your mother died of cancer and could not get treatment cause you live in a selfish country you may indeed be unhappy, it is true even in dark times we can find a place to smile and be happy but that's very difficult if all your family die and you are put in a children's home at 6.
Why let them steal your most precious possession? Simple, cause most decent people like to help people, but it's true most American's are brought up to be psychopaths nowadays, it may even explain the shootings of unarmed black people, as well as others including the much hated AYN RAND native Americans who she said had no right to live there - survival of the fittest! And back to the example of the mother, if others actually helped her in a society, you know like about every other country in the world even Russia, India, most of Europe and a good portion of Africa, the whole of America would be a lot happier, especially the 6 year old who's family died because America is a far right selfish society, from outside it is clear it is in moral and economic decline.
Evidence, you can see it all around you. War, death = USA got to kill to stay number 1.
If you only care about yourself - check out the DSM on psychopathy - congratulations you might even get high marks on this test. SCIENCE - even that is in decline with museums with dinosaurs. But that wont change cause everybody is promoted to be selfish and f the rest.
And Trillions on war, but don't bother doing anything about it cause others don't matter.
@@ghostlyphantasm2352 wow! You went bouncing around and didn’t actually say much. Let’s see, first I never talked about goals. I just said that you deserve happiness and attaining it should be your focus in life. That doesn’t mean accumulating stuff. You are right that one can be happy with nothing.
There has always been misfortune in this world and it’s a shame. But Americans have been the most generous people in the world . Private charities do a great deal of good. But government has no place in this. Government has no money of its own, only what it gets from taxpayers. No person should be made to work to support another against their will. We used to call this slavery. The liberal ideas that have been expanding the scope of government for a century are the main reason I structured my finances the way I have so as to keep from having to help finance all of it. I agree with you about the military. It is excessive to say the least. Please note that I took a few minutes out of my day to respond. I spent some of my real wealth on you. Your welcome!
Hmm... It's pretty suspicious that this video neglected to include an explanation of the fourth pillar of objectivism, which is capitalism. More specifically, laissez-faire capitalism, in which regulation of corporations is kept at an absolute minimum to trust that corporations will self-regulate. This is the point where objectivism exits from the philosophical realm into the political realm, in which it occupies the space of far-right politics that would probably drive many, if not most people away from objectivism were the section of laissez-faire capitalism to be included in this video.
The other three pillars of objectivism are a politically neutral ideology that could draw many people in, but capitalism sticks out. So why did this video only include the sections that would be appealing to the uninformed? I strongly suspect that this was intentional, motivated by the cause of selling books and memorabilia to those who would otherwise be driven away by this ideology.
Limited government so that the market (the people) will decide the fate of the corporation, not so the corporation can decide it for themselves even when they fail.
It is sad that capitalism is associated with the far rights but their social views are identitarian (much like the far left). Seeing how anything remotely right of the far left is considered far right nowadays, this doesn't really surprise me.
If you want to get into it, the far left believe in giving more control to the government (big government), which is essentially the opposite of objectivism, since youre letting the government to control your own objective view points.
It is the big government that bails out corporations and create monopolies that will continue to oppress the people and you wish to give them more power.... But youre right on one point, the sad reality that Capitalism is considered to be a nagative marketing point for books nowadays is prevalent and the world will continue to bend backward to support socialism at the tunes of the people who actually support Socialism, the corporations.
Note, in terms of capitalism, that objectivism would never allow for things like bank bailouts and "too big to fail".
I think that the morality of self-interest is more controversial, and more important, which is probably why the most emphasis was placed there. Objectivism as a philosophical system tends to be overly politicized in the eyes of many of its leading intellectuals. Politics is important, but it's derivative, and many people, including objectivists, spend far too much time talking about it and too little time thinking or speaking about the more fundamental branches. Most people don't even question altruism. They simply think of it as a synonym for morality. Capitalism, on the other hand, is already being advanced as an idea, albeit less effectively and in a philosophically compromised way, by very many public intellectuals including mainstream conservatives. Until you get into the nitty-gritty of it, capitalism as a feature of objectivism isn't even very distinguishing. And outside of this 2 minute introduction video there's PLENTY of content on objectivism's take on politics. Therefore I think Hunter Long's comment is way off.
Indeed...this omission was deliberate, as capitalism and corporations are based on elements that contradict the basic tenets of objectivism.
Capitalism requires others than the capitalist to perform the objectives of the capitalist in an inherently uneven bargain.
Corporations are authoritarian collectives with top-down hierarchies, regulations and cultures that shield participants from personal autonomy and responsibility.
Objectivism assumes that everyone will always function rationally and in good faith, be well-informed decision-makers and abide by its idealized tenets, which has not and will not ever happen.
This where the libertarian gurus are needed to rationalize these contradictions and allay its cognitive dissonance.
@@ivandafoe5451 You're blinded by envy, resentment of the rich, and a dogmatic commitment to the poisonous, false, religious based morality of altruism. You won't accept the obvious fact of life that it is often in the individual's rational self interest to trade unequally: to trade with someone richer than himself, someone in a superior bargaining position to himself, which may be a well earned position. Both parties do not need to benefit from a trade equally in order for both parties to benefit. For that matter, both parties don't need to benefit equally for it to be the best deal available anywhere in the world for both parties. Capitalism is based on these sorts of transactions. It is based on mutually beneficial trade relationships, and indeed mutual benevolence, between unequal parties. And don't conflate capitalism with the horrible mixed economy that conservatives created by compromising excessively with socialists. That is your system, not objectivists'.
Objectivism does not "assume" that everyone will be rational. It understands that individuals are better off being given the opportunity to benefit from their own rationality, which does leave a lot up to their choice, rather than forcing them into some god awful system of mutual enslavement that seeks to "free" the individual from his obligations to himself, and from the reality of life.
To those who worry for others, you cannot help them until you yourself are good.
If helping those which need it what brings you happiness, do it. That is the rational approach to your own self interest.
Robinhood rob from one and give to another makes him feel good too, what gov does. Robbery is wrong no mattery how or who does it.
Real robbers have more moral than politicians. They jnow what they are doing is wrong, while politicians escalate themselves to godhood.
but what if the other people are not letting you help yourself
It took almost my entire life to understand what she was onto, but ultimately my interpretation is that there are things you can do at 15 you can’t do at 25. Things at 25 you can’t do at 35. Things you’ll never be able to do again by the time you’re 45 and so on. So, while you have opportunity in front of you, don’t lose sight of them over the impositions of others wishes who are peripheral to what will make your life more meaningful. Otherwise, you may forfeit the most productive years of your life for a cause that was ultimately self destructive by nature. Making those misspent years a tragedy twice over.
gees so depressing. I'm over 55 and can still do most of the things I could do at 15 as well as do a hole lot of things I could NOT do at 15. I strive to move forward, be better. I expect to be prefect when I'm dead.
