rambow70 That fact is probably why, during the Nixon years, Russia would not allow any published or publicly printed example of it. I guess they knew allowing it would be the end of them.
Exactly ! Why does the P.O.S. down the street have this authority over you because he gets elected to ' Office ' who not elected and crossing the street to your house and started giving you Orders you would punch him back across the street ? People confuse the sanctity of the ' Office' with the ass that is elected to occupy it ! The Peasant views it as his boy elected as being an extension of himself and now able to unleash his jealousy ,envy,resentment on those who produced for themselves what he could not !
utubedestroysmytime I come from ukraine when it used to be under the USSR. Just ask any immigrant who lived under communist rule in russia. We had no free speech, the so-called freedom there was a joke, among many other things. Another objective of soviet russia by the way was for everyone to have equal wage, that was a myth. There were certain ppl who were well off and there were people who were worse off. Plus, the economy was controlled by the government, tightly controlled. Im not very knowledgeable about economics but, in that time, demand was high, but supply was low for most needs and wants. Most people who lived thru it, got their goods mostly thru the black market.
@@angelbarajas9180 Oh God; I'm a libertarian who is not biased or hateful towards anybody, and my only two issues with Trump are complete deregulation and raising the cigarette age to 21. The latter is a disgrace and undermining to adulthood in America; but moving on, the people who are for Bernie and AOC are completely ignorant of history. It's been bad but we will do it better. It cannot get any better, it can only get worse than Venezuela at the present moment. To be honest with you, we are going to need a TRUE revolution if we want to fight for and preserve our freedom. Furthermore, today unfortunately, a great majority of the American political environment has shifted from smart, intellectual debates towards a series of altruisitc cults.
100 percent correct. The morality of the free market is value for value. The morality of the government is that of the thief. It is the morality of the voluntary versus that of force.
David Medlock the legality of Ponzi schemes were not apart of the discussion. You stated that all participants in a free market can only make money by providing. The fact that Ponzi schemes exist disprove that. Further more you reference caveat emptor as if that is supposed to be the magic cure all to make sure you aren't getting taken advantage of in a free market. in many situations that isn't possible, a prime example is medical care. In a totally free market with no intervention how would one seek restitution for malpractice? the is a need for a impartial third party to provide regulations and oversight.
Do you work for a company or a government that gives you benefits. You should reject them and buy your own. Do the street lights work in your neighborhood if they do reject them they are an entitlement from tax dollars. Are your streets paved reject them they are tax dollar entitlement. Do you have police and firefighters in your city reject them they are Paid for by tax dollars. Stop being a hypocrite
My goodness, her words are more relevant now than ever ... especially during this time of the police-state experiment the US has gone along with due to Covid-19. My prayer is that the youth read her books and watch videos of her online.
Just read the comments... people hate her more and more. And the fun part is, they have no objective, point to point contradictory view. They just know they have to be against Rand. So they find a word, a phrase, anything, and try to caracterise her by that. A more educated form of "you're a nazi / bigot" and such. Defamation at its finest
I adore ayn rand. Its amazing that before i even knew who she was that these were my thoughts and beliefs. If i had a fancy liberal degree I swear I would fight with everything in me to make these beliefs and realities known and fight for them. In the meantime i will organize a group of fed up parents and advocates to dismantle the common core education system.
@@jacksonlee3133 from what I can see online, the "common core" is just for english and maths. In Romania, there is a quantity of information and level students have to reach for each year on all subjects, not just maths and romanian or maths or english. I doubt teaching people less will make them any smarter, considering in their spare time most watch tv / waste time on computer / phone. Can't recall too many people going home, practicing english as their own initiative
Its amazing, critical comments here are trying to say how wrong she was simply because she did not get her predictive vision 100% exactly accurate!! Forget your precise definition of the word "socialism", language has changed in half a century anyway. Think about her general view. She was an advocate for independent productive people (at all levels). She spoke out against collectivism (any brand) and government intrusion, and said how that would gradually get more of a burden over time, unless it was consciously stopped. Ignore our arbitrary labels and she was really very accurate.
I love how Marxists will just argue that the definition of socialism is wrong. Socialism is synonymous with social and economic collectivism to most people now. Not just the nationalization of the means of production. Ayn was completely right here.
Katrin FitzGerald Socialism and Corporatism. Not free markets. Free markets (REAL free markets) protected by a limited state is the only way to true prosperity and real freedom through merit.
+ChooseChoice Keep in mind free markets don't exist without proper government intervention. We had a time not too long ago when government had no influence in the economy, and a thing called monopolies formed. There is more of a free market now then when there was during the days of Andrew Carnegie for example. Heck, Denmark rates as the best nation for business, and they have a lot more state involvement in their economy than ours www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/guess-who-else-is-a-socialist.html
Sir Tips A Lot Government intervention can only ever reduce the competitiveness of markets. You are branding a single supplier with the term "monopoly". You fail to understand that if a single large supplier of any product emerges within a free market, it can only do that by being lower price or better quality (or both) than any other supplier. That is always a good thing (for consumers). Government can only "remedy" that terrible situation by forcing up prices so that less efficient producers can compete (as I said, they reduce competitiveness), and consumers have to suffer the higher prices. True "monopoly" can only exist when govmt forbids any competitors, and then things always get expensive, and consumers suffer again.
Mike Blain A large supplier can also accomplish what you spoke of by buying all the other suppliers in that industry, which history has stated happening many times. Steel industries, oil industries, banks, etc... were heavily controlled by a few people. It wasn't until government (Teddy Roosevelt) introduced antitrust policies to start breaking them up was there more fairness and competitiveness in the market. Businesses will go the path of least resistance every time, and if they have to make a great product, they will, but if buying out their competitors is an option, they will as well. Why would you let other businesses take away your potential profits if you could prevent it?
Her eyes are mesmerizing... She has the answer to his inquiry after the first three words. For even a layman, listening to this amazing human being, it becomes all so clear... By Jupiter, we desperately need more Ayn Raynds...
Bernie Sanders only has selfish followers. When you use the word free in order to entice your followers, you are a socialist. When you use the word work in order to entice your followers, you are a conservative/capitalist.
Ayn Rand fans should vote for Bernie. I think what you don't understand is that our individual liberty cannot be at the expense of others liberty. Call is socialism if you want but violations of that concept are within scope of a democratic vote. That scope changes as society grows more complex and occupations become more specialized. That is why power must constantly be tested as society progresses. Even if you disagree with his ideas who else is going to get money out of politics without a movement. It would be a net positive for all red and black alike.
One of the biggest underlying problems of today are definitions of words/terms. Look at dictionaries from 40+ years ago and then look up the same words on the internet. There are some pretty drastic changes. Ayn Rand can be very misunderstood for this reason. Just like in the book 1984 there has been some insidious foul play going on in the intellectual community. Or maybe I should say in the anti intellectual community.
