She was wonderful intellectual person Her argument was neutral and just reflecting truth I'm conservative but she is right about religion must not interfere with politics Thank you very much God bless
@@keithwilson6060 because that I believe state must be secular Jesus had answered your question in this line , "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Most of religion is about morality and is not about how to run state As some one that lives in socialist dictatorship country I believe God can be very important I remember an government mercenary ones said that "morality and God is created by human because that human can change it so killing and subject others is moral for me and if you don't accept my believes I must kill you" When morality is human made it can change by humans but if it's from God it's can't and must be universal Saying I'm conservative is big risk for my life but I believe it Dostoevsky said "If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth and that in reality the truth were outside of Christ, then I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth." Some day you will understand me but it's late
@@keithwilson6060 'Thou Shalt not Kill' is NOT a religious idea, it is an idea inherent to human nature and society the world over no matter their religion and is equaly violated by the religious and non-religious. It is human nature codified into a book. Its like saying 'The sky is blue, because Shakespere said so' just because he wrote it first.
So then socialism - communism should not exert power over religion in their countries, but don't they? The problem is not in the civil governments, it is that man is corrupt by nature, a sinner. Matters not what Ayn Rand said about it, universal for all.
+Jack London Yes, but anyone who associates her with the GOP of today is a fool. Yes, I know some members of the tea party claim to be inspired by her, but it's kind of like how the nazis claimed to be inspired by Niche. In both cases a dogmatic group latches onto the ideas of a greater intellect because they recognise SOME of the intellect's positions.
Russell Kirk was always more influential than Rand on the GOP. Rand delivered most of her major speeches throughout her entire career at Liberal universities. The time where Ayn Rand was most aligned with the GOP was during the Goldwater campaign, but in general it's very much of a stretch to call Rand a philosopher of the GOP. Ayn Rand is the philosopher of radical capitalism, and she only aligned herself with the GOP when they fell in line with it.
They're sure quick to glom on to her memory when they want... conveniently leaving out stuff like this. Of course, on the "other" side, it's assumed that "conservative" rhetoric reflects Ayn's philosophy. I wonder how many of them have actually read and understood her work. (rhetorical question, most will lie anyway)
None, I speak to "friends" about her philosophy and all they can do is quote Atlas Shrugged, that's it and they base their understanding of her philosophy from 1 book!
@@balloakz9857 Please tell me more about her philosophy. I didn't even read Atlas Shrugged but I watched and loved all 3 episodes of the movie. I'm not a troll, I seriously want to know. Thank you
@@josephblow6654 Loads on here, first learn about objectivism and understand what she means about being selfish, then listen to Milton Friedman and appreciate what true capitalism is, no one born post WW2 has lived in a true free market, then listen to her take on it. Free your mind.....
60 years later, Ayn Rand _still_ understands the aesthetics of liberty and capitalism better than most conservatives. The only modern conservative I can think of who has the same ability to sell capitalism as bold, shiny, and cool is Bill Whittle.
When she said self-esteem, my heart dropped into my stomach. For it is the very thing that I lack, and thus I realize that I am useless in any conflict to defend that which is right.
Was Rand referring to the Trotskyist NeoCons? I think she meant a new type of Conservative Capitalist who originated as free an economic system as was possible. Conservatives never make the arguments Rand lays out today but try to offer a little less Socialism. Just because the slave owner gives you an extra foot of chain, it doesn't make him a good guy...
@@Stuber9077 Good question. The neocons of her middle years were not quite the soulless automatons we have today. She would be doubly horrified. I wonder when exactly this recording was done. Either she stole JFK's dignified and confident reading and talking style, or he stole hers.
I love her speech. It's like she is reading an audiobook.Very rational and well thought words and sentences, building an intelligible block of information.
Eff Emm Dee :)! LibertyPen put together this playlist of his/her Ayn Rand uploads- I just click on it as I crawl into bed and let her sheer brilliance rock me to sleep! I bet you'll love it: Ayn Rand - Altruism and Capitalism Warmest Regards to You and Yours!
I do the same. Plus various lectures from the AYI. Why? Because it's the one quiet space I get where I'm certain that as I drift off to sleep I will only hear a voice of reason. That I will finally not have to listen to a contradiction and the comfort that there are other people out there who do not choose to perish, but to think and value self-esteem because they understand what that means. I do not personally know a single human being to speak to that holds these values, and if I didn't know I'm right I would have been driven to madness. The good news is that very very slowly, some of my own immovable convictions are getting through in small portions. I have been very aware of the small ongoing increase in people who have come back to me and finally begun to say actually such and such makes sense. Often the same people that had previously shouted and attacked me for my certainty. I made it clear that I absolutely refuse to defend Objectivism, but am very happy to explain it to anyone that sincerely wants to know. And I am as kind as I can be when I reveal their own contradictions and their lives heavily invested often unknowingly in mystic principles.
JP believe in faith and religion. JP said people are weak. Ayn rand said people need to choose and cannot avoid their duty to choose. Choose right and you earn it, choose wrong and... well, you earn that too.
I view my political views as conservative and I view myself as a modern American conservative but I agree with much of what Rand said. The best way to defend capitalism is with logic and rationality like by mentioning its effects in America's history like promoting entrepreneurship, innovation, and skilled labor or how it created the middle class. I always defended capitalism not because of tradition but because it helps the most people by creating greater opportunities for a better life.
No one was a more impassioned detractor of communism. With each word she speaks, one can almost feel Ayn Rand's fervent contempt for the nefarious ideology.
I feel a very similar way about conservatives who argue on the grounds of religion, or just a regect the idea of change. This are not the arguments to be had, we must argue on what capitalism actually proposed, and must importantly understanding HOW it helps men (and women), on the basis of liberty and self value
Elective Abortion 'debate' in the USA is a prime example of how leaning on religion can destroy an entire moral societal issue. There are very RATIONAL arguments against elective abortion in society but they get no air because of all of the religious deferments to the point that even making rational arguments you will get the yoke of religious zealot thrown on you and no one will even combat your rational arguments, but go straight to rebutting religious ones you never made.
right and wrong is your own moral compass and gov't and the world will not change that. where is the respect for the tollorance to be allowed to feel your own moral compass?
