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 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.

Bob Metz is Just Wrong when it comes to The Essentialized Political Spectrum

Last night I was listening to archived episodes of Just Right Radio when I came across his episode on The Objective Standard's essentials based political spectrum. I have done an article on this previously in which I pointed out the episode was a misinterpretation of the essay attached to the spectrum. However, this time I realized I had missed the most important thing about this episode. The fact that nowhere in the episode does he even mention the essay/article which explained the spectrum he was looking at.

Instead of reading one of the many, many articles on The Objective Standard which explained the views of the periodical on left vs right Bob acted like a stubborn mule. He simply evaded/ignored any explanation given in great detail by Craig Biddle on the subject. This was very wrong on his part and he did not even bother to investigate and/or present anything from Craig's marvelous essays/articles on the subject of the left-right spectrum. I wish to address some of his biggest mistakes below.


1. The Essentialized Political Spectrum ignores the binary nature and polarity of left vs right.

Bob claims that Craig Biddle thinks that there is no binary within politics. That essentially left vs right contains no absolutes or does not define to opposite ideological views of the nature of government. However, this is not the case at all and if he did even 4 minutes of research via looking over the various articles available under the political spectrum tag he would know he was dead wrong on this matter.

When it comes to explaining the problem with the Nolan Chart used by some whom favor liberty Craig points to just this binary polarity.

"The Nolan chart treats the realm of politics as non-binary when, in fact, it is binary. 

Politics is about freedom and force. Freedom is the condition in which a person is free to act on his judgment. Force is the opposite: To the extent that force is used against a person, he cannot act on his judgment; he is forced to act against it. 

In terms of essentials, politics is either-or: Either you are (fully) free to speak your mind about controversial issues—even when doing so offends others—or you are not. Either you and your doctor are (fully) free to contract by mutual consent to mutual benefit—or you’re not. Either you and your lover are free to marry—or you’re not. Either you and a potential employer or employee are free to negotiate wages in accordance with your respective judgment—or you’re not. 

The Nolan chart presents the basic alternatives in politics as non-binary and “nuanced.” But the alternatives are in fact binary and, when presented properly, vivid. The Nolan chart does not clarify the basic alternatives; it obfuscates them."

Unlike what Bob Metz paints Craig Biddle as believing about ideological fundamentals he does understand left vs right correctly in their essentials.


2.  The existence of the middle is a myth and there is no such thing as mixed ideologies or "the center." 

Bob Metz claims that there is no middle in the political spectrum and that a center is in fact a myth. His reason for believing this is the binary nature of freedom vs force, but this is to deny reality. In reality most people are not far left and most people are not on the Right. Most mainstream voters are in fact mixed in their ideological precepts around politics. Most people are not on The Right AKA for Pure Lassiez-Faire as the essentials spectrum defines The Right.

Nor are most people on the actual far left or extreme left. They are not pure Capitalism proponents nor are they pure Socialism proponents. They are for a mixed economy of some sort they are for "a degree" of infringement of the initiation of non-consent principal. Most people are not consistent ideologically because they are not totally coherent philosophically. They are working on mixed premises which leads to being in the very real middle of the left-right political spectrum.

Which means that they are to some "degree" to the left and thus middle not on The Right. Due to not doing research on what the middle means Bob Metz makes it seem as though Craig Biddle, I, or anyone else that uses the essentials spectrum are the ones denying reality. When in fact, it is Bob and his ignorant stubbornness that is causing him to evade the reality of the mainstream being a mixed premises. This is why Capitalism proponents and liberty lovers can find support depending on the policy from people in various parties/think tanks around the Globe.

"Observe the clarity gained by this conception of the political spectrum. The far left comprises the pure forms of all the rights-violating social systems: communism, socialism, fascism, Islamism, theocracy, democracy (i.e., rule by the majority), and anarchism (i.e., rule by gangs). The far right comprises the pure forms of rights-respecting social systems: laissez-faire capitalism, classical liberalism, constitutional republicanism—all of which require essentially the same thing: a government that protects and does not violate rights. The middle area consists of all the compromised, mixed, mongrel systems advocated by modern “liberals,” conservatives, unprincipled Tea Partiers (as opposed to the good ones), and all those who want government to protect some rights while violating other rights—whether by forcing people to fund other people’s health care, education, retirement, or the like—or by forcing people to comply with religious or traditional mores regarding sex, marriage, drugs, or what have you."