@@lostvisitor You can't spell Whole!
@@rollotomassi6232 I could never spell in english.
This
The crazy part about her philosophy to me was; I was reading her book the Virtue of selfishness at the same time as reading Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. And they actually went hand in hand quite well. I think I know where she got some of her ideology from...
If you asked her, she would say "Aristotle and only Aristotle".
I've done the same. They are certainly areas where they connect. They are both virtue driven, they both value reason and self-improvement.
One difference would be who you do it for. Do you live for yourself or for others ?
As I see it, if you can marry the self-interest of Objectivism with the self-discipline of Stoicism, you have a pretty good foundation for a succesful life.
Pretty much the same with me. I got exposed to Stoic Philosophy before Ayn Rand; it's really a good mix for me.
Aristotle
I think anyone with a logical mind based in reason develops this philosophy just through living life, and going through struggle.
So....make a shallow video about a complicated subject, shoe-horn it into two minutes and play loud , driving music over the top of it....pure genius.
Youre welcome to make a better one
Oh wait… youre a useless whiny baby
1:43 *“If you know that this life is all that you have, wouldn’t you make the most of it?”* ... enlightened self-interest
So assume you are a nurse or a doctor in these covid times - does it make better sense to quit? After all, you are entering a high risk area
Or how about soldiers? I wish that question was asked when she was alive - why would anyone put his life at risk for others?
What if life continues after death? I guess it makes her philosophy kinda silly doesn't it? She is basically another form of godless humanism. It always leads to dictatorship
But soldiers get discounts on home purchases and at restaurants, don't they? And medical staff get good benefits so really if you look at it at this angle, it can be for self interest that they keep doing what they do despite the risk/consequence
@@rachelschendel2476 Those benefits don't outweigh the risks. I highly doubt any soldier would go to war thinking, "I get a discount at certain restaurants; yep, that's definitely worth endangering my life."
You're clutching at straws here.
Nice short video of the basics, especially the part about selfishness not including the right to exploit other people or prevent them from pursuing their own self-interest. Many critics overlook that, or pretend that the philosophy doesn't say that.
Then that isn't true selfishness. Thus the entire philosophy is made on a foundation of sand.
@@calathan Invoking the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Thus, your critique fails.
Also, since "selfishness" isn't the axiomatic basis or premise of the Objectivist philosophy, but simply a side aspect of it, you're Straw-manning it. Thus, you're critique fails on 2 counts.
Somehow the Rand followers seem to forget that part.
@@kathypeterson7967 Can you give an example? I can't think of a Rand follower who knowingly violates the rights of others or justifies the violation of rights. And if you're not violating someone's rights, it's difficult to see how you're 'exploiting' them.
@@macsnafu corporate greed that exploits workers to acquire their profits to the point the workers have no means by which to better their own situation?? Does that make sense?
Have to say, this is a pretty good video.
+eggory this video fucking sucks....why dont u libertarian shitheads embrace nationalism?
+SlimeGGKing socialism would be better
SlimeGGKing What do you mean by nationalism? You seem to express nothing but frustration with the difficulty in expressing yourself. Nothing in this video contradicts the ideal of having a nation, the sense of belonging to a nation, or the valuing of your nation above foreign nations. So in some sense of the word nationalism, we do embrace it.
*The dumb bitch Ayn Rand was a chain smoker who ended up being dependent on government health services as well as food stamps and government housing when she got lung cancer. She was such an evil person no one loved her and wanted to bail her out. What does that say?*
You must relate a lot with Ayn Rand, Terry, considering you're a dumb bitch yourself.
I left a bad relationship and ended up in a shelter. I've busted butt to get a job and an apartment and they hate me.
I used to be a liberal, not any more
Who are the "THEY" that hate you?
The kindergarten had the day off.
Two logical problems stand out to me. 1) Reality is not just what it is, but also can become what we can imagine, which is important. Humans can change things. 2) Selfishness definitely CAN mean exploiting others for their own gain. Ignorance of that means you are not equipped to deal with psychopathy / sociopathy, and that is why many communities founded on utopian ideals do not succeed. An extension of this relevent to world problems today is - for direct democracy / organising power to transcend monkey brain limits, any system must have engineered into it awareness of these limits. Democracy 2.0 will need to understand the flaws within ourselves and build parity into collaborative decision making to have a better immune system against corruption.
1 - Reality is measurable and objective. Your interpretation of reality is your own, but thinking the you can project your interpretation and make it something concrete by just force of argument is something that should warrant you with either a place as an X-Men or a diagnostic of mental illness, depending on the results you achieve. Secondly, of course humans can change things through work, that was never in question, but the change you make, is exactly the result of the work you put in, so having clarity about your impact on reality is key to understanding it.
2 - Exploiting others is wrong, that is a very strong point of the whole concept of objectivism. All interactions between self governing humans must be mutually beneficial, otherwise they shouldn't take place. Exploitation happens when someone uses force or coercion to make an interaction be beneficial only to one of the parties. Selfishness in the sense of objectivism is related to prioritizing interactions that are good for you, and understanding that if all other people with the same capabilities do the same, everyone benefits in the end. Whenever people use democratic means, backed up by force (law, police, arms, etc) or coersion (threats, psychological offense, taxation, unfair business practices, etc) to force part of society to interact at loss, to benefit a chosen group, this is exploitation plain and simple.
1:36 just a note, this is the aim of life under objectivist ethics. The virtues, the actions taken to meet these results, are rationality, productiveness, and pride.
Very stupid philosophy indeed.
@@georgecurly5965 Is virtue irrationality, laziness and shame then?
Amongst the virtues enumerated by Rand you are missing a few; beyond rationality, productivity and pride, there are also honesty, integrity, independence, and justice. These virtues are a shield to one's values: reason, self-esteem, and purposeful action, and ultimately, life itself.
You can't spell "selfish" without "fish", think about that.
Severely underrated comment
That's deep. Like da ocean
You can give a man a fish and he will smell fishy for a day, or . . .
Terry Goodkind sent me here. I don't understand why people have such troubles with an objectivist philosophy. Reason should be your only ruler. Reality is what it is. It's up to us to use reason to determine the value of reality.
because some of us believe a loving God is real However, her philosophy works within that frame.
Yes but we entered the twilight zone of feelings over facts! Shame!
