Ayn Rand on Donahue 1979 (2/5)
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.
I just realized that she reached this level of philosophical understanding, a clear and logical school of thought from first principles...without the aid of computers or the internet.
Holy shit. This woman was a genius.
"I don't give a damn about my critics, because I haven't heard a good one," rofl funny how that's still true today despite so many haters.
i know and you know what is funny there are a bunch of idiots on youtube like vaush sam seder thom hartman robert reich etc etc that actually think they are her better or intellectual equal lol
"What do you think would happen in a disorderly universe?" fucking genius godammit!! Why doesn't anyone think of this shit
I love these respectful intellectual conversations that used to exist.
Donahue allows Ayn's brilliant answers to go in one ear and out the other...
True
As much I then politically disagreed with Phil Donahue on an array of issues, I have always appreciated his civility of course as well his respect towards guests of opposing views. This is rightly demonstrated when he hosted Milton Friedman in addition to Ayn Rand.
Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
Thank you for your mature take on this. I can't stand the opponents of objectivism who just dismiss it as childish or obtuse without hearing her out. I'm a libertarian who does not worship at her altar, but hers is a philosophy worth heeding for contemplative sake.
3:24 BAM!!! I'm a university student and have learned that everything I have been taught has been against true capitalism.
absolutely amazing video.
Excellent analysis!
"... and idea is a greater monument than a cathedral..."
~Spencer Tracy, from the movie "Inherit the Wind".
I think she meant well, and encouraged a lot of thought. Changing topics, I believe Rand's Atlas Shrugged was adapted to a film, and part 2 is going to be released soon. Please let me know if you've seen the first and what were your thoughts on the film.
More typos...I hope viewers will appreciate that this is haste, not lack of skill, nor disrespect for the language nor the audience. Thank you.
No it isn't. In fact, I've spent most my life living as an irrational, selfdestructive person. Since I discovered Rand's novels and writings I realized I have a free will and a choice, I can understand the world; reality, conditions for existence etc. I no longer harm myself or "use" other people. Result? I've never been happier, and things are getting even brighter as I try to achieve my goals in life. And I'm not taking anything from anyone else.
@Jim Bones, in closing, thank you for the adult conversation. Have a good one.
Donahue's patronizing attitude really gets on my nerves, but it's nice to hear Rand's philosophy straight from the horse's mouth. Thanks for posting these videos!
This is, finally, an excellent and relevant question! As far as I know, Rand stopped with the essay "Government Financing in a Free Society", saying that she is a philosopher, and that specialists in other fields would have to answer such questions. As a guess, I'd say it will eventually be moot, that resources will wind up in the hands of those MOST ABLE to make the BEST use of them. There will BE NO CRONY CAPITALISM, as there will be NO ONE TO BRIBE OR IMPLEMENT FORCE.
you are never called upon to prove a negative, that's a law of logic
brilliant woman
While I may disagree with Ayn Rand on many issues and agree with her on others, I cannot deny the brilliance of her intellect.
Well, i will have to re-examine my ideas on it - sorry to come off as obtuse regarding Rand. As a side note, what director could have really made the material come to light? David Fincher? Edward Zwick? Kenneth Branagh?
I wish there were people like donahue in the media today
@Joyeuseful
Honestly, I really love the format of this show, and I wish we had more like it. It seems like a real genuine conversation, unlike the phony presidential debates.
Such a shame...That these videos have such a low view rate......Speaks volumes...
On the contrary, this is precisely what SHOULD happen. If a conglomerate began selling oil at artificially high prices, this would create huge economic incentives to switch over to other fuels. This, not government fiat, is what should drive research and development. As soon as the price rose above what people would be willing to pay for gas or heating fuel, a huge profitable market for an alternative would open up, crashing the oil barons. Simple.
I compared it to defragging a computer. Or another way to look at it was like my brain was a huge warehouse full of boxes of everything I know. They were piled all over the place, dusty and scattered. I had to take them all out, sweep out the warehouse, throw out the trash and then restack the info-boxes in order. Then everything was so simple and clear and made sense. Like a nice new filing system
@LadyScorpio39 - To be more specific, she said 'rational' self-interest is her definition of selfish. And she did NOT say that helping others is amoral (or immoral). She said that the 'philosophy of altruism' is evil. She defines altruism as the belief that self-sacrifice is the highest moral virtue. When altruism is forced on you by a government it results in a dictatorship. There is nothing wrong with helping others if it's your choice. Her book The Virtue of Selfishness explains in detail : )
I do not have enough information to judge, and I suspect that NO ONE has sufficient information to judge. I often wish that Rand were here today to answer my many questions, especially about how to manage resources such as land, air an water. I suspect her argument would be that if someone did not efficiently use a resource someone would put them out of business. I would ask Rand many questions, if I could.
