Wow! I wonder why people despise Ms Rand? All she is doing is speaking the plain truth about the history and the established system and then she expounds on all the “good” that has come from it and the “bad” that comes from deviation. She also lays out a vision of how things “should” be which is simply a continuation of the logic of the founders. We should be angry with those who fill our heads with BS like United States is a “democracy” and individuals who don’t own property have “rights”. We delude ourselves by pretending we aren’t all owned.
Wow. Rand was in support of a "competency test" for voting. And also entertained the idea of property ownership as a pre-condition to vote as well. Interesting....
to see it as something negative in itself is to believe that people with very low understanding of politics and economy should influence everyone's lives.
Don't you think that the country was run much better when ownership of property was actually a criteria for eligibility to vote? Think about it, the more the vote base expanded, the further down the road to serfdom America has been going. I know people will talk about slavery, but isn't it ironic that the very same people, with the very same voting criteria, actually supported the 13th Amendment? And again think about the fact that today the Left is talking about allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote.
In my 54 years as an Objectivist, I have never heard that. To my knowledge all she really supported was making English the Official Language of the US so that we would have a speciic common lhanguage to work with and English was the language of the founding documents of the nation. See "Global Balkanization"
Great question. They are interrelated in the sense that every economic system is ultimately the result of and only made possible by a certain political system. But that fact in no way implies that a political system must necessarily involve government interference in the economy. In fact, a political system based on upholding individual rights demands just the opposite (the separation of state and economics which you mention) and capitalism is the result.
It almost has to involve government, that is what politics is about "What can, may, must we prohibit" and use force in that prohibition? Politics without government is like "1+1=" without the "2". You must HAVE the State before you can talk about "separation of State and ...[anything]" seriously. Would "separation of Easter Bunny and economics" be meaningful beyond the fantasy semantic value? Economics must also pre-exist the principle of "separation of State and Economy" if that principle is to have any real-world meaning. actually, economics has its roots in psychology via the "First Rule of Behavior" Reinforcement increases the probability of the recurrance of the reinforced behavior", which ties together actions, consequences and the pleasure/pain system, and mathematics, numerical estimates and calculations of how that principle operates To show just how absurd mysticism can get listen to Dave Ramsey who built a career around telling people how to become "millionaires" then he says "It's not your money, it's God's money, you're only managing it for him". The absurdity of that just reverberates off every wall and ceiling in the universe. If you want me to, I'll go into it
Rand did not see far enough, and even though she was a capitalist, she still believed in government. We don’t need any government to have laws, that is a misconception.
It's not a misconception. Without government, an objective arbitor of objective law what you will have is gang warfare in which the strongest militants hold arbitrary power over others. The result of what you are advocating is anarchy. Anarchy is a free for all who can administer their own rules as far as they can until another rival gang attacks that gang etc. etc. The proper role of government is simply to protect individual rights and hold a monopoly on the use of force
@@mikeb5372 wrong, what we have now is gang warfare, this is why we have wars, just at a bigger scale, plus we have evil taxation, corruption, local,crime, gangs, etc,etc. And voting is evil, because you are voting against someone else’s rights. Governments are for weak, ignorant people. Taxation is the worst crime committed by government every single day. Government means slavery.