I have a problem with objectivism philosophy because it is against of altruism and loving everyone
Ayn Rand on Native Americans: „I do not think they have any right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and lived like savages.“
You might say this is de-contextualized. But I cannot for the life of me think of a scenario in which saying something like this would ever be justifiable. I think the appreciation of oneself and selfishness to the degree to which Ayn Rand subscribes, can lead one to say such things that clearly show signs of fascism.
Summary of Objectivism
Objective reality - Metaphysics
Reason - Epistemology
Self interest - Ethics
Capitalism - Politics
Watch this - The metaphysics of stupidity -
th-cam.com/video/Ez1bMC9ZvLg/w-d-xo.html
@T S prove it
Aristotle, Aristotle, lol
Life update, I came across this video when I was reviewing for my Master in Public Admin Compre Exam. Guess what!!! I'm now and MPA, Major in Fiscal Admin. Whooho
@@palmtoptiaga
Rand would have hated you.
Intresting. I think I will go now to my public library and read one of her books.
Ayn Rand is a fantastic writer!
Funny, she would call a public library a parasitic entity
Read The Fountainhead. One of my Favorite Novels to this day.
It will not worth it, it's just wasted time. Read my comment over yours and you will know why I think her Philosophy is full of lacks and mistakes in thinking. Its about what drives her to write such a philosophy, this is why it would not make you happy living this way, not even make you successful or any of that.
akeem hase is in the summary of that book: “some people matter and some just don’t”?
The basic idea is rational self interest pursued without doing harm to others. The issue becomes what constitutes "rational" .
Thinking for yourself using logic. Existence exist. Reality Exist. Live your existence by Rational Benevolence as base for your values which direct your action in the real world for creativity, joy, success. Irrational believe in a Malevolent-Evil world as base for your values direct all your days for sacrifice and altruism - obedience to some floating destiny in suffering and ugliness. Objectivism denied subjectivism, the duality mind-body. Existence is one objective truth.
Selfishness is preserve our existence in the real world: Anyone volunteer for sharing alive the coffin with someone?
if i can legally claim your belongings leaving you on the street that is justice because i did not harm you by taking your ability to produce money and food.
if you than try to create a shelter or a farm on my land i will claim everything you produced on my land.
because that is the Rational system Ayn Rand supports.
You have to find your own Plot of land to produce stuff.
@@sownheard
That's not right at all.
@@MT-2020 Your perception defines what you see as a reality and two people can look at the same thing only to make different deductions.
She came from a communist country, had some trauma with it, so wanted to prove that capitalism is best, not seeing the havoc capitalism wreaks, how the mindless consumerism is literally destroying the world and her ''objective liberterian'' world depends upon suffering of others.
And she basically says ''I don't care, I'll be just fine''
If Rand cannot define "rational," then her so-called 'Philosophy' has no foundation in "reality." And, if Rand cannot define either term, with some universality and decisive objectivity, her work is more 'eclectic prose' than philosophy. Of course, inner city sybarites and beneficiaries of the Cantillon effect would disagree. Mr Hendry?
A very good introduction to her Philosophies. Even with a bias in favor of it you still kept it fairly neutral and didn't misrepresent it good job.
CrazedAutisticAnarchist Well it is the Ayn Rand Institute TH-cam channel so there’s that.
Haha objectivism is bullshit and ayn rand was a terrible person.
@@GyroZeppel God told you this?
Newbrict does god speak to you?
@@GyroZeppel do you have any reasons behind your beliefs?
She was brilliantly correct.
@Pessy's ASMR yea I assume way to much from fellow citizens. Pandemic showed me that. Mass Retardation lol
What I do not understand is how she approaches conflict. In the pursuit of my personal happiness I'm bound to interact and maybe even oppose others in their personal pursuit of happiness. In such cases what does Rand say. Should I be assertive and try to overcome this opposition or should I be flexible and sacrifice my own directive to being true to my own pursuits. In a world with limited resources how do we balance some people's pursuit to amass a great deal of resources, sometimes at the cost of other people's happiness. If we are all just trying to live free how do we cope with the inherent conflict that arises. Are we to devolve into anarchy and have the weak ruled by the strong, or are we to sacrifice our selfish pursuit of individual happiness for a stable social order?
Mostly, your pursuit of happiness shouldn't conflict with others. If you want to buy a good house and live a good life, others can also do the same. If you are trying to achieve a goal or win a title, something only one person can get, then it's a competition. It would be your goal to overcome the competition, as well as the other person's goal. You can choose to be flexible, however it should be decided individually and not forced. Your goal should not be to tear down others or destroy their happiness, but to raise yours without lowering theirs. Your goal should not violate the natural rights of others, hence why Rand advocated for a government whose purpose was to protect those rights. If your goal violates the rights of others, you cannot pursue that goal, even if the violation is secondary, and not the main focus.
I hope I was able to answer that question. Rand's philosophy as I've interpreted it is mostly a method or algorithm, and just like computers, Garbage input = Garbage output. If you know the facts, and apply the right method to those facts, you get the right conclusion. Rand's philosophy tries to make a consistent method and apply it to correct facts. Her conclusions may not be perfect, or maybe they are, but I think we do need to be consistent.
If your pursuit of happiness is based on reason the chances of true conflict with someone also rationally pursuing their happiness should be minimal. But in those instances where it does happen, if you’re not able to negotiate compromise between you, then this what having a court system is for. Note the operative word here is “rationally” - simply pursuing happiness is essentially hedonism which is not what Ayn Rand was advocating.
@@theotherotherjenny How is rationality determined. Reality might be subjective but perception is not. Humans are flawed and so is our perception. What might be rational to some, is lunacy to others. In the Reality / Reason / Self-interest / Capitalism model proposed by this video the conflict is built into each of those circles. Reality is perceived differently by each one of us, reason is limited by our inability to perceive reality in a subjective matter, self-interest will create friction with others whose interest oppose our own, and capitalism is competitive in its design. How, then, is conflict handled by Rand. What happens when a company who employs hundreds has to dam a river in order to produce electricity at a competitive rate to stay in business, but doing so will hurt the fishermen who live down-stream. How does Rand solve the trolley problem? There are finite resources available and infinite wants. Do we leave it to competition (Capitalism) to decide how those resources are distributed? How do we deal with externalities? How do we deal with the angst suffered by the losers?
EarlyGray Conflict is inevitable. Ayn Rand didn't say that there's a utopia, it's not possible for a human civilization to achieve that.
What Ayn Rand opposes is the destruction of evil by use of an obviously greater evil.
