How the Free Market System Can Stop Economic Collapse: A Right Side Interview with Yaron Brook

Chris Pareja interviews Yaron Brook, on the free market system and how it is the only thing that can save us from economic collapse and the morality of capitalism. Directed and produced by Jim Twu and Mike Harris at Cable Access channel KMVT 15 in Mountain View, CA. Original title: The Right Side with Yaron Brook, Episode 201. Like what you hear? Become a sponsor member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this at https://www.yaronbrookshow.com/support/, Subscribestar https://www.subscribestar.com/yaronbr... or direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow. Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook). Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.

Yaron Lectures: Morality of Entrepreneurship and Capitalism

In this talk, Yaron Brook discusses the morality of capitalism and businessmen. Hosted by the European Students For Liberty at the Regional Conference in Wroclaw, Poland on November 21, 2015 Like what you hear? Become a sponsor member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this at https://www.yaronbrookshow.com/support/, Subscribestar https://www.subscribestar.com/yaronbr... or direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow. Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook). Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.

The Individual is the most important minority.

The Penultimate defense of the proper left and right.

I recommended anyone that is considering dropping the left-right spectrum and the defense of rightist as defenders of individual rights read Craig Biddle's recent essay in The Objective Standard. They are committing numerous fallacies by making it seem that saying rightist is freedom and individualism is incorrect or to be shunned. As Craig Biddle correctly points out it is the very nature of any political spectrum to have a rights side and an authoritarian side. We need to explain and provide proper definitions for the right Vs the left hand pole not pretend there is no left and right poles to a political spectrum.


As Craig Biddle points out so eloquently in his article;

One way in which people commit this fallacy is by assuming that we can abandon the left-right political spectrum and speak strictly in terms of a statism-capitalism spectrum or a collectivism-individualism spectrum without correcting misconceptions about the left-right spectrum. That may sound great—until we think about it, reflect on the broader context, and realize that a two-pole spectrum by its very nature has a left side and a right side.10 No matter which words we place on the opposite ends, the spectrum will still have a left side and a right side; thus, people will still think about it and refer to it in terms of left and right.11

This is 100% correct that there is not a single spectrum that exists that does not have two poles a left and a right pole of the spectrum. The idea that the Nolan Chart or multi-axis Charts are the answer is factually obliterated in Craig's other masterful work, "The Muddy Waters of The Nolan Chart."

We need to define the essentials objectively and properly; then make our home without shame on the side that is "right." Which is the Right of the spectrum on the side of individual rights and non-initiation of coercion or consent based societies. It is Capitalism the social system; the only moral social system; the Political Right on which classical liberals, constitutional republicans, Objectivists, Laissez-Fairest, et cetera reside. One needs to defend their rightness on the spectrum as well as in matters of facts. The political right represents the morally proper system of social interaction. As visualized and clarified on the below spectrum.

Capitalism is a social system based on bringing out virtue and diminishing vice.

The Rubin Report | Ayn Rand's Philosophy on Helping the Poor, Capitalism, and Human Nature

Ayn Rand's philosophy on social safety nets, capitalism, human nature and more.

A Plea for Voluntaryism | Auberon Herbert

A Plea for Voluntaryism by Auberon Herbert Download and read http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/her...

Freedom & Flourishing as Matters of Science with Craig Biddle

Visualize a world where people are fully free to pursue their life-serving values and to trade with one another by mutual consent to mutual benefit. Imagine that most people in this world see such self-interested actions as morally good. Envision yourself, your friends, and your family consequently flourishing by orders of magnitude greater than you do today. Is such a world possible? It is. And it belongs to those who are willing to fight for it. In this talk, Craig Biddle argues that in order to move ourselves and the culture toward this ideal, we must take a scientific approach. We must understand and embrace the fact that the principles of freedom and flourishing, like those of physics and engineering, are matters of observation and logic. And we must learn to communicate these truths to others with the same clarity we would expect from a competent engineer explaining how a lever works or why a building stands.

How would Government be funded in a ideal society? A video answer and an amazing Essay as well

Along with the above small look into Government funding in an ideal society I recommend the following article by Craig Biddle. It is from The Objective Standard and presents a much more detailed look at this. Including why it would moral to be a free rider if you truly cannot afford to pay for the Government and still have all of their rights protected without payments. Specifically; the Government does not need more than it needs to run the said functions. So, not everyone needs to pay as long as enough is raised to functionally run the Government cops, justice system and military. 

ENCORE ENCORE ----- Yaron Answers: How Would A Government Gain Revenue Without Taxes?

Published on Sep 11, 2012 by Ayn Rand Institute 

Yaron Brook answers a question from Justin: "How would a government gain revenue without taxes?" 

www.laissezfaireblog.com

Individual Rights IS Capitalism; anything Anti-Capitalism is anti-individual, the anti-human and anti-life.