@@ElParacletoPodcast Having government and not having government is not the cause of war. That is plainly obvious from the history of native American tribes who fought perpetually between neighboring tribes and Native tribes did not have governments. Wars are a phenomenon that have existed in every culture on every continent since the beginning of mankind. The principles on which the United States were founded are the finest, most prosperous that history has ever known. The founders didn't tax incomes or sales. They collected very little taxes that came from excise taxes. The governments purpose at that time was to protect individual rights, national defense and to have litigation law courts for contracts. I suggest you lay out your case for anarchy and I guarantee you I will tear your argument to shreds and show you that YOU are wrong. I've layed down my argument for why government is necessary and you have not refuted it with the reasons you stated because every reason you put forth refers to a statist semi fascist form of government which bares very little semblance to what the founders created. What you are seeing on the streets with high crime is an example of anarchy. It is laws un-enforced and courts that don't hold those accountable. It is the result of a society with no principled philosophy, very little expectation of personal responsibility and a society that has succumb to the collectivist mentality of punishing success and rewarding lack of effort and personal responsibility. Now please, tell me how your system of anarchy will work
@@mikeb5372 The People who wrote the constitution, were rich lawyers, and they copy everything they did from England, they reveled against one government, just to form another one. You don’t seem to understand that a government is forced slavery, because neither you, nor anyone else has the right to tax me, or to tax my property, or to make laws that will affect me, or anyone else. When was the last time you made a law, or had any influence in any laws that have been written. When was the last time that the government asked your permission to tax you, when was the last time the government gave you a receipt for the money they spend, the money they stole from you. I follow God and the laws of God, I don’t need anyone telling me my rights or protecting my rights, you bought that lie. Anarchism means no ruler, it doesn’t mean chaos. You have your own misconception about anarchism, they are not mine. Having a government is the same as having a master, and everything you said is garbage, and it doesn’t work, and that is why we are 30 trillion in debt and no one goes to jail, and you are probably anxious till the next elections, because you probably think that if you get to vote again, things will change. Wake up.
@@ElParacletoPodcast That the founders were as you say "rich" doesn't speak to their character. Being rich or poor isn't a prerequisite for having bad or good character. They formed the first and only government in history based on individual rights and the protection under the law of those rights as written in the Bill of Rights. In case you are unaware of this fact, the US government is quite different from England's and completely different from the absolute monarchy of England at the time of the American revolution. The founders also demanded zero compulsory tax upon citizens. The government was funded by excise tax only. If Americans had held the government to it's original founding principles the US would not only be far more prosperous, free and stable, but you wouldn't be paying taxes. The fact that government has become a mess of corruption is not the fault of government but a symptom of the actual cause which is societies abandonment of it's original principles. The reasons for the abandonment originates from the universities liberal arts departments, specifically the philosophy departments that imported the horrific German philosophies of the day and poisoned the minds of young future leaders and ultimately society as a whole. American intellectuals abandoned the philosophies of the enlightenment that inspired the founders in favor of anti-enlightenment philosophers such a Kant and his deciples. It is mostly true that I don't have a say in making laws, however collectively we do have a say, and it is the fault of a complacent society and the prevailing philosophy that drives society. With anarchy you would have no law and no say except by way of your own use of force upon others. With anarchy what would protect you from any large gang that chooses to take your property, your life or the life of your family? You give no answer! With anarchy which by implication means no law(lawlessness) who is to prevent gangs from forming? You give no answer! You seem to look at today's government as being the only possible form of government and yet history shows that today's government is drastically different from what it once was, in some ways better but in most ways worse. I would be the first to say that government should be very limited and should only be empowered to protect every individual's rights(police and criminal law), to have a legal system for arbitrating contract disputes and for national defense. Taxes should be voluntary and a separation of government and economics be a constitutional mandate. With anarchy how would you deal with company espionage such as people burning down your business? Or any other like scenario? I had hoped you would have formed some semblance of a reasoned argument other than writing "everything I wrote is garbage". In what way is it garbage? You give no answer! Your entire comment is nothing more than pointing out things wrong with today's government and stating factually incorrect accounts of the founding of the US. I will say that building any case based in truth and reason advocating anarchy is even more impossible than was Marxism. One would have to ignore and defy the truth in cause and effect just as Marx did, just as the anti- enlightenment philosophers of Germany did and just as Hitler and the Nazis did. But just as I read their writings to see what reasoned argument they tried to make, I'm willing to read yours. If you have one
The individualists demand “freedom from” religion, clan, culture, moral norms, and politics-they preach that man is like a Robinson Crusoe, and he must live in a metaphorical deserted island where he is free from all collectives. But such views are a sign of their ideological over-maturity and psychological backwardness. Man is not just the maker of civilizations (which are the largest collective of humanity)-he is the product of civilizations. Robison Crusoe, the protagonist in Daniel Defoe’s book, is a brave man who gets trapped in a deserted island. He does all that he can to preserve his sanity, meet the needs of his body, and survive as a human. But man is not designed to be like Crusoe. His mind might identify as an individual, but the heart of most men identifies with the collectives: relatives, friends, customers, associates, employees, employers, and the religious, political, social, and intellectual groups of which he is a part. Man qua man is a political creature and politics can never transcend collectivism. We join the collectives in order to find a sense of security and belonging, to develop spiritual, cultural, and political bonds for defending our way of life, and to avoid the one thing which we truly dread: loneliness. The man who sees himself as an individualist is no Crusoe; he is naive, politically ineffective, and culturally alienated, and he lacks the sense to realize that he is overestimating his virtues and capacities. The nations where individualism becomes a popular movement generally see a steep decline in the quality of their politics and culture. If these individualists end up on a deserted island, they will not last for a week-they will undergo mental disintegration from the feeling of being lonely and they will eventually starve to death. Individualism is not a virtue; it is a vice.