@@ETBrooDDoes she though? All I've taken away from her approach is that we have to be true to our wants and pursue our happiness in order to achieve the greater good. But that is such a simple model that it's impossible to tackle many of the problems facing our society by following her advise. It's almost hedonistic in concept, but even hedonism hedges it's message by saying pursue pleasure as long as it's not causing problems for yourself down the line. If we follow hedonism we can achieve a balance because the pursuit of pleasure will be measured against the potential for displeasure caused by our actions. Rand does not even account for this in her message. If we follow Rand we are to pursue our greatest possible happiness, because to do anything else is to be untrue to yourself and that is seen as a great evil. But we don't exist in a vacuum. Our actions impact our surroundings. How is the greater good served by such a myopic approach to self serving actions. How do we regulate the impact caused on others by our personal pursuit of happiness. Are we to allow the invisible hand of the market regulate itself? How do we fight corruption, weakness of character, frailty of determination in ourselves and others, errors made by people who cost others their efforts. How does empathy, compassion, solidarity, even kindness fit in her model. Selfish pursuit of happiness and loving others only for what they can bring to our own lives reduces our society to a series of economic transactions. Following that path allows the individual to turn a blind eye to the suffering of the downtrodden. Because why should I worry about their suffering? If I'm busy pursuing my happiness. More than anything her approach to happiness seems so lonely to me. She seems so bent on carving out the individual and focusing on achieving the goals of the individual that acknowledging the other is almost an afterthought.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
Adam Smith
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
in other words, all heil the wage-slavery society!
@@cosmozappa3573 Nope, just facing the reality of existence. If you are a wage salve you might want to find out how you can be worth more as the world is telling you what you are doing isn't worth that much.
"Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values, his jouis nothing but rational actions."
@@siliconeunicorn1909 It's from the book. Hence, the quotation marks.
I's a quote from the book called "The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concepy of Egoism". And I just came across this video bc of the views she has on public administration which reflected on the books Understanding Global Poverty- Causes, Solutions and Capabilities by Serena Cosgrove and Benjamin Curtis (2nd edition) and Public Administration (9th edition) by Jay M. Shafritz, et al.
My favorite part about her is when her niece asked her for $25 (this was when she was rich) she sent back a wall of text saying that she’ll lend the money, but that she has to prioritize paying it back, no excuse unless there’s a serious illness, must be paid back in installments, and that not paying it back will be considered embezzlement and she would never speak to her again lmao
A sound lesson in fiscal responsibility, good. The problem today is all the kids want to freeload off their parents, which partly explains the mess we're all in.
who made this movie? the best instant introduction to Objectivism. cool story bro
Amazing woman . Haters get in line.
Where do I join such an existential queue?
She is just saying make the most of your life. Nothing wrong with that. I wish I could have. I see her point now that I am 62 years old. Ive wasted a good part of my life worrying about others being happy instead of me. Honestly got me no where. I like her. I never read any of her books. Shes empowering somewhat.
I agree with "making the most of your life", but I see different ways to do that. A poet sitting under a tree is having as good a time making constructive statements about life, the world, and the heavens as a middle linebacker running onto the football field for a big game. The two guys might be incomprehensible to each other, but they have both found the niche that most suits them. I have reservations about Ayn Rand's definition of altruism. About the only profession I see as altruistic is that of a soldier, and that's debatable. I've been in the U.S. Army, and they said that soldiers were supposed to be altruistic, but the way we looked at it there were some good benefits from military service. I suppose the poem "The Charge of the Light Brigade" is the quintessential example of Ayn Rand's belief about toxic altruism, but that is only one example of the term. Usually, in jobs that require altruism they account for the risks a soldier or a fireman takes, and give benefits with them that are probably the real reason a person chose this course. A guy is likely to sign up for the military in order to pay for college, and he hopes no wars get started on his watch. On the football field a player supposed to be fearless. He is expected to risk injury to win football games, but it is not altruism that makes him do this. Pro players do it for money. College players do it for acclaim. That is the benefit of most altruistic behavior - acclaim.
Try "Atlas Shrugged", it's a great place to start.
I have nothing against Ayn Rand or you, but I think Ms. Rand and I are working with somewhat different definitions of altruism. There is a lot of "altruism" as she defines it, but it is my position that if a person does something that ultimately causes harm it is not altruistic.
@@georgepalmer5497 Interesting point. Rand's take here was meant for the "good of oneself". Take for example, the statement" I love my country, but I fear my government". It centers on one's own ambitions to be free from any outside intrusive intervention. Any "elected source" by an accepted majority STILL has no right to ANY directive in any man's ambitions within his OWN life. (Sorry, I'm hurried right now, I hope that makes sense to you.) ~Best
What if a man is a war profiteer, and he wants to get rich selling the army shoddy boots? Or what if a man wants to get rich renting apartments that are fire traps? We're too interconnected to say very many people exist apart from the effect they have on others.@@tymesho
Understanding how the world works will spare young people from pain and wasted time and help them succeed in life.
Yup, and the Leftists/Liberals will be trying to prevent kids from learning this every step of the way.
Thanks for this video! Through it, I see Objectivism’s overlay of Atlas Shrugged, and of my personal dilemma. I was born and raised in the Midwest where honesty has long been one of the most important values, one which has always been foremost to me. But along the way I became a salesman in order to sell my thoughts and business to others. As such, I learned the most important truth in sales - “Everybody Lies!” To me, the Lyer is the most corrupt of all!
Because, one lie labels everything as a lie, and without truth, there can be no value. Despite this knowledge, I have maintained truth as my personal value and rejected those who have lied to me. It would seem that it must be a lonely life, but it hasn’t been. The friends I hold dear, and trust, are truly remarkable people, and have made life a treasured experience. I am now in my mid-eighties, and still smile.
and the one who lies to himself is the biggest of all fool and most corrupt.
@T S I lost most of my response to you, but won’t retype it. Thirty-five years ago I was introduced to Ayn Rand’s works, and treasure the opportunity she has given me to see through the thick haze of lies and find the real truth. I’m 85, and for the first 50 years I struggled to understand what was really true, but that logic told me couldn’t be true. I was a student of history, which is always been written by the victor. And since almost all history is about wars, the truth is clearly slanted and often ignored. But I tried my best. I told a friend about a book I had written for my kids, which had received rave reviews. Yet I was frustrated - I hadn’t found the real truth to pass along to them. She told me to read Atlas Shrugged. She was sure I would find direction in it. I took a lengthy trip to Norway for the Olympics and took it with me. It knocked my socks off, after the first 100 pages. Suddenly all my research made sense and I could see through the haze and see the truth. I don’t know if you will see what I see, but it’s worth a look.