I'm with you brother. I think a lot of the problems we have socially are exactly what you pointed out. When you start the conversation with the wrong word or I'm using a word in the context I understand the meaning of the word and the person that hears it understands the definition differently , it's really difficult to have a rational conversation. Recently I got in an argument with someone over the difference between hypothesis and theory. So both of us went online and looked at numerous dictionaries. We came back to each other with the understanding that we would have to specifically Define a word to use it in a conversation between the both of us. Why?, because if you look at 10 different dictionaries you get eight different definitions! PS. He mentioned conspiracy theory. I tried to explain there can be no such thing as a conspiracy theory. Example, the assassination of JFK. A theory is defined as a thing that has been accepted as true. Hypothesis is defined as, the possibility of Truth. So until the JFK assassination has been proven and accepted as the reality, it cannot be a theory. It remains a hypothesis. So the correct term would be " conspiracy hypothesis".
Word. There is a role of government in a free society, but it must be restricted/limited to only matters of public good - defence, law enforcement, public infrastructure, ensuring fairness in the economy, etc.
one thing people always seem to forget about communism, socialism, or any kind of totalitarianism, is that nobody flees to them, they only flee from them. her philosophy explains why.
You know not all forms of socialism advocate for big government, right? Fundamentally, socialism is about giving more power to the workers and giving them the freedom to act in their own self-interest. Communism is even less totalitarian. Some governments say that they are trying to achieve communism and call themselves communist governments. If they were actually communist though, those governments wouldn't exist at all since communism is stateless by definition.
The virtue of "sheer ability" which Ayn Rand mentioned is key. There is nothing more beautiful about life than having or witnessing someone who has sheer ability. Those with the most ability are the ones who thrive, i.e., function optimally. I wish I learned the meaning of thriving and the way to thrive in preschool, elementary school, middle school, high school, or university but in fact I barely ever hear or read the word "thrive" anywhere...
@Fred Freddy feeble??? I can do what you've just done. Smugly declare "bullshit" I read your comments with a Monty python accent so I can have a modicum of respect for your pretentious attitude. Nah just fuckin with ya tho. But obviously, you're replacing the theme of the his with your own biased, strawmanned, perverted, interpretation whether her assertions are right or wrong. That is what's feeble.
Wallace: ...they perverted their power. Is that not true? Rand: No it isn't. Wallace: Oh... LMAO! I can't get enough of this it's brilliant. Thank you SO much for uploading this LibertyPen. I sincerely appreciate it
everything seems so much more professional, well thought out and educated in this interview. Not to mention in depth. Nowadays they just stick to the surface and general vague statements. This really gets into the meat of what someone believes. Agree or disagree with the views at least it's getting into something! The vocabulary from both the interviewer and interviewee are just great.
yes, I see your point now, my eyes have been opened we weak minded sheep should just trust the wolves to do the right thing, after all why would the wolves do us any harm? clearly us "common folk" should be happy to shed our blood and break our bones for our "betters" who would never ever ever take advantage of us. sounds like a great system
+Gustavo Rodriguez The problem with all totalitarian philosophies is the ones in charge of them are not governed by them. In other words, they are exempted from the controls they force on others. I argue that if the so called leaders of those movements had to live under the same laws they make, there would be no totalitarianism in the 1st place.
Well, You and I both agree totalitarian regimes are a nightmare, and that no one would want to live in there. Marx himself said that the abolition of government, would take 100s of years to commit. Russia was a disaster, because it went from A feudal Monarchy to a "communist" society overnight. he sugested there must be Capitalism, then Socialism, then finally Communism. I hope we can also agree that socities like North Korea is as Communist, as Nazi Germany was.
Gustavo Rodriguez I can't agree that Nazi Germany is as Communist as North Korea. Nazi Germany was against Communism. They were fighting Communist Russia in WWII. Germany was national socialism a form of Fascism. I will agree that both employed and employs Totalitarianism.
They're also countries that have enjoyed long periods of peace, have histories of high economic freedom, have been developed and independent countries much longer, and have local access to oil. You can't look at economic factors in isolation like that and expect to get anything but a talking point. In the past 50 years, life expectancy for russians has stayed constant around 67yo +/- 2. In fact, in the years before the fall, when its government was weakest, life expectancy was highest.
It is the people power that reforms, not by the government, nor some legislations. In order to comprehend AR' s words one must look into her over all philosophical ideals, not just a bit of a clip. As here in this interview. Ayn Rand is correct. The founding fathers' ideals were, in fact, in line with AR' s. No lectures from me. I would never presume myself to her level of understanding. She is above others, one of the greatest minds, ever! Much in comparison to the past, historical, and ancient philosophers, and she will stand the test of time, Luke all of them.
Mike Blain The crux for me is; when does the liberty of some infringe the liberty of others. I am all for "liberty " who isn´t. But eg`, the "liberty " of American settlers to fill and exploit the land had drastic effects on the liberty, and much more of the inhabitants. The word Liberty is often very popular among the "strong" to be free to exploit those more vulnerable.
The concept of Liberty does not mean the freedom for each person to do anything they want. It requires the same freedom for everyone, "Liberty for All". So in and idealized free society, an infringement of another person's liberty is the very definition of a crime. You will not be able to compare the first American settlers, because they did not live in a time of liberty. That was an age of tribal country structures where the people were the property of the ruling monarch, and the strength of the monarch meant the ability to expand the territory. The Liberty concept was created much later, for America that was throwing out the monarchy by the Revolutionary War. The word Liberty might be misused today, but that does not negate the concept, it just means the person using the word is wrong.
Mike Blain" You will not be able to compare the first American settlers, because they did not live in a time of liberty." I think I can. The point is their "liberty" was of much greater worth to them than any loss the others incurred.Their definition of liberty was no block to their actions. It gets to my point which is about commercial "liberty " . They seek to monopolise that meaning of Liberty. It is what many think of when they think of Liberty. Their financial freedoms. There are other parameters for freedom other than that to do business, and make money.
What does "commercial liberty" mean? Liberty only applies to individuals, not businesses. As far as the settlers: _"Their definition of liberty was no block to their actions."_ Exactly, but with our concept of "Liberty for All" there is a block on our actions. As I said before, they lived in a different time.
Her theory sounds nice but in real life it just doesn't work that way. It's like she don't want to grow up. If the strongest group in a society wants to take your property they will take your property, no atter how loud you scream "right to property"
LOLLYPOPPE Missing the point. Socialism gives ultimate authority to government to enforce it. Obviously no system can be perfect when human are involved.
So the system can't be made perfect therefor we should make no system at all? Do you think a world where a few companies own all the resources is the best system we can make?
This is already what we have.... government intervention has allowed huge parent company monopolies to exist without competition. Ayn Rand's version of society would be the first time in history where there was no authority, be it goverment, monarchies, strongman leaders, etc. People would try to game this system obviously, therefore the proper checks and balances would have to be there.
"I object to the idea that people have the right to vote on everything. The traditional American system was a system based on the idea that majority will prevail only in public or political affairs. And that it was limited by inalienable individual rights. Therefore I do not believe that a majority can vote a man's life, or property, or freedom away from him." American as fuck.
