Starting tomorrow, ARCUK will release a new Leonard Peikoff video daily until election day. Each video features a unique question from an ARCUK TH-cam commentator, exclusive to members. Join this channel to get access to the perks: th-cam.com/channels/PasYvikUOas440qbC5hguA.htmljoin Become an Ayn Rand Centre UK Member Here! aynrandcentre.co.uk/become-a-member/
@@tomharrison6607 It is interesting, listening to both present their arguments (Yaron 'coincidentally' today posted an entire show on "Why I'm No on Trump" - which does not really involve a comparison between the two candidates on the principles Yaron takes Trump to task for). In both their arguments, I can actually hear the sources from which they are getting their news on the particular issues. Yaron's sourcing appears to be from most of the usual Left-wing sources (NYT, WaPo, et al). When asked about questions, he tends not to have heard or address the arguments made by the Right-wing or classical liberal/libertarian sources. Thus the 'facts' he uses to base his arguments upon are sometimes incomplete or completely skewed in some instances (I can't tell you how many times I've listened to an argument he makes and go 'but you left this important fact out, which changes the whole equation!'). On the other hand here, Leonard's arguments will seem very familiar to those who are aware of the Right-wing et al sources and arguments. Unfortunately, Leonard hasn't posted much in regard to Trump or the elections (certainly not compared to Yaron), so one cannot assess his familiarity with the arguments presented by the Left-wing sources, (when asked questions here, he seemed aware of some of them, but unfamiliar - or at least wasn't able to immediately pull up - others of them). As such, one doesn't get an address or a rebuttal to them (which is why I think some here were disappointed about not getting any comments about Jan 6). But many of the points Leonard made are ones Yaron hasn't addressed (partially because Leonard is doing a comparison between the candidates whereas Yaron is simply addressing his issues with Trump), the same way the Left-wing news sources haven't addressed them (usually because those 'news' sources are spinning a Narrative, not delivering the facts). So its fascinating to watch how the disparate sources of facts (and Narratives) are having an impact on the conclusions of the two men.
@@bleigh3369i noticed yaron has that out today i will watch that video tomorrow when i get a chance one other time yaron and leonard had kind of a discussion on immigration and once again i sided with peikoff that was a few years ago they had that talk
@@tomharrison6607 *"one other time yaron and leonard had kind of a discussion on immigration and once again i sided with peikoff that was a few years ago they had that talk"* I remember that. Except they essentially came to a meeting of the minds on that issue in a 'debate' between them over two episodes of Leonard's show that was 'moderated' by Amy. If I recall correctly, in the end they agreed any disagreement that had arisen between them was not a philosophical one, but was more a debate over the facts (much as I think is the case here). And, on those facts about immigration, Leonard admitted he couldn't really support his claim about "hordes" and their "threat" - suggesting his problem might be because he got his facts from talk radio.
@@tomharrison6607 I think the difference between Yaron and Leonard here is essentially summarized by Leonard when he talks about those who want Trump to lose so as to "cleanse the Republican Party." That is the view Yaron essentially presents in his most recent excerpt from his show: Tucker's Horrible Take on "Crushing The Banks". Yaron basically says that, without a change in the Republican Party, we are ultimately heading to a Uniparty (of the AOCs and the Tuckers) - ie we are heading, in the very short term, to a country where "we have no sane alternatives": *"Why can't AOC and Tucker be in the same political party? I think they can. Tomorrow. They share much more in common. There is no longer an opposition. There is only different variations of authoritarian statism." * That is why Yaron wants Trump to lose. So that, somehow, the Republican party will - as Leonard puts it - "come up with this brilliant, new leadership - an individual or group - who will tear them away" from the authoritarian direction Trump and Tucker et al are dragging them. Unfortunately, Leonard is correct when he says "I'd like to know where they're going to get [this "leader"]...and, if they find him, why the Republican Party is going to go with him." More unfortunately, these are questions that - to my knowledge - Yaron doesn't address (nor does he address the issue of why JD Vance, who has been elevated and whom a LOT of people like inside and outside the Trump group, would simply not replace Trump as the 'new' Trumpist candidate instead of some ideologically brand new candidate popping up out of nowhere). Put simply, it seems Yaron just *hopes* a 'new direction' will manifest itself - and thus he's trying to buy time and space *for* it to occur by having the Anti-Western, Anti-American candidate win instead, so that 'Trumpism' will somehow be destroyed.
Please let Peikoff know, and the host as well - Trump invited Kanye West and Kanye brought Fuentes. I don't know how the host didn't know that, but whatever. Peikoff should hear the truth of what happened anyway.
I share your stance Mr Peikoff, and very impressed with your courage to stand for your convictions. Love to see you're still as sharp as a tack. Hope you stick around and offer your wisdom and insights from time to time. I for one miss your presence. It seems like Grace has been good for you.
I appreciate you recognizing the positive qualities that typically go unnoticed, but I wish you addressed the much bigger issues of pragmatism, his massive deficit spending, and leadership on Jan 6. You may say overall those pale in comparison to the threat of Harris' philosophy, but I'd still appreciate hearing those addressed and how you measure them in the context of your decision.
Yes, they do pale in comparison. The Democrats are totalitarians and will destroy the country. The Republicans are not and won’t. That is the overarching consideration. If you cannot see that you are either ignorant or evil.
@@kevinmcfarlane2752 *"The Democrats are totalitarians and will destroy the country. The Republicans are not and won't"* Yaron's argument (with which Leonard hasn't disagreed) is that the ascendant Trump wing (Tucker et al) of the Republicans are the same "authoritarian statists" as the Dems and, if not stopped, will essentially create a uniparty with the Dems. (He makes this argument in his video about Tucker's "Crush the Banks" comments). Therefore Yaron further argues that to prevent this, Trump et al must be defeated, so as to push the "Trumpites" et al out of power in the Republican Party, in order to make room for a 'true Opposition Party' to the Dems (whom Yaron is thus identifying as the ultimate threat to the country, and against whom he is identifying the Repubs as the only *potential* protection right now). While one can certainly disagree with that argument, that is the OPPOSITE of being "either ignorant or evil".
@@Biologist19681 oh no! an unarmed bunch of rednecks who were led in by the police almost literally overthrew the government. worst thing since 9/11 and pearl harbor combined!
The variations of values each individual; holds within a specific philosophy, such as Objectivism, is a warm comfort. That different individuals can come to radically different applications of their foundational values is a sign that, yes, Objectivism isn't a cult where people are told to think a certain way. Dogma is out! I may not agree with my long lost father here and that is wonderful! I know that he comes to conclusions based on reality as best as he can. Rationally. So does Yaron. And both men come to, sometimes, radically different conclusions. You can basically read the comments here and see who the actual collectivists are - attempting to tie their emotional conclusions to a group-abstraction. Just pure collectivism. I can't wait to see more of you two chatting :) Thank you James for these!
@@DeeperWithDiego yeah, it's kinda sad. Because these same people calling everybody that doesn't go full Trumptard an "obleftivist", would have criticized Dr. Peikoff when he said that any Objectivist would vote for Kerry, because Bush was so evil, that no rational egoist would be voting for him. I'm kinda glad Dr. Peikoff is coming out with all of these political opinions, because in a way it's helpful even if i myself disagree with it.
Objectivism does tell you how you should think if your goal is to flourish and live a happy life. Ayn Rand shows us how to think rationally. She doesn't choose our values for us, so we're not a cult, but she certainly tells us how to think, understand the world around us, and achieve our chosen values. To deny this is to deny the relationship between is and ought.
@@LeftUsername that's completely false. I remember Mark Pellegrino writing a letter about the end of the republican party as we know it and still saying that the left was a bigger problem. And that's before it was known that Dr. Peikoff voted for Trump. I supported Trump, and i'm currently doing it. However, when people call Trump good, pro capitalist, or really anything else other than "the lesser of two evils", i will call it out. And Dr. Peikoff either omitted stuff about Trump, or is ignorant about it, and which ever it is, is pretty bad.