There’s another book you may want to read, Ten Days on Jekyll Island by G Edward Griffin. The goals of that meeting are finding fruition as we speak. We are awash in lies that everyone accepts as true because they are too lazy to look for the truth and too afraid it might all be true. Our world we have known and loved is being trampled by those who will enslave us unless we open our eyes to the truth. Good luck!
@T S the one who speaks it always know if it was truth or lie.
Beware of people who eschew spirituality
What Ayn Rand said changed my life. The life you have is the only one you will have, so make the most of it.
Her philosophy may be controversial, but it really makes sense.
American here who's family came from Poland around 1904. "We are alike, you and I." (a John Galt quote in the 1st part of "Atlas Shrugged" movie). Even though you are brown, and I am white, we are alike,---because we choose to think. :)
I wouldn't say it's controversial, but rather easily misinterpreted by the simple minded.
Shame on you Danish Ali did the prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h advocate selfishness as a way of life? Is this the only life that we have if you believe this then you are not a believer. Change your name or change your mind but you cannot have your cake and eat it. This so called piece of drivel philistine philosophy is absolutely opposite to faith. So wake up before it is too late.
So having no conscience is a good thing?
Maudie Icrochet sure it is. But having reason is even better
This video reminds me of Scientology ads, with Ayn Rand in place of L. Ron Hubbard.
Since no one is talking about this, I would like to mention that there are other priorities besides humanity, particularly the environment. Prioritizing ourselves over the planet we live on is morally questionable.
The planets not going anywhere, WE ARE!
the "virtue of selfishness", one of the best books ever written!
Bioshock brought me here
fereydun harifi 😂😂😂
Bioshock is what Rands Utopia will turn into
Andrew Ryan = Ayn Rand
@@Alex-cw3rz
Hey Andrew died with the courage of his own convictions, remaining true to himself.
Rand died a hypocrite, taking out state medical care when she called others who did that "looters"
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 I suppose, he still wasn't a good guy. But
don't worry I completely agree Rand is a hypocrite with damaging ideas all she cared about was herself.
And it's obvious that they were invoking her in Ryan
Reality is not objective. It is purely subjective. You create your reality, the universe only exists in your mind.
I would like to agree with you, but that would require facts to be possible so this is only an opinion 🤷
If everything is subjective then you can make no claim such as “everything is subjective.” It purely your opinion and I have no reason to listen to anything you say.
@@jsak83-ro2cf As your answer relies on misquoting the original post it is a logical fallacy [strawman argument] and is, therefore, no logical argument at all.
@@AloysiusSchicklgruber because “you create your reality”, there are no concepts outside yourself to ascribe to in relating your experience to me. So proof is impossible if everything is subjective. Therefore, even I am just a concept of your imagination. You, in fact, are creating this very dialogue to yourself. If you disagree with me, then you disagree with yourself. Not my problem at all. It can only be yours, because how do you even know that you aren’t the only one who exists?
This channel should have more subscribers, seriously
Fabrício Santana well when you consider that the cluster b personalities only make up a very small percentage of society, this is a pretty good number of subscribers. Lol
@@niccolea2086 cluster b?
Bioshock Switch brought me here.
Hope you enjoy the game
@@fishels3895 Loved it. Brought me to tears
@Venandi Netero The entire game is about it, what?
@Quæsitor修行 it describes the aftermath of Atlas Shrugged, what more objectivism thing could you wish for?
@@Uxi_ee doesn't really, it missunderstood what objectivism is about, but I'm still glad they tried make such game, it got a lot of people interested in philosophy and also the game itself is pretty good
To say 'I love you' one must first be able to say the 'I'
good one.. very true.. practical..
Basically, I don't tell you what to do, you don't tell me what to do?
Basically. And dont hurt anyone or coerce or explot them. If everyone followed these simple things life would be much better. Call it utopian but what ideal isnt? At least this doesent have a commanding heirarchy and it cant really, especially when u get into the economic side, laisse faire capitalism is all about living and let live, that comes with responsibility not to be a lazy fuck or youll starve. Charity can still exist independant of welfare states
Yeah, but most people are unfortunately too retarded to get that. Bunch of pathetic low-life commies.
Actually it's more of people interacting with each other in the manner of: I agree to do this for you, if you agree to do this for me.
Its WAY more than that.
If what you’re both doing makes no sense, you’re both fucked. First you need two things. 1. You need to see and accept reality, an you do this through 2. reason. When these two ideas are realized and or put into practice, then you can each live for yourselves.
Juan McCoy the Sears Ceo that just cost 250,000 employees there jobs and is not giving them severance paid, that was promised to them and was paid in one hour more then his employees got in a year believes in this philosophy? Is this the utopia Ayn Rand was talking about? Capitalistic slavery where employees are paid dismal wages? It is almost slavery. How has pure capitalism benefited most? It works great for commodities the consumer can choose and pick from like shoes, but how does it work in healthcare, for example, where the product is not really available for shopping by the consumer the ways shoes are? Her philosophy is the embodiment of all that is wrong with our current government. Greed and fend for yourselves and let the rest die if they have to.
I come from a science and medical background. The deeper you study biology and the human body the more you realize that Nothing in nature functions autonomously and alone. From conception an embryo depends on the health of its mother. The chemical reactions in the body all depend on each other. The organelles inside a cell all work together. Inside your body, your organs do not selfishly work alone. The heart doesn’t work without oxygen obtained by blood that passes the lungs and the lungs don’t work without the heart pumping blood to them. We can’t breath oxygen if plants don’t produce it and plants cannot use carbon dioxide if we don’t produce it.
Nothing in this planet survives by being completely selfish and autonomous. That’s why this philosophy is such a failure and results in pure greed and disregard for even the lives of the most vulnerable in the population. In Ayn Rand’s world, a baby born with serious health problems, to a drug addict mother or from parents with low income, should be left to die if it cannot be taken care of. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is evil in its purest form. It explains a lot about the current administration in the White House. Thank God Ayn Rand never reproduced.
She’s not saying to be discourteous or completely ignorant of other people. Altruism is a dangerous obsession with the well being of others. Don’t neglect your own health just to make other people marginally happy.
Hear of her from the UnsafeSpace podcast, and now I see why they keep bringing her up.
So, a life rooted in reason and rationale ultimately determines the individual’s ethical guidance through life?
Yes.