I used to think Ayn Rand was undeniably correct when I was young and easily impressed by anyone I thought "knew" things I did not. Now I know she was very wrong about many things. It's not only about the individual producer. We got this far as a cooperative, social species. It is our collective strength that has provided for the individual, not the other way around as Rand would have you believe.
i most agree with her answer when the question was asked, " how do we elect our leaders"? about 2:24 to 2:40...she says we do it as the constitution originally was intended, thru voting, handing power to the people, and limiting government."
Ayn Rand should've went to work at the Stockyards of Chicago, or the Coal Mines of North Carolina, or the Steel Towns of Pittsburgh or the Poor Rural Towns of the Midwest and the South. No. She didn't experience those things. Instead, she fled Soviet Russia, where she was able to attend a university, something which would probably never happened under a Tsarist Russian regime, into the arms of Hollywood, well known in those days as being a mere arm of the bourgeois capitalists. At first I thought she was a leader, I'm afraid she's only the contrary: another puppet, which is saddening.
Corporations and the 1 percent use her as a tool to keep people believing in ideas that are counteractive to their goals. Randism and her offshoot Objectivism does nothing more than replace religion with corporate idolatry. She claims to be a self sustaining individual but what she is apparently ignorant towards is her own subordination to the real controllers of society.
MrMrmike5 She's espousing the belief that things should be more voluntary with less government. In other words, Capitalism. Under Capitalism Obama would not have been able to bailout (aka corporate welfare) Wall Street. Under Capitalism the Federal Reserve wouldn't be bailing out billions of dollars worth of banks overseas. Capitalism would let these 1%ers fail. Capitalism is private profits, profit losses. Under our current system it's private profits, socialized losses.
Majority doesn't always rule. When majority and liberty are at odds, LIBERTY rules! Abraham Lincoln was the only one in the room that wanted to keep fighting til liberty won. Thank God he did.
But there is no God. And there is no force in capitalism. That's the key. It's just a natural progression absent the force and violence the government. "God" has nothing to do with it.
Rafael Lopez The burden of proof is on the one claiming that there is such a thing. Until then, which will be never because "square circles" don't exist, I will just know that there isn't one. How was your childhood? Was this when you started believing in the big guy? What are the social costs of you not believing? What will your family say?
Jordan Cronk By definition Capitalism means no force. If there's an instance of force, capitalism is not happening in that instance. It's something else, like Statism (pick your form) or a crime, but then again I repeat myself. Also, to say something exists in reality just because you think of it in your mind is insanity. It only exists in your mind as a concept, like a government. Governments don't exist and you can't touch one. There are only people with guns, and those that must obey or be shot or caged. I would suggest that you examine your childhood and the effects that that had on you. Self-knowledge is the first knowledge.
The pharaoh of Egypt didn't believe in any god except his because his magicians could throw sticks on the ground and turn into serpents. Moses came doing bigger miracles that the pharaoh's magicians couldn't beat. Don't believe this? Wait until it happens soon globally!
„Liberty vs. Socialism” Liberty only lies in socialism itself, there is no antagonism between the two. One can only be achieved through the other. Freedom can only exist, if there is equality. True equality inevitably results in absolute freedom. „Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; Socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.” -Mikhail Bakunin
+El Bierkulas They may not, But I sure as hell can. "Liberty only lies in socialism itself, there is no antagonism between the two. " Oh but there is. You do have an antagonism between freedom of the individual and a system in which a collective has the authority to stop one from exercising their rights. A right is anything which does not require the initiation of force. Redistribution, the destruction of privately owned means of production, and the abolishion of money is the initiation of force. Creating this hierarchy in which a majority or collective has a "right" to the products or services or capital or property or the fruit of ones labor is inherently anti freedom. Equallity is not everyone has the same. Equality is everyone has the same opportunity in a meritocratic system. Capitalism is a monetary meritocracy in which those who work harder, have skills of greater value, or who can produce goods, or make greater deals, will live a well earned and much better life then those who do not. Making voluntary transactions between consenting individuals is a right, it requires no force. Sometimes this interactions result in inequality. This is not the result of some malicious overlord but instead by the very nature of how the market works. "One can only be achieved through the other. " They are diametrically apposed. How do you stop one from privately owning the means of production? Through the initation of force. This puts the community above the individual and thus is a hierarchy. Anarcho-Communism is an oxymoron. Just as libertarian socialist is. "Freedom can only exist, if there is equality" Let me fix that for you. "Freedom can only exist if there is -equality- No initiation of force. " "True equality inevitably results in absolute freedom." “From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time” ― Friedrich Hayek “The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better.” ― Friedrich Hayek
The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life. ~ Ayn Rand(Virtue of selfishness)
Ah, so you are concerned about Rand followers misinterpreting and mis-using here philosophy? That can certainly happen. As for Rand herself - she had nothing against individuals making self-sacrifice choice when they feel it's important for them. What she was standing against is the propaganda of "self-sacrifice" when people are expected to do what their betters consider "sacrifice". Check Atlas Shrugged, Rearden family (Hank's wife and brother) for details.
She warned us in her writing about how they take over , My history teacher had us read The Fountainhead when we were in 2st year of secondary school ( 14-15 yr olds ) and only when I decided to pick it up again in my early 20's in the mid 1990's did I understand what she was warning us of
simply stated...if you cannot have your "way" except by force your "way" is illegitmate. if you cannot persuade me to part with my property and the fruits of my labor you are immoral
She advocates nurturing children because it's a selfish investment in one's future. Can you point where exactly she says it's a violation of self-interest? Either I missed it, or you made it up or took out of context. "Pitiful views", "moral hypocrites" and "spout their views" are just smears and not arguments. What exactly in her views of society you don't like, and why? Be specific, if you can.
This country was made not by robber barrons. But by independent men, by industrialists, who succeeded on sheer ability. By ability, I mean without political force, help, or compulsion. But at the same time there were men, industrialists who did use government power, as a club, to help them against competitors. They were the original collectivists.
I don't how she accepted Medicare and Social Security at the end of her life, let alone her freedom to think and act under the protection of civil and military authority and infrastructure. "Laws" are written by lawmakers and, when passed, they compel us to act;- this is how we live in a coordinated society. You and I stop at red lights - we don't say, "Let's wing it - I don't think anyone is coming and the red light compels me to stop. I don't fee like stopping". "Individual rights" were invented as society evolved and there was a surplus to feed people who did not gather or grow food and who did not fetch water, etc.
The last part echoes with what Milton Freedman repeatedly mentioned in his talks. But these crucial notes are usually omitted when talking about the two, and their claims have been grossly oversimplified. Thank you for sharing the clip.
You might not have chosen to be a citizen but your parents or whoever did and you by freely being a citizen have chosen to accept their choice. "They're people with their own moral responsibilities." That's true of you also, you have a responsibility and duty has a citizen is to live within the legal code of the Nation and society you are a part of, like it or not.
For the best, most thorough explanation of Ayn Rand's Objectivism on TH-cam, I recommend watching the playlist on my channel: "Introduction to Objectivism - Best Playlist." That playlist's description also contains important information about learning more about Objectivism. Please enjoy, and share with anyone who might be interested.
