I find this interesting that you talk about the rights of individuals. Does an individual have the right not to have a reasonable comment on your channel erased? Say, I make a very strong response to a question from another commenter, just to have it erased. I tried three times to make sure I was not out of line, to no avail. Your panelists all seem to be of the same agreement.
I looked in the Constitution, and I didn’t see anything about UA-cam comments. Seriously though, sometimes UA-cam eats comments, esp if heated or argumentative; just something I’ve noticed. Take care.
@@matthewstroud4294 So, your (figuratively) Institute is a private entity operating within a private communications company. If someone makes a truthful statement that you disagree with you have a RIGHT to erase it and you are also free to present wrong things. You pretend to have integrity, but in a way your rights are wrong.
@@chrisconklin2981 Who erased your comment? Was it UA-cam based upon their terms of service, or was it the channel moderator acting within the same framework? Does it really matter? The truth or falsity of your comment are immaterial to the rights of UA-cam as the owner of the platform. I would add that the surprisingly large amount of vile and obviously false comments that appear on channels involving Objectivism in general are not usually removed, even if the moderators disagree or find them offensive. I suspect comment removal is likely due to UA-cam themselves and their use of computerized analysis.
@@matthewstroud4294 I work very hard to make my comments truthful and polite. If one of my comments are deleted, I sometimes rewrite and try again. On my third mentioned comment, I was totally benign and still it was erased. What I would like is feedback. How can I improve if I do not know where I am wrong. Also to note for this video, the Salem channel or UA-cam have also erased other comments. It is if I can say nothing that is disagreeable.
Dr. Ghate says he doesn’t value public education because he values education - he doesn’t say “for those who can afford it or deserve it” but that’s implied. It’s unfortunate that he doesn’t value the public or understand the value of having an educated public in a democracy. Let’s hope he learns this lesson before the uneducated masses destroy him and everything else he values.
Call it Objectivism, Neo Liberalism, Anarcho-capitalism, or Libertarianism is all goes back to Ayn Rand. Why is it that there are those that demand their rights and liberties but never consider their responsibilities. Human evolution was a cooperative effort.
I can’t speak for him, but valuing an educated public isn’t the same as approving of a public, i.e. government, school system. Some would say that government schools cannot produce a truly educated populace, and given what we see around us today, that might be a fair point. Cheers.
None of this was stated or implied, by Dr. Ghate or by anyone else. What he's saying is that he values individual education--and by extension, the educated public that arises in the aggregate--too much to leave it in the hands of an institution as ineffective as the government. If you think only the government can create an educated public then you can make that argument, but as things stand, you've fundamentally misunderstood his point.
@@chrisconklin2981 What about wanting rights to be respected suggests that one is anti-responsibility? Why do you present those things as if they are in conflict? Isn’t it in fact those who place their arbitrary demands above the rights of others who are neglecting their responsibilities?
‘…before the uneducated masses destroy him and everything else he values.’ That is already happening due to the abysmal state of “public education”. ‘he doesn’t say “for those who can afford it or deserve it” but that’s implied.’ Are people better fed in places where the government controls the food supply, such as North Korea, or in places where people are free to produce and trade food as they see fit? If you were in North Korea, would you be railing against those who advocated freeing up the food supply? Why would education be any different? It is simply a fallacy that something is more secure because it’s provided by government force, rather than by free enterprise. It’s the exact opposite of the truth. You’re far, far better off with someone who understands why it’s in his interests to offer you a better, cheaper service than his competitors than you are with a government agent.
I find this interesting that you talk about the rights of individuals. Does an individual have the right not to have a reasonable comment on your channel erased? Say, I make a very strong response to a question from another commenter, just to have it erased. I tried three times to make sure I was not out of line, to no avail. Your panelists all seem to be of the same agreement.
I looked in the Constitution, and I didn’t see anything about UA-cam comments. Seriously though, sometimes UA-cam eats comments, esp if heated or argumentative; just something I’ve noticed. Take care.
UA-cam is a private entity - free speech does not apply to your right to comment, it applies to UA-cam's right to either host your comment or not.
@@matthewstroud4294
So, your (figuratively) Institute is a private entity operating within a private communications company. If someone makes a truthful statement that you disagree with you have a RIGHT to erase it and you are also free to present wrong things. You pretend to have integrity, but in a way your rights are wrong.
@@chrisconklin2981 Who erased your comment? Was it UA-cam based upon their terms of service, or was it the channel moderator acting within the same framework? Does it really matter?
The truth or falsity of your comment are immaterial to the rights of UA-cam as the owner of the platform.
I would add that the surprisingly large amount of vile and obviously false comments that appear on channels involving Objectivism in general are not usually removed, even if the moderators disagree or find them offensive. I suspect comment removal is likely due to UA-cam themselves and their use of computerized analysis.
@@matthewstroud4294 I work very hard to make my comments truthful and polite. If one of my comments are deleted, I sometimes rewrite and try again. On my third mentioned comment, I was totally benign and still it was erased. What I would like is feedback. How can I improve if I do not know where I am wrong. Also to note for this video, the Salem channel or UA-cam have also erased other comments. It is if I can say nothing that is disagreeable.
Dr. Ghate says he doesn’t value public education because he values education - he doesn’t say “for those who can afford it or deserve it” but that’s implied.
It’s unfortunate that he doesn’t value the public or understand the value of having an educated public in a democracy.
Let’s hope he learns this lesson before the uneducated masses destroy him and everything else he values.
Call it Objectivism, Neo Liberalism, Anarcho-capitalism, or Libertarianism is all goes back to Ayn Rand. Why is it that there are those that demand their rights and liberties but never consider their responsibilities. Human evolution was a cooperative effort.
I can’t speak for him, but valuing an educated public isn’t the same as approving of a public, i.e. government, school system. Some would say that government schools cannot produce a truly educated populace, and given what we see around us today, that might be a fair point. Cheers.
None of this was stated or implied, by Dr. Ghate or by anyone else.
What he's saying is that he values individual education--and by extension, the educated public that arises in the aggregate--too much to leave it in the hands of an institution as ineffective as the government.
If you think only the government can create an educated public then you can make that argument, but as things stand, you've fundamentally misunderstood his point.
@@chrisconklin2981 What about wanting rights to be respected suggests that one is anti-responsibility? Why do you present those things as if they are in conflict? Isn’t it in fact those who place their arbitrary demands above the rights of others who are neglecting their responsibilities?
‘…before the uneducated masses destroy him and everything else he values.’
That is already happening due to the abysmal state of “public education”.
‘he doesn’t say “for those who can afford it or deserve it” but that’s implied.’
Are people better fed in places where the government controls the food supply, such as North Korea, or in places where people are free to produce and trade food as they see fit? If you were in North Korea, would you be railing against those who advocated freeing up the food supply? Why would education be any different? It is simply a fallacy that something is more secure because it’s provided by government force, rather than by free enterprise. It’s the exact opposite of the truth. You’re far, far better off with someone who understands why it’s in his interests to offer you a better, cheaper service than his competitors than you are with a government agent.