MMMM, no, I don't think so. Making decision based on reason instead of emotions will give you a much better shot at guiding your life well, with direction, but I don't see a correlation with ethics. I guess, if one's "reason" was used to commit crimes with out being caught, than that person would have a problem with ethics. But thinking rationally to help advance your life---is human.
well, she justified colonizing the 'savages', so maybe her ethics are not something to follow
@@vgcamara So educating primitive humans is a bad thing?
Mike mentzer! Loved her!
When I was young, I was rebellious against Reagan so I got into Marxism. Never even heard of Ayn Rand until someone mentioned that she was mentioned on South Park. In 2000, I read 'For the New Intellectual'. I thought she was alive since what she was saying. Little did I know that she was prophesying the future. Everything she said that was going to happen, has or being being fulfilled. Meanwhile, what Chomsky said was going to happen, hasn't yet he is totally expected while she, condemned.
Well done-succinct and accurate. A good introduction and invitation to learn more.
they gave a definition of selfishness nobody believes in and tried to tell us we're wrong lol.
it's just a shame that ayn rand is for fools who have 2iq
Happy Birthday Ayn Rand
This is a great video!
sound and fury, signifying not very much - a tempest in a cracked teapot
Let's cut to the chase.
Unlike people with a healthy respect for history, science and intellectual inquiry, Ayn Rand brooked no dissent from her followers. She was not interested, in the least, with acknowledging any fault whatsoever with the supposed "capitalist ideal." She dismissed, out of hand, any consideration of institutionalized racism, sexism or classism. And she was quick to isolate and expel anyone who didn't agree with her.
Serious scholars and thinkers understand, intuitively, that their theories and conclusions are not above reproach and that human intelligence is only advanced by critical thinking. Chomsky said it best when he was asked which of his theories would stand the test of time. "None of them," he responded. "New information comes along, new theories are proposed, new experiments are conducted. That's how science works."
Rand wasn't a critical thinker, she was the head of a personality cult. In fact, if you compare her to the other great personality cult leader of the same period, L. Ron Hubbard, the similarities between the two are striking. Rand's only redeeming quality was her support for a woman's right to control her own body - a lesson contemporary right wing libertarians have completely abandoned.
Yes re her cult (still around - and posting here!). And she couldn't be bothered to walk the dozen blocks to UN development HQ (or travel to east Asia) to find out how development really works: high performance work teams, creating better systems, and NOT one-man-shows. She was right (if trivial) in perpetuating that most value is created in the early days of system-adoption S curves - but the REAL villain is not "the government" which in the US has a vast layer of politically appointed and very costly meddlers at the top she ignored, its the US oligarchs and big corporations that appoint those meddlers and create the scorched earth. In part because of her addled nonsense the US has about the worst Gini coefficient in the West.
Imagine how difficult it must be to use an irrationalist like Chomsky to try to vilify a rationalist like Rand. You have to twist logic into pretzels in order to do so.
The ONLY thing you have right is that most "scholars and thinkers" today use "intuition" to support their theories and conclusions.... just as their predecessors did in ancient times.
Rand relied on reason.
@@johnnynick6179 - Keep telling yourself that.
Rand relied not on reason, but on her follower's willingness to accept whatever she demanded of them, particularly with regard to her historical revisionism and her selective outrage.
@@librarianeric You're just babbling brainless insults based on opinions pulled out of your arse. Basically it's just another sad attempt at a character assassination because you're too unintelligent to counter a single one of her arguments. 😅
this summary is perfect! nice!
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
then try live alone, lets see if you can handle that for long.
Cringe
@@nescius2 You do not understand Objectivism.
I can explain it in three words: greed is good.
Perhaps the worst philosophy of all time.
Could be coming from a guy with Red in his name. lol My name is Ron the Red but I’m not a Commie lol
@@RonDianinobody asked
@@bornkinggamer3347The worst is Nihilism
@@bornkinggamer3347 *Perhaps the worst philosophy of all time.*
Yet the most successful of all time, creating wealth and prosperity and happiness that the world has never seen. This must really hurt you feelings, eh?
Amazing lady.
"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."
this made me laugh. very good indeed
@@trollpolice The world would be a much better place if everyone read and truly synthesized Tolkien, Lewis, Rand, and people like Aristotle and Augustine. Indeed a much better place.
🤠😬
That's sounds like a description for Marxists and socialists rather than objectivists.
@@gabbar51ngh sharp!!
0:28 It does NOT "advocate selfishness." It's egoism, NOT egotism. There is nothing wrong with standing up for yourself and defending your interests. If you want to sacrifice yourself to others, we won't stop you!
But which is more moral?
@@MrElionor Do you type with your right hand, and hold your left hand out for a social program like a beggar? Is other men living their life with achievement so you can exist and earn nothing moral, or is it slavery?
It is immoral to consume more than you produce.
It’s difficult for me to accept making life more fair for those who come from vulnerable circumstances beyond their control is evil. We shouldn’t give everything we have away (which would be foolish), but to have a Dog Eat Dog mentality about life seems harshly unfair.
Rand did not propose a "dog eat dog" ideology; and even less a whole society based on that.
Rand proposed recognizing and respecting the self-ownership of each and every individual; and that includes the government recognizing and respecting the self-ownership of everyone.
You're perfectly free to give away anything and as much of what's yours as you wish.
The evil is in demanding that others do so as well and using the force of government to compel them, ie the welfare state.
My ideas also correspond with reality.⭐️
It advocates SELF-INTERESTEDNESS, not selfishness. It operates on the power of innate self-interest.
I like this Ayn Rand lady. Checked out video to learn about her. Good stuff.
People with ambition and want to live off their own efforts like her. People on the dole with no personal ambition, (or handing out the dole), do not like her. If you liked a vid, you will love her non-fiction books. The books by her shown in this vid----are eye opening to say the least. They will help fill in the voids between the peeks of truth that you do know, and it will all come together.
Do so and spread the word.
@@EarthSurferUSA people don't live off their own efforts - we don't photosynthesise. our society is based on specialisation - its more efficient than making everything you need yourself, but then you are relying on other peoples work.
Truly, one of the greatest minds out there
Many believe Ayn Rand's Objectivism overlooks the complexity of human emotions and the role of belief systems in shaping personal and societal values.
...and those many are wrong.
Ayn Rand had sort of a point way back then, but she did not understand how development works which became clear with the Asia model. It's actually myriad teams and systems, not a few billionaire geniuses creating scorched earth, and governments helping to ensure populations are educated, housed and secure.
"Many believe" is not an argument. 🤣
@@willnitschke Ayn Rand said A is A. I accept trans and post humanist philosophy.
@@Ramkumar-uj9fo You watch a lot of Star Trek, eh? Here is a virtual pat on the head.