Whenever an Objectivist or other Capitalism proponent identifies themselves as such others will often misunderstand them. It is unfortunate that Capitalism is misunderstood to be cronyism or corporate welfare. Or that it is thought to be some sort of free for all. The truth is that Capitalism is simply the enshrining and defense of individual rights within a given Nation or Culture. It is not cronyism, not corporatism and not welfare to Big Business either. Capitalism is not simply an economic right it is an entire social system which is in fact the only one congruent with human flourishing on Earth as a human.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival . . . .

Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.

It is the basic, metaphysical fact of man’s nature—the connection between his survival and his use of reason—that capitalism recognizes and protects.

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind. 

The Yaron Brook Show: An Interview with Gad Saad

This interview recorded on June 6, 2018 between Yaron Brook and Gad Saad delves into free speech, free will and evolutionary psychology and the relationship between psychology and values and key scripts that define one's life. To connect with more of Gad Saad, see his channel at https://www.youtube.com/gadsaad or follow him on Twitter @GadSaad. Like what you hear? Become a Patreon member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this! https://www.patreon.com/YaronBrookShow or support the show direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow. Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook). Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.

"Social Justice" is an Assault on Justice from Reason At Large w/Craig Biddle

Craig Biddle answers a question from Jeff: "What is 'social justice'? Is it a legitimate term? If so, what does it mean? If not, why not?" In answering, Biddle discusses the purpose behind "social justice," defines and concretizes justice, compares and contrasts instances of justice with the aims of "social justice," and shows that "social justice" is what Ayn Rand called an anti-concept: an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. Finally, Biddle provides a clear, concise definition of "social justice" and encourages listeners to bear the definition in mind whenever they hear the term, and to provide the definition to advocates of "social justice" so that they will know that we too know what they are talking about and calling for. To explore more of these ideas visit: http://www.TheObjectiveStandard.com

Yaron Lectures - Defending Capitalism

This talk was recorded at the 2010 Objectivist Summer Conference in Las Vegas, NV. Objectivists have long recognized the need to wage a long-term battle for a culture of reason. But Yaron Brook warns that unless we succeed in slowing America's descent into statism, there won't be a long-term. In this stirring call to action, Dr. Brook lays out the most critical ideas to inject into today's political debate. Dr. Brook names four vital questions that defenders of capitalism must answer for Americans: What is capitalism? Does it work? Is it moral? What are the conditions under which capitalism can exist? This talk explains how to answer those questions convincingly, and addresses common mistakes Objectivists make in arguing for capitalism. Like what you hear? Become a Patreon member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this! https://www.patreon.com/YaronBrookShow or support the show direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow. Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook). Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.

Just Right Media VS The Right?

In my last article I pointed out that Bob Metz seemed to have a hard on for The Political Spectrum as presented by Craig Biddle in his 2012 article from The Objective Standard. However, it becomes clearer as you think about what he has said about other members of the right that he labels left that he considers the Right to consist of a small bubble of people and not anyone else. The fact that he will attack any Libertarian even if they are Objectivish-ish and based on reason not actually intellectually or philosophically libertarian as such shows this to the be case. Paul McKeever and Bob's chewing out the Ontario Libertarian Party leader as not being an alternative to the Status Quo is solid evidence for this idea.

He seems to think that one needs to consistently agree with every dot and tiddle of Objectivism to be on The Right. Even that is not enough, however, as Allen S. of the Libetarians in Ontario is an Objectivist. You need to be an Objectivist that comes to the same conclusions as he does using the application of the philosophy or else you are just wrong and also not on The Right. However, The Right while encompassing Objectivism as the most consistent and completely logical philosophical root to The Right is not all of The Right. Anymore than it is all of philosophy even though it is part of the greater realm of all true and great philosophy.

The Right in actuality consists of anyone that is consistent in the defense of individual rights based on a government with Objective Laws to protect person and property. In essence anyone that is consistently in favor of a social system of Capitalism and understands its proper definition is Rightist. This consists at its core at the most philosophically centered and grounded of Objectivism properly understood and practiced. However, it also includes broader non-Objectivists such as;

Classical liberals, Constitutional Republicans, Auberon Herbert Pro-Government styled "Voluntaryism," Lassiez-Fairests in general, the more principled remnants of the US Tea Party movement, the more principled members of The Republican Party Freedom Caucus, more principled members of the incredibly small Freedom Democrats in the US, more Principled Log Cabin Republicans whom rightfully decry the old time anti-homosexual legislation of the Republican Party Moral Majority, consistently reason based Right-Libertarians whom are essentially Radical Capitalists in all, but, their Party name. (Reason based Right-Libertarians tend to be classical liberals with a different label.) Throw into the pot a great deal of the Maxime Bernier supporters that are more principled for extra measure as well.

