Ayn Rand on Donahue 1979 (3/5)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 чер 2009
- Ayn Rand attacks altruism as evil and both defines and defends her philosophy of objectivism. Rand also explains how monopolies cannot exist unless they are supported by government erected barriers to competition.
"We can't be lucky we're here because if we weren't here we wouldn't be".
Rand possesses a rare clarity and insight into the subtleties of ideas.
Donahue is a great interviewer. He really knows what questions to ask to give Rand opportunity to display various facets of her philosophy - and pushes her with those questions to do it in a satisfying and comprehensive manner in such a small amount of time.
"Would you fight for anything?!"
"... how did I get here?..."
BITCH SLAP!
Nobody says "That's right" like this woman!
I'm here from Your Welcome. It starts at 8:16
Bryan Chandler thank you. Doing the lords work.
Bryan Chandler
You’re thank you
Cheers mate
lol that's my grandma
"Im not interested in your biography" - ROFL - Im in tears.
A brilliant lady. The most pure Libertarian Thinking you get condensed in a line of thoughts 😊❤
I think the idea of voluntary taxation would work based on all of the modern examples of crowd-sourced projects. She's so clever that Ayn Rand.
Donahue admired ayn and her ideas. He was a great friend of hers. He asked those question because those are the ones people didnt like about her philosophy. He played devils advocate so to speak.
He was pathetic & framing questions & statements to push his leftist politics. He & most of audience were not worthy of her time.
@elizabethfaraone what do you think created steel, petroleum, and polyphase electricity?
Thank you, Brittle13. I consider Ayn the mentor I never met. Her books have changed my life in a way I could not imagine, for the better. I search UA-cam for any videos or pictures of her. Thank you.
The woman at the end doesnt understand that you cannot have abuse, she already explained this to Donahue. If the company who owns EVERYTHING tries to corner the market. Someone is going to undercut them, this is displayed even video games that simulate an economy. You cant buy these people off cause if you try your going to run out of money to pay people off, cause if your product is too expensive, NOBODY IS GOING TO BUY IT, and if someone sells it for less, and undercuts you. Guess who
I just learned about Ayn, but I love what she is saying. I'm going to get her book.
"ITT owns everything!!!" Wow how times have changed, and she said she didn't believe in capitalism
One of the most brilliant thinkers of the 20th century and arguably, the most brilliant woman of her time.
Of all time.
is that Peikoff at 5:53?
@IHeartDenver me too :) only for me it was mainly the fountainhead that changed me. Atlas shrugged is awesome though. I love how she could take something like a philosophy, and put it into a really interesting story.
@felo790 Can you offer a cite of your definition of Capitalism? Futhermore, can you offer an example of monopoly, other than those owned and operated by the government?
If you don't like a company don't pay them to continue their behavior. Don't sell your company to them. Don't let government make rules to keep their competition out of business.
I don't understand people who attack people through questions. If she wanted to ask Rand something she can go ahead - she was making a statement. I'm glad Rand didn't sit back and take that nonsense.
Brilliant woman.
@MarkProffitt "Anytime that you have 50% or less odds, nothing you do is rational."
I dispute that definition of rational. (See, it is semantic.)
Suppose you have 4 mutually exclusive options A, B, C and D and the probability of each of these options being the best one are 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% respectively. Given that a decision must be made and you are not in a position to alter these odds which option would you choose? Why?
@studentofsmith About your math, if you assumed the probability of mislabeling is 50%, your best guess is to still choose the 40%. But if the probability is more than 75% you should not choose the 40%. In this way you can choose all the other options, and in fact is the key to making the best guess in this case.
"How did I get here?"
Brilliant. I love this woman.
@psspeed Rand was notorious for reacting badly to any criticism. I don't think the lady meant for it to come of as insulting. Essentially what she was trying to say is "At one time I was impressed with your ideas, but during my education as I became exposed to other ideas as well as life experiences I began to disagree with your ideas."
If the government were offering services that were indeed of value to the people, they wouldn't have to stick a gun in people's faces to collect payment--the free market would support valuable services and eliminate unneeded services. Taxes force us to pay for unneeded services.