Con’t:- Luckily because you live in an advanced Liberal Democracy you are free to voice whatever views you have, you can join with others to try, by peaceful means, and within the laws of the land to change those laws you don't like. No law says you need to like any government but like it or not you do have a responsibly both morally and legally to obey that governments (of the people) constitutionally constituted laws. Don't like that then you are free to elsewhere ,a lot of people do
I watched a documentary from an African country where they told a group of kids that "whichever one of you makes it to that tree over there first gets the basket of candy that's there". The kids all grabbed hands and ran together to the tree and helped themselves to the candy.
How things have changed. Now violence is protected if the perpetrators have the right ideas. While peaceful wrong ideas are now classified hateful and criminalised.
ahhh so if someone is born with a life threatening disability, a vicissitude, and unable to work and relies on state welfare and furthermore requires a full time carer, that carer not being paid an actual wage by the state, the both of them should be slung out on the street and receive not a cent, as tax is thief. She was a such a gracious lady.
now this is an interview, we need more journalism like this. You get the arguments from both sides and now you get to make an informed opinion based on your world views.
I think john Stossel, Dave Rubin, and WeAreChange do good interviews, but this definitely blows theirs out of the water. An interviewer needs to: 1) play devil's advocate 2) Ask hard questions 3) Let the Interviewer speak unimpeded
Returning to sheer ability: I used to resent those with the most ability. In middle school there was a girl who we all knew to be at least what seemed like a genius. That is to say, she always got A's on her tests and her essays. I wished so deeply I could be like her but what stopped me from trying? I did not believe knowledge was relevant. I did not know why facts would help me in any way live life as I want to live it. Throughout my schooling experience the value of knowledge was never taught
Why cant you thumbs up a video more than once? This is literally word porn. Beautifully stated Rand. You, Sowell, Friedman, Nozick, Hayek, Rothbard, Von Mises, Popper, Davis Hanson, Niall Ferguson, Menger, Bohms Bawerk and Buckley are national treasures!
When I was in highschool the Constitution and US government was taught. Ask the general youth today about Ayn Rand's philosophy, all you get is Orphan Annie eyes!
She saw it begin in 1917 when the Bolsheviks seized power in Petrograd. She worked as hard as she could to warn us of the inherent evil of collectivism, and the results that necessarily follow if we take that road. Too many people in this country want to ignore the warning.
This fine lady such a beautiful mind. She truly lived and thought in the spirit of our founding fathers. She understood While most were sleeping. It always amazes me when people talk about the benefits of Socialism or even communism, but they don't want to talk to anybody who actually came from a socialist or communist regime
Brilliant woman ! This is so to-the-point. What she says in 3 minutes is already more important & consequent than pretty much everything i learnt in school.
Her mind is so sharp. She defends our constitution more than most native born citizens, and is quick to see the flaws in the laws.
Most non nationals can cite the US constitution better than it's own citizens.
rambow70 That fact is probably why, during the Nixon years, Russia would not allow any published or publicly printed example of it.
I guess they knew allowing it would be the end of them.
Allan Stark I agree
Allan, you are absolutely right, she does defend our constitution better than us, better than I do. wow,
Allan Stark
Yes, native born fluoridated fools take it all for granted and are taught to hate themselves.
"Im for the separation of state and economics." Loved this quote. We need our elected leaders to think this way.
Exactly ! Why does the P.O.S. down the street have this authority over you because he gets elected to ' Office ' who not elected and crossing the street to your house and started giving you Orders you would punch him back across the street ? People confuse the sanctity of the ' Office' with the ass that is elected to occupy it ! The Peasant views it as his boy elected as being an extension of himself and now able to unleash his jealousy ,envy,resentment on those who produced for themselves what he could not !
Dont forget seperation of state and church
It's all too late now. The people are too far gone. At least in my country they are, (Australia).
@greyhaze ind Yes that also, public schools are utter shit, they gotta go
@george george Seperation of school and state doesnt exist in the constitution, yet thats what you conservatives want
"Is that not true?"
"No"
"Oh"
lmao
That cracked me up. The dissapointed "oh" was hilarious.
What is not true, no oh?
Épic
I was impressed that he so readily accepted her response.
That was my favorite part!!
lmao this girl lived in socialist russia and y'all just take her as someone who just read about it in books
utubedestroysmytime I come from ukraine when it used to be under the USSR. Just ask any immigrant who lived under communist rule in russia. We had no free speech, the so-called freedom there was a joke, among many other things. Another objective of soviet russia by the way was for everyone to have equal wage, that was a myth. There were certain ppl who were well off and there were people who were worse off. Plus, the economy was controlled by the government, tightly controlled. Im not very knowledgeable about economics but, in that time, demand was high, but supply was low for most needs and wants. Most people who lived thru it, got their goods mostly thru the black market.
@@elgrigorio1 Thanks for sharing your story! Even if some Americans see this they'll say "bUt WelL tRy hArDeR nExT tImE"
@@angelbarajas9180 Oh God; I'm a libertarian who is not biased or hateful towards anybody, and my only two issues with Trump are complete deregulation and raising the cigarette age to 21. The latter is a disgrace and undermining to adulthood in America; but moving on, the people who are for Bernie and AOC are completely ignorant of history. It's been bad but we will do it better. It cannot get any better, it can only get worse than Venezuela at the present moment. To be honest with you, we are going to need a TRUE revolution if we want to fight for and preserve our freedom. Furthermore, today unfortunately, a great majority of the American political environment has shifted from smart, intellectual debates towards a series of altruisitc cults.
@@elgrigorio1 Very well said 👍🏼
A@@angelbarajas9180
Any Rand single handedly changed my political perspective. Her books were a huge turning point in my life.
In a free market, NO ONE and I mean NO ONE can make money without providing to others. Government however cannot exists WITHOUT taking from others.
100 percent correct. The morality of the free market is value for value. The morality of the government is that of the thief. It is the morality of the voluntary versus that of force.
Bullshit
You forget about pyramid/ponzi schemes which provide no value to anyone other than those at the higher ends gaining all the money.
Thats part fraud, part ignorance. Caveat Emptor.
Of course the SS Administration does legally what Bernie Madoff went to prison for.
David Medlock the legality of Ponzi schemes were not apart of the discussion. You stated that all participants in a free market can only make money by providing. The fact that Ponzi schemes exist disprove that. Further more you reference caveat emptor as if that is supposed to be the magic cure all to make sure you aren't getting taken advantage of in a free market. in many situations that isn't possible, a prime example is medical care. In a totally free market with no intervention how would one seek restitution for malpractice? the is a need for a impartial third party to provide regulations and oversight.
Screw a Che Guevara shirt, I'm going to make an Ayn rand t shirt
@Magic Mike That's not what the person meant. They just said that the Che shirt is dumb and that he'll make a Rand shirt instead.
If you do message me back. I’ll buy three.