Bob Metz is a mule stubborn beyond compare and he needs to learn to admit when he makes mistakes. As much as he seems to think he is unable to be wrong in this case it is Craig Biddle that is Just Right.

Yaron Interviewed: Libertarianism, Islamic terrorism, Politics and economics (in English, in Spain)

In this interview, Yaron Brook sits down with Pablo de Angulo Ruiz-Morón host of the student club El Club de los Viernes to discuss Libertarianism, Islamic terrorism, Politics and economics. Yaron also shares his views about how Israel's policies are perceived by the media and the public in Europe. Recorded on June 12, 2018 with the student club El Club de Los Viernes in Granada, Spain. 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.

Shattering the veil of ignorance: Taking on the misunderstandings and downright falsehoods about Objectivism

Usually even the mere mention of Objectivism leads to scorn and a crazy hatred that is something so negative a believer in Woo Woo fluff would say would bring ruin. Most people whom hear the term think of some sort of secular Cult built around unquestionable ideas of one woman; that woman being Ayn Rand. They think to be an Objectivist; thus agreeing with her on philosophy and its proceeding politics means that you worship the ground she walked on. That you are a dogmatic and unthinking kool-aid drinker. That you are in fact a Randroid. 

However, to say that is to not understand Objectivism VS Ayn Rand worship. It is to misunderstand the difference between agreeing with a philosophical world view and agreeing with the personal opinions of the philosopher. It is to misunderstand the difference between agreeing with the overall world view presented and to agree unquestioning that the outcome of that philosophy is X, Y or Z. One of the biggest misunderstandings about Objectivism is that it promotes a dog-eat-dog world of chaos. 

At the core of Objectivism is indeed the virtue of selfishness in fact it is all about following your own personal and rational selt-interest. VS living a life based on otherism where others determine your life and journey over your own self. However, there is no reason for rational self-interest for selfishness to lead to chaos. Far from it chaos does not let us achieve our goals to keep and maintain our values in life. One needs some sense of stability to be able to know how to keep and maintain said values. The chaos of people crushing each other to get ahead is antithetical to being able to live a rational life. 

Thus one of the biggest hard-ons against Objectivism is on its face dead wrong and not correct. Let us take charity for one. Charity itself is not persay a virtue, but, it can be virtuous to be charitable to causes you really do care about. If you have a cause you are rationally passionate about and it is not self-destructive to give to it that is selfish. Charity in order to be moral must be based on a context in which you are not destructive of your own wellbeing. Some people find it amazing to give to others because of the cause being something they love. In addition one can get great joy and happiness from helping others and being benevolent. 

Just because a philosophy has selfishness at its core does not mean it preaches "me, me, me." Another example is people providing protection and provision to others. If someone has a loved one in their life; be that a lover, friends, family or even fellow community members of good character one is unrelated to. If someone is giving to them in the form of protecting them or providing for them it is not selfless unless it is self-destructive. Protection and provision spurned on by how important of a value someone or something is to you in a non-destructive way it is selfish to take up such a role. 

The truth is most people would not want pure altruism to take hold in a society. It would lead to said societies complete and utter destruction. Even something such as national security is based on people selfishly protecting that which one cares deeply about. Ones ability to be free and thrive in a safe, stable and of course most importantly liberty based society. So, soldiers volunteering to be in an all volunteer army because they have thought, thought, thought and rationally want to protect the nation and its allies are being as selfish as can be they are not selfless altruists at all. 