This women is amazing..opened my mind from every angle with only 9:36 minutes of time
It is not an assumption. It is a reality right now. There is no waiting for more production when right NOW sacrifice would make a difference.
@poppanolan Perfectly said, and just the right examples too. Well done.
I find it eternally humorous that necessity often becomes the mother of invention.
She makes a point of liberty.
People should be free to act in business and their own lives as they see fit as long as they do not infringe upon other peoples freedoms.
So many feelings would be hurt today..
This is like trying to teach your dog calculus.
Thank you for this....it's a relief to hear someone speak up this way.
Yes, that is true. Support the theory and not necessarily the person behind it. She stands up better in a room of favored intellectuals.
Can you imagine such an intellectual, theoretical discussion like this on a popular talk show these days? This was daytime TV! Wow. This accentuates, to me, how silly, inane, and entertainment-oriented our culture has become.
Whats cool is that she will always be thought of as a genius, despite not ONE of her theories being implemented by Government in anyway whatsoever. Her first mistake is NEVER underestimate an audience or think they are unable to understand what you are saying. That automatically backfired and it was all over her face. She came off as haughty, childish, and cantankerous. Intellect should always be above emotion and foremost should teach patiently. That is true genius. To inspire others.
You expect the GOVERNMENT to react to her philosophy? Don't be a fool, the term government IS the desired method of creating and maintaining the collective.
I apologized for my dangling sentence/thought. If someone has tereminal cancer and cannot work due to circumstances out of their control. I would rather give to them and take away from me ... and in that is the "good". If I have to do without a bit, for another to have a modicum of pleasure, the world is a better place. I can have a new cadillac, and drive by while a cancer patient is evicted. That is NOT "the good".
You are absolutely right. I just opened my youtube account yesterday and am taking it for a spin around the blockhead. Good night to you.
@LadyScorpio39 - I know that the things she says go against what most people were brought up to believe but I've read her books and I was surprised to find out how wrong most people are. Like I said, her book 'The Virtue of Selfishness' explains it in detail and 'Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand' by Leonard Peikoff lays out her entire system of philosophy. I think we all want to be moral but there are many wrong paths. Sometimes you have to start over to get on the right road.
They say you can tell alot about a society by looking back at its literature. In college, I wrote several papers using magazine resources from the 20s and 30s to discuss and interpret fiction that was written during the same time. With television, I guess you can do the same thing. Can you imagine a show today like this where philosophy is discussed? Unfortunately, nobody would tune it if there wasn't a paternity test or teen transsexual on deck. My how we have fallen in 30 years.
But its important that he ask her those questions-its what most persons would. It Gives her an opportunity to explain why she is what she is!
Do not forget that Rand proposed a completely Free Market, not the controlled market of her time and ours. Yes, under her system it would indeed be "cut and dry".
Was donahue going in for a kiss at the end?
It is a "Pie in the sky". It would work except that people that want hand-outs or the govt to help them corner the market would never allow it. The ideas she explains make perfect sense in a free society. I am a fundamentalist Christian first and foremost, but as an American I believe in freedom of religion. God gave us free will, our decisions are between us and Him, not us and the govt or others in society. LIVE FREE
@BurningOrchids You're opening a huge topic, one where the word "needy" would need to be defined. Example: If my family is starving to death because of a calamity and wealthy private individuals are hoarding food, those individuals would be violating my family's right to life as they would be preventing me from acquiring the means of survival. The right to life supersedes all other rights and in this case the "needy's" rights override property rights. There is no contradiction.
Well said.
@djangothecat
thats not what i got from what she said. are we listening to the same person?
She is so brilliant it's frightening...and 90% of that audience is dumbfounded, and not getting it.
i agree ,,if you lokk to theirface you feel they want to eat her alive
2:00 - Oh my goodness I didn't know that Phil's talking points was a still a talking points of the left to this day.
Ayn Rand must think you can dig up oil with a shovel in your backyard.
