Anything positive that has come from socialist, communist, or fascist societies has been only because of the ability of some to get around the system. Indeed, to defeat their system rather than prosper by it.
@@kseniachevenard839 I suppose Joe P (the commentator) should answer himself for his comment. For my part, I agreed with his comment (hence my 'Hear hear' reply). Socialism even in its purest, explicitly non-malign, form cannot possibly function. I shall cite just two reasons, though there are many. I cite as my first reason that people, being what they are - evolved mammals, display a whole range of variations of a shared set of faculties, abilities and emotions. Some are more energetic than others; some are lazier; some have higher IQs; some more inventive and so on. In any 'system' of human social behaviour some accrue more than others, regardless of the overarching system's precepts. Take prisoners in a jail, for example. Whatever the rules of the prison system are, some prisoners become wealthy of things that are considered valuable in that system, e.g. cigarettes, toilet-paper etc. Others become net consumers and so a 'market' flourishes. Secondly, people with far less altruistically benevolent ideas will always find ways to ascend the hierarchy of a socialist state (for humans being what they are, hierarchies will always exist) and thus to bend it to their egotistical ends. We see this time and time again throughout history unto our modern age where credulous populations are duped; demagogues assume power and who quickly quash any opposition and intellectual resistance. This is, of course, possible in any state but just so much harder to do in a state whose basis of social structure is one of free expression and individualism.
Half the students are looking and fiddling with their phones. Whatever they're doing it is just disrespectful. I would simply stop my lecture, grab my jacket and leave them to it.
He confuses charity and coercion. The Christian morality is to be charitable with your resources, time, skills, etc. This is a voluntary action. Socialism is a bastardization of this value as it requires the use of force to be 'charitable'. Of course, this isn't charity at all. This is pointing a gun to someone's head and giving their stuff to someone else. This Christian value is totally compatible with Capitalism and it's ideal. You want people with wealth to WANT to give it away. You want to receive a gift from someone who WANTS to give it. You don't want to receive something that's been taken away.
He didn't confuse or forgot to add anything. As an Objectivist he is and atheist and against the christian morality. As an objectivist he is only for capitalism because he is for self-interest and capitalism is the only system which rewards a societ of self-interested individuals. The greatest evil according to objectivists is altruism i.e. giving without expecting to get anything back, like charity.
But he also argues that someone’s self interest doesn’t mean you’re without compassion and that it is in our own self interest to help one another without the use of force
4 года назад
@@rohirrim7 "He didn't confuse or forgot to add anything."? He's forgotten (if he ever knew how to be a human being. "As an Objectivist he is and atheist and against the christian morality."? I'm an atheist and I totally reject the idea of their being a all knower of everything that was, is and will be but their is much of the New testament values that are of great value, self sacrifice, welfare caring for our fellow man and altruism for starters. Rand did not say giving to charity was evil only that giving to charity must be totally free from coercion and must not harm the giver. Do you know what the word altruism actually means ? Certainly Rand did not:- altruism | ˈaltruːɪz(ə)m | noun [mass noun] disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others: some may choose to work with vulnerable elderly people out of altruism. • Zoology behaviour of an animal that benefits another at its own expense: reciprocal altruism.
All too often, liberty minded people, conservatives and libertarians, spend too much time on what the left is doing (interfering in free speech, pursuing street action and violence against those they consider enemies and so on) and not enough on who they are philosophically. Indeed, in the old conservative fight against communism great leaders of the conservative movement would often point to the lack of freedom of speech, religion, the imprisoning of political adversaries, etc... But with some notable exceptions, it was not so much discussed what communism was, but rather what communists did. People who love liberty MUST take on the left philosophically. We must get at their core thinking and expose them for what they are as much as what they do. I think we spend too much time dancing around this and it is to our peril.
Communism has nothing to do with taking away the freedom of speech, religion, the imprisoning of political adversaries. What communists did has nothing to do with whether the economic ideology is good. Capitalism doesn't being liberty nor happiness.
Terrific, but unfortunate that he frames capitalism as "living for yourself". While that is one option, the fact is that capitalism is the fuel for true altruism.
Those people are adults. In a capitalist society, making more money becomes the primary motive of most people's lives. They think they're on their pursuit of happiness because they think having more money will make them happier, when in reality it doesn't do that at all. Money past the point of comfort is irrelevant in determining happiness. The other factors are relationships with others and passions. The pursuit of making money often prevents good relationships with others as well as following one's passions. In capitalism, no one is happy. Not the ones at the bottom, the middle, or even the top.
@@kseniachevenard839 Pure ignorance. Go talk to the wealthy and see if they see it that way. Maybe for those guilt-ridden altruists that's true - but for the ones that have earned their wealth and have a world of additional options open to them I think they would disagree. Socialists/Leftists revolve around ambiguous terms like "comfort". That is a sliding line and a unique concept. It is irrelevant anyway - but the point is, people in modern society - in MANY ways live more comfortably than Kings/Queens/Dictators of 100 years ago. Who are you - or I should say - who is a Socialist society/Government/Dictator/etc to say what is your idea of comfort verses another's? That really is the root of the issue - as they can't. Yet that is what those structures/entities try to impose on everyone - and ultimately why they fail. They simply ignore the idea that people are individuals with different ideas of how things should be (and what is comfortable to them) - and when those people get out of line - these systems/entities you seem to support simply kill them.