No, that is not the argument, the argument must be on what Capitalism actually ACHIEVES compared with all other systems such as Communism or Socialism and the fact that only in a totally free society can REAL CAPITALISM exist!
Faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Therefore when one accepts something by faith, it dose NOT mean he has given up all reason about other things. Politics is better left to reason. Love is better left to faith. Charlie
She might as well have given this speech today. I did not arrive at my libertarianism via Randian objectivism (I'm a Friedmanite), but this video raised my opinion of Rand tremendously.
Older videos like this make me wonder if anything we deal with today is at all unique, or if it has ALWAYS been the same arguments being made for the past 100 years with both sides just yelling into a vacuum. IF that is the case, history is only decided in favor of the side who will take the most direct action irrespective of the voices yelling in protest...and that is a troubling thought.
@rizziriz The founders of America were men of faith, and utilized the morality taught to them by faith as justification for the establishment of our constitution. Their faith coincided with their reason as men of intellect. Rand is wrong to disavow this in her argument. Also, I know not one conservative that concedes in the rationality of communism or socialism.
@fzqlcs So the founders were wrong to be influenced by their faith in drafting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? This would make them unreasonable in your view.
@fzqlcs I clearly understand the difference between faith and reason. My point was, when it comes to morality, by Rand's justification you should be good to your fellow man because of reason. How does that differ from faith, or religion telling you to not infringe upon the individual rights of your fellow man? In this respect, they are no different. She dismisses faith as being an unacceptable justification for morality for reasons I don't understand.
Excellent, as always. Lucid and clear as a bell on the kind of thorny issues that catch others up in contradictions. Not Ayn Rand. What an amazingly prescient and brilliant woman. Like her in person even better than in her books.
I agree with what you're saying, as epistemology is about KNOWING beyond a reasonable doubt and the facts supporting that, as opposed to the worship & self justifications for beliefs. Personally, I've never understood the worship, the veneration of personal beliefs. I find it quite weak-minded...to make up something and then to intellectually subscribe to it. It's a form of "buying in" to ones own counterfeit money.
Steagall was repealed in 1999. The problem with the Glass Steagall repeal being the fall guy is that it had been ignored by regulators for years. Bill Clinton signed its repeal said it was no longer useful. The regulators were giving out exemptions and banks already were able to invest in securities. Bill Clinton also argued that the ability of commercial banking firms to acquire securities firms(and of securities firms to convert into bank holding companies) helped mitigate the financial crisis
Great video as always, @LibertyPen has been a great inspiration to my own channel. Some really great common sense intellectual content, not click-bait nonsense.
I don't wish to get too specific about my biz. but I will say this. Because of the ACA regulations we will likely not be able to provide health plans in the future. "There is something like 180 million words of binding federal law and regulation. It would take a lifetime just to read it," said Philip K Howard, founder of Common Good. As my biz goes, nearly the entire DOT book applies as does the OSHA book. Complying costs money and time and taxes my ability to focus on growth. I grow in spite
@SylvanSage - Ayn Rand would consider the presumption that self-interest is *depraved* as wrong by 180 degrees, since the Objectivist ethics is based on egoism, i.e. rational self-interest. One can read the essay, "The Objectivist Ethics" to get an introduction to what she means by egoism and rational self-interest. It's available for free on the Ayn Rand Institute website, and appears in print as part of *The Virtue of Selfishness" a collection of essays.
I don't mean to post such a silly comment, but I loved how she said "semantic pretzel." I'll take one semantic pretzel.. hold the grain of salt, please. Ayn Rand is my hero!
American exceptionalism did come from capitalism and freedom, but the traditional social structure was developed over centuries and can't just replaced forcibly by a new one and expect it to turn out alright. If they didn't sellout to conservatives then America might be like Turkey where all the parties are socialist, right and left.
You are right. This is especially true when the change is in something very fundamental rather than a mere overt, superficial change. Such a revolution is prone to lead to either total anarchy and then monarchy as like the French Revolution or anarchy and then totalitarian, communist government as like Russian one. What happened with America is that the principles of capitalism were well imbibed on their minds since the times of British mercantilism. Hence, it was comparatively easy foe them to form amd then to digest the concept of a constitutional republic.
This is, Surely, the Most Perfect Video to explain why Just because you are Very Pro-American, Very Pro-Capitalism, Very Pro-Individualism, and Anti-left / liberal, it still, STILL does not at All mean that you are a Republican / Conservative or especially right-winger. Ayn was so ahead of her time, warning about fears of losing Capitalism Freaking 75 Years Ago!! But Wow. What a video to show all my friends who want to peg me for being a Republican when I’ve never Once voted R.
I don't know of a name for this fallacy, if a man is called a hypocrite because he uses force against another who was trying to destroy him and saw it morally justifiable, it is not truly the case, right? The man wasn't thinking killing was inherently wrong, he was criticizing the intent to kill, yes, but it was because the attacker had initiated violence.
you say " All they want is for you to obey the law" I agree. the problem is the arbitrary nature of many laws. Laws are neither good nor evil. Why do you assume a regulation or a law is a good thing? are you so narrow that you cannot fathom that many a law is intended to give an advantage to one company or person over another? This is not the proper natural selection of the free market working in industry but the arbitrary hand of politicians paid by one company to pass laws to get an edge.
@bluefootedpig either you got busy, or realized that you take it on faith that the earth goes around the sun, unless you prove it to yourself. You trust what you read in a book, without asking for proof, yet condemn the writings of a different book, requiring proof. So your world is just as much faith as the next person.
