Ayn Rand's Philosophy and Objectivism (Pt. 1) | Yaron Brook | POLITICS | Rubin Report
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ต.ค. 2024
- Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Yaron Brook (President, Ayn Rand Institute) about Ayn Rand's philosophy, objectivism, and reason.
Watch Dave Rubin’s full interview with Yaron Brook here:
• Ayn Rand: Philosophy, ...
Is the state of US news driving you crazy? Does the coverage of political news rarely seem “fair and balanced”? Serious discussions on US politics is vital to having a healthy democracy. No matter what political party you belong to, we need to be able to hear a variety of political perspectives. Whether you majored in political science or just want to have a deeper understanding of the issues you’ll want to check out this playlist:
• POLITICS | Rubin Report
To make sure you never miss a single Rubin Report video, click here to subscribe:
/ @rubinreport
Looking for smart and honest conversations about current events, political news and the culture war? Want to increase your critical thinking by listening to different perspectives on a variety of topics? If so, then you’re in the right place because on The Rubin Report Dave Rubin engages the ideas of some of society's most interesting thought leaders, authors, politicians and comedians. The Rubin Report is the largest talk show about free speech and big ideas on TH-cam.
Dave allows his guests to speak their minds and his audience to think for themselves.
New videos every week.
The Rubin Report is fan funded through monthly and one-time donations: www.rubinreport...
******
Dave Rubin's book, "Don't Burn This Book" is now available for pre-order: www.dontburnthisbook.com
LISTEN to The Rubin Report podcast: www.rubinreport.com/podcast
See Dave LIVE: daverubin.com/...
Sign up for our newsletter with the best of The Rubin Report delivered to your inbox once a month: www.rubinreport...
Official Rubin Report Merchandise: rubinreport.co...
All art on the set are original works by Caylin Rose Janet.
Get a print here: www.caylinrose...
******
Yaron Brook
President, Ayn Rand Institute
Get the book: amzn.to/1rwx8BE
Yaron on Twitter: / yaronbrook
******
Follow Dave on Twitter: / rubinreport
Follow The Rubin Report on Facebook: / rubinreport
Follow Dave on Facebook: / daverubin
About Dave Rubin: daverubin.com/
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 82 วันนี้!! คู่เอก | ยอดไอคิว vs อับดัลลาห์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hSsyTl_9bqs/mqdefault.jpg)
"Just by saying Ayn Rand a certain percentage of people go bonkers"
The comments confirm this assertion.
Ha, called it!
+Paul Kennedy Never was impressed with people who predict a controversial statement/belief/persona would result in disagreement and then smugly enjoy their powers of observation.
I agree there's a reason; I'm not sure if we would agree on what that reason is.
Generally, emotional reactions indicate defensiveness and fear.
+J Dowe When Dave says "go bonkers", I don't think he means "express disagreement." I think he means things like:
"fuck objectivism. "
"Ayn Rand and the philosophy of how to be the most selfish, unempathetic piece of shit in the universe""
"Ayn Rand was a moron."
"ayn rand is a dirty slut"
(all taken from the comments)
So, I'm pointing out that his prediction was correct.
+The Rubin Report Well it's not as though it's not with good reason that people react negatively to Rand's philosophy. It's like creationism claiming to be equal to biology.
Objectivism has always been close to my heart, I started by coming from the Rand scene. I was an objectivist long before I went full libertarian. I've always had a tremendous amount of respect for Ayn Rand. Objectivism and libertarianism are extremely close together. Thanks for bringing him on Dave !!!
they are completely different
Libertarianism is a spin-off of Objectivism. If you strip Objectivism of its core philosophy and keep only some of its conclusions, then you have libertarianism. It cannot stand on its own. Some libertarians like Bernie Sanders and some of them are anarchists and some of them are religious. They are all over the place.
"Instead of protecting people's emotions, we should protect their minds".
Totally going to steal that quote.
Did that come out of this interview or ISIS propaganda?
+Tristan Henriksson Edwards The bit about protecting the mind by expanding it is good too.
+Tristan Henriksson Edwards Protecting the mind is a _means_ to protecting people's emotions; we are upholding free thought and expression so that it can benefit human wellbeing through positive cultural innovation.
+Rannos22 ISIS kills people who disagree with their ideas though...
Gold.
fuck objectivism. the only good thing to come of it was bioshock.
+Volound Why? As a person who agrees with a lot of what she said, I'm interested in an outside view.
Bioshock was awesome! But if you've only read Atlas Shrugged, then your talking out of your ass about objectivism. Read "The virtue of selfishness" and then use your words to argue against it. Otherwise your statement is bullshit.
***** could take the easy way out and just respond with snark - play bioshock.
to be serious, selfish people are cunts and we all know it. life is not worth living alone. the more empathic a person, the better the society that she is a part of. the more empathic a society, the better off the individual in the society. empathy is the basis of all successful civilisation, and for good reason. no serious ethicist or academic of any kind takes rand seriously - never has and never will. objectivism (and rand on the whole) finds its place in the minds of angsty teens desperately grasping for an identity and ideology.
“Ayn Rand's 'philosophy' is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society.... To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil.”
― Gore Vidal
to the extent a person takes rand and objectivism seriously, is the precise extent they are clueless and/or a piece of shit. there really is no excuse.
Ethan sure thing, barely-monolingual person that does not know what "your" means.
+Volound Another dunce who viciously rejects the work without reading it.
thanks for the awesome video Rubin. please don't let people in the comments dissuade you from bringing more guests like this. Your show has captured intellectual diversity unlike any thing we have seen in a long time
Smallest minority is the individual... interesting
It's true yet nobody will admit it
BUT WHAT ABOUT LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT IDEALS BUT THEY HAVE THE SAME SKIN COLOR THAT THEY DID NOT CHOOSE
Jordan Peterson observes that “intersectionality” - if you take it all the way down - brings you to the individual.
@@allthesmallthings1041 What about them??
Ayn Rand's selfishness principle is one of the most misinterpreted philosophical ideas ever. Kindness, charity, and good will are not frowned upon in objectivist philosophy. What is rejected however is altruism. You can have kindness and good will in your heart to put your resources to who you think best needs it rather than having an outside system like a church or state dictating where those resources should go. The selfishness principle is a retaliation against altruistic thinking; its not saying that a world where no one aids to one another is a moral or productive one.
+Obvious Turtle Where does pathological selfishness lead?
+altomatomer Probably to Nihilism lol
+TheBestWatson The problem is the over-emphasis on one aspect of humanity (selfishness) against another aspect of humanity (altruism). One can argue that the latter was always praised while the former frowned upon, but she never tried to "balance it out", she outright tried to ban the latter and put the former in a pedestal.
Just not right.
+altomatomer but in all seriousness, someone who is "pathologically selfish" is just going to either end up destroying themselves or ending up in prison
***** We're not regualar animals. We're not victims of our biology. We can achieve so much more than that
Outstanding philosophical show, takes on real issues with an open mind and little care for political correctness. Really thought provoking.
I love Ayn Rand! I love her philosophy! I am very glad you brought Yaron Brook on the show, Dave. Thank you! Her philosophy has helped my life in so many ways and I am sure it can do so for others too. I know I am more hard working, more passionate and productive, care far more about my life (and in turn the lives of others), am more honest, more benevolent, and so much more since adopting her ideas as my own.
I love Yaron. His interviews on PJTV have always been excellent .
No Gods or Kings, only Man.
nice one broh
ANN RAND'S Philosophy is just man wanting to be God. Just another GOD. Those who I help are worthy. Those who I do not are cursed and deserve it. Another God story. Too black and white to fit human kind.
Thanks, Dave.
I'm actually interested in hearing what an actual Objectivist has to say, as opposed to what people who hate Ayn Rand have to say about Objectivism. Seems to me like a better way of making my mind up about a philosophy, but, hey, that's just me.