Yes, I'd like to hear more from him about that, since he's going to be doing these interviews daily until the election. That and his positive relationships with Putin, Kim Jong Un and the like. He condemned Fuentes, but to me, this is far more concerning.
@@monicapignotti7499 Trump says stuff like that but he still tariffs them, sanctions them and halts their pipelines and chastises Germany for being dependent on Russia for oil. So don’t get hung up on his “I got along with Putin, I got along with Xi” type stuff.
27:20: President Trump invited Kayne West (before West "jumped off the deep end", and became openly antisemitic) for dinner to Mar-a-Lago. West took Fuentes with him (without telling Trump, if I understood it correctly, but I'm not 100% sure) to that dinner, and Trump couldn't just kick him out, could he; he might not even have known who Fuentes was, at that time.
*"I can't bring myself to vote for either party"* Then view your vote NOT as a vote "for" Trump, but *against* the Anti-West, Anti-America Left - exactly like they talk about the Anti-Nixonites who voted "for" Nixon (ie who were voting *against* McGovern) in the video. Or, view your vote NOT as a vote *for* Harris, but *against* the 'destroyers' of the Republican Party as the "Opposition Party" to the Left, as Yaron essentially views it in his video about Tucker's desire to "Crush The Banks".
@@fizzled95 *"Yeah, who needs principles."* So the principles of the West and America and Objectivism are NOT your principles? Because, as BOTH Leonard AND Yaron argue, those are the principles in immediate jeopardy here in this election.
I''d like to hear more about his views on the Ukraine situation and Trump's very positive relationship with Putin and his love letters to dictators like Kim Jong Un. Is it okay to try to have diplomatic relationships with people like that? How is this not a deal breaker to not vote for him and at the very least, abstain from voting for anyone? "Sometimes he doesn't make good choices" is an understatement! In my judgment, some of those choices are deal breakers.
he doesnt have diplomatic relationships with dictators, in a sense that he respects dictators. He just chooses to deal with them effectively, (or at least that is his goal), instead of pandering to them.
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 No dude, when you tell the taliban "the world is watching, you need to do the right thing for world approval" (paraphrase) - implying that you can give afghanistan back to the taliban and that the taliban has some kind of rationality and willingness to act in accordance with whatever your morality is. Donald trump treated dictators as people who exist, and you have to deal with them as they are, not WISHING they have the same values as the leader of the US. He may be nice to them and flatter them in order to send the message that if you do what I say, I will leave you alone, but at least Trump has an idea of what he thinks is in the interest of the US and is not active plotting to help dictators distroy our own country. He WANTED IRAN milked dry. He says so to this day. Biden bribed Iran with money AGAIN suggesting BLINDLY that IRAN has the same values as we do and if we give them welfare money they will go soft. It is SO STUPID. I DO care when Trump says stupid things that are unhelpful, but I don't take a statement from Trumps mouth out of the greater context of his actual relationship with them, and how THEY percieve HIM and his ACTIONS What do I care if Trump says Kim whoever looks nice in a tie. Do you think these dictators think " Hmm trump complimented me, I can take advantage of this weakness"??? Mock flattery isn't weakness!! Its true, these dictarors are NOT as stupid as some of the interpreters of trumps relationship with them are. But Every dictator on the planet WANTS HARRIS!!! YOU KNOW THIS!!!!
And you're saying that the neo-Marxist Obama (Biden/Harris) administration doesn't love dictatorship -- and, moreover, are not in the process of destroying our constitutional rights? THEY are the ones who are on the verge of toppling our independent judiciary (e.g. packing the Supreme Court, making it easier to remove justices for decisions the ruling clique doesn't approve of, etc.). THEY are the ones seeking to eviscerate free speech rights. THEY are the ones seeking to place political campaigning (the organizing and financing of political campaigns) under the government's control -- which would mean, effectively, that only government-approved people could even run for office. Whatever Trump SAYS he wants to do, he will not have the power to overcome institutional checks and balances to actually do those things. (His own party leadership in Congress won't allow him; even his nominated and confirmed justices and judges won't allow him to have his way.) But, by capturing institutions (law schools, military schools, accreditation and standards agencies [such as Britain's "College of Policing"] -- which took decades to accomplish), the Left CAN implement their dictatorship simply by installing judicial officials (judges, justices, prosecutors, etc.) who believe in overthrowing the rule of law in favor of ideological-based decisions. The more immediate threat to our freedoms and constitutional order comes from the Left. January 6th? The angry Republican mob was simply doing something that the Left constantly seemed to get away with -- invading state capitol buildings, laying siege to federal courthouses (such as in Portland, Oregon for months in 2020, which they tried to burn down). January 6th was the culminating act of nearly a year's rioting, mainly by the Left. ...And, what was the Democrat Party leadership's reaction to the urban rioting and the near-torching of at least one federal courthouse? They ENCOURAGED it, they denounced law enforcement efforts to suppress AntiFa and BLM violence. Nancy Pelosi called federal law enforcement in Portland "stormtroopers"; Kamala Harris worked to release AntiFa thugs back onto the streets and praised their violent tactics.
Thank you for this interview. Incredibly interesting to hear his views on todays politics. He has a sound perspective, I think: one must avoid a moral rationalism that says a candidate must be perfect to earn a vote. A vote has to be cast in a context of the alternatives. And as he alludes to, the plan that the republican party will improve somehow if they lose, what is the evidence for that? How thought-out are the details of that plan? Where will the better candidate come from, and why? I also never understood that.
Another question: What are your views on the issue of abortion being left up to the individual states? Is it appropriate for a right as basic as a woman's right to choose to be regulated by states, including even her right to choose medical care (not talking about state care, talking about any kind of care from anyone) she gets in the event of a miscarriage and even being denied a D&C unless she is literally dying (and then in some cases it is too late)? What would Ayn Rand have said about that? And a broader question, when is it appropriate to leave something up to individual states and when isn't it appropriate (e.g. slavery)? You commented on IVF, but I'd like to hear more about your views on what is happening on the abortion issue and state's supposed "rights" over an individual woman's right. Pardon the pun, but do states' rights trump that? That for me right there is a deal breaker for Trump that at the very least should warrant abstaining from voting.
@@evanwoodham6296 *"Yaron Brook commune socialist Kool aid"* One thanks evan for confessing the fact that he doesn't grasp Yaron's arguments. See Yaron's video on Tucker's "Crush the Banks!" comment for evidence of this fact. It makes clear Yaron's arguments against Trump are not because he wants 'commune socialism', but are because only a NON-Trump Republican Party can be an opposition to that 'commune socialism' evan *claims* he rejects. One can certainly disagree with Yaron's argument, but one can NOT *rationally* claim it is the desire for 'commune socialism'. In other words, declaring Yaron Brook is a "commune socialist" is as much a LlE as claiming Leonard Peikoff is a 'tariff fascist'.
So impressed with Peikoffs take on Trump. Most objectivists, like Yaron Brook, seem unable to see past the public persona and bravado of Trump. They seem to have have accepted uncritically all the anti-Trump propaganda. In fact, most of them seem to have full developed TDS. Pleasently surprised Peikoff didn’t fall for this as well! That takes some real independent thinking. I always liked Peikoff, now I like him even more. 😊
*"Most objectivists, like Yaron Brook, seem unable to see past the public persona and bravado of Trump. ... [they] seem to have full developed TDS"* Watch Yaron's video about Tucker's "Crush the Banks" comments. Yaron identifies his reasoning about the election in general, and certainly gives Iie to all the vicious psychologizing about TDS etc being thrown at him.
It’s about time an Objectivist supported the non-perfect Republican candidate over the hard-core socialist in the presidential race. Someone should make a list of which well-known Objectivists have advocated voting for the socialist/Democrats through the years (just to be viewed as shocking and clever). These socialism-advocating Objectivists need a scolding and a heavy dose of emergency reason. Republicans are centrist, imperfect, compromisers. Democrats want to push America toward a socialist dictatorship as fast as possible. Thank you Leonard Peikoff for writing “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” and for supporting Trump.