This is why you will notice that Objectivism in name is not mentioned anywhere on the Essentialized Political Spectrum as found in The Objective Standard. It lists political labels for political stances and political systems. It does not mention Objectivism because it references the political element of the broader philosophy of Objectivism which one can label with more than one name and still be correct on its contents. Objectivism is I do agree the only fully consistent and non-contradictory reason/reality/rationally based philosophical under-gurding of anyone one of those many mentioned political labels or names. However, this does not invalidate the ability for someone to come to same just rational, reasonable and non-contradictory political view and not even realize they are using the Objectivism core view of existence exists and reason being man's means of knowledge. One could personally totally misunderstand Objectivism due to ignorance and still be Politically Right and on The Right all the same.

It is a mistake to make whether someone fully agrees with or is an Objectivist as a fitness test of their character. Some of the most evil, vile, vicious and toxic people at least claim to be Objectivists. That does not make them all of a sudden the most moral and virtue filled person. Some of the best and most rational people are also Objectivists as well. The being an Objectivist does not mean anything unless you know the character of a person, They might just be using Ms. Rand's philosophy as a tool of rationalizing that their predatory and vile behavior is OK because Selfishness is a Virtue. Not realizing how self destructive they are in fact being and how mentally damaging their toxic mentality is on their own mind.

This is why one cannot make being an Objectivist VS not being an Objectivist as the soul primary in thinking about politics. You have some inconsistent and philosophically not as grounded, but, yet end result agreeing Right-Libertarians that are far less toxic than particular supposedly consistently moral and virtue driven Objectivists can be. At the same time there are also very toxic and dangerous Libertartians out there like the anarchists for example. You need to use individualism as your method when determining the character of people and whom to trust. You need to use methodological individualism when it comes to picking your political allies and just being an Objectivist or not should not be the primary criteria. It is a mistake to make The Right to be interchangeable with "the philosophy of Ayn  Rand." It is the broader Rational Right in general that should be supported in the Political Realm.

Capitalism is a Social System; it is not just "economic freedom."

There is a big misconception out there that Capitalism only means economic freedom in a Nation. This is something that even some people that claim to support free markets say about the system. Libertarians tend to push Capitalism as "the economic freedom." However, this is dead wrong as Economic Freedom is the outcome of Capitalism itself. Economic freedom is simply a corollary of truly being free to begin with. Capitalism is both social and economic freedom it is not separate from the other. In fact, freedom to trade is not even really "economic" freedom at all it is merely one manifestation of personal freedom as pertains to the right to trade with others for mutual benefit to mutual advantage in a consensual manor. If you have a "market" quote un quote, but, then you are told what to eat or whom to date or whom to marry you are in an authoritarian nightmare not Capitalism. 

The separation of Economic Freedom from the broader existence of the defense of individual rights leads to things like the nightmare of Anarcho-Capitalism to be seen as a freedom philosophy when it is the complete opposite. It helps make especially libertarians to be incoherent and philosophically deadly. This is yet another reason that one needs to differentiate between supporting any individual Libertarian Party, institute, group or Individual Candidate for matters of implementing policy VS supporting libertarianism the intellectual movement. Due to their lacking a coherent philosophy or a dedication intellectually to reality or reason there is no "reason" for them to see the error of their way of seeing Capitalism as only Economic freedom scales. 

This is one of the big differences from a broader Radical for Capitalism or even Classical Liberal from the libertarian movement. While some Classical Liberals make the same mistake it at least is not ingrained in the movement or the intellectual caste of the group. This is of course a major difference between Objectivists and Non-Objectivists as well in talking about freedom and Capitalism in general. As Objectivism IS a coherent and reality based philosophy it talks about Capitalism as it really is. Which is that it is in fact the only moral social system that could ever "grace" this Earth. This is because an Objectivist whom really understands their Philosophy has a coherent whole of views that all go together in a hierarchy that fit together into reality based concepts. Whereas most, but, not all libertarians are whim worshiping and subjectivist at heart. They in a fact take NAP this NAP as an abstraction and do not know how to defend the soul use of defensive force. 

This is spurned on because a lot of them while talking about supporting Capitalism do not even fully understand the breadth of what Capitalism is and means. What Capitalism is, is not just economic freedom as a lot of libertarians word it. It is in fact the identity of the only truly humane, free and just; AKA Moral Social System it is in fact defined as follows; 

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.
The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.

The essence of capitalism’s foreign policy is free trade—i.e., the abolition of trade barriers, of protective tariffs, of special privileges—the opening of the world’s trade routes to free international exchange and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another.

Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships.

I would recommend anyone that wants a properly explained and essentially defined look at Capitalism to find their nearest copy of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," by Ms. Rand. To buy up a copy as quickly as possible to remove any Hobgoblins and residuals from the Anti-Capitalist mentality in your defending of this great system. The only truly moral system for mankind qua mankind. The above passages are all Copyright Ms. Rand's estate and all rights are reserved to the owners of the Ayn Rand Lexicon website.