+unfilthy You sound like an objectivist.
+unfilthy
Glad to see a rational person posting here. You don't have to end up agreeing with any of it, but the fact you want to listen and consider rather than buy into the comments lacking ANY content and a plethora of insults is a good thing indeed.
unfilthy, thank you. My feelings too. Couldn't have said it better.
unfilthy Objectivism in a nutshell:
Pursue your own interests. Don’t stomp on others’.
I can’t, for the life of me, find fault in any of this.
Have you read any of her works? They speak for themselves. I would suggest starting with Anthem.
All of the petty comments here are really making me want to check out more of her work. There's nothing that make me like a person more than unsubstantiated hate.
I could think of no better punishment for such a bad comment than reading Rand's books.
+Rannos22 couldnt have said it better myself.
+GodFthrOfSmoke She openly said the genocide of the Native Americans was the best thing that could ever have happened to them.
+Andy Rosebrook the actions, regardless of morality, lead directly to the modern world. Perhaps another road may have reached this point, but we'll never know that with certitude.
In short, regardless of how things could have gone, the modern world could only exist in its current form because of every action I the past. No other actions in the past could have created this present. If you recognize any good in the modern world then all the bad that lead to it was was best course of action that could have been taken.
Now, I'm not sure I like that way of looking at the world, but facts don't care about feelings.
Are you a teenager? You'll love her work.
This was an awesome discussion that inspires me to re-examine so many aspects of art and politics and whether I am living my life according to REASON.
Used to hate Ayn Rand but have come around
What changed your mind?
It took me a third of the way through The Fountainhead before I figured Roark was the hero!! ; )
same here
Sam Raj Loved Rand before I even knew who she was. It just seems so innate to me.
Fucking subbed, my man. I can't believe the TYT ever thought they could contain your talent.
Wait, he worked at TYT? No way. He doesn't seem like a massively hypocitical bigot.
+Razvan Musat
That's why he left.
lastofmygeneration Thank god for that.
I thought dave was talented when he was on tyt and showed real bravery when he challenged regressive views from the tyt talking heads. But now.... having created a "bullshit free" interview platform, you're on another level.
Keep up the good work.
Thank you for having this rational, free flowing conversationalist interview! can't give enough thumbs up
Wonderful interview, can't wait for the next installments.
This might be my favorite show you've done yet.
The stuff about minimum wages is pure horseshit. In Australia $18 per hour is the minimum wage and McDonald's is forced to pay it and has been since it opened in Australia in the 1970s. McDonald's has thrived in Australia. Minimum wages are fundamental to a modern functional society.
+Steven Guy
_Minimum wages are fundamental to a modern functional society._
Yeah? And if the minimum wage was $0 in our modern functional society, people would be making what? $0/hour? $0.05/hour?
What determines wages? The greed of the capitalist pig? If so, why isn't 99 percent of the workforce making the minimum wage. Instead it's under 5 percent (in the US*). Why pay a cent more than what the government demands?
mises.org/library/lesson-economic-analysis-minimum-wage-debate
*poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-characteristics-minimum-wage-workers
+Steven Guy Everything in Australia is heavily inflated. Makes sense that labor would be as well.
+TimeWarp66 The price of a burger is NOT much higher in Australia. Stop lying.
+LongLeggedApe Australia. Australia's Big Mac price comes the closest to the US price. The price of a Australian Big Mac is $4.81, one penny more than a US Big Mac.
+TimeWarp66 Australia never went through the GFC. Our economy has been growing steadily since 1992.
Love this. He speaks with logic and facts.
not really. he is just doing what he is complaining about. minimum wage was much higher back then (50s - 80s) and higher minimum wage has worked in parts of the usa. just look at japan. sure their minimum wage is very similar to us just a tad higher but they have FAR FAR FAR more automation than us. they have afjusted to it.
Lol you don't understand reason then because why would you need protection from corporations? Just refuse to do business. Capitalism is consensual violence is not.
@@jeff2209 "Lol you don't understand reason then because why would you need protection from corporations?"
This has quite possibly been the most retarded thing I have ever read on a TH-cam comment.
@TheEsotericZebra
>>>I would think you would want state protection at the economic level to protect against unscrupulous corporations
Excellent interview, Dave. I particularly liked this one as it was very informative and thought provoking. Well done!
Ayn Rand's mind was one of the most prolific and intellegent to have graced the modern world. I am thankful you had someone on who is an expert. I think peoples problems with her is they cannot distinguish between the idea that someone thinks and creates a philosophy, It does not necessarily mean they live and behave as such.
"It's happened this way 100 times before, but this time it will be different!" Love it! The exact quote I give to socialists
+Nicholas van Niel But where are the facts?
Just because he is talking with confidence you are just going to swallow what he is saying? "Oh it doesn't work."
Where are HIS facts and rational arguments?
Umm, is not using the theory of Supply and Demand a rational argument? And are you expecting a detailed list of facts and figures on a topic that was only brought in passing and as an example?
Even if he did bring up those facts and figures, given the nature of "The Rubin Report", Dave and his producer would have either cut them or would have encouraged him not to voice them. Not a criticism of Dave or the Dave, it just doesn't suit the format
Nicholas van Niel No it's not a rational argument. It's a gross oversimplification. It's a much more complex system.
If you need to work two jobs to make ends meet while corporate profits are at a record high, and you get a better minimum wage - suddenly you don't need to work two jobs. Boom more jobs. More demand for work.
Or more money to spend means growing economy.
Or more time means being able to educate yourself and be more productive.
And all that he is saying he is only bringing up in passing as an example. What is the value in listening for an hour to a lot of superficial stuff?
Listen to someone like Noam Chomsky - he gives you references all the time on what he bases his arguments and where he gets his facts.
The only western country I have ever heard of where it is common for people to have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet is the USA.
2LegHumanist I guess it's because of regulations! :D
Man I got really angry about this video. Watched some Marc Maron. Feeling better now!
Very good interview. Thanks Dave And Yaron. Nice to take a deep breath of common sense once in awhile.
Great interview, love the Ayn Rand Institute.
"Stimulus never worked". What the fuck? How could he say something so stupid? World War 2 was a massive stimulus. So was the interstate highway system.
I'm glad he at least said that automation will happen regardless of the minimum wage.
I disagree with this guy, so should I like or dislike the interview?
+Diana, the Inorganic Vegan Yes and burning down buildings will stimulate further building trade. But you;d hardly say that works in terms of better the economy.
shlockofgod
Are you seriously comparing the massive manufacturing involved in fighting the nazis and building highways to burning down buildings?
Newsflash, highways are useful. Including the ones that were refurbished thanks to the stumulus from Obama.
Diana, the Inorganic Vegan Yes I making a direct comparison. I notice you don't say WW2 was "useful"
The money to pay for the highways was taken by force. We'll never know if the roads could have been better. We don't know how much subsidizing such roads actually lead to the ridiculously wasteful car culture. We have to pay to maintain these roads forever whether we use them or not. We don't know the level of pollution these caused. We don't know the costs.
But you like all progressive economics advocates you look at the benefits and ignore the costs.
Stimulus never works. You might get lucky but logically it doesn't work.
shlockofgod
Also, building roads doesn't lead to cars. We built roads because we needed to transport wheeled vehicles. It's the most efficient thing to do. If we had no smooth roads, fuel efficiency would decline.
Government can do something well but it needs to steal to do it which is a misallocation of resources. Who knows how that money would have been spent in the private sector?
keep it up Mr. Rubin. "marketplace of ideas" I love that.
Great talk, Dave! I've always been a fan of Rand but I'd never been exposed to Yaron Brooks before!
Loved the interview, especially this part of it. Keep up the good interviews Dave Rubin. Love the show
Spot on, gentlemen. This was a damn good discussion. Everything is revolving around personal feelings and not logic. Keep up the good work. 👍
So true.