Very interesting and highly informative, wish he wouldn't bash God and Christians as much, I stand against socialism for religious reasons (most self proclaimed 'pagans' are socialist).
Religion is Anti-Reason. And Objectivism is based on Reason and Logic or Reason is the core principal of the philosophy. Proverbs 14:12: There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. ... There is a way that seems right, but it leads to death. ..."Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding" As you can see, it's completely incompatible with Christianity. Or America and the ideals this country was founded on, the pursuit of happiness is 180°degrees from "pick up your cross and follow me".
@@AJTramberg The first amendment states the freedom of religion, which goes against christianity because one of its ideas is that christianity is the only rightful religion and all those following something else should convert to it.
Brook has of course some great things to say. And I think he is right. But sometimes he is too extreme or he expresses himself in such a way that he is at risk of being interpreted as being too extreme - either by those who would discredit his arguments or, worse, by those who want to support him but can't because of their perceived interpretation of his views. A good example is when he cites the minimal necessary raison d'etre of government as being to safeguard and protect its people.
Indeed, even as someone who agrees with his ideas, I think coming across as too radical can actually put the more closed minded off, harming the cause.
He discredits himself by talking about freedom from the state in a public university through the internet financed by the government in a country that received almost 3 billion in Mashall Plan.
@@etchalaco9971 Great Point. It is easy, isn't it, to criticise our western governments. Basically, we can as our systems of government leave quite a lot to the individual to 'self-regulate'. Other countries are not quite as generous or tolerant of criticism. Secondly it is easy to assume that somehow there is a massive cartel that rigs the systems in their favour. But look at the last couple of hundred years of western progress: our infrastructures; structures for learning and education; for health....all this for an ungrateful population that wants government 'off their backs' !
@@jvincent6548 It's too easy to be cynical. People would probably be happier if they were grateful for what they do have, even of they do believe things could be better yet.
@@jvincent6548 Western progress cannot be credited to capitalism. There are many more factors to consider, such as natural resources as well as how societies progress over time no matter what economic system it was run on. The population has nothing to be grateful to corrupt governments for.
23:33 In this part I can say, he is wrong because you are not an independent sovereign being if you cannot live all alone by yourself. To say that you are independent is to say that you are not dependent to anyone or to anything but we all know that this is not true because we still depend on others in every decision that we make, if we do not consider others when we make decisions, we are just selfish beings who care not for anything but for ourselves. To depend on others is to admit your incapabality to do things alone. The reason capitalism thrives is because there are people who are willing to work for a capitalist who demands the service of the people due to the fact that this capitalist has an idea to innovate the lifestyle of its society which may become beneficial for the people themselves. Capitalism became effective not because there are profits but because there are benefits shared by the capitalist & its workers who are the people. There is no independence but only dependence on one another. Liberty is not achieve by making yourself independent from others but by admitting that you cannot live alone due to the fact that you who is part of the state depends to the other parts of the state which may also be a person like you. You are not alone but you are always with someone else or something else. You just pretend to be alone to appear strong but in fact you are not strong without the help of others. When you accept the truth of your weakness, then in that time only you can be strong.
If you were to recommend an author or a book to Yaron Brook to dispell the outdated caricatures of the "dark middle ages", which would you recommend? It is difficult to doubt the truth of what Hobbes says of life back then, but I find the constantly trumpeted idea that the civilizations of the antique world were far superior to those of the middle ages up until the renaissance, where everything suddenly became more fabulous, a bit tedious. Yaron is basically relying on a scholar that has been dead for decades when it comes to a description of these periods of history, which does little for crispness, and I believe this is one instance in which the general academic understanding has actually improved greatly.
Johannes Karlsson I don’t think Yaron would claim antiquity civilizations were paradises by comparison to today’s standards. I mean if you lived at the time of the Greeks or romans, yeah you’d probably want to live there as opposed to someplace else but I don’t think he holds them up as any kind of example
Yaron has some videos on RU-vid about a capitalist response to Covid. I think it's interesting given how floundering the top down government approach to Covid has been and that no one really has seen an alternative.
@@ecuadorjusto There was no market for the vaccine until the government created one. Not only that, but vaccines are not the issue, the point is vaccination and that is All government planning and estate response.
I know several people from Chile that fled their country and came to the US and worked constantly for a few years then went back with a bankroll to start a business... many returned to the US saying they prefer the US so I think his claim of Chile as a great example is overstating...
Michael Taylor You aren’t listening. They liberalized their economy “somewhat”, and they now are relatively rich. That is what he’s saying. He never said it’s great.
To save the EARTH we need all nations to start building only Tower cities connected to maglev Trains worldwide! We should eliminate all jobs making weapons and military and vehicles! And use that money to give everyone a Universal Basic Income!