Lol
Do you work for a company or a government that gives you benefits. You should reject them and buy your own. Do the street lights work in your neighborhood if they do reject them they are an entitlement from tax dollars. Are your streets paved reject them they are tax dollar entitlement. Do you have police and firefighters in your city reject them they are Paid for by tax dollars. Stop being a hypocrite
I’d buy it
"The problem with Socialism is that you'll eventually run out of people's money" - Thatcher
“The problem with pissing on my grave is you eventually run out of piss” - Thatcher
"The problem with quoting other people, is that eventually you run out of quotes." Me
And people will stop working for you for 12 bucks per hour. The game swings both ways.
Put this women and only like minded people like her in congress and remove the rest. A true constitutionalist for America
A free man doesn't ask for his freedom. He lives it.
My goodness, her words are more relevant now than ever ... especially during this time of the police-state experiment the US has gone along with due to Covid-19. My prayer is that the youth read her books and watch videos of her online.
It saddens me that there is no-one like Ayn Rand today.
Just read the comments... people hate her more and more. And the fun part is, they have no objective, point to point contradictory view. They just know they have to be against Rand. So they find a word, a phrase, anything, and try to caracterise her by that. A more educated form of "you're a nazi / bigot" and such. Defamation at its finest
I adore ayn rand. Its amazing that before i even knew who she was that these were my thoughts and beliefs. If i had a fancy liberal degree I swear I would fight with everything in me to make these beliefs and realities known and fight for them. In the meantime i will organize a group of fed up parents and advocates to dismantle the common core education system.
@@jacksonlee3133 from what I can see online, the "common core" is just for english and maths. In Romania, there is a quantity of information and level students have to reach for each year on all subjects, not just maths and romanian or maths or english.
I doubt teaching people less will make them any smarter, considering in their spare time most watch tv / waste time on computer / phone. Can't recall too many people going home, practicing english as their own initiative
Or Milton Friedman
Thomas Sowell
Its amazing, critical comments here are trying to say how wrong she was simply because she did not get her predictive vision 100% exactly accurate!!
Forget your precise definition of the word "socialism", language has changed in half a century anyway. Think about her general view.
She was an advocate for independent productive people (at all levels). She spoke out against collectivism (any brand) and government intrusion, and said how that would gradually get more of a burden over time, unless it was consciously stopped.
Ignore our arbitrary labels and she was really very accurate.
I love how Marxists will just argue that the definition of socialism is wrong. Socialism is synonymous with social and economic collectivism to most people now. Not just the nationalization of the means of production.
Ayn was completely right here.
Katrin FitzGerald Socialism and Corporatism. Not free markets. Free markets (REAL free markets) protected by a limited state is the only way to true prosperity and real freedom through merit.
+ChooseChoice Keep in mind free markets don't exist without proper government intervention. We had a time not too long ago when government had no influence in the economy, and a thing called monopolies formed. There is more of a free market now then when there was during the days of Andrew Carnegie for example. Heck, Denmark rates as the best nation for business, and they have a lot more state involvement in their economy than ours www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/guess-who-else-is-a-socialist.html
Sir Tips A Lot
Government intervention can only ever reduce the competitiveness of markets.
You are branding a single supplier with the term "monopoly". You fail to understand that if a single large supplier of any product emerges within a free market, it can only do that by being lower price or better quality (or both) than any other supplier. That is always a good thing (for consumers). Government can only "remedy" that terrible situation by forcing up prices so that less efficient producers can compete (as I said, they reduce competitiveness), and consumers have to suffer the higher prices.
True "monopoly" can only exist when govmt forbids any competitors, and then things always get expensive, and consumers suffer again.
Mike Blain A large supplier can also accomplish what you spoke of by buying all the other suppliers in that industry, which history has stated happening many times. Steel industries, oil industries, banks, etc... were heavily controlled by a few people. It wasn't until government (Teddy Roosevelt) introduced antitrust policies to start breaking them up was there more fairness and competitiveness in the market. Businesses will go the path of least resistance every time, and if they have to make a great product, they will, but if buying out their competitors is an option, they will as well. Why would you let other businesses take away your potential profits if you could prevent it?
Her eyes are mesmerizing... She has the answer to his inquiry after the first three words. For even a layman, listening to this amazing human being, it becomes all so clear...
By Jupiter, we desperately need more Ayn Raynds...
370 Bernie supporters were butt hurt by this video and needed to retreat to their safe spaces.
I sat through it just fine.
some bernie supporters are actually cool. I was one, and now I support Trump. I even ended up ditching Bernie after that last lake house.
Is that why no one but selfish conservatives have ever heard of the atheist Ayn Rand, but the entire USA has heard of Bernie Sanders?
Bernie Sanders only has selfish followers. When you use the word free in order to entice your followers, you are a socialist. When you use the word work in order to entice your followers, you are a conservative/capitalist.
Ayn Rand fans should vote for Bernie. I think what you don't understand is that our individual liberty cannot be at the expense of others liberty. Call is socialism if you want but violations of that concept are within scope of a democratic vote. That scope changes as society grows more complex and occupations become more specialized. That is why power must constantly be tested as society progresses.
Even if you disagree with his ideas who else is going to get money out of politics without a movement. It would be a net positive for all red and black alike.
1:00 "this came about democractically" so did hitler, stalin and lenin. the idea that you can't vote to elect your own dictators is proposterous.
neither did lenin right? Bolsehviks pushed him in right? or?
Hitler wasn’t elected Democratically. He was appointed by the President in order to keep peace.
One of the biggest underlying problems of today are definitions of words/terms. Look at dictionaries from 40+ years ago and then look up the same words on the internet. There are some pretty drastic changes. Ayn Rand can be very misunderstood for this reason. Just like in the book 1984 there has been some insidious foul play going on in the intellectual community. Or maybe I should say in the anti intellectual community.
I'm with you brother. I think a lot of the problems we have socially are exactly what you pointed out. When you start the conversation with the wrong word or I'm using a word in the context I understand the meaning of the word and the person that hears it understands the definition differently , it's really difficult to have a rational conversation. Recently I got in an argument with someone over the difference between hypothesis and theory. So both of us went online and looked at numerous dictionaries. We came back to each other with the understanding that we would have to specifically Define a word to use it in a conversation between the both of us. Why?, because if you look at 10 different dictionaries you get eight different definitions! PS. He mentioned conspiracy theory. I tried to explain there can be no such thing as a conspiracy theory. Example, the assassination of JFK. A theory is defined as a thing that has been accepted as true. Hypothesis is defined as, the possibility of Truth. So until the JFK assassination has been proven and accepted as the reality, it cannot be a theory. It remains a hypothesis. So the correct term would be " conspiracy hypothesis".
Mike Wallace getting owned by Ms. Rand... priceless!
The sharpest lady I have ever seen or heard.
Her last statement says it all. "The regulations are helping to create robber barons, which are the worst of all economic phenomenon." Welcome to 2014
crony barons are sickedning liek elonmusk n ray dalio, but robber barson some were actaully jsut good capitalsits some were evil crony grafters
@hayley s only gotten worse and worse my whole life
Wow “using government as a club” imagine that!
@hayley s 2022 also says hello.
Word. There is a role of government in a free society, but it must be restricted/limited to only matters of public good - defence, law enforcement, public infrastructure, ensuring fairness in the economy, etc.