Wow, I'm Russian, and I've never heard of her. She seems fascinating, totally going to read her books. Well, the ones that are fiction.
+Anna Presman The Fountainhead is the best.
"Atlas Shrugged" is.
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 agreed
Atlas Shrugged is considered her masterpiece. However, I’d recommend The Fountainhead first if you’re just getting into her. It’s very similar but an easier read and great story. She’s inspiring.
I tried to read her fiction at a time when the 19th c. authors were my habit. Her bad writing--very conspicuous by contrast--made her too tedious to bother with. Others might disagree, but it does seem her ideas are what matter, not her fiction as such.
One of the best interviews concerning the tenets of Objectivism.
"in Denmark, McDonald's employees make twice what they do in the US, and the Big Mac costs just 35 cents more"
www.businessinsider.com/denmark-mcdonalds-pays-20-an-hour-2014-9?IR=T
+Henrik Thorsen Well the guy said that you should always use facts, reason and evidence in a debate so I suppose he will become a social democrat now, right? ;)
Upon my inception into atheism and skepticism, I remember coming across Ayn Rand in video interviews and comments and quotes. It struck me that this was a woman of reason and calm, thoughtful expression. However, I immediately came to clash with a barrier of anti-Rand argument and heart-felt disgust for her from the atheists. I didn't pay much mind to it, as other big names were in vogue, like Dawkins and Hitchens.
And yet, now that the regressive left has made its appearance, it strikes an old chord with me that I should've researched and instructed myself more in Rand's arguments and stances, even if I came to disagree with them in the end.
For some reason, this now sounds all the more appealing. Given that the left gravitates towards Marxism naturally, it becomes evident why Rand is and was their ideological opponent.
+PaulIvanish Too many atheists are leftists.
I think it's the other way around. The left tends to be more atheistic. Atheists tend to be more about science and empirical evidence rather than merely accepting dogmatic beliefs espoused by religious teachings. It's the right wing that tends to be religious (esp. in the U.S.). The candidacy of someone like Ted Cruz and the notorious evolution denial of the Kansas School board are but two token proofs of this.
Surprisingly there's a strong 70% correlation, both ways. Objectivists seem to get it right.
Not sure I'm following. Are you saying that 70% or Atheists are Left of Center politically AND vice 70% of people who lean left are Atheists?
As for Objectivists "getting it right" - don't you think it would be wiser to officially prove or disprove god before making such a declaration?
BTW, I always thought it was weird that highly religious figures on the political right love Ayn Rand so much (despite her Atheisim). Ted Cruz is the perfect example. He's obviously an economic conservative, but also a serious God Squader - but he is a huge Rand fan. Political and economic philosophy sure can be funny.
70% atheist are liberal, 70% liberals are atheists, but not coextensive. Objectivists get it right in that they are libertarian atheists, not liberal statist atheists. Her crossover appeal with conservatives is her championing of free enterprise, which is consistent with objectivism.
"Ayn Rand and the philosophy of how to be the most selfish, unempathetic piece of shit in the universe"
*****
How is a soldier willingly giving up their life to go to war "for your self interest"?
empathy is far overrated. if humans built their societies around empathy we would have gone extinct a long time ago.
+01000110011100100110010101100101 "some are doing it, because they love their country and that makes them feel proud/good"
So one point in the selfishness column, and one in the altruistic. You just defeated your own proposition that "Everything you do is for your self interest!" (An absolute proposition).
Thanks for playing.
+Mr. Pants How so? Piranhas don't attack each other and they're only strong together, not individually. Same with any pack hunters.
And please name or describe a single society (even hypothetical) that isn't built around empathy.
+Kyle Hall You're playing to the far left/right of the issue as if it's the entirety of the conversation. Completely hyperbolic. Completely fallacious.
Not to fawn or anything but I'm honestly impressed by the diversity of guests and opinions you have on your show. It feels like a rare thing these days so props to you.
I see a lot of people in the comment section reacting emotionally to the very mention of Ayn Rand's name, just as this guy predicted.
+Dr. Jimes Tooper compared to what?
+Dr. Jimes Tooper If you got that from reading her material, you have a reading comprehension problem. And probably an emotional problem too.
Of course she's a jewish woman she can't be right about anything!
Seven years old and only highlights how correct her position is and his compressed redux of it. The bombs are bursting in the air, the question is, will our flag still be there? 🇺🇸
Good interview Dave. Love your work. Keep up the good fight.
5 cents a burger pays for a $15 minimum wage. And automation will happen as fast as the technology allows it, regardless of the minimum wage going up. They're sick of little Johnny's shit.
+Mark William
LOL.
So each McDonald's cashier is going to sell 300 burgers an hour?
That's each employee selling 5 burgers every minute.
That's the joke about this topic. There is nothing more selfish than unthinking self-entitlement. And that's what the Bernie Sanders campaign is all about. You're not helping people by saying "health care is a right" and then pushing a unthought out policy that's going to harm millions of people. Same with the minimum wage.
+Mark William Either automation will serve the many, or it will serve the few. Philosophies like objectivism and utilitarianism will have a say in the matter.
+charlesvan13 Uhmmmm.... yes .05 x 300 does equal 15... but the burgers have a base cost before 5c would be added and employees are not currently making $0.00 per hour.
How do you even type using that brain?
Qube Presumably, he uses his fingers.
This is a fallacious argument, McDonalds already prices at what it feels it will make most money they cannot just make up the difference from higher wages by increasing prices, now the equilibrium will shift so probably some of that cost will pass on to price and people will be buying less at new price. Also while the tech development related to automation may be somewhat unrelated to price of labour (though it creates more financial motivation for research) the existing technology for automation will have costs and these are weighed against labour prices.
Her philosophy is solid, but on its own does not serve as a comprehensive basis upon which to live ones's life. She didn't explain how all her protagonists achieved their competence, independence and self-assurance needed to do all their great deeds. She almost completely neglected to mention childhood. This is why she had a falling out with Nathanial Brandon, who agreed with her core principles but felt that there was a lot more to be said about self-knowledge and emotional states. He himself went on to make significant contributions to the field of psychology regarding self-esteem. I suspect this is also the reason why so many are so staunchly opposed to her (who I think are ignoring her considerable contributions).
Basically, she was spot on but she didn't place enough emphasis on emotional awareness and self-knowledge. Nevertheless, she made colossal contributions to philosophy and was an ardent defender against collectivism.
+FeedThemCake Good points
I think you can sum up the failings of her works and philosophy, like what you pointed out, in that she skips to the end.
She reasons that taxation isn't fair and that a worker should be able to keep the profits of his labor, without anyone mooching off it...
...but she doesn't mention the public roads the worker traveled on, the government funded water and power utilities, and so on. She just skips to the 'end result' and says that taxes aren't fair.
+webkilla She discusses those things at length, actually. Who paid for the roads? The worker doesn't owe anyone for the roads, because he paid for them with his taxes. If there were no taxes, he might still have to pay someone, or maybe the road is paid for by the businesses that use it and they let people drive on the roads because that's good for business. In a free market we trade with one another for our values, we don't demand them and we don't use force. We don't say that "so and so" owes society because he got rich, because we would know that they got rich by voluntary exchange with other people who voluntarily gave their money. You can owe a debt to an individual, or to an organization of individuals, but you can't owe a debt to something amorphous and ill-defined like "society."
Ayn Rand loved science so much that she made the plot of Atlas shrugged driven by the anathema of physics, a free-energy machine. Gotta love when you break the laws of thermodynamics.
The machine in Atlas Shrugged didn't create energy. It converted energy from atmospheric electricity to motive power. An internal combustion engine converts chemical energy to motive power. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
A perfect short book about the true purpose of law and its current perversion is Bastiat's "The Law".
It's amazing the parrelels that can be drawn today from warnings given 150years ago.