The flipside to Rand's last point is that Liberals see humans as perfect beings who are corrupted by individuallism, greed, Capitalism, etc. Therefore, eliminating these things will bring about utopia for the human race. Ironically, I don't see a way of escaping this argument unless you concede that human beings are imperfect. That is not to say they are sinful, but rather that they make mistakes. Rand afterall did say that rational thought is not automatic - this would imply imperfection imo.
@fzqlcs I agree with that generally. I'm not so sure about the conclusion that human advancement is not nor has ever been the result of faith. That's true if you mean faith in and of itself. Faith is by itself useless unless applied to the real world by reasonable men in a productive way. I just don't buy into the premise that people of faith are unreasonable. I just think Rand, in this instance, has created a straw man.
Funny that you said that, because Ayn Rand herself would have decline being a leader of a country if she was offered the position. On Phil Donahue show, Ayn Rand publicly declared that is a woman ran for President of the United States, she personally would not vote for her. She said the effect, "How can a woman be the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Army?" I think she is right, because woman's nature are more sensitively and emotionally inclined than men's nature.
@bobdole57 No I'm just trying to say I'm open to whatever brings us prosperity whether that's capitalism or some form of it. Just stating a fact; communism has been condemned by the Catholic Church since forever. I've closed the door on that option.
You are asking questions. Legit ones too! Thank you The key regulations that led to the housing market collapse were set long before they were enforced. namely the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691;and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619. Once Citibank was sued and settled out of court on the grounds of racism and unjust denial of mortgages the final act was opened. Banks had to give bad loans but were encouraged to dump them on fannie and Freddie. carrot meet stick.
I'm a fan of Friedman as well. Personally, I don't care for Rand's fiction, but I suspect that as a libertarian you would greatly enjoy her book The Virtue of Selfishness, (but be sure to read the introduction first. That's where she explains that by 'selfishness', she's not talking about egoTism, or exploitation, but rather egoism, a recognition that ones values are a value to oneself).
Old school conservatives like Hayek and Buckley were sceptical of "reason" because they feared the belief in perfect rationality could lead to an unlimited government and all kind of social-engineering and experiments - like communism. They defended Christianity out of their desire to restrain political power, not because they wanted to substitute reason with "faith". I am a big fan of Rand however I just can't agree with her take on religion and atheism.
She was right. Why that is that people do not follow this advice? It is put forward in a form of a rational argument. Most people are chose to never venture beyond sentiment and emotionalism in their ways of apprehending the world.
Or think of a school teacher who sends a student to the Principal for shouting "I don't like you!" in the middle of her lecture, we both know the teacher sent the student for interrupting her job, rather than because of the student's statement. She sent the student for speaking, but the context there is necessary.
Perhaps the reason why capitalism and conservatism coincide with reason is because faith's teaching of moral principle is rational. She refers to it as mysticism as a way of diminishing it's impact on society. Why reason and faith have to be mutually exclusive in this respect is, itself an irrational argument.
It does matter, a government provides oversight over the courts, the police, and the military for the responsibility of upholding order, or retaliation to force. A business cares for its own needs without the use of force, were government to gain control of the economy, the country itself would be run on force, and government's purpose of retaliation to force would be contradicted. The two systems literally couldn't be farther apart.
@rizziriz Capitalism has always held the moral high ground, but not for the reasons of faith. It's true that our opposition detests religion, and when we associate arguments for capitalism with "mysticism," It gives our opponents strength and a stronger conviction. One of the reasons I use to be a communist, was because the right excluded my "rational" arguments, because of my lack of faith. I think Rand has a good point.
I'm catholic and conservative. I care for the prosperity of people and voluntary giving. I don't care if it's capitalism or some form of it. But socialism and communism is fundamentally opposed to my religious beliefs.
She was correct to say that today's Corporate Communism is not a free market system, but one has the lingering doubt that capitalism always degenerates into this, just as Communism doesn't work and always leads to totalitarian horror. How do we solve this? Ask Jeeves.
Some days - it’s best to start your morning with strong black coffee, dry toast and Ayn Rand roasting fake conservatives (Mike Pence - looking at you).
@rizziriz Faith and reason are mutually exclusive for this reason: Faith = a belief in that for which their is no evidence. Reason = a belief based on evidence. If one puts faith above reason, reason no longer exists for them in any real sense.
Fortunately for the US we have a president who doesn't use stealth and make apologies for loving the US, the rule of law, sovereign borders, the life of the unborn, and less government regulations, AND HE'S VILIFIED EVERY DAY BECAUSE OF IT!!!
Since when is self interest "Human depravity"? That's the sort of false idea Rand fought to dispel, the idea that we need to engage in self-immolation before we can be moral actors. It's VIRTUOUS to engage in volitional trade with other free people and each gain profit from the trade. Profit seeking is perfectly humane and psychologically healthy. And indeed, if profit is ones motive, then honest trade is more profitable in the big scheme of things than corruption.
Akatam0t0ma you mean Catholicism and Islam. My religion is that I don't want to rule anybody but me. So not all religion brother. Just Catholicism and Islam... Oh yeah don't forget all the Eastern religions also
The problem seems to be, that we don't want to take the time to argue with liberals. We do not see liberals as worth our time. We need to take the time and talk to them, reason with them. They may or may not see reason, but it is up to us to try to show them the way.
@fzqlcs Conservatives do concede to communism or socialism. When one associates religion with a political system, that system begins to erode as society "progresses" in ideas and freedom. I think that's what she was pointing out. Every system that based itself on religious doctrine has almost been destroyed since the Age of Enlightenment. Therefor, basing capitalism, or the American economic system on faith for morality is self defeating.
"The service sector is relatively free of regulation. " Your simply incorrect. The regs are often ignored. but they are legally binding. the larger your company gets the more you have to pay attention to them. Have started a biz 2x. You may not believe that I have started a biz. But my competitors are damn well aware of it. stop deflecting and tell me. If entire buildings full of books containing regs aren't enough regs. How many regs will it take before you think we have enough?