Being an individualist does not mean wanting to live on a deserted island. You are conflating "benefits from working with other people" with collectivism, which emphasizes that a collective of people are greater than any individual in that group, and that the individual must be subordinate and serve the collective. Friendships can be a great value to an individualist, but it is a great value to HIM and because HE EVALUATED it to be so, not because others dictated to him. An individualist is believes that men should not give up thinking for the sake of some authority, and they believe that a man should be pro-self.
You are uninformed - this sounds like some form of psychopathology. Man qua man is a "contractual" creature. People are only useful to each other when they voluntarily agree to deal with one another. This approach breeds benevolence among men.
Wow! I wonder why people despise Ms Rand? All she is doing is speaking the plain truth about the history and the established system and then she expounds on all the “good” that has come from it and the “bad” that comes from deviation. She also lays out a vision of how things “should” be which is simply a continuation of the logic of the founders.
We should be angry with those who fill our heads with BS like United States is a “democracy” and individuals who don’t own property have “rights”. We delude ourselves by pretending we aren’t all owned.
"All she is doing is speaking the plain truth". That's why they despise her. She uncovers the philosophical frauds by which those in power control us.
Ayn Rand is "turning in her grave" looking at America today.
Exactly. She was profoundly prophetic! Look at the mess caused by liberals and the left
She was tearing back then
Wow. Rand was in support of a "competency test" for voting. And also entertained the idea of property ownership as a pre-condition to vote as well. Interesting....
to see it as something negative in itself is to believe that people with very low understanding of politics and economy should influence everyone's lives.
Of course she did. Objectivism is a philosophy created to protect the top 20% of men. The ones the women lust for.
Don't you think that the country was run much better when ownership of property was actually a criteria for eligibility to vote? Think about it, the more the vote base expanded, the further down the road to serfdom America has been going. I know people will talk about slavery, but isn't it ironic that the very same people, with the very same voting criteria, actually supported the 13th Amendment? And again think about the fact that today the Left is talking about allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote.
I believe if you're on welfare you shouldn't have a right to vote because we already know who you're going to vote for more welfare
In my 54 years as an Objectivist, I have never heard that. To my knowledge all she really supported was making English the Official Language of the US so that we would have a speciic common lhanguage to work with and English was the language of the founding documents of the nation. See "Global Balkanization"
If "politics and economics are inter-related" How can you have the "separation of State and economics"?
Great question. They are interrelated in the sense that every economic system is ultimately the result of and only made possible by a certain political system. But that fact in no way implies that a political system must necessarily involve government interference in the economy. In fact, a political system based on upholding individual rights demands just the opposite (the separation of state and economics which you mention) and capitalism is the result.
It almost has to involve government, that is what politics is about "What can, may, must we prohibit" and use force in that prohibition? Politics without government is like "1+1=" without the "2". You must HAVE the State before you can talk about "separation of State and ...[anything]" seriously. Would "separation of Easter Bunny and economics" be meaningful beyond the fantasy semantic value?