Everyone has a perspective, or way of looking at the world, mine was formed not just by reason, but by faith. Year after year I went to a church that taught "we were made for community", our pastor often pointing to the trinity as the ultimate example of this & Sunday after Sunday I went back to that church because I instinctively & spiritually knew it to be true. However, having been raised by loving, but passive parents, I was left without the ability to navigate in community & as a result I often found myself more & more isolated. I had no boundaries as an individual & didn't know how to recognize other individual's boundaries either (see where I'm going with this?). I went from one painful experience to another always trying, but never succeeding in forming meaningful relationships with people & always, always finding a way to view myself as a victim..."if I had her confidence", "of course he's good at talking, his parents were country-club socialites"; "I never know what to say because I'm a loser", etc...etc. Then some horrible things happened in my life that I won't go into, but I reached as they say "rock bottom", or as I like to call it "I came to the end of trying" (this didn't involve substances, but rather destructive relational patterns). I decided I had two options, end it all or admit I had no answers & surrender my life to God. Fast-forward... I learned I was an emotional codependent, I learned I didn't have to be afraid of accepting responsibility for my choices, including the bad ones because in doing so it meant I had the capacity to choose the direction I wanted my life to take & as I took more & more responsibility & stopped seeing myself as a victim & as I erected boundaries, I (my name) started becoming a fully-formed individual in my own right, capable of taking my part in community. Here's the deal people, please take it from the voice of experience....individualism (isolated, self-centered, victim-mindset) is BAD & collectivism where neither you nor I exist is BAD! We ARE made for community, but you can't be in community if there's no you to participate. Remember that pastor I told you about? He left the church & is now into radical leftist politics & a proponent of collective social justice based on critical race theory, intersectionality, yada yada, you know the spiel; how I wish I could tell him he was right in pointing to the trinity, he just missed the other, equally important fact that it's called a trinity for a reason.
Great talk. Ayn Rand was certainly an interesting character.
I love these adult, reasonable, calm conversations on the Rubin Report.
"The modern left has rejected the idea of reason", about 8:30. This explains everything!
Well done, Dave! It's refreshing to see critical-minded discussion of the fundamentals and to see common ground being established. I enjoyed listening to the discussion and look forward to subsequent parts :)
Nobody will pay $15 to produce $10, but they have been paying $8 to produce $20 for 40 years. That was a nice oversight Yaron.
+unun septium the point is they want the profit, which you just proved.
+Jacob Kemp My point is that the workers and every taxpayer have been getting fucked for decades. If pay was tied to productivity, the minimum wage would be $22/hour. Furthermore, if wages were higher, the taxpayers wouldn't have to subsidize these cheap ass corporations. We pay $900 thousand per Walmart to cover welfare, because they won't pay them.
unun septium but pay does not just depend on productivity. if i open up a business with 1000 dollars and i hire you, and pay you 50 dollars, five years later the business is worth 1 million, should i raise you pair to 50 thousand. when i know someone could easily take your job for less.
unun septium its about worth, raise your worth for a company and they will pay you more to keep you from leaving.
ekelo ekete I would rather the companies pay the workers' wages, not us taxpayers.
This is my favorite show you've done so far dave!
invoking Ayn Rand's Philosophy on the minimum wage really shows how simplistic and out of touch with the modern world this Philosophy is. but funny though, to hear a guy explaining how you cant give people a living wage, all whille ignoring how countries in europe has been doing this for the last 50 years.
+Michael Giuffre Am British, can confirm
***** because doubling the supply unqualified and some qualified laborers will have no bearing on wages.
***** im talking about all of them. norway, denmark, sweden even finland. but sweden has attracted/let in the most.163,000 last year. 92% of them are male. they now have even greater gender imbalance than china. bbc com news magazine-35444173
the minimum wage had been negotiated prior to last year and indeed has not changed. but the effect can be felt when you are a) looking for a job and not finding it, b) looking for an affordable starting flat and not getting it c) your taxes being spent not on infrastructure or investments, but instead on feeding, clothing and sheltering people who are nothing like you culturally, dont speak your language and commit inordinate amount of violent crime.
and they are not refugees either, nor are most of them from syria. im from the czech republic actually and we were ordered by the eu to take in a share of migrants. since we are all huge fucking racists /s, we started with easy choices, good, christian syrian refugees, who only wanted to get to safety /in germany/. but once they saw they were not getting there and how tough to live on our minimum wage/government handout is, they rather turned around and moved back to syria. i am not making this shit up.
George Shepherd I am guessing there are no poor people in Britain then?
@mike rune
You certainly can give people a "living wage", if they are able to produce enough to justify it. Most people make more than the minimum wage. Ask yourself why.
My problem with Objectivists is they define themselves as those who see reality for what it is but at the same time reject realism in favor of idealism. They also get mad when you talk about race, even if what you say is 100% accurate, which makes them not really objective. Bosch Fawstin (an ex-Muslim Objectivist cartoonist) blocked the Libertarian Realist for saying in a video "get real about race" and said it was "incredibly racist". That being said, Objectivists are right in saying that altruism is cancer and rational selfishness is the way to go. They are also useful in desensitizing emotion-driven leftists.
+German Realist Objectivism holds the individual as supreme. "Race" is a collectivist concept.
+Donald Clifford
It is a biological concept. Races have certain traits that can be determined through biology and statistics. You can't call yourself a champion of science if you denounce any concept that you label as collectivistic. Objectivists oppose Muslim immigration on the basis of cultural incompatibility, not racial. How is that not collectivistic? After all, NOT ALL Muslims are dangerous, so as a pure individualist you can't hold such a position. Race and biology are real. It's pointless to deny the impact of racial traits on our lives.
+German Realist Objectivism isn'r a suicide pact. Of course we face collectivist threats to our security and liberty. It's the leftist group ID that advances leftist collectivism. Reasoned discernment is called for.
Objectivism, the philosophical equivalent of the short bus...
+Timothy Bierwirth Please be specific as a courtesy to the rest of us. An unsupported opinion is worthless in any discussion.
Thanks for a great show, Dave!
I wont go bonkers, I just have no respect for her.
Why?
Why?
Nvm I scrolled down
I heard Yaron speak a few years back, it wasn't very good. But man has he gotten better! Loved this conversation.
Barry Kripke, is that you? Joking aside, great interview, can't wait for part two!
+H. D. Afentoulidis I was wracking my brain trying to remember who (outside of Elmer Fudd) he sounded like. Kripke!! Thanks.
vaprex It took me a while too!
Professor in my U.S. history class mentioned Ayn Rand today. Haven't finished watching this interview yet, but my professor said Rand was a radical right wing (especially in her time) who believed in classical economic thought. At the time she was radical because individualism was a virtue, to the extreme where if you were in a room with another child, and there was one last breath of air, that you should take it as opposed to the child. Can't wait to watch this.
+TimeWarp66 I agree. That's where she really nails it. That and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". These two treasures bring to mind Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand".
TimeWarp66 Knowing my professor (he's a lefty who actively promotes communism and how it's not that bad), the book will actually be a good read. Will keep in mind. Thanks.
Her philosophy was a bit simplistic, but I've never understood the vehemence with which people attack it. Her following has a culty vibe about it sometimes, but that's about the worst thing you can say about her.
+Islet of Langerhans
Bingo. I'm somewhat embarassed to say I'm former Objectivist. I find Objectivists overall pretty annoying (though they have some good arguments) but the hate they receive is unwarranted and comes from pathological resistance to self-interest.
+German Realist I had to unfriend someone once because he was so strong of an objectivist, he wouldn't let anything go. If I disagreed about laissez-faire capitalism being the ONLY way to go, he would think I might as well be a socialist.
I'm curious, why did you give it up? I notice people tend to give it up in their 30s after they've had enough life experience to see past many of the absolutes and idealism.