It is not selfish to let your child starve either. Or to look at the poor as scum beneath your feet. It is very selfish to help a poor person that genuinely wants to be on their own two feet. That genuinely wants to not be poor and to have their own job. Whom generally wants to have a good life and be a productive person in their own life. People that have thought about peoples characters and decided out of benevolence to help the downtrodden and the disabled/disordered are also being selfish provided they are not being self-destructive. Feeding your child is selfish because you are maintaining your genes in the pool of our species. Only a pure altruist would let their child starve. 

Now let us return to the criticism of Objectivism as being some sort of Ayn Rand circle-jerk cult. To be deadly honest some people whom call themselves Objectvists can be jerks, can be Randroid like worshipers and can be cult-like dogmatists. However, that is not Objectivism that causes this these people would act like this with philosophy and the philosophers no matter which one they chose. These folks just have that sort of temperament and no matter what they were they would act like this. If they dropped Objectivism for say Christianity they would become the fundamentalists. This is an individual issue that should be taken up with those individuals and any groups which share their unthinking narrative view. 

For example; Ayn Rand thought homosexuality was immoral. However, 99% of all people whom are Objectivists disagree with this stance vehemently. Ayn Rand denied evolution had a role to play in human psychology. This too a good deal of Objectivists disagree with. She thought that your sense of life determined whom you wanted to bang. This too most Objectivists would disagree with as well. She was herself anti-porn and this is not true of Objectivists everywhere. She had many personal opinions she came to on any number of matters. However, agreeing with her philosophically does not indicate you agree with any of her opinions she nor any other Objectivist "claims" comes from agreeing with the philosophy.  

I am an Objectivist and I will not deny this nor have I ever denied this on this here blog. However, I also disagree not only as vehemently with Ayn Rand as many other Objectivists with thinking brains, but, often times I disagree even more with her than my fellow Objectivists do. Topic after topic that would take up paragraphs I disagree and find evidence based on our current knowledge is black and white against Ayn Rands personal "outcomes" of her philosophy. However, philosophically Ayn Rand was absolutely correct on the proper world view for a free and prosperous life. I agree with her philosophy completely. I not only know it, I understand it concretely and put it to use in my life all the time. 

Ayn Rand - What Is Capitalism? (full course)

This 1967 lecture is Ayn Rand’s flagship talk on capitalism. In it she explains in depth what capitalism is, why it is often misunderstood and why it is the only social system consonant with man’s nature. She discusses the philosophical and ethical roots of capitalism, and contrasts them with the moral-philosophic doctrines that lead to rule by force. She then discusses progress under capitalism and how it is fundamentally different from the so-called progress of a statist society. Along the way, Rand takes up such questions as: • What is the essence of man’s nature? • What is the fundamental basis for the concept of individual rights? • How is capitalism consonant with man’s nature? Why are other social systems not consonant with it? • Why is serving “the common good” not a sound principle for governing a free society? • What are the different perspectives on “the good,” and how do they inform people’s views on what constitutes a proper social system? • What has been the ethical basis of all tyrannies in history? • Who prospers on a free market? • How does a free market unleash man’s creative abilities? • What is so often misunderstood about progress under capitalism? This talk is excerpted from Rand’s substantially longer and more comprehensive essay of the same name. Students interested in mastering Rand’s views on capitalism are encouraged to study the full essay, available here, in addition to enjoying this course. SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/... SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today. SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit... EXPLORE ARI http://www.AynRand.org FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER https://twitter.com/AynRandInst LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti... EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS https://campus.aynrand.org/ INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES http://objectivistconferences.com/ LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES http://aynrandcon.org/

Yaron Brook Show: Interview with Actor Mark Pellegrino

Yaron interviews Mark Pellegrino -- accomplished actor, Objectivist, OAC student and founder of the #AmericanCapitalistParty. http://Www.theamericancapitalistparty... See also: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0671032/?r... 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. #MarkPelligrino 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.

Another amazing defense of the proper left and right

I recommended anyone that is considering dropping the left-right spectrum and the defense of rightist as 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.

The Objectivist Politics ; Freedom and Individual Rights for all.