"If you know that this life is all that you have, won't you make the most of it?" Well, now we need to define "most".
Then, why does it follow that one could not make the most of this life if he knew that after this life there was an eternity awaiting him; only differently than the one who believes that he only has this life? It reminds me of the old quote: what would you do if you knew you couldn't fail?
They're right selfishness doesn't explicitly mean to exploit others for personal gain.
It just means you won't consider others in your decision making throughout life, which inevitably will lead to you exploiting others for personal gain....
Why?
@Humanity Galatica zero sum game
@Humanity Galatica not true all the time
Excellent video.
That sounds incredibly vague
Dont be lazy. At least read and research the philosophy before you take an opinion on it.
And I dont mean read a critic's article and think your god.
Jacob Slapinski I was talking about the video
@@aloisschicklgruber320
That world sounds like the perfect dystopia.
What did you WANT in 2 minutes ? If you want an in depth symposium, it's right here on U-tube.
Interesting to note that living an altruistic life is one of the most effective ways of increasing one’s happiness.
Jeffrey Van Dyke Ehhhhhhhhhhh
Was mother Theresa happy? If so, why don't you live like her? Isn't it your priority to have a happy life?
@@danielkraus5560 I hope she was with all that _help_ she advertised herself doing
th-cam.com/video/DWSU9Y2Fa8E/w-d-xo.html
As an individual in a group we are more likely to achieve better success of we cooperate than act completely in self-interest and ignoring the interest of others
-Game theory
But I don't believe altruism is the goal, self interest is also vital to success of the whole
Explain precisely how letting myself be stolen from will make me happy?
if you use the sort by tab above and choose newest first you will find comments that have been hidden. YT is a propaganda machine.
Does anyone know the name of the music track?
If you ever find out, let me know, I've been searching for it for a while now :)
I think they made it for the sake of the video
not for its own sake? oh man :(
mgrlb what music?
I think that it's called The Objectivism Blues
Anyone know the music?
Ahegao pfp
BRILLIANT WOMAN
I've been an avid reader of her books all my life. I keep reading Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged over and over and each time I discover a better explanation to clear the doubts I still carry.
The moment I understood that the world has defined selfishness wrong, I realized a host of others too similarly obfuscated. To name a few, sacrifice is a virtue, I should love all indiscriminately, I should work for my neighbor more than for myself, and for my country more than for my neighbor ... Oh what a terrible world we have built over thousands of years!
HIGH TIME WE BLAST ALL OUR MISGUIDED UNDERSTANDINGS!!
You're only choosing one extreme over the over. You don't have to be completely selfish or selfless. Also, you fail to realize that you rely heavily on other. Humans are a social species.
@@austinhernandez2716 Being selfish or selfless are more about being moral and are not extremes of behaviour or civic response. I'd want to be moral and naturally it is selfishness. So then being always moral is not an extreme stand, but just striving never to be immoral. In that sense, I am a very responsible human in society. Hence society too can reliably trust me.
@silicone unicorn to reply comprehensively to your several points above, the fundamental learning for all is the reality, laws of nature. These are true, whether u or I accept or not. That makes it objective, not subjective. The process is reason & logic. It is only correct to grasp & accept the truths given by others, the truth to be understood & not accepted in faith.
R u with me? Use these to check if I am a blind follower of Rand.
I FOUND AYN RAND IN MY EARLY 20´s. I AGREED WITH HER THEN AND NOW 40 PLUS YEARS LATER.
The conclusion, which this video omitted, is that capitalism is the social/economic vehicle in which people can reach their highest aspirations.
I think you missed some of the key points of objectivism in your - let's say "a little biased" - summary
Like what? It´s just 2 minutes so obviously they cannot go over everything
@@danielkraus5560 It's a bit like saying: "Fascism is a great idea because it eliminates social unequality and allows to achieve big projects without annoying social debate due to strong centralized leadership". It's not completly wrong but just misses the point of it.
@@TheFeanor74 Burh this video was made by the Ayn Rand Institute. Obviously, they will be promoting her philosophy. If you want a critique of it, go somewhere else. That like watching a video by the Soviet Union and expecting a critique of Marx.
After much thought I can say that as a person I see something that most of us can relate to and I think it has single handily caused more damage to our nation than anything else . What is it ?
Hourly wage .
Why ?
I work construction and when I was younger I did work for an hourly wage but what I observed was this ; the owner of a company needs help so he/she hires people hoping that they will work cheap and hard and make the business owner as much money as possible .
A person gets a job hoping the boss will be fair and if they apply themselves they will get a raise . These are hopes and dreams but more often than not it doesn't happen .
What happens is a person gets hired at a certain wage wants to earn it and progress but he /she hears this from others who have decided they are going to do the least amount of work possible to keep their jobs "you are making me look bad , slow down" , or "brown noser" or if you are not willing to cover for their failures "you are not a 'team' worker" . Or jealousy sets in and the good worker gets lied on and smeared to the boss .
All the above happened to me personally and I began to realize that no matter how hard I worked I would NEVER get full credit for what I had done but would inevitably have to 'give' much of what I produced to those who had not earned it !
We ALL know how 'bad companies' can and will abuse hourly workers !
THE FIX ?
Piece work .
I am self-employed , I give prices by the job NOT hour and I can tell you that it is total FREEDOM . If I choose to work hard I make money , if I do not then I don't , simple as that .
My productivity is at least 3 times what most hourly workers would put out and I do not mean this to put them down but since I directly am affected by my efforts not only do I work HARD I also work SMART and as efficient as possible .
In the near future I will start a manufacturing company and all who work for me will be payed piece work only down to even the janitor .
Why ?
I will not treat another person in a manner I wouldn't be treated and I am excited to be able to see others be free .
My name is John Gault .
The rich dont work for money
@@nadias6435 or mabye they're just smarter than you, dumbass.
Timothy Roth Your name is Timothy Roth*
@@SK-tr1wo lol you are very observant !
That name was used for a purpose and if you can't understand it then I would only be wasting my time explaining it .
I want you to imagine a place where you are free to do anything you want as long as you are not taking another person's freedom away to do the same thing .
However with that freedom you will enjoy either the rewards of what you work for or if you don't work then you will reap the repercussions of that as well .
No one is 'responsible' for you or your well being but YOU .
No one is responsible for your 'needs' but YOU .
However if you need or want something that you are unable to supply for yourself you must trade whatever you and the other person agrees it is worth to obtain it .
You are not entitled to it simply because they have it and you do not nor should they feel it is their 'duty' to give it to you because you don't have it .
For me this is not a hard concept as it is in line with the golden rule .