+Islet of Langerhans Interesting. For me, it was getting my degree in philosophy which solidified my overall agreement with her philosophy. In light of reading so many alternatives, hers shined as the clearly correct one. And I am surprised you think it simplistic. I have found it just as hard to grasp fully as any and every other philosophy I have ever come across, if not harder as it goes against our modern preconceptions so powerfully.
SunriseInTheMidwest
At first, I got annoyed by the repetitiveness. Then, I realized that most arguments I hear (in general, not just from Objectivists) are idealistic. I have come to resent idealists. I no longer wanted to be part of a group that defends its positions at all costs when the facts contradict their ideas. Ideas can be right or wrong but facts are always right. I am still in favor of capitalism and rational self-interest, but not in the simplistic and stubborn way of Objectivists.
Example: Objectivists favor free trade because individual liberty. In practice, free trade harms capitalism, as identified by Karl Marx himself, who supported free trade only for the reason that it will ultimately destroy capitalism.
SunriseInTheMidwest
It's also ironic that they define themselves as those who see reality for what it is (it's called realism) while being idealistic to the bone.
That Bea Arthur picture is horrid, please upvote so we can send a message to Rubin to take it down.
These comments are funny.
A bunch of people voting for OTHER people to be forced to be altruistic in order to fulfill their own desires complaining about someone saying you should look out for yourself.
Hypocrites.
+George Christiansen Right? Fuck altruism! We should all be self-interested pricks. What a fucking utopia this world would be.
Dr. Jimes Tooper Who said anything about altruism?
Reading comprehension is no longer a requirement to get "Dr." in front of your name these days?
+George Christiansen
That's the joke.
They use altruistic pretenses, caring about others, altruism, etc., as a cover for self-entitlement.
charlesvan13 Exactly.
I have no doubt that there are truly generous people, but they are not the ones constantly losing their shit over what OTHER people are and are not doing.
The real altruist is lost in the need of the other and doesn't deal it out to one while practicing extortion towards another.
There is a sort of logic to it... They recognise the value and utility of charity, but really hate parting with money. Therefore they decide they need some kind of external authority to use force to MAKE them do so and a bit of projection masquerading as the Golden Rule later they decide that EVERYONE should be subject to it.
Well, I don't know if she was a villain, but she was a hypocrite. She died on welfare, even though she spent her life arguing against safety nets. The problem with her ideas is that they are absolutist, and they go too far. Just like the corresponding left wing philosophies that go to far.
She got a few things right, most political philosophers do, but lost the thread because of her own lack of humility.
Utopianism is always a path to dystopia. Rand was utopian.
This is why Orwell was such a genius and prescient, and Rand was not. He was a centrist. He saw the path that fallible humans go down when they disregard their fallibility. He illustrated the problems, not a total solution to them.
One of my Major problems with Rand was she simply would not allow criticism or questioning of her axioms. She would make axiomatic statements, which ended in obvious, irrefutable conclusions, but only if those axioms were based in reality and were accurate. Randites ( followers of Rand who hold her up as some kind of great intellect, or guru of life) are LESS objective, not more than the average person. She had some useful ideas, but face it, she was an ideological cult like leader.
unquestionable axioms are religion, not philosophy, or am I wrong? LOL
Mags chann Bad philosophy, good religion?
Richard Blackmore a religion that validates sociopathic behavior? we already have Islam..do we need another?
Her metaphysics makes a lot of sense though, at least to me.
Mags chann
Please explain to me what is religious about formulating explicitly that which most people accept as a given?
Things exist (objective reality) as themselves (identity) and we are conscious beings that try to figure out this reality by using senses and integrating data we've gathered by using reason.
.. okay, the last point drifts a bit off into epistemology. It's still fine though.
But beyond that it does indeed get problematic. It seems that Rand was too much damaged by communism and too impressed by capitalism that she developed a very black and white view of reality.
Fact: You can't pay market rent plus eat on minimum wage anywhere in the US. Solution: Pay a living wage or reduce prices so basic needs are affordable. It's not altruism, it's basic human decency.
Controlling prices is the Harry Potter method of problem solving. But you don't have a magic wand.
14:58 really well said.
Rubin is one of my guys for sure. Thanks for checking out my stuff.
Very pleasured to here such a wise thinking. Such philosophy can lead to positive outcomes in our world.
I'd love to see you get Thomas Sowell on to talk about intellectuals his interviews are incredible for anyone to understand.
What I love about David Rubin is that he will have these brilliant conservatives on who are a million times smarter than his liberal guests and then when David has his liberal friends on all they do is snicker about what dopes conservatives are.
Have him back soon, please! :)
This was a great interview. Pointing out that leftists reject reason; clearly explains whey leftists are so unreasonable.
He also forgot to mention that in Economics most all the Supply and Demand laws are Ceteris Paribus meaning "all else equal". In other words, everything is held constant so there are no external forces acting upon the supply and demand markets except endogenous actions. Therefore, it is not correct to say that raising the price of labor will necessarily lower the demand for that labor, this is only true ceteris paribus. It is possible that the demand for labor may lower, however, it is likely not true once you bring in other factors such as: how much profit does the company have? are they willing to lower income at the top to help out the lower income workers in the company? are they growing and can afford the increase in income? It is quite possible that an increase in income will not affect demand for that income at all.
This is sort of like when non-scientists use scientific laws to prove unscientific claims. You can't use economic laws which only apply to very specific conditions for reality. It's like using a mouse society to explain human society. It doesn't work.
+Wowo Mah "This is sort of like when non-scientists..."
This turned your whole comment into nothing but a more eloquent way of saying "you believe in xyz, therefore you are dumb".
I really like these gems here, especially taking in mind the attitude you showed (see sentence above) towards people who share a different view:
* "not [...] necessarily lower"
* "It is quite possible that..."
* "It is possible that "
* "may lower"
It could be, it may be, it's possible, one may argue, not necessarily ..... uh, so dreadful!
It's quite possible to convince people of your position by just using vague suggestions and never any real argument, based on actual data. Fueling the imagination of the clueless is how political charlatans work. May I suggest you provide something of substance?
+Wowo Mah Does the law of gravity hold even though we can fly to the moon?
Michael Haimerl Ok look kiddo, I'll be as nice as possible. The reason my statements were so vague is must have gone over your head. My argument was the laws of supply and demand do not hold necessarily unless ceteris paribus
memwill The law of gravity was not discovered in some vacuum as the laws of supply and demand were. So yes you sarcastic fart, it does apply. I am not saying the laws of supply and demand are untrue, I'm saying that what you can derive from them in a vacuum (which is how you study them in simple economics and what this man is referring to) is not the same as when you place them in the real world. The laws of supply and demand are not scientific laws because Economics deals with human behavior and humans are not always rational and thus not always predictable on top of this, other conditions may arise or exist in reality which do not in your simple graph of supply and demand curves. For instance, a company may have more than enough profit and the company may not mind the 15 dollar increase as perhaps they were going to do so in a year or two. Or another example in more complex macroeconomic theory: A company must raise minimum wages to 15 dollars an hour. Well if a consumer can choose between consumption today (spending their wages), consumption tomorrow (saving their wages likely in a bank), or leisure time (such as any time off from work), then an increase of a consumer/ worker's wage will mean they can afford to work less in order to maintain the same level of consumption as with their previous wage, but now they can also afford more leisure time. Very simplistic even still, but this is just one example of a condition that actually exists in more advanced economics which is more analogous to the real economy as opposed to the simple laws of supply and demand in Econ 101 (which the course is actually more likely called Econ 210-Principles of Microeconomics). Anyway, tl;dr, yes the laws of gravity apply to journeying to the moon, but in fact, if you knew what the law of gravity is, you'd know that with enough force you can push against gravity with something (such as a rocket) and lift oneself into the vacuum of space. :)
+Wowo Mah You're being absurd. When the price of something rises, people cannot afford to buy as much of it. When the price of labor rises, businesses cannot afford to purchase as much labor. We assume "all things being the same" in any theory, scientific or economic, because that's how theories work. You eliminate the specific measurements of variables and produce a general theory about a phenomenon. Rising prices on labor or any other resource does not always mean all of the same things to all of the people in a society, because they each have unique circumstances. Some businesses might be healthier and can absorb the costs. Some might not be able to. In no case is it good for the business to have a rising cost of labor, and in every case it makes hiring more expensive, which means it de-incentives hiring.