Economics must also pre-exist the principle of "separation of State and Economy" if that principle is to have any real-world meaning. actually, economics has its roots in psychology via the "First Rule of Behavior" Reinforcement increases the probability of the recurrance of the reinforced behavior", which ties together actions, consequences and the pleasure/pain system, and mathematics, numerical estimates and calculations of how that principle operates
To show just how absurd mysticism can get listen to Dave Ramsey who built a career around telling people how to become "millionaires" then he says "It's not your money, it's God's money, you're only managing it for him". The absurdity of that just reverberates off every wall and ceiling in the universe. If you want me to, I'll go into it
Are you going to add God and Conductivism to this disscusion?
Rand did not see far enough, and even though she was a capitalist, she still believed in government.
We don’t need any government to have laws, that is a misconception.
It's not a misconception. Without government, an objective arbitor of objective law what you will have is gang warfare in which the strongest militants hold arbitrary power over others. The result of what you are advocating is anarchy. Anarchy is a free for all who can administer their own rules as far as they can until another rival gang attacks that gang etc. etc. The proper role of government is simply to protect individual rights and hold a monopoly on the use of force
@@mikeb5372 wrong, what we have now is gang warfare, this is why we have wars, just at a bigger scale, plus we have evil taxation, corruption, local,crime, gangs, etc,etc. And voting is evil, because you are voting against someone else’s rights.
Governments are for weak, ignorant people. Taxation is the worst crime committed by government every single day. Government means slavery.
@@ElParacletoPodcast Having government and not having government is not the cause of war. That is plainly obvious from the history of native American tribes who fought perpetually between neighboring tribes and Native tribes did not have governments. Wars are a phenomenon that have existed in every culture on every continent since the beginning of mankind. The principles on which the United States were founded are the finest, most prosperous that history has ever known. The founders didn't tax incomes or sales. They collected very little taxes that came from excise taxes. The governments purpose at that time was to protect individual rights, national defense and to have litigation law courts for contracts. I suggest you lay out your case for anarchy and I guarantee you I will tear your argument to shreds and show you that YOU are wrong. I've layed down my argument for why government is necessary and you have not refuted it with the reasons you stated because every reason you put forth refers to a statist semi fascist form of government which bares very little semblance to what the founders created. What you are seeing on the streets with high crime is an example of anarchy. It is laws un-enforced and courts that don't hold those accountable. It is the result of a society with no principled philosophy, very little expectation of personal responsibility and a society that has succumb to the collectivist mentality of punishing success and rewarding lack of effort and personal responsibility. Now please, tell me how your system of anarchy will work
@@mikeb5372 The People who wrote the constitution, were rich lawyers, and they copy everything they did from England, they reveled against one government, just to form another one.
You don’t seem to understand that a government is forced slavery, because neither you, nor anyone else has the right to tax me, or to tax my property, or to make laws that will affect me, or anyone else. When was the last time you made a law, or had any influence in any laws that have been written. When was the last time that the government asked your permission to tax you, when was the last time the government gave you a receipt for the money they spend, the money they stole from you.
I follow God and the laws of God, I don’t need anyone telling me my rights or protecting my rights, you bought that lie. Anarchism means no ruler, it doesn’t mean chaos. You have your own misconception about anarchism, they are not mine. Having a government is the same as having a master, and everything you said is garbage, and it doesn’t work, and that is why we are 30 trillion in debt and no one goes to jail, and you are probably anxious till the next elections, because you probably think that if you get to vote again, things will change. Wake up.