It stings to hear my hero speak of conservatism in that way but she has described today's establishment Republicans with an eerie accuracy. The Tea Party conservatives are closer to Ayn Rand's views and represent generally what I think conservatism should be about. Perhaps, in the fullness of time, objectivism and conservatism will find more common ground as additional establishment Republicans are voted out of office and replaced by Tea Party conservatives.
I don't understand her last argument of depravity. The reason we don't have dictatorships and authoritarian governments is because having 1 (or only a couple of people) in control is leads to the corruption and immoral acts of leaders. The reason we don't have top totalitarian governments, which are the most effective because of their ability to skip the hassle of democratic work and rules, is because humans are depraved of morality and intelligence (most are either willfully or unwillfully ignorant). America was built on the ideas of separation of powers and the idea that having one person in power is disastrous to the freedoms and liberties of a country. I don't understand that, and she seems to, on multiple occasions, attack the idea of politicians and leaders hungry for power, making her a hypocrite. If anyone can explain to me what she means I would really appreciate it.
It is because humans ARE able to choose to use their intelligence and because humans ARE able to follow rational values which are the basis of the morality of laissez-faire capitalism (pure, with no state meddling in individuals' voluntary economic transactions). Her specific argument on this part of the video is that some conservatives do not believe humans able to be rational beings, but believe humans to be corrupt and unworthy, they (these conservatives) rule out the possibility of an unworthy man ruling over others, leading to freedom, in effect, by default. Freedom is the natural state of humans because they are thinking beings and can only survive using the power of their minds free to act, free of coercion from others or the government (and the consequent protection of individuals from the Government in the Constitution).
Dictatorship and freedom are not antithetical. Heck, the word "dictator" came from the Roman republic, it was a temporary office created to solve some pressing issue, ie. win a current war, or fix some problem plaguing the republic.
Friedman along with several other Chicago economists got to play out their economic philosophies with Chile after the US backed coup took out the democratically elected leader. The initial profits for the wealthy in Chile skyrocketed, however this was at the expense of the once growing strong middle class and in under 2 decades the country was in a rapid state of de-industrialization and increasing unemployment and poverty. My assumption is you're ignorant because history is against Friedman.
@rizziriz As she states in this video, she believes religion is a personal matter. Her primary objection is when faith is placed above reason as a rationale for action in the political arena. In this case, the matter of selling one's fellow man on the merits of capitalism, it provides a rather poor justification when logic and reason is readily available. This her point. Don't let her atheism put you off from the brilliance of her insight.
Well, if you are told something with little to no evidence, and not only believe it, but base your lifes actions on it, you are acting on faith, especially if there is more evidence to support that what you have been told is false, if you are told something with little to no evidence, and you logically conclude, based on the evidence presented for and against, that what you have been told is a lie, you are acting on reason. Thus making faith and reason sepearate. You could be a reasonable man with faith, but in their purest forms, faith and reason are separate.
@@lunasa4387 Interesting. "little or no evidence" is a huge assumption. I'd take the opposite few that there is serious and critical evidence. Aristotle teaches, “The greatest offense against reason is to use reason against reason.”
@islamiscrap8888 Funny you say that, she was once asked wether she would vote for a female candidate for president that also happened to be the best qualified for the job, and she said no, because she can't see women as leaders.
She was wonderful intellectual person
Her argument was neutral and just reflecting truth
I'm conservative but she is right about religion must not interfere with politics
Thank you very much
God bless
‘Thou shalt not kill’ is a religious idea. So, should the state abolish all murder statutes?
@@keithwilson6060 because that I believe state must be secular
Jesus had answered your question in this line , "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
Most of religion is about morality and is not about how to run state
As some one that lives in socialist dictatorship country I believe God can be very important
I remember an government mercenary ones said that "morality and God is created by human because that human can change it so killing and subject others is moral for me and if you don't accept my believes I must kill you"
When morality is human made it can change by humans but if it's from God it's can't and must be universal
Saying I'm conservative is big risk for my life but I believe it
Dostoevsky said "If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth and that in reality the truth were outside of Christ, then I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth."
Some day you will understand me but it's late
@@keithwilson6060 'Thou Shalt not Kill' is NOT a religious idea, it is an idea inherent to human nature and society the world over no matter their religion and is equaly violated by the religious and non-religious. It is human nature codified into a book. Its like saying 'The sky is blue, because Shakespere said so' just because he wrote it first.
And here in india religion and politics sleep together
So then socialism - communism should not exert power over religion in their countries, but don't they? The problem is not in the civil governments, it is that man is corrupt by nature, a sinner. Matters not what Ayn Rand said about it, universal for all.
Anyone who says Ayn Rand is the Philosopher of the GOP, demonstrates their ignorance of both her and them.
+Barry Gormley she WAS the philosopher of the GOP and conservatism before the religious element came in with Reagan.
+Jack London Yes, but anyone who associates her with the GOP of today is a fool. Yes, I know some members of the tea party claim to be inspired by her, but it's kind of like how the nazis claimed to be inspired by Niche. In both cases a dogmatic group latches onto the ideas of a greater intellect because they recognise SOME of the intellect's positions.
Not Reagan, William F. Buckley Jr
Russell Kirk was always more influential than Rand on the GOP. Rand delivered most of her major speeches throughout her entire career at Liberal universities. The time where Ayn Rand was most aligned with the GOP was during the Goldwater campaign, but in general it's very much of a stretch to call Rand a philosopher of the GOP.
Ayn Rand is the philosopher of radical capitalism, and she only aligned herself with the GOP when they fell in line with it.
+Jevioso Orishas Bingo
Great thinkers like Ayn Rand have an immortal life with their ideas floating around the world
They're sure quick to glom on to her memory when they want... conveniently leaving out stuff like this. Of course, on the "other" side, it's assumed that "conservative" rhetoric reflects Ayn's philosophy. I wonder how many of them have actually read and understood her work. (rhetorical question, most will lie anyway)
None, I speak to "friends" about her philosophy and all they can do is quote Atlas Shrugged, that's it and they base their understanding of her philosophy from 1 book!