"If you raise the price of labor, then demand for that labor goes down".
It does, but not necessarily as much as the price was raised. Certainly when the price of labor was already kept way too low to begin with.
Also, if you raise the price of labor, then those laborers make more money, which they can spend on more goods, thus leading to hire income for the companies producing those goods.
Essentially, it depends on what the disparity is between what employers could pay their workers, and how much they actually pay them. If the difference is large enough, raising the wage will have a net positive effect.
+K. De Metter They raised the minimum wage in Seattle WA to $15/hr. This resulted in numerous restaurants closing. That's why Gov. Brown and others want to slow walk the increase, to minimize the harm, or spread it out over time.
Atlas Shrugged basically can be summarized as a literary work of an immature teenager trying to justify immature, selfish, and mean spirited behavior. I don't deny that communism is a horribly failed attempt to improve human life through forced equality, but Ayn Rand's philosophy swings way too far in the other direction. Empathy, cooperation, as well as pride and self interest are part of a mix that helps best improve all people.
+FallaciousScotsman
Exactly. You don't have to be in favor of communism to be against Rand. A lot of people don't understand that.
It's also funny how people deny the benefits of a mixed economy. I'm using the internet (DARPA invention), wifi (CSIRO invention), and youtube (Owned by google, which owes its existence to the NSF) to debate libertarians. XD
Read the "virtue of selfishness" it's incredibly short and concise. Sam Harris' books are just as long. Atlas shrugged is just a story with this philosophy twisted throughout. Any rand is not a good novelist.
It's funny you say "Teenagers". Every teenager I know are socialists (see Bernie rallies for examples.)
Most adults I know prefer the concept of individualism.
I had no other response to the rest of your comment. It was just juvenile Ad hominem. No articulated counter argument to Rand's philosophy.
C Grezyin
Sanders rallies are pretty mixed in age. I've been to one.
Nonetheless, it's irrelevant what age someone is.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water here. Objectivist principles do have a place, in that self-improvement is a great goal and living for ourself is warranted at some points.
Dave, you've got to have some principles you adhere to in these interviews. This guy just spewed nonsense unadulterated.
Rand's philosophy does not monopolize "reason and rationality", far from it. To discount empathy entirely, and to assert ethics is purely the individual flies in the face of civilization and social unity.
Additionally, the minimum wage debate has more to it than feelings. You neglect to mention the history of labor, the relative worth of an employee, the inequality of wealth distribution, whether there should be any relationship between a company's profits and their wages. In short, your stance on this issue makes you a neoliberal, not the classic liberal you claim to be.
Really, really disappointed in the direction of this channel as you seem to be taking conservative economics without thought. Not to mention supporting Clinton.
Alexandre Gareau Crowder is unbearable and can be best summarized as a shock-jock who goes for the most over the top reaction to issues in order to gain notoriety. Shapiro at least debates in good faith and holds positions I can agree on.
The primary divide is over economic theory and unfortunately Dave appears to be swallowing conservative theory whole without question.
First, I'm a huge fan of the show, Dave. And second, like apparently many others, I went through an Ayn Rand "phase" when I was younger, but I don't hate her, I've just evolved a bit since then. Somehow, and I think this is a good thing, I still have some things I agree with Ayn Rand about, and some things I agree with Bernie about.
Like Mr. Brook, I dislike the economic stimulus strategy on both a philosophical and rational basis. (Anybody else have Keynesian economics shoved down their throats in college?) But the same arguments against raising the minimum wage have been made since it was first introduced (when we first started having labor reform). The fact the minimum wage hasn't kept pace with inflation or cost of living is just a fact. Corporate executive salaries (and golden parachutes) increase exponentially every year. But somehow, an extra few bucks an hour for low-level employees will tank a company.
I love individualism and capitalism. But there are limits to "extreme" laissez-faire capitalism, which left unchecked, can evolve into monopolies and rampant corporatism, etc. (which ironically undermine the very benefits that capitalism is supposed to bring us).
+Tyler Austria You can't have a monopoly without the use of force. Objectivism promotes free markets. That's not what we have; we have a mixed economy.
+marce11o Agreed that we have a mixed economy. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "you can't have a monopoly without the use of force?"
+marce11o Are you perhaps thinking of government as having a monopoly on the use of force? Because Ayn Rand actually defends what she calls a "natural monopoly", one not promoted by the power of the state.
A business has to earn your dollar. Your dollar is like a vote. Attempts to corner the market or monopolize and jack the prices up will fail because either 1) customers can't afford you and you lose money, or 2) a competing business offers the same for less. However, government can provide subsidies or corporate welfare, which we don't want, or government can impose laws that restrict the ability to compete, which is also bad. Ayn Rand tried to explain this often when she was confronted in interviews about capitalism.
Your comments appear to focus on the higher earners and the inequality problem. People often talk about the higher earners or the one-percenters and its like they're talking about an abstract entity that is easy to throw stones at but we don't know them, we don't know anything about the struggle of their life paths, we don't understand how they earned those "golden parachutes" but they did. There is a reason its them and not us, and in many cases, if not most, its fair and square. I would say the issue of inequality is putting the focus on the consequences instead of the reasons. There is an inequality of skills and personal achievement. Many of us are spoiled and not willing to struggle our way to higher earnings. Tell the truth. The education system is really inefficient and poor quality though so I can understand and sympathize. That's another argument for another time (should be privatized).
You are just a socialist. You didn't grow up. You grew backwards.
Nice to see a tv host who allows the guest to talk!
The individual is clearly dead wrong on economics. He said and I quote: _Stimulus does not work._ Well if it does not work, how did USA become the fist superpower? The evidence clearly shows that stimulus and interventionism does work. When USA broke loose from UK, Adam Smith proposed, fatherly advised that USA follows it's comparative advantage and stay agricultural and let steel and cotton to UK. The first thing USA did was to impose high tariffs on imports and thus grow it's own economy. UK did the same thing with India. Anyone remember why Ghandi started picking up salt on the beach only to get beaten up? It amazes me to no end that he seems to be reasonable about these things and people cheer. Is there nobody on this channel who figured out the Ken Ham level of irony in what he is saying?
+TechnocraticBushman Which leads me to the second point. The most important aspect of decision making should not be reason but *evidence*. The fellow clearly lumps the two together.
+TechnocraticBushman How do you weigh evidence?
memwill It would depend on the type of evidence. In the case of the stimulus, let me give you my evidence for it working. When USA parted ways with UK, the first thing it did was to impose high tariffs on import. This is not something we can debate as it is in print. The declared purpose for this was to stimulate local economy. Adam Smith discussed this in his _Wealth of Nations_ in great detail. The fact that this stimulated the local economy I find more plausible then other factors. Let me give you a second example. It is often claimed that at least some of the great inventions of the 20th century came from the private sector. The transistor and Unix are 2 examples. In fact Bell, the company, had a state monopoly on telephony in the US which allowed them to set their own tairffs and afford a proper R&D department. Likewise Cray Computers which was not competitive against say Japanese supercomputers was able to remain in the business solely based on this monopoly. I am a computer and electronics geek and every such geek can tell you that pretty much everything we use today and 99.9% of what's in today's electronics was developed using either directly funded research or other such interventions such as monopolies. You can't expect companies to pay for 20 years worth of research in say Shockley's wild goose chases so that they can very unlikely say one day "this thing's got gain". Companies will ask for results and fast. I hope my ramblings gave you some idea as to how I weigh evidence in such cases. Note that I do not entirely disagree with the Rand Institute fellow and that I witnessed Stalinism first hand. I know how Rand felt in Stalinism. I lived through it myself.
