Wow, this conversation is amazing! It covers so much ground and makes so many important integrations that I think a proper understanding of these ethical/moral principles by a majority of people would transform our world into a mostly peaceful, rationally coordinated, and unbelievably prosperous global civilization.
Absolutely love it! Can Michael please have Mr Valliant on during the Rights discussion with Kinsella? It would really go a long way to have someone well informed on the Rothbard's premise that Kinsella seems to reason.
I find it cute that Michael has an issue with ran's sort of definition of value because it's too broad yet every so often Michael will default to a dictionary definition which is too broad even though a more specific definition was given to him. I'm not being negative or critiquing. I just find that battle I view within your mind fascinating.
My critique of Rand’s definition of value isn’t that it’s too broad. It’s 1. That it doesn’t capture the fundamental distinguishing characteristic of the concept; and 2. It renders value subjective, which clearly isn’t her intent.
@@michaelliebowitz7439 That's all true. Keep in mind that "your" dictionary definition doesn't capture the differentia behind a right - It's a political concept. Get me, dawg?
Right is an ethical-political concept. As Rand says, it subordinates government to moral law. Saying I have a right to do something means no one has right to stop me. It also means that if someone tries to physically stop me, I have a right to respond in kind. Importantly, a definition is not equivalent with a concept. A definition is what fundamentally differentiates a concept from all others. A moral claim is the essence of a right, but isn’t all it entails.
@@michaelliebowitz7439 Oh, on a side note, love your work on X. I know you'd rather not deal with social media, besides it being advertising for you, but man... More power to you!
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 86 | คู่เอก "คมเพชร vs ชาติพยัคฆ์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m3q_dRYDuU8/mqdefault.jpg)
It is always a pleasure to listen to James.
Wow, this conversation is amazing! It covers so much ground and makes so many important integrations that I think a proper understanding of these ethical/moral principles by a majority of people would transform our world into a mostly peaceful, rationally coordinated, and unbelievably prosperous global civilization.
Absolutely love it!
Can Michael please have Mr Valliant on during the Rights discussion with Kinsella?
It would really go a long way to have someone well informed on the Rothbard's premise that Kinsella seems to reason.
I find it cute that Michael has an issue with ran's sort of definition of value because it's too broad yet every so often Michael will default to a dictionary definition which is too broad even though a more specific definition was given to him.
I'm not being negative or critiquing. I just find that battle I view within your mind fascinating.
My critique of Rand’s definition of value isn’t that it’s too broad. It’s 1. That it doesn’t capture the fundamental distinguishing characteristic of the concept; and 2. It renders value subjective, which clearly isn’t her intent.
@@michaelliebowitz7439 That's all true. Keep in mind that "your" dictionary definition doesn't capture the differentia behind a right - It's a political concept.
Get me, dawg?
Right is an ethical-political concept. As Rand says, it subordinates government to moral law. Saying I have a right to do something means no one has right to stop me. It also means that if someone tries to physically stop me, I have a right to respond in kind.
Importantly, a definition is not equivalent with a concept. A definition is what fundamentally differentiates a concept from all others. A moral claim is the essence of a right, but isn’t all it entails.
@@michaelliebowitz7439 Oh, on a side note, love your work on X. I know you'd rather not deal with social media, besides it being advertising for you, but man... More power to you!