So true. Robert W. Tracinski (former editor of The Intellectual Activist) just came out urging people to vote Harris/Waltz. I don’t know if he still qualifys as objectivist, but he has gone off the deep end when it comes to Trump. Complete TDS.
*"These socialism-advocating Objectivists need a scolding and a heavy dose of emergency reason."* Admonishing against Trump is not the same as advocating for socialism. And it is unjust, to say the least, to psychologize them by declaring they are acting "just to be viewed as shocking and clever". For instance, in one of his latest excerpted vids (about Tucker's comments about "Crush The Banks"), Yaron identifies his ultimate rationale for being against Trump. It is because he is AGAINST the Left and socialism. He sees the Republican Party as the ONLY chance of staving off the Left and socialism - but not the party under Trump and his 'philosophy'. As Yaron puts it, the AOCs and the Tuckers are essentially the SAME. With Trump et al, there is no Opposition Party, and the unity between the two parties leads, in the very near future, to the complete Statist assimilation of the US. ONLY if Trump is defeated - only if Trump is purged from the Republican Party - can the US be saved FROM the Leftists/socialists. One can certainly disagree with his argument, but one can NOT *rationally* dispute the FACT that is the OPPOSITE of advocating FOR socialism.
@@Tubekonto9 *"just came out urging people to vote Harris/Waltz"* What were his arguments for doing so? As noted in my response to logan, the mere fact of "urging people to vote Harris/Waltz" does not identify one as "de ranged". That's just an EMPTY sme ar.
A Trump supporter told me Trump doesn't intend to actually impose the tariffs, but to merely use the threat of them as a negotiating tool. I hope they're right.
Trump already placed tariffs on Chinese goods and then the Biden admin kept them. How is that evidence of "merely a threat" and why would threatening free market participants be a net-positive?
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 "Did you not listen to his Trump show yesterday?" I would say the excerpt from his show where he talks about Tucker's "Crush The Banks" remarks is more informative as to Yaron's views about the election and the future of America (which is what Leonard is talking about), than Yaron's entire show about Trump (which is NOT comparable to this video, since Yaron wasn't presenting a comparative look at the candidates and the election as this video did).
I voted for trump last year and I kept telling others that I would do some for the culture war alone. People think I’m out of my mind. I sympathize, but I keep trying to get people to see this mass hatred for Trump is because of that war. It doesn’t mean I want trump for twelve years. Just that I want some semblance of sense around for next time.
*"I want some semblance of sense around for next time."* Interestingly, this reason for wanting to vote *for* Trump is the SAME reason Yaron gives for wanting to vote *against* the current Republican Party (including Trump). See his video related to Tucker's "Crush the Banks" comments.
@ I know. I’ve seen it. I was using that line because Yaron said it. However, while I watch a lot of Yaron, I think his use of the phrase is a bit unwarranted considering Kamala is the left. Trump is fortunately and never has been republican. I feel like both Yaron and Leonard might be being dramatic by saying either will be the final straw for America. Yet they both did.
@@MalcolmBomaniBrown "I feel like both Yaron and Leonard might be being dramatic by saying either will be the final straw for America. Yet they both did." As did you (as you just pointed out) which means you just characterized your own given reason for voting for Trump as "dramatic" aka not a true reflection of reality as well. In other words, you just stabbed your *own* argument in the back. That doesn't make much sense.
@@MalcolmBomaniBrown *"You've missed once again."* 1 - Since you confirmed I was RIGHT the 'first time' - ie since you confirmed your words were the same as BOTH Yaron and Leonard, exactly as I was pointing out - there is no "once again" here (nor was I even trying to dispute you in any way that 'first time'). 2 - Since you've not identified ANY form of "miss" here, your claim of a "miss" of any sort is EMPTY. In other words, as you should have learned as a child, 'Nu uh!' ain't an argument. Try again.
Although i regrettably do not know much about Piekoff as I should, i must say this is quite a disappointing interview for me and leaves a sour impression. I can understand voting for Trump reluctantly, and only doing so because of one or two issues (Israel, for instance), but it seems Leonard genuinely loves and adores Trump, and to have fully given into his persona. Nothing against Piekoff, and i still plan to read more of his books, but this was just disappointing, i was expecting more from him.
There are plenty of resasons to love and respect Trump. If Harris wins, we are screwed. A new Dark Age of government censorship, control and oppression will be upon us. It will be the end of freedom, at least in the West.
*"Leonard genuinely loves and adores Trump"* Quotes which back up this claim please - especially since Leonard has *explicitly* declared himself to be an "Anti-Trumpite" (ie the OPPOSITE of 'genuinely loving and adoring Trump'). We'll wait (forever I suspect).
What he admires is Trump's character in fighting for his goals and standing up to vicious, dishonest attacks from all segments of the culture. If you don't see this as heroic, I think you are morally blind.
This is a softball and sycophantic interview, Peikoff is brilliant as always and deserves tougher questions, am surprised to see Valiant so soft on him after all his expressions of disgust towards Trump
"am surprised to see Valiant so soft on him after all his expressions of disgust towards Trump" But WHY are you surprised? The purpose of the exercise here is a comparison between Trump and Harris, not a focus on Trump alone. As they both note with Nixon, one can think a person is horrible and yet still rationally promote him over the alternative.
@@evanwoodham6296 *"You don't need to counter signal Trump, stop sucking up to Democrats."* One wonders why evan here is psychologizing - ie attacking - Mr. Valiant and Dr. Peikoff in such a viIe manner.
Thanks you again, James, for this interview. I would like you to ask Leonard Peikoff what he thinks about Trump wanting to deport all of the "illegal" immigrants. Even though I doubt he would be able to do it unilaterally without Congress, the fact that he wants to do it is a terrible threat to individual rights.
Non citizens have "natural" rights. Universal rights that are individual to every human being. BUT those individual citizens have to "secure" those rights, as the declaration says, "to secure these rights, governments are instituted..." Open borders in a legit context does NOT mean NO borders. Individual rights does NOT nulify a country of citizens, - who HAVE secured their rights via their government, - from EXCLUDING non citizens based on rational criteria. Only a misaplied support for individual rights would cause someone to believe that you have the same rights inside another country if you are not a citizen. The context, is we don't know who you are, and are allowed to find out first before we let you in. Whereas a citizen is presumed to be aligned with his country's interest, even thought he may not be, or even any more moral that the illegal.
@@jasonk8775 All humans have inalienable individual rights. You don't need to be a citizen of America to have them. Their are but a few rights that apply to just Americans and one of them is the right to vote. The American people do not own America. They may own some land in America but they have no right to keep immigrants out of other people's property if they were invited. If I want someone to work for me or live with me or rent property from me that is my right to my life and property. I think that immigrants should be vetted to a small degree when coming to this country from other countries steeped in crime and terror and disease, to weed out the terrorists and criminals and those infected with contagious diseases. But, what we need to worry about is our government subsidizing immigrants. That is a violation of my rights. An immigrant crossing the US border is no threat to or violation of my rights.
@@jasonk8775 *"from EXCLUDING non citizens based on rational criteria"* Of course, the ONLY "rational criteria" for EXCLUDING "non citizens" from entering a country is the VIOLATION of rights (or threat thereof). ANYTHING else is an ir rational criteria (aka a VIOLATION of the individual's [ie citizen or non-citizen's] rights to his OWN life and his OWN effort).
Why not discuss the most salient issue - Trump trying to get his vice president to violate his constitutional duty to certify the election? Trying to illegally overturn the results of an election is much more important than any of the things discussed.
@@conveyor2 Would you like to elaborate on what is a "conspiracy theory"? Trump has stated publicly numerous times that he wanted Pence to not certify and send things back to the states, and Pence has also stated that was what Trump wanted him to do.
@BitcoinMeister what's wrong with getting emotional? If your emotions are calibrated to your values, i don't see the issue of being passionate about a serious issue. If you mean irrational, that's entirely different.
Trump didn't lock people down in their homes or close down businesses, that was left up to the states. Some states were better and some were worse. One thing you can say Trump failed to do was to prohibit the states from trampling on citizen's rights. For the record, I voted Trump in 2016, 2020, and 2024. I hope very much that he wins again (which in my opinion would be the 3rd time in a row.)