This wonderful woman saved my life!
How? Do you have it written anywhere we could read?
One of the most brilliant women I have ever heard. Look how calm and focused. Loved fountainhead.
I’m surprised Google/TH-cam hasn’t buried this clip.
when ever i need life motivation. I listen to Ayn Rand.
It's nice to see that there are a few knights of light in this socialist world of darkness.
Altruism is compulsory; true charity is voluntary.
Truer words were never spoken.
I have given to my loved ones. Their happiness makes me happy. Self interest.
Nothing wrong with that, human nature.
How did the Us provide her with a forum to express her ideas,and provide her with a market?
God Bless you Madam. You are the Voice of the people, hence, You are a blessing to the World.
ayn rand is a legend
one thing people always seem to forget about communism, socialism, or any kind of totalitarianism, is that nobody flees to them, they only flee from them. her philosophy explains why.
You know not all forms of socialism advocate for big government, right? Fundamentally, socialism is about giving more power to the workers and giving them the freedom to act in their own self-interest. Communism is even less totalitarian. Some governments say that they are trying to achieve communism and call themselves communist governments. If they were actually communist though, those governments wouldn't exist at all since communism is stateless by definition.
@@--sql I have no desire to go down that road, I don't trust it and I think it will always end badly, as it always has.
She was brilliant.
I admire this woman, one of the worlds greatest minds.
The virtue of "sheer ability" which Ayn Rand mentioned is key. There is nothing more beautiful about life than having or witnessing someone who has sheer ability. Those with the most ability are the ones who thrive, i.e., function optimally. I wish I learned the meaning of thriving and the way to thrive in preschool, elementary school, middle school, high school, or university but in fact I barely ever hear or read the word "thrive" anywhere...
those eye movements
Sane Flow She is wild and untamed. You don't see that kind of genius often.
@Fred Freddy kind of, but shes put out some good work
@Fred Freddy I know. If any of rand's works were as good as the great author fred freddy, humanity would have achieved communist utopia by now.
@Fred Freddy feeble???
I can do what you've just done.
Smugly declare "bullshit"
I read your comments with a Monty python accent so I can have a modicum of respect for your pretentious attitude.
Nah just fuckin with ya tho.
But obviously, you're replacing the theme of the his with your own biased, strawmanned, perverted, interpretation whether her assertions are right or wrong.
That is what's feeble.
@Fred Freddy no she's not creepy...she's intense and paying attention...you're just too delicate
Wallace: ...they perverted their power. Is that not true?
Rand: No it isn't.
Wallace: Oh...
LMAO! I can't get enough of this it's brilliant. Thank you SO much for uploading this LibertyPen. I sincerely appreciate it
A real education is worth its weight in gold. 🏅
She’s brilliant. Halfway through atlas shrugged right now and it’s changing my life.
She was a modern day prophet - she saw what was coming way before others.
Thank you for introducing such an intelligent woman to me. I believe she has much to teach us.
everything seems so much more professional, well thought out and educated in this interview. Not to mention in depth. Nowadays they just stick to the surface and general vague statements. This really gets into the meat of what someone believes. Agree or disagree with the views at least it's getting into something! The vocabulary from both the interviewer and interviewee are just great.
yes, I see your point now, my eyes have been opened
we weak minded sheep should just trust the wolves to do the right thing, after all why would the wolves do us any harm?
clearly us "common folk" should be happy to shed our blood and break our bones for our "betters" who would never ever ever take advantage of us.
sounds like a great system
if u mean commnuism democracy yu right, capitalism lets u ignore fools
I'm going to be reading more of her work ... this is SO TRUE
I love this woman!
Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed will not allow Ayn Rands ideas thought in Rhode Island Schools
It would be great if mor epeople used their brains as fully as Any Rand.
She has good points, but I feel Marx has also good points in his criticism of Capitalism.
+Gustavo Rodriguez The problem with all totalitarian philosophies is the ones in charge of them are not governed by them. In other words, they are exempted from the controls they force on others. I argue that if the so called leaders of those movements had to live under the same laws they make, there would be no totalitarianism in the 1st place.
Well, You and I both agree totalitarian regimes are a nightmare, and that no one would want to live in there. Marx himself said that the abolition of government, would take 100s of years to commit. Russia was a disaster, because it went from A feudal Monarchy to a "communist" society overnight. he sugested there must be Capitalism, then Socialism, then finally Communism. I hope we can also agree that socities like North Korea is as Communist, as Nazi Germany was.
Gustavo Rodriguez I can't agree that Nazi Germany is as Communist as North Korea. Nazi Germany was against Communism. They were fighting Communist Russia in WWII. Germany was national socialism a form of Fascism. I will agree that both employed and employs Totalitarianism.
+James S that's what I meant North Korea is not communist. North Korea has no communist values
We need to bring back smoking journalists, and minimalistic, black stages.
Neil Peart is responsible for millions of north American males knowing who this lady is. He made millions literate through the love of books.
She looks like Al Pacino in the Godfather right before he shoots Sollozzo and the officer chief
lol she does!!! the eyes even her face
I love the look on her face at 5:43
They're also countries that have enjoyed long periods of peace, have histories of high economic freedom, have been developed and independent countries much longer, and have local access to oil. You can't look at economic factors in isolation like that and expect to get anything but a talking point.
In the past 50 years, life expectancy for russians has stayed constant around 67yo +/- 2. In fact, in the years before the fall, when its government was weakest, life expectancy was highest.
It is the people power that reforms, not by the government, nor some legislations. In order to comprehend AR' s words one must look into her over all philosophical ideals, not just a bit of a clip. As here in this interview. Ayn Rand is correct. The founding fathers' ideals were, in fact, in line with AR' s. No lectures from me. I would never presume myself to her level of understanding. She is above others, one of the greatest minds, ever! Much in comparison to the past, historical, and ancient philosophers, and she will stand the test of time, Luke all of them.
Smoking a durrie while interviewing
Ah the good old days!
Let's bring that back.
Damn it. I was gunna say that
The accuracy from which she speaks is astounding.. our government is dangerously close to socialism more so now than ever !!
*You need it all to take the next step in evolution and become a spiritual being ~~► start by reading "The Present" at TruthContest◘Com*
that was good. she's pretty sharp
Words from 60 years ago which are more meaningful to us now than they were then! Awesome thinker!
"Liberty versus socialism." How about; Socialism versus enslavement.
You replaced the word "liberty" with the word "enslavement". Please explain.
Mike Blain The crux for me is; when does the liberty of some infringe the liberty of others.
I am all for "liberty " who isn´t. But eg`, the "liberty " of American settlers to fill and exploit the land had drastic effects on the liberty, and much more of the inhabitants.
The word Liberty is often very popular among the "strong" to be free to exploit those more vulnerable.
The concept of Liberty does not mean the freedom for each person to do anything they want. It requires the same freedom for everyone, "Liberty for All". So in and idealized free society, an infringement of another person's liberty is the very definition of a crime.