So what ideas do you disagree with?
I agree with her understanding of what gov responsibilities should be
Actually it's his job to keep the conversation going without drifting into a one-sided lecture. This includes contradicting her, of course, so she may expound on her points more explicitly. Rand re-appears on his show, if you haven't seen it, please watch it. Donahue is actually a really sweet guy.
Just.. compare him to O'Reilly. Donahue actually was on O'Reilly's show, you can also watch that on youtube. He isn't as imbecile as he is forced to look on screen.
You're still right, categorically.
@psspeed I am not a big fan of Ayn Rand, but that does not mean I would disrespect her in front of a large audience. The Lady is taking a swipe at Ayn Rand, and Rand stops her there becuase anything at this point is intellectually dishonest. The Lady has already stated her position even before she asked the question.
I was actually impressed that Ayn Rand was so quick to recognize this as fast as she did. The Lady was sitting and waiting to pounce but Ayn Rand stopped her in her tracks!
Does ITT exist today???
Not only that but no one forced him to live in a car, he made the decision on his own. So yes I call it freedom when people are not forced by other people.
Free markets do not guarantee there will never be losses or catastrophes because people are not perfect and so there will never be a perfect system. The genius of the system is that it corrects itself, it will correct market failures. But government can minimize losses by protecting those three points and otherwise staying out of the way.
7:19 KNOCKOUT blow- had to rewind that one twice lol
Ayn Rand was too nice to refrain from responding to that woman. If the first thing someone said to me was "I was a follower of your philosophy, but then I became more educated", I would've immediately cut them off and told them "You think you're educated? Talk to me again when you really are".
How stupid do you have to be for that to be the first thing you say?
so if there is no intrinsic value in serving yourself, how is there intrinsic value in serving someone else?
what is intrinsic value and why do other people have it and not you?
Also, it's kinda disappointing how Ayn Rand tries to silence the female audience member from even asking her question. Her interruption was very rude and uncalled for.
@felo790 Ayn Rand was not against economy or psychology. She challenged CONFORMIST and ALTRUIST systems of economy, such as socialism. As far as psychology goes, Ms. Rand's entire philosophy was based upon "The task of evaluating the processes of man's subconcious," which is her definition of psychology
@ericcox2
im not trying to persuade anyone.
im just giving my opinion on her. believe whatever you want.
After this look at the interview with Tom Snyder. You can tell Tom Snyder disagrees with her a little bit, but he is respectful when expressing his disagreement. Then look at donahue and how he interrupts and only has her there to destroy her ideas.
@psspeed I understand your point, but I think I understand why Ms. Rand cut her off. The woman said "15 years ago I was impressed with your books a...today "however", I'm more educated..." You don't say "I read your book a while ago and agreed with it, "but" now that I'm more educated..." because that's insulting. Perhaps Ms. Rand was being sensitive, but keep in mid that there are dissenters in the crowd. Mr.Donahue (good interviewer that he is) is one of them also
The problem with that idea sounding "Luciferian" is that you are hinting doing what you want to do as sinning. Rand supports doing what you want to do and being selfish as long as you are a moral and rational individual. If you were to "sin" or commit a crime, then you are not rational or moral because from rationality, according to her, comes the decision of hurting or not hurting others. Therefore, if you do use force against someone else, you are not evil but immoral and irrational.
7:18 - CLASSIC!
@RolandStGermain Also, when you say "Our society has become" what time period and context are referring to for comparison?- is there an ego-centrism to your statement or an anthropological one? The masses have always been and always will be. Objectivism fails because your dealing with humans. EdwardLuis Bernays innovator of "Public Relations" or propaganda - "Century of the Self" is a documentary any Rand Philosophy should watch to see how many capitialize on where Objectivism falls short.
Free markets function best when 1) a person has all information to weigh costs and benefits of a transaction, 2) a person will act rationally and in his/her own best interest and not in the interest of anyone else, and 3) there are no outside factors such dishonesty and government regulation to affect the first two. In the "nightmares" you speak of those three things did not happen, and they continue to not happen, preventing a quick recovery, in particular high government regulation and taxes.