@@YashArya01you don't understand the difference between supporting a party and weighing the dangers of each and settling on one over the other. ARI does not "lean left."
@@geekonomist Contrary to geeko's premise here, pointing out a particular logical fallacy is NOT an attack. It is the identification of a fact of reality - which is the OPPOSITE of what geeko did. Of course, given his EMPTY attack on Dr. P's argument, it is not a surprise that geeko doesn't understand the difference. Logic, let alone reason, is NOT his standard. One thanks geeko for proving that fact here.
@@geekonomist *"I provided as many facts as he did which is none"* Contrary to your anti-reality, anti-objectivity WISH here, the fact that you DISAGREE with Leonard's arguments and the facts he presented to support them does NOT make those arguments and facts magically DlSAPPEAR. But thanks for identifying the fact your purpose here is NOT rationality or honesty about anyone's ideas. Instead your SOLE purpose here is to ABUSE. I appreciate your assistance in helping make that fact clear for all to see. That certainly achieves MY purpose here. Good bye.
I hate to think or say such a thing because I have so much respect for Peikoff. But I can't wrap my head around his view on Trump. It would be one thing if he just hated Kamala so much that he felt it was necessary to vote for Trump, but it seems like he actively defends and likes the guy. I don't get it.
@@YashArya01i hate to say it, because i really want Trump to win, but Dr. Peikoff actively omitted stuff, or is ignorant about Trump. Which ever it is, it's really bad. I also think calling the woke left "communists" is giving them the benefit of doubt. I think the woke left has more in common with the egalitarian movement of Pol Pot.
This all seems crazy. I remember on Leonard's own show he'd have Yaron Brook on to handle all the political questions. I personally like Yaron's stance on these issues way more. I know what I see when I see Trump and it isn't a patriot/defender of liberty.
@@johngleue "I personally like Yaron's stance on these issues way more." In regard to the question of whom one should vote for in the upcoming election, what is Yaron's stance on this question? And if he has not provided one, then you can not say Yaron's stance is "way" better on the issue.
@bleigh3369 He said he understands certain viewpoints that would lead people to vote for Trump. The same is true with Harris. It's the lesser of two evils argument. But he thinks people who positively support either candidate without acknowledgment that both options are horrible are evading reality. So, his stance on voting in this election is to either hold your nose and vote or abstain from voting entirely and demand that both parties do better.
@@johngleue Actually, quite 'coincidentally', the day after LP's post here, Yaron dedicated a whole show against Trump ie why he rejects voting for Trump (note, he did not offer a comparison on points between Trump and Harris when it comes to the principles he complains about, but only his reasons for hating on Trump).
Harris is going to be horrible, but that's no justification for endorsing Trump. The amount of evasion regarding what Trump has done that Dr. Peikoff is engaging in is stunning. Considering just the tax cuts that Trump touts: the economics behind this will wreck the economy. What we need more than tax cuts is spending cuts. Better to just say that we have two bad choices and to not vote, except in down-ticket elections and issue.
*"The amount of evasion regarding what Trump has done that Dr. Peikoff is engaging in is stunning."* The amount of psychologizing against the man who explicitly identifies himself as an "Anti-Trumpite" is stunning. *"Better to just say that we have two bad choices and to not vote"* That presumes the outcome would be the same regardless of whom one votes for - and BOTH Leonard AND Yaron agree that is not the case.
@ Ayn Rand once remarked to Dr Peikoff that he had a little too much of the moral and Greenspan has a little too much of the practical. Dr Peikoff seems to have addressed this deficit. Trump is the practical choice, not the moral one. In the recent election in Britain I voted Conservative for the same reason, that the horror of a Labour government needed to be resisted, even if I preferred not to vote Conservative, they had the best chance of beating Labour.
This is sad to see. Peikoff is retired from philosophy and intellectual life. It is clear from this interview and his recent essay that he isn't deeply informed on these kinds of issues any longer. It would be out of respect for what he has done to let him remain a private individual enjoying his retirement. It is disgusting to see him used in this way. I have not and do not support The Ayn Rand Centre UK or anyone associated with it. I do not think it should be allowed to exist.
Are you able to say more? I've heard criticism about ARCUK from various quarters but I'd like to know more about why you don't support it, if you're able to share.
*"It is clear from this interview...that he isn't deeply informed on these kinds of issues any longer."* That he comes to conclusions you don't agree with is not evidence - let alone "clear" proof - that he is not "informed" about the "issue". 'It is disgusting to see him at tacked in this way'. *"his recent essay"* Presumably you are referencing his "Anti-Trumpites for Trump" essay. Again, what arguments does Dr. P present which you declare are evidence for your accusation that he is not "informed" about the "issues" here? (And, again, note that your dislike of his conclusions does not qualify as such evidence.)
Starting tomorrow, ARCUK will release a new Leonard Peikoff video daily until election day. Each video features a unique question from an ARCUK TH-cam commentator, exclusive to members.
Join this channel to get access to the perks:
th-cam.com/channels/PasYvikUOas440qbC5hguA.htmljoin
Become an Ayn Rand Centre UK Member Here!
aynrandcentre.co.uk/become-a-member/
wow i love peikoff this is the one issue i side with peikoff over yaron
@@tomharrison6607 It is interesting, listening to both present their arguments (Yaron 'coincidentally' today posted an entire show on "Why I'm No on Trump" - which does not really involve a comparison between the two candidates on the principles Yaron takes Trump to task for).
In both their arguments, I can actually hear the sources from which they are getting their news on the particular issues. Yaron's sourcing appears to be from most of the usual Left-wing sources (NYT, WaPo, et al). When asked about questions, he tends not to have heard or address the arguments made by the Right-wing or classical liberal/libertarian sources. Thus the 'facts' he uses to base his arguments upon are sometimes incomplete or completely skewed in some instances (I can't tell you how many times I've listened to an argument he makes and go 'but you left this important fact out, which changes the whole equation!').
On the other hand here, Leonard's arguments will seem very familiar to those who are aware of the Right-wing et al sources and arguments. Unfortunately, Leonard hasn't posted much in regard to Trump or the elections (certainly not compared to Yaron), so one cannot assess his familiarity with the arguments presented by the Left-wing sources, (when asked questions here, he seemed aware of some of them, but unfamiliar - or at least wasn't able to immediately pull up - others of them). As such, one doesn't get an address or a rebuttal to them (which is why I think some here were disappointed about not getting any comments about Jan 6). But many of the points Leonard made are ones Yaron hasn't addressed (partially because Leonard is doing a comparison between the candidates whereas Yaron is simply addressing his issues with Trump), the same way the Left-wing news sources haven't addressed them (usually because those 'news' sources are spinning a Narrative, not delivering the facts). So its fascinating to watch how the disparate sources of facts (and Narratives) are having an impact on the conclusions of the two men.
@@bleigh3369i noticed yaron has that out today i will watch that video tomorrow when i get a chance one other time yaron and leonard had kind of a discussion on immigration and once again i sided with peikoff that was a few years ago they had that talk
@@tomharrison6607 *"one other time yaron and leonard had kind of a discussion on immigration and once again i sided with peikoff that was a few years ago they had that talk"*
I remember that. Except they essentially came to a meeting of the minds on that issue in a 'debate' between them over two episodes of Leonard's show that was 'moderated' by Amy. If I recall correctly, in the end they agreed any disagreement that had arisen between them was not a philosophical one, but was more a debate over the facts (much as I think is the case here). And, on those facts about immigration, Leonard admitted he couldn't really support his claim about "hordes" and their "threat" - suggesting his problem might be because he got his facts from talk radio.