Politics is the application of ethics to a social context. Since the Objectivist ethics holds that each man is an end in himself, with his own life and happiness as his highest moral purpose, in politics it necessarily follows that each man possesses an absolute right to his own life. Everyone possesses soverignty over their mind and body, and thus the right to act on their own judgement. All other rights, i.e. liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc., are merely applications of the right to life. In relation to other men, each man is fundamentally independent -- not because he can live on his own, but because he can only think with his own mind -- there is no "collective consciousness." All creative effort, every invention in history, every advance in the process that created the wealthy, industrial society in which we now live in, and which distinguishes us from the proto-humans that lived short, violent lives in caves without the aid of tools or fire was created by the mental effort of individual men and women. Sometimes they worked together, and their knowledge was increased by the work of predecessors, but each advance they made was their own. The mind cannot be received, shared, or borrowed. Every new idea in human history was a product of the work of an individual mind.

In a human society -- one that recognizes the independence of each man's mind -- each individual is an end in himself. He owns his life, and no one else's. Other men are not his slaves, and he is not theirs. They have no claim on his life or on the values he creates to maintain his life, and he has no claim on theirs. In a free society, men can gain immense values from each other by voluntarily trading the values they create to mutual gain. However, they can only create values if they are free to use their minds to exercise their creativity. A man is better living off on his own than as a slave to his brothers. Individualism is the recognition that each man is an independent, thinking being. An individualist recognizes no authority higher than his of judgment of the truth, and no higher standard of value than his own life. That which furthers his life is the good, while that which destroys it is evil. Individualism is opposed to collectivism, the idea that man does not have an independent mind, does not own his life, and lives as a slave to his brothers. Collectivism holds the evil idea that man's life has value only so far as it servers the society, State, or race.

To pursue the values necessary for his life a society, man requires only one thing from others: freedom of action. Freedom does not mean the freedom to act by permission of a state or a dictator, but the freedom to act however one pleases as long as one does not infringe on the same and equal freedom of others. To live in a society, man requires rights to protect the actions necessary to sustain his own life. All rights derive from a man's right to his own life, including the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, rights are moral principles defining his freedom of action in a social context. Rights are inalienable -- they are not given to man by any government and may not be morally infringed upon. A man may have his rights violated by a criminal or a corrupt regime, but morally he remains in the right, and the dictator and criminal in the wrong. Rights are not guarantees to things or obligation placed on others, but only guarantees to freedom from violence (the right to life), freedom of action (the right to liberty), and the results of those actions (the right to property). The only obligations one's rights impose on other men is to respect the same and equal rights of others -- the freedom to be left alone.

In a political context, freedom means solely the freedom from the initiation of force by other men. Only by the initiation of force can man's rights be violated. Whether it is by a theft, force, fraud, or government censorship, man's rights can be violated only by the initiation of force. Because man's life depends on the use of reason to achieve the values necessary for his life, the initiation of force renders his mind useless as a means of survival. To live, man must achieve the values necessary to sustain his live. To achieve values, man must be free to think and to act on his judgment. To live, man must be free to think. To be free to think, man must be free to act. In the words of Ayn Rand, "Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries."

Because force renders man's mind useless, every man has the right to self-defense -- and the right to use force to retaliate against those who initiate force against him. However, no man -- and no group of men -- has the right to initiate force against any individual. The initiation of force is a great moral evil, but the use of force in self-defense is a moral requisite.

The proper name for a social system based on political freedom is capitalism. The essence of capitalism is not private property or market-based prices -- these are the consequences, not the essentials of such a system. A capitalist society is based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights. Under capitalism, all property is privately owned, and the state is separated from economics just as it is from religion. Economically, capitalism is a system of laissez faire, or free markets.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Politics&oldid=8705"

"Why Egoism Is the Proper Policy to Adopt" by Tara Smith

The war from Islamo-fascists is very real and to deny it is exactly what they want from their victims.