This is an important point, hammered home in Rand's nonfiction book, "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" Everyone has a philosophy, whether they realize it or not. The issue is, will it be a crust of jumbled ideas you pick up from the social static, or will it be rational and consistent, based firmly in Ontology and Epistemology?
brilliant!
Use the analogy of the phone company. It was a monopoly for years and there was poor service and no technological invention. Once ATT was broken up suddenly we had cell phone, text messages etc...
the problem is that in order to understand Rand's theories you have to forget how things are now and try to imagine it. But people always try to adjust theories to todays economy and that confuses the argument
Donahue was not condescending. He understands quite well her position, but he was playing the "devil's advocate", if you will, playing a role of the opposition. This evidenced by clear and concise questions that tease out the major points of Rand's objectivism. If he was to simply ask her to explain her position without this dialog, it would not be nearly as interesting an interview and would not involve the opposition in the discussion in such a greater degree.
totally agree, i see my own words here. Ive been trying to listen to Milton Friedman on libertarianism and humility to become more persuasive.
@pihingler So if you eliminate your competition and raise your price you will then open yourself up to more competition. Name one free market monoplie.
Typo! I typed "here PLAN" when I meant to type "her PLAN". I hope observers will realize my mistakes are hasty, not ignorant. I'm having to deal with MANY moronic comenters on Rand videos, so am often too hasty in my spelling. No disrespect to grammar or the reader, is intended. Thank you.
@hyperseauton: i don't know about her in depth analysis of enviornmentalism but i know from second hand objectivists that are either skeptical or indifferent. generally there is this scoffy attitude towards enviornmentalists.
While I agree with her philosophy for the most part, I'm not going to give up on my faith. My faith is where I draw strength from, but I do not use it to make all of my choices by.
My logic and reason won't allow me to just accept that all of this just happened by chance. To concede that is to throw logic and reason out the window.
But as long as you don't push your belief on me, or ridicule me because of mine, then I won't push mine on you.
Donahue seems to step over the line of challenge towards patronising Ayn Rand. Her points are very good, and regardless of if you agree with her she does articulate her theories well
The correct response would be to say that "there will be no one to bribe or implement the use of force WITH THE SANCTION OF LAW." Pretty simple.
I wish to clarify for the sake of any objectivists out there who wonder where I got my first answer to this, that it was not from Ayn but from Leonard Peikoff in the question period to the debate "Socialism Or Capitalism-Which is the moral system?"I'm paraphrasing from his response to an equally invalid presumption by one of his opponents.
It must give you a nice, warm, safe, secure feeling inside to be able to dismiss Rand rather than consider her ideas.
@ExpandingUponWealth i'm not sure what that has to do with my comment, or which one you're responding to
The reception for Rand's fiction from literary critics was largely negative, and most academics have ignored or rejected her philosophy. Nonetheless she continues to have a popular following, and her political ideas have been influential among libertarians and some conservatives.
He's trying to be intimidating, and that would get a response from the interviewee. If the interviewee is intimidated, then they have a more difficult time defending their position. If they are un-phased, then the intimidation backfires, and we see Donahue as "the bad guy". With people who are truly honest, intimidation often fails, so this actually strengthens her arguments - to defend them in the face of intimidation. In this way Donahue subtly serves the purpose of his interviewees. Cool huh.
@pihingler you're forgetting that low prices are good for the people, and the minute you raise your price someone will come under you and take market share away from you. competition is not a 1 time thing. it is an ongoing battle. to own the market you must keep your prices the lowest. also, you're forgetting that you cannot "buy out" every competitor. the competitor must be willing to sell at the same time.
i agree with your statement...
@Joyeuseful It's not at all like applauding in the middle of a philosophy lecture because here two sides are being presented. People applaud to let others know which points they agree with. In the case of one person delivering a philosophy lecture, one point of view is ultimately being rendered.
@poppanolan, what an excellent point. I'm picturing O'Reilly and Olbermann trying to bull doze over her and not even realizing when their points of views are being intellectually destroyed.
The toxic derivatives exist because of the fractional reserve banking system. The whole derivatives market grew out of credit expansion.
Government could not control this no matter what they tried.
@ChadMault To the undercutting argument - As soon as you raised prices to a monopoly, someone else would enter your market and undercut you at a profitable price. You can't sell below cost indefinately.
As to the second, that's corruption and Rand opposed it.
The final question, if economies of scale allow large producers to sell goods cheaper than small producers and still make money, why is that even objectionable?