@@tomharrison6607 I think the difference between Yaron and Leonard here is essentially summarized by Leonard when he talks about those who want Trump to lose so as to "cleanse the Republican Party." That is the view Yaron essentially presents in his most recent excerpt from his show: Tucker's Horrible Take on "Crushing The Banks". Yaron basically says that, without a change in the Republican Party, we are ultimately heading to a Uniparty (of the AOCs and the Tuckers) - ie we are heading, in the very short term, to a country where "we have no sane alternatives":
*"Why can't AOC and Tucker be in the same political party? I think they can. Tomorrow. They share much more in common. There is no longer an opposition. There is only different variations of authoritarian statism." *
That is why Yaron wants Trump to lose. So that, somehow, the Republican party will - as Leonard puts it - "come up with this brilliant, new leadership - an individual or group - who will tear them away" from the authoritarian direction Trump and Tucker et al are dragging them.
Unfortunately, Leonard is correct when he says "I'd like to know where they're going to get [this "leader"]...and, if they find him, why the Republican Party is going to go with him." More unfortunately, these are questions that - to my knowledge - Yaron doesn't address (nor does he address the issue of why JD Vance, who has been elevated and whom a LOT of people like inside and outside the Trump group, would simply not replace Trump as the 'new' Trumpist candidate instead of some ideologically brand new candidate popping up out of nowhere).
Put simply, it seems Yaron just *hopes* a 'new direction' will manifest itself - and thus he's trying to buy time and space *for* it to occur by having the Anti-Western, Anti-American candidate win instead, so that 'Trumpism' will somehow be destroyed.
Bless you Mr. Peikoff. I still listen to your lectures in the car all the time.
I guess it beats Coldplay.
Thank you Leonard Peikoff. ❤
Please Mr Peikoff, can you live another 100 years. People need to hear from you. You are a hard person to ignore or smear!!
Damn; Peikoff is still on top of his game! Excellent!
The man who wrote The Ominous Parallels only sees the parallels coming from the Left.
The full article on ARCUK substack is quite clear about why Peikoff took the decison he took. Agree or not it's there.
Please let Peikoff know, and the host as well - Trump invited Kanye West and Kanye brought Fuentes. I don't know how the host didn't know that, but whatever. Peikoff should hear the truth of what happened anyway.
I share your stance Mr Peikoff, and very impressed with your courage to stand for your convictions. Love to see you're still as sharp as a tack. Hope you stick around and offer your wisdom and insights from time to time. I for one miss your presence. It seems like Grace has been good for you.
I am so glad to hear you say those things about Trump. I agree with your assessment of him and the country's needs under current circumstances.
I remember buying Ominous Parallels.
I appreciate you recognizing the positive qualities that typically go unnoticed, but I wish you addressed the much bigger issues of pragmatism, his massive deficit spending, and leadership on Jan 6. You may say overall those pale in comparison to the threat of Harris' philosophy, but I'd still appreciate hearing those addressed and how you measure them in the context of your decision.
Yes, they do pale in comparison. The Democrats are totalitarians and will destroy the country. The Republicans are not and won’t. That is the overarching consideration. If you cannot see that you are either ignorant or evil.
@@kevinmcfarlane2752 *"The Democrats are totalitarians and will destroy the country. The Republicans are not and won't"*
Yaron's argument (with which Leonard hasn't disagreed) is that the ascendant Trump wing (Tucker et al) of the Republicans are the same "authoritarian statists" as the Dems and, if not stopped, will essentially create a uniparty with the Dems. (He makes this argument in his video about Tucker's "Crush the Banks" comments).
Therefore Yaron further argues that to prevent this, Trump et al must be defeated, so as to push the "Trumpites" et al out of power in the Republican Party, in order to make room for a 'true Opposition Party' to the Dems (whom Yaron is thus identifying as the ultimate threat to the country, and against whom he is identifying the Repubs as the only *potential* protection right now).
While one can certainly disagree with that argument, that is the OPPOSITE of being "either ignorant or evil".
Nothing about the Jan 6th hearings :(
However I am happy that the sound quality has improved substantially. Thank you for this video with Dr. Peikoff.
It was an irrelevant event.
@@Al-xq4ec it wasn't irrelevant.
@@Al-xq4ecsure, attempts to undermine the integrity of the government are irrelevant.
@@Biologist19681 oh no! an unarmed bunch of rednecks who were led in by the police almost literally overthrew the government. worst thing since 9/11 and pearl harbor combined!
@@Biologist19681 So the Patriot Act where the bill of rights were effectively revoked wasn't somehow.
The variations of values each individual; holds within a specific philosophy, such as Objectivism, is a warm comfort.
That different individuals can come to radically different applications of their foundational values is a sign that, yes, Objectivism isn't a cult where people are told to think a certain way.
Dogma is out!
I may not agree with my long lost father here and that is wonderful! I know that he comes to conclusions based on reality as best as he can. Rationally. So does Yaron. And both men come to, sometimes, radically different conclusions.
You can basically read the comments here and see who the actual collectivists are - attempting to tie their emotional conclusions to a group-abstraction. Just pure collectivism.
I can't wait to see more of you two chatting :) Thank you James for these!
@@DeeperWithDiego yeah, it's kinda sad. Because these same people calling everybody that doesn't go full Trumptard an "obleftivist", would have criticized Dr. Peikoff when he said that any Objectivist would vote for Kerry, because Bush was so evil, that no rational egoist would be voting for him. I'm kinda glad Dr. Peikoff is coming out with all of these political opinions, because in a way it's helpful even if i myself disagree with it.
Objectivism does tell you how you should think if your goal is to flourish and live a happy life. Ayn Rand shows us how to think rationally. She doesn't choose our values for us, so we're not a cult, but she certainly tells us how to think, understand the world around us, and achieve our chosen values.
To deny this is to deny the relationship between is and ought.
@@johngleue Correct. What OP is saying amounts to saying logic is a cult because it's "teaching us all to think a certain way".
And yet I never heard such calls for acceptance from objectivists towards anyone who might support Trump before Peikoff himself supported him haha
@@LeftUsername that's completely false. I remember Mark Pellegrino writing a letter about the end of the republican party as we know it and still saying that the left was a bigger problem. And that's before it was known that Dr. Peikoff voted for Trump. I supported Trump, and i'm currently doing it. However, when people call Trump good, pro capitalist, or really anything else other than "the lesser of two evils", i will call it out. And Dr. Peikoff either omitted stuff about Trump, or is ignorant about it, and which ever it is, is pretty bad.
Trump’s 🇺🇸 vagueness on Ukraine 🇺🇦 is probably my biggest issue with him.
> Trump’s 🇺🇸 vagueness on Ukraine 🇺🇦...
Trump was quite explicit about his intentions with Ukraine...
Yes, I'd like to hear more from him about that, since he's going to be doing these interviews daily until the election. That and his positive relationships with Putin, Kim Jong Un and the like. He condemned Fuentes, but to me, this is far more concerning.
@@monicapignotti7499 Agreed 👍.
@@monicapignotti7499 Trump says stuff like that but he still tariffs them, sanctions them and halts their pipelines and chastises Germany for being dependent on Russia for oil. So don’t get hung up on his “I got along with Putin, I got along with Xi” type stuff.
Finally an objectivist who understands US politics very well
I know, right? 🎉
Considering those like Yaron are commune socialists
"FINALLY someone who -says the things I believe- understands US politics very well!"
Hehehe
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 You should be honest and just drop the ex from the exnihilo. ABUSE is your standard here, not reason.
Bravo, Dr.Peikoff!
❤ You Both!
Thank you, Michael!
27:20: President Trump invited Kayne West (before West "jumped off the deep end", and became openly antisemitic) for dinner to Mar-a-Lago. West took Fuentes with him (without telling Trump, if I understood it correctly, but I'm not 100% sure) to that dinner, and Trump couldn't just kick him out, could he; he might not even have known who Fuentes was, at that time.
Why did Trump invite Kanye? He's already too bad
I admire Mr. Peikoff but I just can't bring myself to vote for either party.
If I was an American I would vote for Trump to avoid Kamala.
*"I can't bring myself to vote for either party"*
Then view your vote NOT as a vote "for" Trump, but *against* the Anti-West, Anti-America Left - exactly like they talk about the Anti-Nixonites who voted "for" Nixon (ie who were voting *against* McGovern) in the video.
Or, view your vote NOT as a vote *for* Harris, but *against* the 'destroyers' of the Republican Party as the "Opposition Party" to the Left, as Yaron essentially views it in his video about Tucker's desire to "Crush The Banks".