1) Tariffs don't encourage production. They just protect weaker producers at the expense of consumers. There are many examples of this, so I don't need to belabor the point (US sugar, steel, etc). Best example of why tariffs and trade barriers don't work is Bastiat's candlestick maker's petition. 2) None of Silicon Valley today was produced or conceived using government funds or subsidies. It was Jobs, Gates, Bezos - men who had vision, brains, and purpose.
memwill You asked me how I weigh my evidence. You gave 2 key points but no evidence. I can prove you are wrong. Point 1. If you set tariffs on imports, clearly local producers are protected and thus encouraged. Mexico became the shithole that it is after signing a trade agreement and thus dropping it's food import tariff.
2. Let's disect Apple, shall we?
- OS: NetBSD/FreeBSD - BSD (4.4 Lite) operating system from UC Berkeley and others for Mac OS X and/or Mac OS X Server: All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must include the following acknowledgement: “This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley, FreeBSD, Inc., The NetBSD Foundation, Inc., and their respective contributors.” We must also obtain UCB’s written permission prior to any endorsement or promotion of their software.
Source: www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/appletmlist.html
- The Mach Kernel: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_(kernel)
And the fulll list of opensource projects, the majority of which are not started by them but are in fact open sorurce projects developed using state funds at american universities:
www.apple.com/opensource/
Can I continue with the hardware? Do you want me to move over to MIcrosoft or Amazon? I know Amazon inside out.
*You are wrong QED*
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
~John Rogers
TimeWarp66 Since we seem to be giving out unwanted advice, go buy yourself a sense of humour.
+TimeWarp66 Dude, I couldn't care less about the debate about Rand.In fact, I agree with some of her philosophies, as described in this video. It's a quote that I find funny. That's it. Like I said before, get a sense of humour, for your own sake.
There is nothing irrational in what I've said. You clearly need to lighten the fuck up, and are a shining example of a person who "engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world", because you can't take a joke about your precious idol.
Well done!
"Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us." - John Dickinson at the Constitutional Convention
+Adam Smith Reason, according to Ayn Rand, means integrating experiences with logic to form concepts. In the context of Objectivism, it doesn't mean what the rationalist philosophers like Descartes meant. Descartes thought you could deduce anything from first principles. Rand believes in the scientific method.
I came to these ideas separate from the banner of objectivism but I'm glad I found it. Encompases pretty well what has led me on this path away from collectivism.
I don't disagree that Communism is terrible, but her ideology is just an extreme swing of the pendulum in the other direction, which is just as awful. I see this kind of thing all the time with people who's parents were (in their opinion) too strict or too something, so when they have their own kids they end up being the extreme opposite which ends up being just as problematic. I have never seen an instance where a particular ideology used in it's purest form is ever successful.
+mmmmffff4 I kind of agree. Communism is terrible and Rand was a swing of the pendulum that went too far (people who grew up in the eastern block tend to be the ones who sympathize the most with her ideology). But just as terrible? I'd rather live in Ayn Rand's world than the communist one.
+Insidious Jazz
But it's not a dichotomy, that's my point. Rationalism and empiricism are (IMO) the best place to start, but people can still decide what works best on a case by case basis. Context ALWAYS matters, which is why certain solutions don't work in all contexts.
mmmmffff4 That sounds all well and good but you can still look at an ideology as a whole and judge which one will work out the best. You said Ayn Rand ended up being just as awful as the communists which I take issue with. In most cases Rand is clearly superior as far as I can tell.
+Insidious Jazz
Again, my point is that I am staunchly anti-ideology. It is not about choosing one over the other (no matter how many there are) across the board for me. They are places to start, but not apply universally, because context matters. NO ideology is going to work everywhere, and there is no need to pick just one and go with it as you seem to keep suggesting. You can't approach every problem with the mindset that x is always better than y, and there is no need to. There is an understandably human incentive to do so though, because ideologies conserve time and energy by not having to think as much about a problem one is trying to solve.
Beyond this, ideologies themselves are fluid. Each of them: Libertarian, Communist, Christian, Muslim, etc has their own slightly different idea of what that ideology means and how they apply it. Just look at the goddamn feminists when you try and pin them down on their blatantly hypocritical views, they fracture into thousands of flavors. We can go to the dictionary all day long about what these ideologies are *supposed* to mean, but in practice it is not very useful. With that being said, people's own ideologies are fluid within themselves over time, changing as new information is presented (admittedly not ALL people I guess). Everyone has their own set of beliefs, their own personal ideology, which is a natural starting point. But in a society we can't just pick one over the other in all cases, as there is not always a clear choice as to which works. There is not always right or wrong solutions, sometimes there are many valid solutions, and the *better* solution is defined by who benefits most from it, which is rather arguable and often subjective. This is where empiricism is necessary as it is our best means to quantify such outcomes towards an attempt to do what's best for all. Without it, and sticking dogmatically to ideologies, we end up where we are now: a quagmire of dissenting beliefs.
+Insidious Jazz
Again, my point is that I am staunchly anti-ideology. It is not about choosing one over the other (no matter how many there are) across the board for me. They are places to start, but not apply universally, because context matters. NO ideology is going to work everywhere, and there is no need to pick just one and go with it as you seem to keep suggesting. You can't approach every problem with the mindset that x is always better than y, and there is no need to. There is an understandably human incentive to do so though, because ideologies conserve time and energy by not having to think as much about a problem one is trying to solve.
Beyond this, ideologies themselves are fluid. Each of them: Libertarian, Communist, Christian, Muslim, etc has their own slightly different idea of what that ideology means and how they apply it. Just look at the goddamn feminists when you try and pin them down on their blatantly hypocritical views, they fracture into thousands of flavors. We can go to the dictionary all day long about what these ideologies are *supposed* to mean, but in practice it is not very useful. With that being said, people's own ideologies are fluid within themselves over time, changing as new information is presented (admittedly not ALL people I guess). Everyone has their own set of beliefs, their own personal ideology, which is a natural starting point. But in a society we can't just pick one over the other in all cases, as there is not always a clear choice as to which works. There is not always right or wrong solutions, sometimes there are many valid solutions, and the *better* solution is defined by who benefits most from it, which is rather arguable and often subjective. This is where empiricism is necessary as it is our best means to quantify such outcomes towards an attempt to do what's best for all. Without it, and sticking dogmatically to ideologies, we end up where we are now: a quagmire of dissenting beliefs.
Saw Ayn Rand in the title and immediately clicked. I've read a bit about her, looking forward to the analysis of her philosophy which seems to support the current economic system in the west. For those screeching about Ayn Rand, always better to attack her positions with logic, and show why you think she is mistaken.
+Mark Swan Yes I agree she was pretty extreme, but valid criticisms of government interventions going too far.
+Mark Swan haha apologies for misunderstanding your position. I'm more in favor of "mixed economy" although I think people like Ayn on the right and others on the left, offer valid criticisms of different economic systems from capitalism to communism.
Never much cared for her, despite the fact that i was born in USSR and very much individualist myself. She was nearly clueless about biological and psychological aspects of human behaviour and tended to fit individual to her theory than to built a theory on the basis of objective information. Pseudo religious aspects of her following and rampant rationalisation that comes from it also don't help, since many people latch on it without any understanding of the subject.
+Irony "She was nearly clueless about biological and psychological aspects of human behaviour" So was everyone else in those days dude, she wrote Atlas Shrugged almost 60 years ago, nobody knew shit about anything back then.
