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 Brook Lectures: Ayn Rand's Influence On the Conservative/Libertarian/Classical Liberal & Free-Market Movements

This lecture is the 6th installation of The Conservative Intellectual Tradition in America series delivered to the cadets at the Citadel. Yaron Brook's lecture is included in Mallory Factor's book "Big Tent: The Story of the Conservative Revolution — As Told by the Thinkers and Doers Who Made It Happen" (book available on Amazon). In this lecture, Yaron discusses religion, conservatism and communism. This lecture was recorded on February 22, 2012 at the Citadel in Charleston, SC. 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.

Yaron Lectures: How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can Save Health Care

In this talk hosted by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Yaron Brook speaks to physicians about how capitalism is the only moral solution that will maximize patients' access to high-quality medical care at affordable prices. Recorded on October 5, 2012 by Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in San Diego, CA. 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.

The modern socialist embraces the best of the fruits of Capitalism well denouncing their cause.

Craig Biddle and Carl Barney pamphlet on Liberty

Recently The Objective Standard released a pamphlet that explains Liberty from the ground up. I highly suggest that anyone whom wishes to understand Liberty and the importance of a secular/rationally factual based footing download/view it. 

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 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.

On the Non-Initiation Of Force Principle vs the Non-Aggression Principle

The below article was originally posted by Redditor Mr_Koroand it took the words right out of my mouth. In other words he says in wonderful words one of the many issues with the libertarian movement and its context-dropping/reality evading by ripping NIOFP from any context or possible lines of evidence. No infringement or plagiarism intended by posting it on this blog. This is purely for education reasons. Peace!

Abstract

In this post, I discuss what some Objectivists call the Non-Initiation of Force Principle (hereafter NIOFP) and its relation to its ostensible libertarian-counterpart, the Non-Aggression Principle (hereafter NAP). I presume the reader has some preliminary familiarity with Objectivism.

To begin with, I talk about its origin in the Objectivist literature as well as its validation.

Then, I move onto the origin of the NAP, and some of its validations.

Later, I discuss the aforementioned relation and contrast it with other views.

Finally, I recap and add some personal thoughts.

Quick Introduction

u/JamesShrugged said on a recent meme:

[The NIOFP and the NAP] are the same thing. “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of force.

This led me to think about it. On its surface, the issue seems to be purely semantic. I began thinking whether or not aggression necessarily specifies the initiation of force, and what are the implications of using either formulation. The following is the result of my thinking.

The Origin in the Literature and Validation

The NIOFP's earliest appearance is in Atlas Shrugged. In Galt's speech, Galt spends several paragraphs addressing physical force. In essence, he introduces the idea that no man may initiate the use of force against another, and notes the immorality of succumbing to physical force as forfeiting one's judgment. He finishes by relating the issue to the basis of ethics, stating, in effect, that reason is man's means of survival.

There are many other further discussions of physical force which you can find in the Lexicon.

The validation of the NIOFP is grounded in the Objectivist ethics. There are two fundamental elements to this foundation:

• The first element is the Metaphysical Element. Man, being the rational animal depends on reason to survive. His needs are not accounted for by instincts. The goods he consumes can only be created. In other words, in order to live, man must produce his values, and the only means to that end is thought.
• This leads to the second element, the Normative Element. A man, should he choose to live, and thus be rational, must create the values his existence requires. He cannot expect another to live solely for his sake, and create the values he needs for him. And so, taking by force the values another man has created is self-destructive.

Thus we can observe that the initiation of force is immoral. In order to maintain this position rationally, one must rely on its foundation.

The Origin of the Non-Aggression Principle

Locke was the first to originate the NAP, stating that

no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions. [1]

Many thinkers, including Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, and others, maintained such positions thereafter. But to my knowledge, none have based it on the Objectivist foundation prior to Rand.

In fact, we can observe that some thinkers have based their support of the NAP on their support of equal individual rights. Their support of individual rights can be based on a theological basis, like Jefferson's view of rights as endowed by a Creator, or on a utilitarian basis, like Stuart Mill's view.

Interestingly, as previously mentioned, Rand bases the NIOFP on an ethical basis, and not on rights. Although there is a strong connection between the two, that is worth discussing.

The Relation: Equivalency or Contrast?

As we have seen, the NIOFP is necessarily a reference to the principle as Rand formulated it, and in the context of the Objectivist ethics. The principle specifies precisely what is its subject, by using the words "non-initiation of force." It maintains the proper context that validates it also.

Contrast this to the NAP. This principle can be said to be the result of God's edict that all of mankind was created equal; it can be said to be the result of the need for peace and order in society for the Common Good; it can also be said to be the result of the fact that man cannot truly know reality, and thus all action is amoral, so "live and let live".

The crux of the issue is the huge ambiguity in using the word "aggression".

The word "aggression" has two main senses:

1. Unprovoked physical force.
2. A hostile attitude and/or willingness to attack. [2, 3]

And something we should keep in mind is the fact that the intended sense of words is derived from their context. We should also keep in mind the fact that, unless otherwise specified by the speaker, you cannot assign the NAP any context. Given these facts, one can only conclude that the NAP cannot, and should not be a primary in a given discussion.

Conclusion and Personal Thoughts

By now I have shown that the NAP is a context-less concept. In order to validly use it one must tag onto it a context. This weakness, I believe, invalidates the use of the term NAP on its own, and renders its use for the purpose of communication impractical.

Moreover, this leads me to think about how the use of the term NAP without a context is prevalent in the libertarian community and reveals the arbitrariness with which libertarians base their support of freedom. It also validates my concern for the term NIOFP, as it could be tainted by the irrationally used term NAP.

"Conservatism vs. Objectivism" by Ayn Rand

In this 1964 radio interview, Ayn Rand summarizes Objectivism’s central tenets and then explains why she is not a conservative but rather a “radical for capitalism.” Rand addresses a variety of related topics including conservatives’ views of the welfare state, voting advice for young Objectivists, the status of Libertarians, and advice for young Objectivists about working with conservative political groups.

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/

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. 

"Politics, Liberty and Objectivism" (Part 1 of 2) by Gregory Salmieri

"Politics, Liberty and Objectivism" 

It’s more difficult than most people realize to properly conceptualize and understand different political views, terms, theories and groups. For instance, are socialism and fascism opposites? Do the terms “left” and “right” as used today in the U.S. define a political spectrum? What do liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism refer to? This talk summarizes some of the important questions to answer to form genuine political principles, and summarizes Objectivism’s own distinct approach to political philosophy.

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 Answers Why Objectivists Reject the "Libertarian" Label

In this segment, Jordan Alexander Hill, host of the Western Canon Podcast, asks Yaron to explain why Objectivists often resist the "Libertarian" label.

Production credit and a big THANK YOU to Jordan Alexander Hill. To see more by Jordan Alexander Hill, visit https://westerncanonpodcast.com or his YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC15E....

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

Why Capitalism is Moral, by Craig Biddle

Craig Biddle addresses a question from Jason: "You've written and spoken at length about why capitalism is the only moral social system, and I find your arguments very convincing. But in daily conversations with people, I don't have an hour to make the full case. What's your 5-minute version?" Biddle answers with a brief discussion of what capitalism is, what the alternatives are, and what it means for a social system to be moral. To explore more of these ideas visit: http://www.TheObjectiveStandard.com

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.