Let me start by saying I am not as some will call me a Neoconservative nor am I a neoliberal as others will call me. I am if anything closer to a Classical Liberal politically and I used too at one time be a registered Libertarian Party of Canada member. However, there was always something that I found myself at odds with when it came to policy discussions of others within the party. That was the issues related to the Governments Foreign Policy.

I supported the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan; however, the party was and still is for removing Canadian troops from all Countries and for a full non-intervention or isolationist foreign policy. I support the complete removal of the ISIS threat; for the complete elimination of this horrific threat to all of our lives. The Libertarian Party was for doing nothing saying trying to stop the threat would cause the threat that already existed. I understood the Government had a role in protecting us from these sorts of threats and eliminating them where possible. The Libertarian Party due to its many pacifists, moral subjectivists and anarchists was against us having any foreign policy other than doing nothing at all.

They are not the only ones with their head in the sand though. Many modern liberals are also in the dark on these matters. Regressives on the left really do not want to do anything for some reason. Some due to them just hating anything military and others due to ignorance. For those whom are just ignorant I am talking to you here. I am not talking to the nihilists that just hate the Canadian Forces. Islamo-facsists like ISIS want to either eliminate us or enslave us to their oppressive ideologies which preach complete submission to their doctrines. This is not something you can ignore anymore than whatever you dislike about reality in other matters stops existing because you ignore it or close your eyes to existence outside of you.

If you like your civil rights then you need to always make sure there are not threats to them. Your right to life is being threatened by these sorts of groups if they are not tackled. The government that is protecting our individual rights to life, liberty, property and pursue our happiness is a good and moral one. It is the moral job of your government to protect you and the Islamic war of Terror being fought against us is a real genuine threat. One of the roles in the world that moral governments should do and should be doing now. If either the Libertarian or the Regressive left's Foreign Policies ever got enshrined we would all be in deep trouble and the government would be immoral ignoring actually governing in one of the areas where it should.

Government is needed and it is.... "aghast many Libertarians" is good! A Government that is governing properly and only active in areas needed to protect a free society. A Military is a needed and good thing in any free nation. It has a role to protect us from those that would do us harm. It has a role in finding threats and taking the needed actions to protect the innocent. Policing is needed for a free society freedom does not equal a free for all.. anarchism is not liberty, but, another form of might makes right. Or in the case of anarcho-capitalism riches buy might which makes right as well. A police-less and prison-less world is a world of oppressive Tyranny just as much as a Police State.

This idea that the worst threat is always the Government in our Countries erases from Libertarians and Regressive Leftist's sights that there are real threats outside The State. It does not mean Governments should be granted rights to due "anything." It means that there are some threats even more dangerous "at this time" to Canadians and others than our own States. The sort of world we would live in if Islamo-Fascists win this War will make every State the Western World has ever known look like Utopian ideals. That is if we were not all dead in graves. Islamism is a force of the sort of oppression that many of the No-State or Military do nothing types project onto the very functions of the government that is working to save them from said oppressors. It is a moral and reality inversion of the most vile and most hideous. Those that are blind remain so at their own risk.

Should Government Regulate Facebook? (Panel Discussion)

In this panel, Yaron Brook, Kate Andrews and Brendan O'Neill discuss recent social media controversies, censorship and government regulation. 

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...


SUPPORT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...


EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 


FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 


LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

Mark Pellegrino and Dave Rubin discuss Capitalism and the Role of Government (full episode)

Consent and Non-Consent/Freedom and Force is a Binary

Some people have commented in the past that I am too extreme or too far rightist. In the sense in which right means being for Capitalism VS Anti-Capitalism of some form. However, they are philosophically incorrect and not understanding of the essentials of right and left, of freedom and force or of consent and non-consent. You see force or breaking of consent is a binary and you either have consent/freedom or you have force/compulsion of the innocent. There is no such thing with this in mind as too in favor of Capitalism. There is no such thing as being too pro-Consent. There is no such thing as "extreme-right" or "Far-right" other than to separate yourself into being the pure form of rightism if needed. However, it is in the end an oxymoron as there is no degrees of Capitalism. There is no degrees of Consent Society and of freedom for the innocent. You either are free; to live, to think, to judge and then to act or you are not in which case you are a Surf.     