@@balloakz9857 Please tell me more about her philosophy. I didn't even read Atlas Shrugged but I watched and loved all 3 episodes of the movie. I'm not a troll, I seriously want to know. Thank you
@@josephblow6654 Loads on here, first learn about objectivism and understand what she means about being selfish, then listen to Milton Friedman and appreciate what true capitalism is, no one born post WW2 has lived in a true free market, then listen to her take on it. Free your mind.....
Ofc you don't use 100% of someone's ideas.
60 years later, Ayn Rand _still_ understands the aesthetics of liberty and capitalism better than most conservatives. The only modern conservative I can think of who has the same ability to sell capitalism as bold, shiny, and cool is Bill Whittle.
Nah
When she said self-esteem, my heart dropped into my stomach. For it is the very thing that I lack, and thus I realize that I am useless in any conflict to defend that which is right.
This is important now as never before
Interesting. The expression "neoconservative" is older than I thought.
The Tories of 1776 were conservatives, but traitors to the American colonies.
@@RodMartinJr True. Conservatism and liberalism are constantly changing as politics shift.
@@flintfredstone228 Neo Conservatism roots were founded by Prof Leo Strauss in the 1930's
Was Rand referring to the Trotskyist NeoCons? I think she meant a new type of Conservative Capitalist who originated as free an economic system as was possible.
Conservatives never make the arguments Rand lays out today but try to offer a little less Socialism.
Just because the slave owner gives you an extra foot of chain, it doesn't make him a good guy...
@@Stuber9077 Good question. The neocons of her middle years were not quite the soulless automatons we have today. She would be doubly horrified. I wonder when exactly this recording was done. Either she stole JFK's dignified and confident reading and talking style, or he stole hers.
Fantastic. I wish she were here today.
Me too! What a mind she has! I LOVE HER! :)
She is.. in her works
I love her speech. It's like she is reading an audiobook.Very rational and well thought words and sentences, building an intelligible block of information.
What a woman! What a mind! She just hits every point, so eloquently, so precisely... I love her so much! :)
She was a genius. :)
Eff Emm Dee :)!
LibertyPen put together this playlist of his/her Ayn Rand uploads- I just click on it as I crawl into bed and let her sheer brilliance rock me to sleep!
I bet you'll love it:
Ayn Rand - Altruism and Capitalism
Warmest Regards to You and Yours!
***** Thanks, I've been meaning to give here a devoted playlist on my own too, outside of my free market economics playlist.
Eff Emm Dee
Most excellent- looking forward to it! Have a great weekend-
I do the same. Plus various lectures from the AYI.
Why? Because it's the one quiet space I get where I'm certain that as I drift off to sleep I will only hear a voice of reason. That I will finally not have to listen to a contradiction and the comfort that there are other people out there who do not choose to perish, but to think and value self-esteem because they understand what that means.
I do not personally know a single human being to speak to that holds these values, and if I didn't know I'm right I would have been driven to madness.
The good news is that very very slowly, some of my own immovable convictions are getting through in small portions. I have been very aware of the small ongoing increase in people who have come back to me and finally begun to say actually such and such makes sense.
Often the same people that had previously shouted and attacked me for my certainty.
I made it clear that I absolutely refuse to defend Objectivism, but am very happy to explain it to anyone that sincerely wants to know. And I am as kind as I can be when I reveal their own contradictions and their lives heavily invested often unknowingly in mystic principles.
4:54 Jordan Peterson followers: *sweating nervously*
? JP tells men (and people in general) that they're worth and capable to stand for themselves...
JP believe in faith and religion. JP said people are weak.
Ayn rand said people need to choose and cannot avoid their duty to choose. Choose right and you earn it, choose wrong and... well, you earn that too.
You forgot the dictatorship of mob
She was a rare genius.
Lmao, just a lunatic.
Ryan Bronson
It's ok. There are plenty of places for idiots like you in a free society.
Yes, she is, within her field of expertise, but completely the opposite when it comes to things in which she doesn't believe.
Rand was honest to herself, and her values.She was subjected. as a young child to the Bolsheviks; and, knew free will has to with one's choice.
Right or wrong, She was a woman with a very strong and unique personality. Her character was solid I will give her that.
I view my political views as conservative and I view myself as a modern American conservative but I agree with much of what Rand said. The best way to defend capitalism is with logic and rationality like by mentioning its effects in America's history like promoting entrepreneurship, innovation, and skilled labor or how it created the middle class. I always defended capitalism not because of tradition but because it helps the most people by creating greater opportunities for a better life.
Rand's argument is not an argument against religion, but rather using faith-based arguments to justify capitalism; capitalism is not theology.
No one was a more impassioned detractor of communism. With each word she speaks, one can almost feel Ayn Rand's fervent contempt for the nefarious ideology.
I feel a very similar way about conservatives who argue on the grounds of religion, or just a regect the idea of change. This are not the arguments to be had, we must argue on what capitalism actually proposed, and must importantly understanding HOW it helps men (and women), on the basis of liberty and self value
Elective Abortion 'debate' in the USA is a prime example of how leaning on religion can destroy an entire moral societal issue. There are very RATIONAL arguments against elective abortion in society but they get no air because of all of the religious deferments to the point that even making rational arguments you will get the yoke of religious zealot thrown on you and no one will even combat your rational arguments, but go straight to rebutting religious ones you never made.
Fortus Victus exactly.
right and wrong is your own moral compass and gov't and the world will not change that.
where is the respect for the tollorance to be allowed to feel your own moral compass?
No, that is not the argument, the argument must be on what Capitalism actually ACHIEVES compared with all other systems such as Communism or Socialism and the fact that only in a totally free society can REAL CAPITALISM exist!
Faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Therefore when one accepts something by faith, it dose NOT mean he has given up all reason about other things. Politics is better left to reason. Love is better left to faith.