@MarkProffitt Our difference is semantic. You are suggesting that for a decision to be rational it must be based on total knowledge. This is contrary to the commonly understood meaning of the word rational. To make a "best guess" based on readily available information is perfectly rational. If fact, depending on the importance of the decision or the urgency of the situation, it may be irrational to seek out or wait for additional information.
I'd like to see Ayn Rand debate Benjamin Franklin
@studentofsmith You don't seem to understand the concept of functional. Your example is not about making a decision using 50% or less certainty, your example is about choosing between 4 options with KNOWN values. Your example is functionally different from the point I've repeatedly tried to get you to examine and think through. In your example your certainty is 100%. Now consider that your options may or may not be mislabeled. What is your certainty? Which would you choose?
I think the housing market crash was caused by the government policies of regulation. This happened under United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.
@S24995 Part 3 This newly created currency was then passed out to big banks so as to protect them from the consequences of their overexpansion of credit via fractional reserve banking - at least, that was when the US was on a gold standard. By 1971, the money had become so inflated that there became no way to sustain a gold standard, so Nixon went off of it permanently, meaning general price stability and the steady decline in consumer prices that comes with capital accumulation died forever.
@MarkProffitt In your example there is a 50% certainty that I am right. This means there is a 50% certainty that one of the other options available to me are right but unless there are only two options it makes even less sense to select one of them. You cannot select ALL the other options in lieu of the single most probable one.
Just because a decision is rational doesn't mean it's likely to be correct but it's more likely to be correct than an irrational decision.
Why is my reply being blocked?
I'm assuming like many others, you are saying Rand is a hypocrite for taking Social Security, never mind that she was forced to pay into that program. Your logic dictates that simply owning your work is an act of parasitism, no society could function from the social structure justified by any morality formed based on that premise.
As for Canadian health care. Live it before you love it. Canadians pay over 55% (national avg 62.7%) of gross personal to taxes. Over half this wealth is thrown into the money pit of "Health Care". Many Canadians do pay user fees, many pay directly to their Province for their "right to free medical". Every company operating in Canada pays both federal and provincial fees and taxes. What do we pay for?! We don't know. we can not tell you how much an operation costs.
@kardentyrell The American Constitution was designed to maintain the economic status quo, allowing for federal interference in runaway slave cases (both a property and economic issue at the time) and preventing, in James Madison's words, the "equal division of property or any other improper or wicked object."
intrinsic value in others was poor grammar on my part. sorry. What I mean to say is that even the actions you take to please, help or enjoy others you are doing for your own joy and happiness.
I LOVE AYN RAND!!!!
I must be getting too close to the truth that is not supposed to be heard.
You'll love it. He also posted it on lewRockwell. com in the podcast area.
@studentofsmith It's not just that mental capacities are limited, the universe itself is constructed in a way that prevents us from increasing capacity beyond a certain level. We are and will always be forced to act irrationally trusting on luck or some unseen higher order to get us by. This is likely why we have the emotional responses to begin with. We can't count on rationality to work. Again, we can act more rational than we often do, however it can only take us so far.
@elizabethfaraone it never has, there was something close to it though for a short time
9:36 absolute comic genius !! That was like a Laurel Hardy look LMAO !!
studentofsmith -
Thanks for taking Ms. Rand's philosophy out of context. This was a great exercise!
Her philosophy is rooted in the concept of the inherent liberty of the individual. She clearly states that self-interest, within this context, does not allow for force against another person's inherent right to life, liberty or property.
Nice try though.
@MarkProffitt To be rational is to use logic, reason and common sense, within the limits of your knowledge and mental capacity, to reach conclusions and make decisions. This does not mean you are omniscient nor does it mean you will never be in error.
I can accept there may be circumstances in which the initiation of violence may be in ones rational self interest but as a citizen of a civilized country I have yet to experience such a situation.
@psspeed I understand your reaction to Ayn Rand's reaction and I do believe she jumped the gun in responding to the lady's remarks. However, in Ayn Rand's defense, I believe she took offense to the lady's opening comment that she had read Rand's books, then went to school and got educated - as to imply, perhaps, that Rand's books were not of service in assisting to develop thought this lady's thinking. Some people are just easily offended.