@@bleigh3369 Yeah, who needs principles.
I wouldn't complain if more people abstained from voting.
@@fizzled95 *"Yeah, who needs principles."*
So the principles of the West and America and Objectivism are NOT your principles? Because, as BOTH Leonard AND Yaron argue, those are the principles in immediate jeopardy here in this election.
I''d like to hear more about his views on the Ukraine situation and Trump's very positive relationship with Putin and his love letters to dictators like Kim Jong Un. Is it okay to try to have diplomatic relationships with people like that? How is this not a deal breaker to not vote for him and at the very least, abstain from voting for anyone? "Sometimes he doesn't make good choices" is an understatement! In my judgment, some of those choices are deal breakers.
he doesnt have diplomatic relationships with dictators, in a sense that he respects dictators. He just chooses to deal with them effectively, (or at least that is his goal), instead of pandering to them.
No, he dies RESPECT dictators!
You need to watch Yaron Brook's podcast's last episode, on Trump. I think he's right there.
**does* respect
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 No dude, when you tell the taliban "the world is watching, you need to do the right thing for world approval" (paraphrase) - implying that you can give afghanistan back to the taliban and that the taliban has some kind of rationality and willingness to act in accordance with whatever your morality is.
Donald trump treated dictators as people who exist, and you have to deal with them as they are, not WISHING they have the same values as the leader of the US. He may be nice to them and flatter them in order to send the message that if you do what I say, I will leave you alone, but at least Trump has an idea of what he thinks is in the interest of the US and is not active plotting to help dictators distroy our own country.
He WANTED IRAN milked dry. He says so to this day. Biden bribed Iran with money AGAIN suggesting BLINDLY that IRAN has the same values as we do and if we give them welfare money they will go soft. It is SO STUPID.
I DO care when Trump says stupid things that are unhelpful, but I don't take a statement from Trumps mouth out of the greater context of his actual relationship with them, and how THEY percieve HIM and his ACTIONS
What do I care if Trump says Kim whoever looks nice in a tie. Do you think these dictators think " Hmm trump complimented me, I can take advantage of this weakness"??? Mock flattery isn't weakness!!
Its true, these dictarors are NOT as stupid as some of the interpreters of trumps relationship with them are. But Every dictator on the planet WANTS HARRIS!!!
YOU KNOW THIS!!!!
I wish January 6th and Trumps love of dictators were mentioned.
No point discussing fantasy
Are you saying that we should focus on some stupid excursion through capitol rather than focussing on real issues?
And you're saying that the neo-Marxist Obama (Biden/Harris) administration doesn't love dictatorship -- and, moreover, are not in the process of destroying our constitutional rights?
THEY are the ones who are on the verge of toppling our independent judiciary (e.g. packing the Supreme Court, making it easier to remove justices for decisions the ruling clique doesn't approve of, etc.).
THEY are the ones seeking to eviscerate free speech rights.
THEY are the ones seeking to place political campaigning (the organizing and financing of political campaigns) under the government's control -- which would mean, effectively, that only government-approved people could even run for office.
Whatever Trump SAYS he wants to do, he will not have the power to overcome institutional checks and balances to actually do those things. (His own party leadership in Congress won't allow him; even his nominated and confirmed justices and judges won't allow him to have his way.) But, by capturing institutions (law schools, military schools, accreditation and standards agencies [such as Britain's "College of Policing"] -- which took decades to accomplish), the Left CAN implement their dictatorship simply by installing judicial officials (judges, justices, prosecutors, etc.) who believe in overthrowing the rule of law in favor of ideological-based decisions.
The more immediate threat to our freedoms and constitutional order comes from the Left.
January 6th? The angry Republican mob was simply doing something that the Left constantly seemed to get away with -- invading state capitol buildings, laying siege to federal courthouses (such as in Portland, Oregon for months in 2020, which they tried to burn down). January 6th was the culminating act of nearly a year's rioting, mainly by the Left. ...And, what was the Democrat Party leadership's reaction to the urban rioting and the near-torching of at least one federal courthouse? They ENCOURAGED it, they denounced law enforcement efforts to suppress AntiFa and BLM violence. Nancy Pelosi called federal law enforcement in Portland "stormtroopers"; Kamala Harris worked to release AntiFa thugs back onto the streets and praised their violent tactics.
I agree, MrOreoman
1. January 6 was a mainly peaceful protest. 2. Your definition of "love" is really loose.
26:48 Leonard Peikoff calling Nick Fuentes a homosexual Jew wasn't on my 2024 bingo card.
Lmao
Peikoff is still kicking eh? Good for him! 😊
Excellent interview!
Thank you for this interview. Incredibly interesting to hear his views on todays politics.
He has a sound perspective, I think: one must avoid a moral rationalism that says a candidate must be perfect to earn a vote. A vote has to be cast in a context of the alternatives.
And as he alludes to, the plan that the republican party will improve somehow if they lose, what is the evidence for that? How thought-out are the details of that plan? Where will the better candidate come from, and why? I also never understood that.
Another question: What are your views on the issue of abortion being left up to the individual states? Is it appropriate for a right as basic as a woman's right to choose to be regulated by states, including even her right to choose medical care (not talking about state care, talking about any kind of care from anyone) she gets in the event of a miscarriage and even being denied a D&C unless she is literally dying (and then in some cases it is too late)? What would Ayn Rand have said about that? And a broader question, when is it appropriate to leave something up to individual states and when isn't it appropriate (e.g. slavery)? You commented on IVF, but I'd like to hear more about your views on what is happening on the abortion issue and state's supposed "rights" over an individual woman's right. Pardon the pun, but do states' rights trump that? That for me right there is a deal breaker for Trump that at the very least should warrant abstaining from voting.
16:35 - 17:10 Trump was not an "arch conservative". He's seen as a populist/statist rejecting Reaganism. What is Peikoff talking about?
I don’t think he’s saying that’s what he is. I think he’s saying that’s what the conservatives would say.
Don't drink the Yaron Brook commune socialist Kool aid
@@evanwoodham6296 *"Yaron Brook commune socialist Kool aid"*
One thanks evan for confessing the fact that he doesn't grasp Yaron's arguments. See Yaron's video on Tucker's "Crush the Banks!" comment for evidence of this fact. It makes clear Yaron's arguments against Trump are not because he wants 'commune socialism', but are because only a NON-Trump Republican Party can be an opposition to that 'commune socialism' evan *claims* he rejects.
One can certainly disagree with Yaron's argument, but one can NOT *rationally* claim it is the desire for 'commune socialism'.
In other words, declaring Yaron Brook is a "commune socialist" is as much a LlE as claiming Leonard Peikoff is a 'tariff fascist'.
Please start a podcast, Dr Peikoff
He did have one for a while. Its all on itunes
I’m curious why he’s saying the vaccine was no good. It wasn’t? Can someone elaborate?
Try watching the "Died Suddenly" video.
A true vaccine would have inoculated people and stopped the spread. What we got reduced severity.
So impressed with Peikoffs take on Trump.
Most objectivists, like Yaron Brook, seem unable to see past the public persona and bravado of Trump. They seem to have have accepted uncritically all the anti-Trump propaganda. In fact, most of them seem to have full developed TDS.
Pleasently surprised Peikoff didn’t fall for this as well! That takes some real independent thinking. I always liked Peikoff, now I like him even more. 😊
*"Most objectivists, like Yaron Brook, seem unable to see past the public persona and bravado of Trump. ... [they] seem to have full developed TDS"*
Watch Yaron's video about Tucker's "Crush the Banks" comments. Yaron identifies his reasoning about the election in general, and certainly gives Iie to all the vicious psychologizing about TDS etc being thrown at him.
I agree.
Excellent content gentleman.
Exactly what we have in Britain.