Charlie
Nicely said.
again, they took her money forcibly with social security taxes. all she did was get a fraction of it back.
She might as well have given this speech today. I did not arrive at my libertarianism via Randian objectivism (I'm a Friedmanite), but this video raised my opinion of Rand tremendously.
Older videos like this make me wonder if anything we deal with today is at all unique, or if it has ALWAYS been the same arguments being made for the past 100 years with both sides just yelling into a vacuum. IF that is the case, history is only decided in favor of the side who will take the most direct action irrespective of the voices yelling in protest...and that is a troubling thought.
@rizziriz The founders of America were men of faith, and utilized the morality taught to them by faith as justification for the establishment of our constitution. Their faith coincided with their reason as men of intellect. Rand is wrong to disavow this in her argument. Also, I know not one conservative that concedes in the rationality of communism or socialism.
Holy Freakin' Crap YES!!!
She just hits every point, so eloquently, so precisely... I love her so much! :)
Both Rand and Friedman speak immortal truths. And I daresay that everything Friedman declares coincides with Rand's teaching perfectly well.
@fzqlcs So the founders were wrong to be influenced by their faith in drafting the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? This would make them unreasonable in your view.
@fzqlcs I clearly understand the difference between faith and reason. My point was, when it comes to morality, by Rand's justification you should be good to your fellow man because of reason. How does that differ from faith, or religion telling you to not infringe upon the individual rights of your fellow man? In this respect, they are no different. She dismisses faith as being an unacceptable justification for morality for reasons I don't understand.
Gregory Rizzi and how many religious wars are there in our history?
Excellent, as always. Lucid and clear as a bell on the kind of thorny issues that catch others up in contradictions. Not Ayn Rand. What an amazingly prescient and brilliant woman. Like her in person even better than in her books.
I agree with what you're saying, as epistemology is about KNOWING beyond a reasonable doubt and the facts supporting that, as opposed to the worship & self justifications for beliefs.
Personally, I've never understood the worship, the veneration of personal beliefs. I find it quite weak-minded...to make up something and then to intellectually subscribe to it. It's a form of "buying in" to ones own counterfeit money.
Steagall was repealed in 1999. The problem with the Glass Steagall repeal being the fall guy is that it had been ignored by regulators for years. Bill Clinton signed its repeal said it was no longer useful. The regulators were giving out exemptions and banks already were able to invest in securities. Bill Clinton also argued that the ability of commercial banking firms to acquire securities firms(and of securities firms to convert into bank holding companies) helped mitigate the financial crisis
I want a bag of semantic pretzels now
"God, these pretzels suck." - Handsome Jack
It's like salted pretzels but sand instead
Great video as always, @LibertyPen has been a great inspiration to my own channel. Some really great common sense intellectual content, not click-bait nonsense.
I love her. She articulates everything well.
I don't wish to get too specific about my biz. but I will say this. Because of the ACA regulations we will likely not be able to provide health plans in the future.
"There is something like 180 million words of binding federal law and regulation. It would take a lifetime just to read it," said Philip K Howard, founder of Common Good.
As my biz goes, nearly the entire DOT book applies as does the OSHA book. Complying costs money and time and taxes my ability to focus on growth. I grow in spite
@SylvanSage - Ayn Rand would consider the presumption that self-interest is *depraved* as wrong by 180 degrees, since the Objectivist ethics is based on egoism, i.e. rational self-interest. One can read the essay, "The Objectivist Ethics" to get an introduction to what she means by egoism and rational self-interest. It's available for free on the Ayn Rand Institute website, and appears in print as part of *The Virtue of Selfishness" a collection of essays.
4 people who dislike this video think they gain some greater knowledge over reason by merely having "faith"... or the more recently popular "hope"...
I don't mean to post such a silly comment, but I loved how she said "semantic pretzel."
I'll take one semantic pretzel.. hold the grain of salt, please. Ayn Rand is my hero!
Indeed! Fight for capitalism with full moral certainty!
American exceptionalism did come from capitalism and freedom, but the traditional social structure was developed over centuries and can't just replaced forcibly by a new one and expect it to turn out alright.
If they didn't sellout to conservatives then America might be like Turkey where all the parties are socialist, right and left.
Apparently, you didn't hear Rand's argument, about the fallacy of "Arguing from Tradition."
You are right. This is especially true when the change is in something very fundamental rather than a mere overt, superficial change. Such a revolution is prone to lead to either total anarchy and then monarchy as like the French Revolution or anarchy and then totalitarian, communist government as like Russian one. What happened with America is that the principles of capitalism were well imbibed on their minds since the times of British mercantilism. Hence, it was comparatively easy foe them to form amd then to digest the concept of a constitutional republic.
This is a great video. I didn’t realize how prescient she was ... and this was in the ‘50s? We can learn a lot from Ayn Rand.
It was 1961, address to the American Management Association
countdown to when youtube yanks this one down
This is, Surely, the Most Perfect Video to explain why Just because you are Very Pro-American, Very Pro-Capitalism, Very Pro-Individualism, and Anti-left / liberal, it still, STILL does not at All mean that you are a Republican / Conservative or especially right-winger. Ayn was so ahead of her time, warning about fears of losing Capitalism Freaking 75 Years Ago!! But Wow. What a video to show all my friends who want to peg me for being a Republican when I’ve never Once voted R.
I don't know of a name for this fallacy, if a man is called a hypocrite because he uses force against another who was trying to destroy him and saw it morally justifiable, it is not truly the case, right? The man wasn't thinking killing was inherently wrong, he was criticizing the intent to kill, yes, but it was because the attacker had initiated violence.
My favorite of Ms. Rand's many fine speeches.
you say " All they want is for you to obey the law" I agree. the problem is the arbitrary nature of many laws.
Laws are neither good nor evil. Why do you assume a regulation or a law is a good thing? are you so narrow that you cannot fathom that many a law is intended to give an advantage to one company or person over another?