That opening by arrogant, know-it-all woman, was a cheap insult that a world famous philosopher/author does not have to take. That's not being easily offended. Donahue & his low intellect audience would never accept some useless Hollywood celebrity or Democrat politician being talked to like that.
Not having listened to the interview, I'm "shocked" that anyone could seriously take a look at America and say that there exist, at least, no fascist elements to the markets- especially with the current healthcare legislation debate. The only reason why Lew uses such words is because he isn't a part of the federally cartelized "media" in America which serves the interests of one perspective or another- so long as it means the growth of the state.
I'm not vilifying her. I'm a fan of hers. I've read all her books! She was a spokesperson for liberty and capitalism, and she was very good at it.
I'm correcting some things she says which are wrong. She had many mistaken notions of Christianity.
I didn't say she was forcing anyone. She presents a morality and makes claims about it. It deserves to be critiqued like anything else.
@iamzer0xx
(1) If you don't agree with someone it makes total sense to voice your point of view and consider the alternative perspective presented to further your understanding.
(2) The education of the woman was being mentioned so as to show that at a certain point the woman was exposed to only a portion of information and with time she was exposed to broader points of view. It does come off somewhat insulting to Ayn Rand and I think tha this was the problem with the question.
@votumseparatum1 Yes, but I don't thin she actually intended for it to sound insulting. Sometimes people do not word something as wll as they should, but that doesn't mean that they intended to be insulting.
@CurtHowland ..fair enough. I'll get back to you...you are correct, the bailout and big business are in partnership with the government.
@studentofsmith I do not intend to argue or even appear to insult. Please re-read what I said much more carefully and thoroughly think about it. At some level we are always forced into making decisions based on guesses or feelings, it's the nature of the universe. Furthermore, all of our desires have no basis in logic, they are either instinctual or emotionally. We want.
And even in your more civilized nation of Canada, both legalized theft and murder is accepted and makes people very rich.
You just described a pipe dream, simple as 1,2,3.
@flippyflappy1 She strongly implies that Rand is uneducated and that her opinions are less educated. This is obvious. Only Rand would directly call someone on it so straight away. Thats her personality, and in most cases, to be strongly applauded.
Very intelligent woman!
@kardentyrell In economics, laissez-faire describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention. Put two and two together.
@S24995 Part 4 "Fascism" was defined (by Mussolini) as the merger of state and corporate power, the direction of the activities of private firms by state decree. After going off the gold standard, Nixon issued wage and price "guidelines," followed by full-blown controls. With the last piece of free-market discipline - gold - on the inflationary madmen removed forever, they were free to print to infinity, and so the inflation crisis of the 1970s resulted.
@psspeed You can save a lot of time and frustration by trusting what information your unconscious processes about a person within a few seconds.
@studentofsmith The difference is totally functional. Anytime that you have 50% or less odds, nothing you do is rational. It's blind luck. Every day we make decisions evaluating dozens of variables. If you have 5 variables and are 100% sure about 3 and 70% sure of 2. Your chance of being right is 50%, blind luck. Or 87% sure of all 5, still 50% blind luck. Most of the time your guesses are far from rational. Most guesses are far from best.
3:45 even donahue starts laughing
If he chooses.
Yes, tell HER what should be deemed insulting to her after she took HER time to come onto the show :D Nice logic, so what is she doesn't want to answer the question of someone she thinks of as rude?
I didn't want to make a claim on what you previously stated because I wasn't sure if you actually meant what I interpreted it as. But now that you did, I can only base MY reasoning based on her other work. I don't think she meant it to be "Luciferian" because she didn't believe in hell or heaven. However, I do believe her ideology and philosophy is open to interpretation and if you believe it is, then go on! Who am I to tell you what to believe and what is right?
@kardentyrell All income is produced by labor and therefore properly belongs to wage earners. Under free market capitalism, a more or less considerable part of the income that properly should go to workers as wages is instead unjustly appropriated as profit, interest, and land rent, i.e., as one or another of the various forms of “surplus value.”