It’s about time an Objectivist supported the non-perfect Republican candidate over the hard-core socialist in the presidential race. Someone should make a list of which well-known Objectivists have advocated voting for the socialist/Democrats through the years (just to be viewed as shocking and clever). These socialism-advocating Objectivists need a scolding and a heavy dose of emergency reason. Republicans are centrist, imperfect, compromisers. Democrats want to push America toward a socialist dictatorship as fast as possible. Thank you Leonard Peikoff for writing “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” and for supporting Trump.
Democrats like Harris are hard-core socialists now? No wonder why no one takes Objectivists seriously.
So true.
Robert W. Tracinski (former editor of The Intellectual Activist) just came out urging people to vote Harris/Waltz. I don’t know if he still qualifys as objectivist, but he has gone off the deep end when it comes to Trump. Complete TDS.
*"These socialism-advocating Objectivists need a scolding and a heavy dose of emergency reason."*
Admonishing against Trump is not the same as advocating for socialism. And it is unjust, to say the least, to psychologize them by declaring they are acting "just to be viewed as shocking and clever".
For instance, in one of his latest excerpted vids (about Tucker's comments about "Crush The Banks"), Yaron identifies his ultimate rationale for being against Trump. It is because he is AGAINST the Left and socialism. He sees the Republican Party as the ONLY chance of staving off the Left and socialism - but not the party under Trump and his 'philosophy'. As Yaron puts it, the AOCs and the Tuckers are essentially the SAME. With Trump et al, there is no Opposition Party, and the unity between the two parties leads, in the very near future, to the complete Statist assimilation of the US. ONLY if Trump is defeated - only if Trump is purged from the Republican Party - can the US be saved FROM the Leftists/socialists.
One can certainly disagree with his argument, but one can NOT *rationally* dispute the FACT that is the OPPOSITE of advocating FOR socialism.
@@Tubekonto9 *"just came out urging people to vote Harris/Waltz"*
What were his arguments for doing so? As noted in my response to logan, the mere fact of "urging people to vote Harris/Waltz" does not identify one as "de ranged". That's just an EMPTY sme ar.
A Trump supporter told me Trump doesn't intend to actually impose the tariffs, but to merely use the threat of them as a negotiating tool. I hope they're right.
Trump already placed tariffs on Chinese goods and then the Biden admin kept them. How is that evidence of "merely a threat" and why would threatening free market participants be a net-positive?
What evidence do they have of saying such a thing? It sounds like an arbitrary statement.
His history of actually using them contradicts this claim.
Yaron needs to watch this, I doubt he'll be open minded.
Too many other objectivists embrace status quo Neo con/Neo lib politics. So sad.
That man is so infected with TDS its nuts.
The ARI would be more honest by rebranding itself the YBI.
Did you not listen to his Trump show yesterday?
He talked a lot about that in the previous episode as well.
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 "Did you not listen to his Trump show yesterday?"
I would say the excerpt from his show where he talks about Tucker's "Crush The Banks" remarks is more informative as to Yaron's views about the election and the future of America (which is what Leonard is talking about), than Yaron's entire show about Trump (which is NOT comparable to this video, since Yaron wasn't presenting a comparative look at the candidates and the election as this video did).
I voted for trump last year and I kept telling others that I would do some for the culture war alone. People think I’m out of my mind. I sympathize, but I keep trying to get people to see this mass hatred for Trump is because of that war. It doesn’t mean I want trump for twelve years. Just that I want some semblance of sense around for next time.
*"I want some semblance of sense around for next time."*
Interestingly, this reason for wanting to vote *for* Trump is the SAME reason Yaron gives for wanting to vote *against* the current Republican Party (including Trump). See his video related to Tucker's "Crush the Banks" comments.
@ I know. I’ve seen it. I was using that line because Yaron said it. However, while I watch a lot of Yaron, I think his use of the phrase is a bit unwarranted considering Kamala is the left. Trump is fortunately and never has been republican. I feel like both Yaron and Leonard might be being dramatic by saying either will be the final straw for America. Yet they both did.
@@MalcolmBomaniBrown "I feel like both Yaron and Leonard might be being dramatic by saying either will be the final straw for America. Yet they both did."
As did you (as you just pointed out) which means you just characterized your own given reason for voting for Trump as "dramatic" aka not a true reflection of reality as well.
In other words, you just stabbed your *own* argument in the back. That doesn't make much sense.
@ no sir. You’ve missed once again.
@@MalcolmBomaniBrown *"You've missed once again."*
1 - Since you confirmed I was RIGHT the 'first time' - ie since you confirmed your words were the same as BOTH Yaron and Leonard, exactly as I was pointing out - there is no "once again" here (nor was I even trying to dispute you in any way that 'first time').
2 - Since you've not identified ANY form of "miss" here, your claim of a "miss" of any sort is EMPTY.
In other words, as you should have learned as a child, 'Nu uh!' ain't an argument.
Try again.
Although i regrettably do not know much about Piekoff as I should, i must say this is quite a disappointing interview for me and leaves a sour impression. I can understand voting for Trump reluctantly, and only doing so because of one or two issues (Israel, for instance), but it seems Leonard genuinely loves and adores Trump, and to have fully given into his persona.
Nothing against Piekoff, and i still plan to read more of his books, but this was just disappointing, i was expecting more from him.
There are plenty of resasons to love and respect Trump. If Harris wins, we are screwed. A new Dark Age of government censorship, control and oppression will be upon us. It will be the end of freedom, at least in the West.
*"Leonard genuinely loves and adores Trump"*
Quotes which back up this claim please - especially since Leonard has *explicitly* declared himself to be an "Anti-Trumpite" (ie the OPPOSITE of 'genuinely loving and adoring Trump').
We'll wait (forever I suspect).
What he admires is Trump's character in fighting for his goals and standing up to vicious, dishonest attacks from all segments of the culture. If you don't see this as heroic, I think you are morally blind.
First time for me
This is a softball and sycophantic interview, Peikoff is brilliant as always and deserves tougher questions, am surprised to see Valiant so soft on him after all his expressions of disgust towards Trump
"am surprised to see Valiant so soft on him after all his expressions of disgust towards Trump"
But WHY are you surprised? The purpose of the exercise here is a comparison between Trump and Harris, not a focus on Trump alone. As they both note with Nixon, one can think a person is horrible and yet still rationally promote him over the alternative.
@@bleigh3369You don't need to counter signal Trump, stop sucking up to Democrats
Don't drink the Yaron Brook commune socialist Kool aid
@@evanwoodham6296 *"You don't need to counter signal Trump, stop sucking up to Democrats."*
One wonders why evan here is psychologizing - ie attacking - Mr. Valiant and Dr. Peikoff in such a viIe manner.
Peikoff isn't running for office.
Thank you for a refreshing point of view.
Thanks you again, James, for this interview. I would like you to ask Leonard Peikoff what he thinks about Trump wanting to deport all of the "illegal" immigrants. Even though I doubt he would be able to do it unilaterally without Congress, the fact that he wants to do it is a terrible threat to individual rights.
Good reason to vote for Trump
Non citizens have "natural" rights. Universal rights that are individual to every human being. BUT those individual citizens have to "secure" those rights, as the declaration says, "to secure these rights, governments are instituted..."
Open borders in a legit context does NOT mean NO borders. Individual rights does NOT nulify a country of citizens, - who HAVE secured their rights via their government, - from EXCLUDING non citizens based on rational criteria. Only a misaplied support for individual rights would cause someone to believe that you have the same rights inside another country if you are not a citizen.
The context, is we don't know who you are, and are allowed to find out first before we let you in. Whereas a citizen is presumed to be aligned with his country's interest, even thought he may not be, or even any more moral that the illegal.
@@jasonk8775 All humans have inalienable individual rights. You don't need to be a citizen of America to have them. Their are but a few rights that apply to just Americans and one of them is the right to vote. The American people do not own America. They may own some land in America but they have no right to keep immigrants out of other people's property if they were invited. If I want someone to work for me or live with me or rent property from me that is my right to my life and property.
I think that immigrants should be vetted to a small degree when coming to this country from other countries steeped in crime and terror and disease, to weed out the terrorists and criminals and those infected with contagious diseases. But, what we need to worry about is our government subsidizing immigrants. That is a violation of my rights. An immigrant crossing the US border is no threat to or violation of my rights.