Have a nice day !
of-course the capitalists will promote her work and portray it in the light because it strengthens their grip on society and keeps them in power!
Capitalism is most effective system in economy
@@sanuthakur5058jss
And what's the alternative? Socialism, Communism, Fascism that got an estimated 100 million people in the 20th century killed, mostly starvation.
I'll stick with Capitalism, champ.
Selfishness is the greatest thing in the world. Because successful people always says moral values and life quotes but in their journey they are selfish. But they won't to tell us these type of things.
What? Altruism is evil ??
Because 99,99% of the time is predicated altruism, false altruism or clumsy altruism.
Like whe priests say being rich is bad, and they live in palaces with charity money.
Like when your broker calls you to sell stocks options to make you rich, then gets his commissions and you lose your capital-
Like when you help Jesus on the cross removing the nails from hands first, letting him swaying upside down, cause his feet are still pinned. Selfishness is at least true and honest.
@@ilmaio Thank you
Past three years I’ve been in study
Eschatology
And
All things Christ
I now have a entirely different view
And
I am aware of the complete take over of these times where
History is erased
Laws are changed
And we wrestle against the evil powers and principalities
I know more now
Thank God in Jesus name
You can say I’m crazy. But. I’m not. I just believe I amhapppy
I hope you see too
I see the evil
I see the inversion
I see the symbols
I know their language
@@ilmaio I have learned
This earth is not a ball
In my option
No one gets past the firmament
NASA is Satan
And I do believe in nephilim returning
In fact ghry are here
More will come
@@ilmaio Isn’t Ann rand a commie
Ann Rand was incredibly shallow. Her philosophy boils down to : be strong and rich and I will love because you can give me all the stuff I want.
Fairly good interpretation of her work.IMHO - an objective one! CHEERS and G'day from Australia mate. :))
I don't think you can reduce all human activity and pursuits to reason. It's actually quite the contrary... it is emotional in nature, passionate, sometimes even a calling.
When you hold rational values there are no contractions between emotions and your reason.
This is based on both a misunderstanding of just what emotions are, and incorrect philosophies which separate morality from reality.
The basic logical contradiction of her philosophy is that freedom and participation in the decision making is reserved only for people who own corps... Everybody else besides the self employed- would work under a master ...
So it's a "logical contradiction" if you work for yourself because this doesn't give you more freedom? 🤣
@@willnitschke I already said that it is not . Only the self employed without workers would be free... The rest would be divided between masters and servants ..( the vast majority) .
@@dsgio7254 When I employ someone to fix my fence, the repair guy is not my "slave", you deranged nutcase. 🤣
@@willnitschke Hey mr.... "Genius" he is not because he runs his own business ...so to speak ... ( he owns his tools etc) and he decides about his business, makes decisions how to repair it , etc
If he is employed by someone else in a permanent base is just a servant ...
This was actually a republican idea .. wage employment not so far away from slavery ..
@@dsgio7254 People prefer employment over self employment typically because of higher perceived security, higher wages, and less work. Given a person can choose to be employed or self employed at any time, they are not "slaves" are they? You're a very dumb person, sorry.
This life is all that you have.
All this only reminded me of someone who is talked about a lot in the most successful book that was ever written. He really got most everyone baffled by stating that what we should do and the most important thing is to love your neighbor above all other really good things.
Anyway that's how I remember that. Hmmm
Oh and I wrote this exactly just this way to give back some love to some people cuz I'm sure they were smiling and were feeling better. Your welcome "Grammar Police"
She was brilliant!
Eddie Lampert exploited Sears and Kmart for his own selfishness.
this greatly motivates me to pursue my artificial intelligence degree... it's gonna unemploy you all but... i mean... why should i care!
Silvio.... perfectly said.
Job Markets evolve, new jobs will come around, people need to change. Thats the world.
There is a lot to like in Rand's philosophy but it never ceases to amaze me how highly intelligent people can still have such a narrow limited view of the universe. That there could be an existence beyond space, time, word communication and the extreme limits of the physical existence. No, there is no "burning bush" out there but much more if you know how to look beyond your meager physical senses.
I agree. I've thought faith is necessary. I'm grounded in what we 'know', but also, I can't help but wonder about what we 'don't know'.
Objectivism is the pseudo-intellectual man’s philosophy. Any rational being knows that. A society of unbridled, unregulated capitalism would be the equivalent of hell.
I'm proud to say that I have read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountain Head" and learned concepts in life that
require thinking and doing what is right for yourself while not injuring others along the way.
She was (is) brilliant.
I hope things were this simple. Can you point me one multimillionaire who didn't injure many?
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 Can you elaborate on what you mean by injured? How about lottery winners? People willingly buy tickets (they are a want, not a need) and the winnings weren't achieved through the backs of others. Sure, you can make an argument the winner didn't "deserve" the winnings because it's a matter of chance, but I cannot consider that injuring others.
@@Numbers_Game By injured I mean cutthroat marketing, lobbying and doing everything required to chock one's competitors. I don't think even any medium business can survive without those.
@@Numbers_Game Imagine changing the goal posts from CEOs and the usual suspects of multimillionaires to...lottery winners. Jesus tap dancing Christ
@@N1r0ak He asked for one multimillionare and I gave him one. Not my fault that in your commie mind every notion of profit is not possible without exploitation.
This philosophy is very interesting when you are a teenager, but then you eventually realize how childish it is. Pure capitalism doesn't work. Intellectual property is often stolen. Wealth and power often leads to corruption.
According to her the only moral social system was laissez-faire capitalism, which is BS. No lack of prominent economists and capitalists over the decades acknowledge that the philosophy of laissez-faire capitalism never was a moral social system not to mention would never be sustainable. It would only cannibalize its own markets and has to therefore always be expanding to a growing population, new markets, and emerging markets. But once globalization is achieved, it has no where to grow.
As a capitalist, i recognize that every economic system has a cost to society even a so called "free market" one, as those that succeed in them control most of the resources. No economic system is escapable from some type of authority be it government or those that control the resources, which is why no free market economy exists; not even in Singapore, US, Switzerland, and New Zealand to name a few..
@@rps1689 What prominent economists, Marxists who believed in the tendency of the rate of profits to fall fallacy?
In reality, it is collectivism that young, inexperience, immature people are attracted to. Most college-age students identify as socialists or communists until they are old enough to know better. I don't know of ANYONE who identified as an OBIECTIVIST as a teenager. That is a silly myth.
Excellent overview of her philosophy! Bravo! 👏
This is a great video !!!!! THANKS for making it and uploading it