@@ElParacletoPodcast That the founders were as you say "rich" doesn't speak to their character. Being rich or poor isn't a prerequisite for having bad or good character. They formed the first and only government in history based on individual rights and the protection under the law of those rights as written in the Bill of Rights. In case you are unaware of this fact, the US government is quite different from England's and completely different from the absolute monarchy of England at the time of the American revolution. The founders also demanded zero compulsory tax upon citizens. The government was funded by excise tax only. If Americans had held the government to it's original founding principles the US would not only be far more prosperous, free and stable, but you wouldn't be paying taxes. The fact that government has become a mess of corruption is not the fault of government but a symptom of the actual cause which is societies abandonment of it's original principles. The reasons for the abandonment originates from the universities liberal arts departments, specifically the philosophy departments that imported the horrific German philosophies of the day and poisoned the minds of young future leaders and ultimately society as a whole. American intellectuals abandoned the philosophies of the enlightenment that inspired the founders in favor of anti-enlightenment philosophers such a Kant and his deciples.
It is mostly true that I don't have a say in making laws, however collectively we do have a say, and it is the fault of a complacent society and the prevailing philosophy that drives society. With anarchy you would have no law and no say except by way of your own use of force upon others.
With anarchy what would protect you from any large gang that chooses to take your property, your life or the life of your family? You give no answer!
With anarchy which by implication means no law(lawlessness) who is to prevent gangs from forming? You give no answer!
You seem to look at today's government as being the only possible form of government and yet history shows that today's government is drastically different from what it once was, in some ways better but in most ways worse.
I would be the first to say that government should be very limited and should only be empowered to protect every individual's rights(police and criminal law), to have a legal system for arbitrating contract disputes and for national defense. Taxes should be voluntary and a separation of government and economics be a constitutional mandate.
With anarchy how would you deal with company espionage such as people burning down your business? Or any other like scenario?
I had hoped you would have formed some semblance of a reasoned argument other than writing "everything I wrote is garbage". In what way is it garbage? You give no answer! Your entire comment is nothing more than pointing out things wrong with today's government and stating factually incorrect accounts of the founding of the US. I will say that building any case based in truth and reason advocating anarchy is even more impossible than was Marxism. One would have to ignore and defy the truth in cause and effect just as Marx did, just as the anti- enlightenment philosophers of Germany did and just as Hitler and the Nazis did. But just as I read their writings to see what reasoned argument they tried to make, I'm willing to read yours. If you have one
The individualists demand “freedom from” religion, clan, culture, moral norms, and politics-they preach that man is like a Robinson Crusoe, and he must live in a metaphorical deserted island where he is free from all collectives. But such views are a sign of their ideological over-maturity and psychological backwardness.
Man is not just the maker of civilizations (which are the largest collective of humanity)-he is the product of civilizations. Robison Crusoe, the protagonist in Daniel Defoe’s book, is a brave man who gets trapped in a deserted island. He does all that he can to preserve his sanity, meet the needs of his body, and survive as a human. But man is not designed to be like Crusoe. His mind might identify as an individual, but the heart of most men identifies with the collectives: relatives, friends, customers, associates, employees, employers, and the religious, political, social, and intellectual groups of which he is a part.
Man qua man is a political creature and politics can never transcend collectivism. We join the collectives in order to find a sense of security and belonging, to develop spiritual, cultural, and political bonds for defending our way of life, and to avoid the one thing which we truly dread: loneliness. The man who sees himself as an individualist is no Crusoe; he is naive, politically ineffective, and culturally alienated, and he lacks the sense to realize that he is overestimating his virtues and capacities. The nations where individualism becomes a popular movement generally see a steep decline in the quality of their politics and culture.
If these individualists end up on a deserted island, they will not last for a week-they will undergo mental disintegration from the feeling of being lonely and they will eventually starve to death. Individualism is not a virtue; it is a vice.
Being an individualist does not mean wanting to live on a deserted island. You are conflating "benefits from working with other people" with collectivism, which emphasizes that a collective of people are greater than any individual in that group, and that the individual must be subordinate and serve the collective.
Friendships can be a great value to an individualist, but it is a great value to HIM and because HE EVALUATED it to be so, not because others dictated to him.
An individualist is believes that men should not give up thinking for the sake of some authority, and they believe that a man should be pro-self.
You are uninformed - this sounds like some form of psychopathology. Man qua man is a "contractual" creature. People are only useful to each other when they voluntarily agree to deal with one another. This approach breeds benevolence among men.