You will not be able to compare the first American settlers, because they did not live in a time of liberty. That was an age of tribal country structures where the people were the property of the ruling monarch, and the strength of the monarch meant the ability to expand the territory. The Liberty concept was created much later, for America that was throwing out the monarchy by the Revolutionary War.
The word Liberty might be misused today, but that does not negate the concept, it just means the person using the word is wrong.
Mike Blain" You will not be able to compare the first American settlers, because they did not live in a time of liberty."
I think I can. The point is their "liberty" was of much greater worth to them than any loss the others incurred.Their definition of liberty was no block to their actions.
It gets to my point which is about commercial "liberty " . They seek to monopolise that meaning of Liberty. It is what many think of when they think of Liberty. Their financial freedoms. There are other parameters for freedom other than that to do business, and make money.
What does "commercial liberty" mean? Liberty only applies to individuals, not businesses.
As far as the settlers: _"Their definition of liberty was no block to their actions."_ Exactly, but with our concept of "Liberty for All" there is a block on our actions. As I said before, they lived in a different time.
Her theory sounds nice but in real life it just doesn't work that way. It's like she don't want to grow up. If the strongest group in a society wants to take your property they will take your property, no atter how loud you scream "right to property"
LOLLYPOPPE Missing the point. Socialism gives ultimate authority to government to enforce it. Obviously no system can be perfect when human are involved.
So the system can't be made perfect therefor we should make no system at all? Do you think a world where a few companies own all the resources is the best system we can make?
This is already what we have.... government intervention has allowed huge parent company monopolies to exist without competition. Ayn Rand's version of society would be the first time in history where there was no authority, be it goverment, monarchies, strongman leaders, etc. People would try to game this system obviously, therefore the proper checks and balances would have to be there.
John her system is the answer to your problem which is our reality which it takes little intelligence to live with
u are dumb
"I object to the idea that people have the right to vote on everything.
The traditional American system was a system based on the idea that
majority will prevail only in public or political affairs. And that it
was limited by inalienable individual rights. Therefore I do not believe
that a majority can vote a man's life, or property, or freedom away
from him."
American as fuck.
I used to think Ayn Rand was undeniably correct when I was young and easily impressed by anyone I thought "knew" things I did not. Now I know she was very wrong about many things. It's not only about the individual producer. We got this far as a cooperative, social species. It is our collective strength that has provided for the individual, not the other way around as Rand would have you believe.
Libertarianism is like astrology for men.
i most agree with her answer when the question was asked, " how do we elect our leaders"? about 2:24 to 2:40...she says we do it as the constitution originally was intended, thru voting, handing power to the people, and limiting government."
Ayn Rand: the first ancap
Nice joke
she's not an anarchist though? In what level of sarcasm are we communicating here?
@@leonm8906 you're taking a joke too seriously, but yeah, I think she was more of a minarchist
Ayn Rand should've went to work at the Stockyards of Chicago, or the Coal Mines of North Carolina, or the Steel Towns of Pittsburgh or the Poor Rural Towns of the Midwest and the South. No. She didn't experience those things. Instead, she fled Soviet Russia, where she was able to attend a university, something which would probably never happened under a Tsarist Russian regime, into the arms of Hollywood, well known in those days as being a mere arm of the bourgeois capitalists. At first I thought she was a leader, I'm afraid she's only the contrary: another puppet, which is saddening.
Katrin FitzGerald Notice the difference between my real, factual based comment and your neurotic conspiracy based comment which has hints of racism.
MrMrmike5 Sorry, that wasn't me, someone else was on my account posting without my permission.
MrMrmike5 Wait, what? How is she a puppet?
Corporations and the 1 percent use her as a tool to keep people believing in ideas that are counteractive to their goals. Randism and her offshoot Objectivism does nothing more than replace religion with corporate idolatry. She claims to be a self sustaining individual but what she is apparently ignorant towards is her own subordination to the real controllers of society.
MrMrmike5 She's espousing the belief that things should be more voluntary with less government. In other words, Capitalism.
Under Capitalism Obama would not have been able to bailout (aka corporate welfare) Wall Street. Under Capitalism the Federal Reserve wouldn't be bailing out billions of dollars worth of banks overseas. Capitalism would let these 1%ers fail.
Capitalism is private profits, profit losses. Under our current system it's private profits, socialized losses.
Majority doesn't always rule. When majority and liberty are at odds, LIBERTY rules! Abraham Lincoln was the only one in the room that wanted to keep fighting til liberty won. Thank God he did.
Godless communism will not be cured by godless capitalism.
But there is no God. And there is no force in capitalism. That's the key. It's just a natural progression absent the force and violence the government. "God" has nothing to do with it.
Nathan Hoffner So how do you know there is no God? Excuse my interruption,
Rafael Lopez
The burden of proof is on the one claiming that there is such a thing. Until then, which will be never because "square circles" don't exist, I will just know that there isn't one. How was your childhood? Was this when you started believing in the big guy? What are the social costs of you not believing? What will your family say?
Jordan Cronk
By definition Capitalism means no force. If there's an instance of force, capitalism is not happening in that instance. It's something else, like Statism (pick your form) or a crime, but then again I repeat myself. Also, to say something exists in reality just because you think of it in your mind is insanity. It only exists in your mind as a concept, like a government. Governments don't exist and you can't touch one. There are only people with guns, and those that must obey or be shot or caged. I would suggest that you examine your childhood and the effects that that had on you. Self-knowledge is the first knowledge.
The pharaoh of Egypt didn't believe in any god except his because his magicians could throw sticks on the ground and turn into serpents. Moses came doing bigger miracles that the pharaoh's magicians couldn't beat. Don't believe this? Wait until it happens soon globally!
„Liberty vs. Socialism”
Liberty only lies in socialism itself, there is no antagonism between the two. One can only be achieved through the other. Freedom can only exist, if there is equality. True equality inevitably results in absolute freedom.
„Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; Socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.” -Mikhail Bakunin
+El Bierkulas /FACEPALM
EnduringArts
What an eloquent response.
+El Bierkulas That's the only response your dumbass propaganda deserves.
NoL Chefo
No, you just don't know how to respond in an argumentative manner.
+El Bierkulas They may not, But I sure as hell can.
"Liberty only lies in socialism itself, there is no antagonism between the two. "
Oh but there is. You do have an antagonism between freedom of the individual and a system in which a collective has the authority to stop one from exercising their rights. A right is anything which does not require the initiation of force. Redistribution, the destruction of privately owned means of production, and the abolishion of money is the initiation of force. Creating this hierarchy in which a majority or collective has a "right" to the products or services or capital or property or the fruit of ones labor is inherently anti freedom. Equallity is not everyone has the same. Equality is everyone has the same opportunity in a meritocratic system.
Capitalism is a monetary meritocracy in which those who work harder, have skills of greater value, or who can produce goods, or make greater deals, will live a well earned and much better life then those who do not. Making voluntary transactions between consenting individuals is a right, it requires no force. Sometimes this interactions result in inequality. This is not the result of some malicious overlord but instead by the very nature of how the market works.