No way she was dead ON!!!!!!!!
Insofar as our desires being irrational I would suggest that while our instinctual desires drive us towards survival and reproduction our intelligence allows us to override our natural impulses and focus on the only rational goal I can think of... long term happiness.
What Ayn Rand has said is that we can not; in any way, free ourselves from consequences. When one action occurs there is consequence. If that action is ours, we are responsible. This is fact. No amount of denying intellect will erase it; or even aid in evading it.
We would all be much better off of everyone began to act in accordance with this reality.
Anything else is another form of death.
@psspeed Slight?
@jgribhamnz 1/2 No. The lady was simply making the point that at one time she was impressed with Rand's ideas but was exposed to other ideas and thoughts during her education and as a result of that she now disagrees with Rand's ideas. Any writer or ideologue who goes on a show and takes questions from the audience can expect to have people who disagree with them to challenge their positions. A mature adult handles it by explaining their postion and why they believe the questioner is wrong,
@iamzer0xx If you go on a show to talk about your ideas and take questions from the audience, then you can expect who do not agree with you are going to also ask questions regarding what they disagree with you about. You then explain your position and why you think they are wrong and you are right. That's what happens when you take open questions from an audience. If one just wants to spout out ideas with out being challenged or questionted, become a preacher and do it from behind the pulpit.
@MarkProffitt I had assumed that since your example was a hypothetical construct the chance of mislabeling was zero. Obviously if there is an unknown chance of mislabeling then the information you provided is of no value. Making a decision under those circumstances is no different than making a decision without any information whatsoever, making rationality impossible.
Fortunately in the real world we are rarely without at least some information making the application of rationality possible.
@olqutseg Yes, some of the hard core Rand devotes I've encountered before seem to see her as almost a god like figure and if you criticise her or her "philosophy" in the slightest way they react with a ferver that is similar to that of a religious fundamentalist.
I watched the suggested video but I don't think it really supports your point. All he is pointing out is that our mental capacities are limited and that many people behave irrationally. As I have previously pointed out doing the best you can within the limits of your mental faculties is still rational even if you're likely to be wrong. And many people do behave irrationally. Given the effort involved in being rational it make even make a certain amount of sense to forgo the effort.
@RolandStGermain I would not talk about the classes like you do, or the intellectual, social aspects here. This type of behavior can happen in all classes and circles- Have you ever had to defend a thesis- Jockeying for power position in politics-
Appearance and reality many time is mismatched and even polar opposites. A free society ideally would correct for this mismatch, but in reality societies are not free and gatekeepers restrict this. Skill and Luck is what opens doors up or down.
I could tell my family to lie and I could lie. My point is that I can say or do something and have no proof whatsoever to show you that I said or did something. For example, I drank water from the faucet 5 min ago. No one saw that I drank from the faucet. Now how am I going to prove to you that I did? Are you going to believe me or not? I'm making a statement of truth. Now it is up to you to believe me or do I have to show you proof. Somethings you take by faith by reason of peoples character.
@studentofsmith Rational self interest is not physically possible. Since we are inside the universe it's impossible to have total knowledge; so, we can't make perfectly informed decisions. We are forced to act less than rationally. Of course all of us could act a lot more rationally than we do now and it would be a fabulous improvement. However, violence is very rational if you can get away with it. The fact government exists proves that violence is very possible and profitable.
@oscar7557 who are you calling savages fool?
Love this woman, watch Thomas Sowell for another great thinker.
Yeah, refreshingly in the way that she actually tells a person that its thoughts and objections are false and/or depraved. That's not right in any way that's actually promoting a more totalitarian communication between peoples: the ones whom screams the most and/or knows the most should only speak and set down the rules. This is the reason why I couldn't agree any more with Ayn Rand and that most of hers philosophies are so flawed when one tries to put in other variables then just her owns
@psspeed I don't think so. I would have been annoyed as well. I think she's absolutely correct to respond to that women like that.
1. If you don't agree with what she has to say then why bother asking her anything at all.
2. No one is interested in your education. No one even knows what kind of education you have/had for that matter.
all her ideas arent perfect but they have a lot of strong points