You forgot some: I'm also Igor Stravinsky, Groucho Marx, Copernicus, Dracula, Penn Jillette and Ayn Rand's pet cat Francisco.
"Meow"...see?
She has explained this before. In a different interview, she was asked if she minded someone saying "god bless you", and said no, because "it means the highest. It is one of the best things they can say to you." (paraphrased) I assume she used the word God in the same manner, and the phrase means the "highest disagreement" she could give
Ayn Rand had a Russian accent, having been born there, and living there for the first half of her life.
@Sivels ... As I am uncertain about the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
There is little difference between enslavement by the Witch Doctors and enslavement by the Looters. I encourage you to read Rand's non-fiction books. Excerpts are free to read at the website: Ayn Rand Institute for Individual Rights. Begin with "The Nature of Government" excerpt.
I read and like AR but resolve the following situation. If Shell, BP and Exxon corner the market, they cease to be a source of stress to each other and join forces against other stressors like other commodities. So it would be a single oil provider against eg grocers and lumber producers. The newer forces of stress created by the monopoly spread out to each family who sacrifice their new fishing boat, clothing and food for energy necessary to get to a job 40 miles from their home.
You've got to give it to Donahue... nobody these days would devote such a large amount of time to a philosopher, particularly that of the Rand school of thought.
Or if they did, the interview would be cut short to give equal time to an interview with Beyonce and a musical interlude by Kesha. :D
@Omnicron777 did i say you can't prove a negative, or you aren't called upon to?
She's exactly right about the liberal professors at universities. I know not one in the last 3 years I've been going that is at LEAST a conservative or libertarian.
@AlexanderLee1 I guess it's hard to recognize a skillful interviewer as there are so few around. Try and see beyond what is the superficial discussion. As doilyfilm astutely points out, he is skillfully leading the discussion. He knows her answers and is facilitating.
Phil is playing checkers; she is playing chess. She predicted electric vehicles.
Why the topics for this interview exactly the same for the other one? Even the same topic points: "You can't prove that there isn't" "You are not called upon in logic to prove a negative."
not much. Im a Christian and I don't give a shit what other peoples beliefs are. Just as long as they work their asses off, that's all I care about.
@teresaschiano1 I think Rand means ordered in the sense of "lawful" i.e. obeys some fundamental laws.
The answers to your questions lie in the non-fiction work of Ayn Rand. I suggest you begin with the essay "The Nature of Government". An EXCERPT is available to read for free online.
She has a striking resemblance with Helen Thomas.
You can still be everything she describes and still be 'uncertain' about the existence of a God
You can't buy out your competition if they don't Sell out.
I am inclined somewhat to disagree. As Rand often said, we must first define our terms. Until we agree as to the definition of certain words, debate is impossible. "Certain agreements" must come FIRST.
Correct.
You are correct in saying "Not everyone who believes in God is a nut." But religion is not meant as a coping device, it is meant as an explanation for man's fears and uncertainties, especially of those pertaining to death. Religions can be good, but it can just as well be bad. People become infatuated with their God, judging all those who do not believe and following whatever holy doctrine is given to them, which often includes rules and ideas that tear even the greatest of nations apart.
I am speaking of promoting human life materialistically. I don't think that's "the good". I do think simple kindness, volunteerism, and not being assholes to each other, even if that means I ride a city bus instead of owning a car outright ... I think for me "the good" is every kid in the (world) country I live in having health insurance, even if I have to pony up more in taxes and can't retire early. I don't think that is in line with Rand's world. That's all, Jim.
>Competition in the free market creates better quality & more value for your money----------- What about when a single entity buys out all the competition and has the ability to temporarily run a deficit and bankrupt any rising competition?
Its still the same principle as she stated. Even though the fed is not a "Government" institution per'se, they are a central bank which we know is no good. Secondly as she stated before, it is with government backing that a monopoly is created. She knows this and rand was completly opposed to the FED. ITs against the very core of her economic policy. Rand like Rothbard she was against even money monopoly.
The audience is really annoying me in this interview. I mean, no matter whose sentiments you agree with, these people are having a philosophical argument. Applause doesn't really fit into that argument. It's just an interruption, in many ways similar to applauding in the middle of a philosophy lecture. It doesn't really matter what YOU agree with. It's important to get the ideas out on the table and think about them. I don't agree with Ayn Rand, but I respect her for her interesting ideas.