@@Hope-q1s Exactly
@@jasonk8775 *"from EXCLUDING non citizens based on rational criteria"*
Of course, the ONLY "rational criteria" for EXCLUDING "non citizens" from entering a country is the VIOLATION of rights (or threat thereof). ANYTHING else is an ir rational criteria (aka a VIOLATION of the individual's [ie citizen or non-citizen's] rights to his OWN life and his OWN effort).
Why not discuss the most salient issue - Trump trying to get his vice president to violate his constitutional duty to certify the election? Trying to illegally overturn the results of an election is much more important than any of the things discussed.
Absolute deluded garbage, showing you are completely out of touch with reality.
Conspiracy theory
@@conveyor2 There is no theorizing here, this is literally what happened.
@@conveyor2 Would you like to elaborate on what is a "conspiracy theory"?
Trump has stated publicly numerous times that he wanted Pence to not certify and send things back to the states, and Pence has also stated that was what Trump wanted him to do.
Are you saying it would be illegal for the vice president to not rubber stamp an election even if he believes it to be fraudulent?
Objectivism starts with Mrs. Rand, and ends with Mr. Peikoff, sadly.
Do you know Charles Tew (on YT)?
The biggest Ayn Rand related channel that states the obvious- TDS is real! One of the reasons this objectivist channel is as great as it is.
Not many contributors on this channel say anything positive about Trump but a decent amount of their criticism is valid.
@@llharrison77 I agree. Other than Hoenig they don't get overly emotional about Trump.
@@llharrison77they arent also that much pro-israel in this channel if you look deeper.
Google Ayn Rand Institute it might be bigger idk
@BitcoinMeister what's wrong with getting emotional? If your emotions are calibrated to your values, i don't see the issue of being passionate about a serious issue.
If you mean irrational, that's entirely different.
Trump didn't lock people down in their homes or close down businesses, that was left up to the states. Some states were better and some were worse. One thing you can say Trump failed to do was to prohibit the states from trampling on citizen's rights. For the record, I voted Trump in 2016, 2020, and 2024. I hope very much that he wins again (which in my opinion would be the 3rd time in a row.)
there is also the channel of the american ayn rand institute. may be better than this one.
Not any more. The ARI is fully obleftivist.
@@conveyor2oh whatever 🙄
@@soupycask they do lean left.
I thought the same idk 🤷♂️
@@YashArya01you don't understand the difference between supporting a party and weighing the dangers of each and settling on one over the other.
ARI does not "lean left."
That was a pathetic justification from a great man.
*"That was a pathetic justification from a great man"*
That was a pathetic and empty attack from NOT "a great man".
@ tú también señor.
@@geekonomist Contrary to geeko's premise here, pointing out a particular logical fallacy is NOT an attack. It is the identification of a fact of reality - which is the OPPOSITE of what geeko did.
Of course, given his EMPTY attack on Dr. P's argument, it is not a surprise that geeko doesn't understand the difference. Logic, let alone reason, is NOT his standard.
One thanks geeko for proving that fact here.
@ I provided as many facts as he did which is none. Whatever you say about me applies to him. Thanks
@@geekonomist *"I provided as many facts as he did which is none"*
Contrary to your anti-reality, anti-objectivity WISH here, the fact that you DISAGREE with Leonard's arguments and the facts he presented to support them does NOT make those arguments and facts magically DlSAPPEAR.
But thanks for identifying the fact your purpose here is NOT rationality or honesty about anyone's ideas. Instead your SOLE purpose here is to ABUSE.
I appreciate your assistance in helping make that fact clear for all to see. That certainly achieves MY purpose here.
Good bye.
Peikoff has lost his mind
I hate to think or say such a thing because I have so much respect for Peikoff. But I can't wrap my head around his view on Trump. It would be one thing if he just hated Kamala so much that he felt it was necessary to vote for Trump, but it seems like he actively defends and likes the guy. I don't get it.
@@rationalcapitalisthe hasn't lost his mind, he's presented his reasons more honestly and clearly here and in his article than anyone from ARI.
Keep your pathetic ad hominems to yourself. Some Objectivist you are.
@@YashArya01i hate to say it, because i really want Trump to win, but Dr. Peikoff actively omitted stuff, or is ignorant about Trump. Which ever it is, it's really bad. I also think calling the woke left "communists" is giving them the benefit of doubt. I think the woke left has more in common with the egalitarian movement of Pol Pot.
@AkiraFelix-k2l did you learn that from Nikos?
Peikoff liking Trump… didn’t see that coming. 🤔
Oh, I did. He voted for Trump in 2020.
This all seems crazy. I remember on Leonard's own show he'd have Yaron Brook on to handle all the political questions. I personally like Yaron's stance on these issues way more. I know what I see when I see Trump and it isn't a patriot/defender of liberty.
@@johngleue "I personally like Yaron's stance on these issues way more."
In regard to the question of whom one should vote for in the upcoming election, what is Yaron's stance on this question? And if he has not provided one, then you can not say Yaron's stance is "way" better on the issue.
@bleigh3369 He said he understands certain viewpoints that would lead people to vote for Trump. The same is true with Harris. It's the lesser of two evils argument. But he thinks people who positively support either candidate without acknowledgment that both options are horrible are evading reality.
So, his stance on voting in this election is to either hold your nose and vote or abstain from voting entirely and demand that both parties do better.
@@johngleue Actually, quite 'coincidentally', the day after LP's post here, Yaron dedicated a whole show against Trump ie why he rejects voting for Trump (note, he did not offer a comparison on points between Trump and Harris when it comes to the principles he complains about, but only his reasons for hating on Trump).
Harris is going to be horrible, but that's no justification for endorsing Trump. The amount of evasion regarding what Trump has done that Dr. Peikoff is engaging in is stunning. Considering just the tax cuts that Trump touts: the economics behind this will wreck the economy. What we need more than tax cuts is spending cuts. Better to just say that we have two bad choices and to not vote, except in down-ticket elections and issue.
*"The amount of evasion regarding what Trump has done that Dr. Peikoff is engaging in is stunning."*
The amount of psychologizing against the man who explicitly identifies himself as an "Anti-Trumpite" is stunning.
*"Better to just say that we have two bad choices and to not vote"*
That presumes the outcome would be the same regardless of whom one votes for - and BOTH Leonard AND Yaron agree that is not the case.
This was amazing! Sadly Yaron does not look very good after this one. Ouch!
Everyone applying objective principles doesn’t mean they always reach the same conclusion.
Yaron gives a much better argument against Trump than Peikoff gives for him.
@ Ayn Rand once remarked to Dr Peikoff that he had a little too much of the moral and Greenspan has a little too much of the practical. Dr Peikoff seems to have addressed this deficit. Trump is the practical choice, not the moral one. In the recent election in Britain I voted Conservative for the same reason, that the horror of a Labour government needed to be resisted, even if I preferred not to vote Conservative, they had the best chance of beating Labour.
@@euler010 absolutely
Yaron has TDS.
Well Leonard, you got your wish, The Thug will be president again.
This is sad to see. Peikoff is retired from philosophy and intellectual life. It is clear from this interview and his recent essay that he isn't deeply informed on these kinds of issues any longer. It would be out of respect for what he has done to let him remain a private individual enjoying his retirement. It is disgusting to see him used in this way.
I have not and do not support The Ayn Rand Centre UK or anyone associated with it. I do not think it should be allowed to exist.
Are you able to say more?
I've heard criticism about ARCUK from various quarters but I'd like to know more about why you don't support it, if you're able to share.
*"It is clear from this interview...that he isn't deeply informed on these kinds of issues any longer."*
That he comes to conclusions you don't agree with is not evidence - let alone "clear" proof - that he is not "informed" about the "issue".
'It is disgusting to see him at tacked in this way'.
*"his recent essay"*
Presumably you are referencing his "Anti-Trumpites for Trump" essay. Again, what arguments does Dr. P present which you declare are evidence for your accusation that he is not "informed" about the "issues" here? (And, again, note that your dislike of his conclusions does not qualify as such evidence.)