The options (Right or Left) are the binaries at the heart of all philosophy how mankind qua mankind should treat each other while living on Earth. It is a humane Ethical code put into practice in the political realm of the world and of philosophy. Anything that is not Right (On the Right) is Wrong/Evil and not correct or moral. Thus it is not I; the moral man with the fully coherent and fully rational moral code of conduct expanded to politics that needs to explain things. It is the immoral, the vile, the vicious and pernicious parasites that think government exists to cater to their entitled attitude that need to explain why they are not in the realm of politics either evil or wrong. Why is it right to force all other moral men and I's minds? What is your evidence for the need and moral backing of stopping our minds? Of squashing our very Human Spirits at the barrel of a gun? You do not get to control others because you grew up in a padded Snowflake friendly entitled world. 

I am not your Surf, I am not your Slave... I am a human being, a human mind and a living entity of your species. You have no right to make me your surf or your Slave. You have no right to demand my time or money be spent on what your values are at the expense of my own. I do not live for those whom demand sacrifices at every turn like I am a stuffed Turkey at your Thanksgiving. I am a man qua man and my freedom is Binary. As is all of yours. Freedom/Consent or Force/Non-Consent. It is a Binary; it is Right (Morally and Politically) or it is wrong (that which the Left politically represents and the Moderate Muddled compromise allows to poison the broth.) There is no other direction it is either Freedom/Consent or some level of evil, of wrongness of the vile thing known as force/non-consent in dealings with your neighbors. The Anti-Capitalism in any degree is the anti-mind, thus the anti-human and the anti-life. Moderates; those whom call me too extreme or too far-right are the ones that are wrong for they are in the end compromising with their own deaths. 

Onkar Ghate & Ben Bayer | Ayn Rand's "A Nation's Unity"

Onkar Ghate and Ben Bayer discuss Ayn Rand's lecture "A Nation's Unity" in which she argues that a precondition for genuine national unity is the protection of individual rights.

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/

Independence Versus Collectivism in Ayn Rand’s Novels with Andrew Bernstein

Independence versus collectivism is one of the most powerful and pervasive themes in Ayn Rand’s corpus. In this lecture, Andrew Bernstein examines aspects of this theme in each of Rand’s novels.

In We the Living , Kira Argounova and Leo Kovalensky pursue personal values in a nascent communist state intent on crushing individualism. In Anthem, Equality defies an entrenched collectivist dictatorship to live in accordance with his own judgment. In The Fountainhead, Howard Roark struggles heroically against conformity, non-conformity, and all forms of placing others above self. In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt initiates a strike of the thinkers against a society that would enslave them to the state.

Bernstein focuses on the ideas and actions of these profoundly independent men and women, showing the immense power of Rand’s works to fuel our souls and transform our lives. (Note: This lecture presupposes familiarity with Rand’s works and does involve spoilers.)

The Secular Source and Nature of Rights with Craig Biddle

The principle of individual rights is the idea that each human being has a moral prerogative to act in accordance with his own judgment, so long as he does not violate the same rights of others (via coercion, fraud, extortion, or the like). This principle is the linchpin of a free, civilized society.

But is the principle true? Does it correspond to reality? Are individual rights grounded in observable facts? Or are they, as many people argue, ultimately matters of faith, or mere social conventions, or “nonsense upon stilts”?

In this talk, Craig Biddle shows that individual rights are rationally demonstrable facts. He surveys the observations that give rise to the principle of rights, point out the essential facts that anchor the principle in perceptual reality, and discuss ways to convey these ideas persuasively to others.

You will leave with a clear understanding of the secular source and nature of rights, and an enhanced ability to fight for freedom.

The Road to September 11

In this video, Elan Journo and Agustina Vergara discuss the road to 9/11, what America's policy towards terrorism should look like, and what ARI's approach is on these issues.

We apologize for the picture quality. This was originally a Facebook live recording done on September 11, 2018.

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/