+Chris Whinery
The problem is that people cling to outdated philosophies to the letter.
+Irony Amazing, isn't it? As traditional religion succumbs, there are all these memes and ideologies to take it's place. On the opposing side, others go bonkers when hearing the word _Marx_. Read both Rand and Marx, read the science on the topics, make an informed decision. It is literally that simple. Rand could not know that in biology the unit is not what we perceive as the individual but is in fact the gene, that say chickens are the most successful vertebrate on the planet as a species but individuals as defined by her would take offense at this remark. Neither did Marx know about what the economy would turn into. Most people find it hard to evaluate one's ideas on their merit alone and detach from emotional crap.
Very interesting and unbiased approach. I feel inspired.
Dave's understanding of economics is astounding, and not in a good way.
If you watch closely you can notice that a lot of his guests catch his ignorance and then politely and subtly explain why he's wrong.
thanks for bringing this all together, dave.
Great interview! Subscribed. Someone else I'd love to see you interview is Alex Epstein: founder of the Center for Industrial Progress. He's author of the book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.
Thanks so much for this Dave! :)
Dave, see Nick Hanauer's arguement. He's a top 1% of the richest in the world and he said living wage should be $15 and he managed to get it work in Seattle I think and the economy there didn't collapse...
Bump
What separates Seattle from a small town in nowhere Fly-over country?
Now shut up.
FortuitusVideo Check his ted talk, the one that was banned but ted put it back up after lots of criticism. And why tell people to shut up? You are exactly like a stereotypical regressive left that refuses freedom of discussion and ideas...
+Scd Observer its always the fucking horseshoe effect, instead of saying shut the fuck up, ask why they believe that, treat ideas with at least a little credibility until they are without a doubt wrong
I believe Seattle has every right to raise the minimum wage, but 15/hour is too steep in many parts of the country.
Your show is great Dave.
Hi guys! Going to make an economic comment, not a political one... so bear with me.
Part 1)
The entire neoclassical/neoliberal understanding of the economy is empirically incorrect. In their view one can ignore the role of money, banks and private debt in the economy. This is not only outlandish, it is empirically absurd. Moreover, they believe that capitalist systems are inherently self correcting. This is also incorrect. Indeed, since the dawn of capitalism critics have emphasized that in any mathematical model of capitalism one possible state of that system must be a depression. However, in all mathematical models of neoclassical economics this state is not included. Economists in the past like Joseph Schumpeter, Irving Fisher, and most famously Hyman Minksy have shown how naive this kind of thinking really is. Minsky's "financial instability hypothesis" pops their entire neoclassical bubble. Furthermore, there is a reason no mainstream "Chicago School" economists saw the great depression coming, or the 2008 crisis coming when the more heterodox schools of economics did. In sum, their insistence on self correcting free markets is not only damaging to society, it is empirically incorrect and therefore should be disregarded as a failed theory.
2) This isn't to say, however, that Ayn Rand's philosophy shouldn't be studied. In fact, their view of human nature is fascinating, but to me, one should not base economic policy on failed and unsubstantiated mathematical modeling.
3) Regardless of how uninformed he is about the inherent dynamics of the market, this is still a great interview. It's always important to hear every side of a debate!!
Keep up the great work, Dave.
all the best!
+Nick C We've never really had a free market but the closest we got was the late 1800s. The reason it hasn't self-corrected and instead you've had huge booms and busts is the widespread adoption of Keynesianism, which results in government intervention in the economy and massive distortion of the cost of capital. The interest rate sets every price in an economy. When you distort the interest rate, there's no frame of reference for saving vs. investment.
+memwill In the late 1800's we saw some of the highest levels of income inequality, monopolies and limited competition. Also, even in that time the market wasn't free, it was owned by a select few. Further, you do realize that there is really no such thing a a "free market" right? The economy and government aren't two autonomous entities that are separate from one another. A purely free market without any government, in theory, would have to be one without land, law, labor or even money... Find me one like that and i'll listen. Moreover, all markets, at any point in space and time aren't ever "free..." Regulations must be there, in some sense, to set a framework of what can be traded, who can trade, and how it can be traded. The notion of a free market is a myth and is nothing but colorful language masquerading as liberty.
Nick C Who cares if there was income inequality when real wages doubled across the board? Per the NBER, real wages grew 1.4% during the Gilded Age compared to 0.6% during the Progressive Era. (www.nber.org/papers/w14555.pdf%20) Whenever there's innovation, there is initially limited competition. That's inherent in creating something new. But everyone benefitted.
And there's no such thing as owning a market. A market is just a sum of voluntary transactions between individuals. If a business raises prices, new competitors enter the market or consumers reduce their demand. Any attempts to corner a market have resulted in failure. More importantly, economic power is a positive force for productivity, while political power is the only force with the right to use weapons. In fact, most of the textbook cases of monopolies are inaccurate. The most commonly referenced is Standard Oil, for which I'd point you to this article: www.masterresource.org/epstein-alex/vindicating-capitalism-standard-oil-i/
+Nick C "Indeed, since the dawn of capitalism critics have emphasized that in any mathematical model of capitalism one possible state of that system must be a depression."
No, James Mill disproved all that in Commerce Defended 1808.
The best argument against objectivism:
"It is not contrary to Reason for me to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger." -- David Hume
That's some empirical nonsense. Introspect and see, that you see the argument as compelling using - reason! We have rational values that outweigh the scratching of a finger.
@Rudolph Pascual
I disagree. The best argument against Objectivism is: "I have a gun. Do what I tell you."
Ayn Rand would be proud of this man!
Dave, please have someone on with a counter perspective, like Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Reich, Dean Baker, or James K Galbraith.
Yaron Brook had a debate with Galbraith. You can look it up on TH-cam.
Right, I'm all for being realistic, but there are lots of differing realiries out there. Working two jobs to make ends meet is not an emotion.
It feeeeels right to be able to say whatever you want for whatever reason to whatever person.
He is wrong. Science is not about rationalism, science is about empiricism.
+DelphicExpanse
This is one of the ancient questions in philosophy. Is science about rationalism (ideas in the mind) or experience?
It's a false dichotomy. As Dr. Brook stated, reason is using the right method to observe the natural world. Then you can arrive at specialized knowledge: science.
Science and reason simply is not some mind game you use in order to look at the world, nor is it passively looking at natural world and deriving empirical laws. Science demands the proper epistemological method, not passive gazing.
Rationally, we all know we should be saving for retirement. And yet empirically, you can look at the numbers, and thats not what you see. That's the difference. Rationally, we would never need double blind experiments. But we do, we have the data. We aren't perfect. We are irrational.
+DelphicExpanse Rationality is required to make rational conclusions from empirical data.
Yes, but its a belief that you don't need to do empirical work, because reason is all you need.
"The rationalists had such a high confidence in reason that empirical proof and physical evidence were regarded as unnecessary to ascertain truth - in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience""
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
I like this guest.
Just remember, the biggest leaps forward we had as a society came from people selflessly aiming for THEIR OWN success, like bill gates, steve jobs, the google duo and Elon Musk
That is a fact, and it has made life for ALL of us better, much better
Not to mention people throughout history like newton were not aiming towards a better quality of life for everyone, but their selfless dedication to what they wanted, it has brought forth more than what other millions of people did, specially those saying they care for the common good, like hittler, mao, che guevara, marx
That is another fact, usually it happens that the ones calling for the good of all people are the ones who commit the worst attrocities
+Gabriel Lopes I'm a mathematician and I disagree about Newton and Scientists in general. What drives us is curiosity and puzzle-solving, not riches. There are times where private universities could hinder scientific progress because no one cooperates since they all want to make the most money. The rest of your point still stands though.
+Hectar Savoie from what I've been able to piece together from some of Rand's work, it's about achievement. It's not necessarily about riches. So an argument can be made for Objectivism, stemming from your original comment.