This is not the proper natural selection of the free market working in industry but the arbitrary hand of politicians paid by one company to pass laws to get an edge.
@bluefootedpig either you got busy, or realized that you take it on faith that the earth goes around the sun, unless you prove it to yourself. You trust what you read in a book, without asking for proof, yet condemn the writings of a different book, requiring proof. So your world is just as much faith as the next person.
@NordenzurZukunft Depends on how you interrupt your question. If you are asking, "What year is this applicable" it would be today.
What a wonderful accent. "Nikolai, come get the samovar, babushka wants chai!"
😂
The flipside to Rand's last point is that Liberals see humans as perfect beings who are corrupted by individuallism, greed, Capitalism, etc. Therefore, eliminating these things will bring about utopia for the human race. Ironically, I don't see a way of escaping this argument unless you concede that human beings are imperfect. That is not to say they are sinful, but rather that they make mistakes. Rand afterall did say that rational thought is not automatic - this would imply imperfection imo.
@fzqlcs I agree with that generally. I'm not so sure about the conclusion that human advancement is not nor has ever been the result of faith. That's true if you mean faith in and of itself. Faith is by itself useless unless applied to the real world by reasonable men in a productive way. I just don't buy into the premise that people of faith are unreasonable. I just think Rand, in this instance, has created a straw man.
Funny that you said that, because Ayn Rand herself would have decline being a leader of a country if she was offered the position. On Phil Donahue show, Ayn Rand publicly declared that is a woman ran for President of the United States, she personally would not vote for her. She said the effect, "How can a woman be the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Army?" I think she is right, because woman's nature are more sensitively and emotionally inclined than men's nature.
@bobdole57 No I'm just trying to say I'm open to whatever brings us prosperity whether that's capitalism or some form of it. Just stating a fact; communism has been condemned by the Catholic Church since forever. I've closed the door on that option.
You are asking questions. Legit ones too! Thank you
The key regulations that led to the housing market collapse were set long before they were enforced. namely the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691;and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619.
Once Citibank was sued and settled out of court on the grounds of racism and unjust denial of mortgages the final act was opened. Banks had to give bad loans but were encouraged to dump them on fannie and Freddie. carrot meet stick.
I have no comment, She said it all better than I ever could.
Atlas Shrugged has now come true in almost every detail and America has become the wasteland she predicted with the pandemic replacing John Galt!
Republicans of 2020 come to mind throughout this vital message
I'm a fan of Friedman as well. Personally, I don't care for Rand's fiction, but I suspect that as a libertarian you would greatly enjoy her book The Virtue of Selfishness, (but be sure to read the introduction first. That's where she explains that by 'selfishness', she's not talking about egoTism, or exploitation, but rather egoism, a recognition that ones values are a value to oneself).
Old school conservatives like Hayek and Buckley were sceptical of "reason" because they feared the belief in perfect rationality could lead to an unlimited government and all kind of social-engineering and experiments - like communism. They defended Christianity out of their desire to restrain political power, not because they wanted to substitute reason with "faith". I am a big fan of Rand however I just can't agree with her take on religion and atheism.
She was right. Why that is that people do not follow this advice? It is put forward in a form of a rational argument. Most people are chose to never venture beyond sentiment and emotionalism in their ways of apprehending the world.
Or think of a school teacher who sends a student to the Principal for shouting "I don't like you!" in the middle of her lecture, we both know the teacher sent the student for interrupting her job, rather than because of the student's statement. She sent the student for speaking, but the context there is necessary.
My understanding, based on things said by people that knew her, is that she pretty much thought that all libertarians WERE anarcho-capitalists.
Perhaps the reason why capitalism and conservatism coincide with reason is because faith's teaching of moral principle is rational. She refers to it as mysticism as a way of diminishing it's impact on society. Why reason and faith have to be mutually exclusive in this respect is, itself an irrational argument.
@LogicalThinker667 Ayn Rand was also not a libertarian, but an objectivist. She called libertarians "hippies of the right". I'm not sure why.
It does matter, a government provides oversight over the courts, the police, and the military for the responsibility of upholding order, or retaliation to force. A business cares for its own needs without the use of force, were government to gain control of the economy, the country itself would be run on force, and government's purpose of retaliation to force would be contradicted. The two systems literally couldn't be farther apart.
@rizziriz Capitalism has always held the moral high ground, but not for the reasons of faith. It's true that our opposition detests religion, and when we associate arguments for capitalism with "mysticism," It gives our opponents strength and a stronger conviction. One of the reasons I use to be a communist, was because the right excluded my "rational" arguments, because of my lack of faith. I think Rand has a good point.
I'm catholic and conservative. I care for the prosperity of people and voluntary giving. I don't care if it's capitalism or some form of it. But socialism and communism is fundamentally opposed to my religious beliefs.
She was correct to say that today's Corporate Communism is not a free market system, but one has the lingering doubt that capitalism always degenerates into this, just as Communism doesn't work and always leads to totalitarian horror. How do we solve this? Ask Jeeves.
Some days - it’s best to start your morning with strong black coffee, dry toast and Ayn Rand roasting fake conservatives (Mike Pence - looking at you).
She was an intellectual giant. "This is John Galt speaking" stands as one of the greatest pieces ever written.
Fantastic! Where'd you find this?
Normally I don’t care for Ayn Rand but as a conservative she does make some good points.
These videos are well put together.good job
@rizziriz Faith and reason are mutually exclusive for this reason: Faith = a belief in that for which their is no evidence. Reason = a belief based on evidence. If one puts faith above reason, reason no longer exists for them in any real sense.
Where are the Ayn Rands today. The Milton Friedmans. Lord help us.
Considering her Russian origin, she is more versed in the English than most americans. What a woman!
@bluefootedpig I am sorry, but if you cannot understand the distinction between the knowable and the unknowable, we have no basis for conversation.