"One can only be achieved through the other. "
They are diametrically apposed. How do you stop one from privately owning the means of production? Through the initation of force. This puts the community above the individual and thus is a hierarchy. Anarcho-Communism is an oxymoron. Just as libertarian socialist is.
"Freedom can only exist, if there is equality"
Let me fix that for you.
"Freedom can only exist if there is -equality-
No initiation of force. "
"True equality inevitably results in absolute freedom."
“From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time”
― Friedrich Hayek
“The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better.”
― Friedrich Hayek
View Mike Wallace's 1959 interview with Rand here on TH-cam.
Ayn Rand would get KO'd by Emma Goldman.
maybe in a fistfight... nah. not even then
Ayn Rand was a complete moron.
now you're just being silly
Wow! That's a brilliant argument...like the argument of all statists.
Neomarxists deserve to be gassed. If you don't respect the liberty to our property, we won't respect your liberty to your wretched existence.
Karl Marx > Ayn Rand
If you are talking about death toll yes...
Capitalism has killed 300,000,000 people worldwide, and counting!
Mechaghostman2 and what are you attributing that number to?
www.petersaysstuff.com/2014/05/attempting-the-impossible-calculating-capitalisms-death-toll/
I believe that many are killed every second. Isn't that the official estimate?
we are all slaves in one way or another! no where in the Constitution does it say "we" need to pay taxes!
The right to life means that a man has the right to support his life by his
own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it
does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.
~ Ayn Rand(Virtue of selfishness)
Ah, so you are concerned about Rand followers misinterpreting and mis-using here philosophy? That can certainly happen. As for Rand herself - she had nothing against individuals making self-sacrifice choice when they feel it's important for them. What she was standing against is the propaganda of "self-sacrifice" when people are expected to do what their betters consider "sacrifice". Check Atlas Shrugged, Rearden family (Hank's wife and brother) for details.
She warned us in her writing about how they take over , My history teacher had us read The Fountainhead when we were in 2st year of secondary school ( 14-15 yr olds ) and only when I decided to pick it up again in my early 20's in the mid 1990's did I understand what she was warning us of
simply stated...if you cannot have your "way" except by force your "way" is illegitmate. if you cannot persuade me to part with my property and the fruits of my labor you are immoral
She advocates nurturing children because it's a selfish investment in one's future. Can you point where exactly she says it's a violation of self-interest? Either I missed it, or you made it up or took out of context. "Pitiful views", "moral hypocrites" and "spout their views" are just smears and not arguments. What exactly in her views of society you don't like, and why? Be specific, if you can.
This country was made not by robber barrons. But by independent men, by industrialists, who succeeded on sheer ability. By ability, I mean without political force, help, or compulsion. But at the same time there were men, industrialists who did use government power, as a club, to help them against competitors. They were the original collectivists.
I don't how she accepted Medicare and Social Security at the end of her life, let alone her freedom to think and act under the protection of civil and military authority and infrastructure. "Laws" are written by lawmakers and, when passed, they compel us to act;- this is how we live in a coordinated society. You and I stop at red lights - we don't say, "Let's wing it - I don't think anyone is coming and the red light compels me to stop. I don't fee like stopping". "Individual rights" were invented as society evolved and there was a surplus to feed people who did not gather or grow food and who did not fetch water, etc.
The last part echoes with what Milton Freedman repeatedly mentioned in his talks. But these crucial notes are usually omitted when talking about the two, and their claims have been grossly oversimplified. Thank you for sharing the clip.
You might not have chosen to be a citizen but your parents or whoever did and you by freely being a citizen have chosen to accept their choice. "They're people with their own moral responsibilities." That's true of you also, you have a responsibility and duty has a citizen is to live within the legal code of the Nation and society you are a part of, like it or not.
Fascinating how different people can watch the same film clip and hear something different... very interesting
For the best, most thorough explanation of Ayn Rand's Objectivism on TH-cam, I recommend watching the playlist on my channel: "Introduction to Objectivism - Best Playlist." That playlist's description also contains important information about learning more about Objectivism.
Please enjoy, and share with anyone who might be interested.
Ayn Rand was SUPER SMART! , To think ....., A Russian woman , has to teach Americans about our own constitution.....Better Smarten up People....Jees!
Con’t:- Luckily because you live in an advanced Liberal Democracy you are free to voice whatever views you have, you can join with others to try, by peaceful means, and within the laws of the land to change those laws you don't like. No law says you need to like any government but like it or not you do have a responsibly both morally and legally to obey that governments (of the people) constitutionally constituted laws. Don't like that then you are free to elsewhere ,a lot of people do
I watched a documentary from an African country where they told a group of kids that "whichever one of you makes it to that tree over there first gets the basket of candy that's there". The kids all grabbed hands and ran together to the tree and helped themselves to the candy.
This woman is fantastic. She understands economic theory and politicians self interest.
How things have changed. Now violence is protected if the perpetrators have the right ideas. While peaceful wrong ideas are now classified hateful and criminalised.
ahhh so if someone is born with a life threatening disability, a vicissitude, and unable to work and relies on state welfare and furthermore requires a full time carer, that carer not being paid an actual wage by the state, the both of them should be slung out on the street and receive not a cent, as tax is thief. She was a such a gracious lady.
she was ahead of her time. we need her now than ever
I like how she keeps her cool while being antagonized - just leaning back in her seat.
now this is an interview, we need more journalism like this. You get the arguments from both sides and now you get to make an informed opinion based on your world views.
I think john Stossel, Dave Rubin, and WeAreChange do good interviews, but this definitely blows theirs out of the water. An interviewer needs to:
1) play devil's advocate
2) Ask hard questions
3) Let the Interviewer speak unimpeded
Robert Bejarano you won't find a strong woman like her to interview
Returning to sheer ability: I used to resent those with the most ability. In middle school there was a girl who we all knew to be at least what seemed like a genius. That is to say, she always got A's on her tests and her essays. I wished so deeply I could be like her but what stopped me from trying? I did not believe knowledge was relevant. I did not know why facts would help me in any way live life as I want to live it. Throughout my schooling experience the value of knowledge was never taught
Why cant you thumbs up a video more than once? This is literally word porn. Beautifully stated Rand. You, Sowell, Friedman, Nozick, Hayek, Rothbard, Von Mises, Popper, Davis Hanson, Niall Ferguson, Menger, Bohms Bawerk and Buckley are national treasures!
When I was in highschool the Constitution and US government was taught. Ask the general youth today about Ayn Rand's philosophy, all you get is Orphan Annie eyes!
She saw it begin in 1917 when the Bolsheviks seized power in Petrograd. She worked as hard as she could to warn us of the inherent evil of collectivism, and the results that necessarily follow if we take that road. Too many people in this country want to ignore the warning.
This fine lady such a beautiful mind. She truly lived and thought in the spirit of our founding fathers. She understood While most were sleeping. It always amazes me when people talk about the benefits of Socialism or even communism, but they don't want to talk to anybody who actually came from a socialist or communist regime
Brilliant woman !
This is so to-the-point.
What she says in 3 minutes is already more important & consequent than pretty much everything i learnt in school.