While it is indeed stupid to base capitalism on faith, it seems to be just as bad to treat faith and reason as opposed to each other
It’s important to recognize man’s flaws when arguing against central planning and arguing for the spontaneous order of the mostly free market.
This video is highly HIGHLY underrated.
Fortunately for the US we have a president who doesn't use stealth and make apologies for loving the US, the rule of law, sovereign borders, the life of the unborn, and less government regulations, AND HE'S VILIFIED EVERY DAY BECAUSE OF IT!!!
Since when is self interest "Human depravity"? That's the sort of false idea Rand fought to dispel, the idea that we need to engage in self-immolation before we can be moral actors. It's VIRTUOUS to engage in volitional trade with other free people and each gain profit from the trade. Profit seeking is perfectly humane and psychologically healthy. And indeed, if profit is ones motive, then honest trade is more profitable in the big scheme of things than corruption.
@KevZen2000:
Considering that statism has its roots in religion, I think the striking similarities between the two are not coincidental.
Akatam0t0ma you mean Catholicism and Islam. My religion is that I don't want to rule anybody but me. So not all religion brother. Just Catholicism and Islam... Oh yeah don't forget all the Eastern religions also
That gave me goosebumps. Are we reaching a precipice or is this all in my head?
This has to be one of the earliest uses of the word "neoconservative".
The problem seems to be, that we don't want to take the time to argue with liberals. We do not see liberals as worth our time. We need to take the time and talk to them, reason with them. They may or may not see reason, but it is up to us to try to show them the way.
@fzqlcs Conservatives do concede to communism or socialism. When one associates religion with a political system, that system begins to erode as society "progresses" in ideas and freedom. I think that's what she was pointing out. Every system that based itself on religious doctrine has almost been destroyed since the Age of Enlightenment. Therefor, basing capitalism, or the American economic system on faith for morality is self defeating.
So check your premises because that is the source of self esteem. If your premises is badly wrong it can cripple you before the battle.
"The service sector is relatively free of regulation. "
Your simply incorrect. The regs are often ignored. but they are legally binding. the larger your company gets the more you have to pay attention to them.
Have started a biz 2x. You may not believe that I have started a biz. But my competitors are damn well aware of it. stop deflecting and tell me. If entire buildings full of books containing regs aren't enough regs. How many regs will it take before you think we have enough?
It stings to hear my hero speak of conservatism in that way but she has described today's establishment Republicans with an eerie accuracy. The Tea Party conservatives are closer to Ayn Rand's views and represent generally what I think conservatism should be about. Perhaps, in the fullness of time, objectivism and conservatism will find more common ground as additional establishment Republicans are voted out of office and replaced by Tea Party conservatives.
Every tea bagger should see this. Unfortunately they'd probably say this is fake news
I don't understand her last argument of depravity. The reason we don't have dictatorships and authoritarian governments is because having 1 (or only a couple of people) in control is leads to the corruption and immoral acts of leaders. The reason we don't have top totalitarian governments, which are the most effective because of their ability to skip the hassle of democratic work and rules, is because humans are depraved of morality and intelligence (most are either willfully or unwillfully ignorant). America was built on the ideas of separation of powers and the idea that having one person in power is disastrous to the freedoms and liberties of a country. I don't understand that, and she seems to, on multiple occasions, attack the idea of politicians and leaders hungry for power, making her a hypocrite. If anyone can explain to me what she means I would really appreciate it.
It is because humans ARE able to choose to use their intelligence and because humans ARE able to follow rational values which are the basis of the morality of laissez-faire capitalism (pure, with no state meddling in individuals' voluntary economic transactions).
Her specific argument on this part of the video is that some conservatives do not believe humans able to be rational beings, but believe humans to be corrupt and unworthy, they (these conservatives) rule out the possibility of an unworthy man ruling over others, leading to freedom, in effect, by default.
Freedom is the natural state of humans because they are thinking beings and can only survive using the power of their minds free to act, free of coercion from others or the government (and the consequent protection of individuals from the Government in the Constitution).
Once she gets past her bias against faith, I value her opinion, based on experience.
Dictatorship and freedom are not antithetical. Heck, the word "dictator" came from the Roman republic, it was a temporary office created to solve some pressing issue, ie. win a current war, or fix some problem plaguing the republic.
which she was forced to pay money into.
if someone snatched my wallet, I have no problem with getting that money back
Friedman along with several other Chicago economists got to play out their economic philosophies with Chile after the US backed coup took out the democratically elected leader. The initial profits for the wealthy in Chile skyrocketed, however this was at the expense of the once growing strong middle class and in under 2 decades the country was in a rapid state of de-industrialization and increasing unemployment and poverty.
My assumption is you're ignorant because history is against Friedman.
Where is the full video of this talk? Please post. :)
@rizziriz As she states in this video, she believes religion is a personal matter. Her primary objection is when faith is placed above reason as a rationale for action in the political arena. In this case, the matter of selling one's fellow man on the merits of capitalism, it provides a rather poor justification when logic and reason is readily available. This her point. Don't let her atheism put you off from the brilliance of her insight.
Her argument here is flawed, claiming faith is separate from reason. But many of her claims are very impressive.
Well, if you are told something with little to no evidence, and not only believe it, but base your lifes actions on it, you are acting on faith, especially if there is more evidence to support that what you have been told is false, if you are told something with little to no evidence, and you logically conclude, based on the evidence presented for and against, that what you have been told is a lie, you are acting on reason. Thus making faith and reason sepearate. You could be a reasonable man with faith, but in their purest forms, faith and reason are separate.
@@lunasa4387 Interesting. "little or no evidence" is a huge assumption. I'd take the opposite few that there is serious and critical evidence.
Aristotle teaches, “The greatest offense against reason is to use reason against reason.”
this librarian lady is spitting some facts ngl
@islamiscrap8888 Funny you say that, she was once asked wether she would vote for a female candidate for president that also happened to be the best qualified for the job, and she said no, because she can't see women as leaders.
@NordenzurZukunft 2011, most computers contain the date.