Yaron Lectures: The Morality of Self-Interest

In this lecture, Yaron Brook discusses the issue of self interest and it's opposite premise -- self-sacrifice.  What is good and what is virtuous? Is the subject of virtue, subjugation of the self or survival as a flourishing human being? Delivered at University of Hong Kong on January 27, 2016. 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.

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.

Ronald Reagan and his full quote on liberty

Ayn Rand | Conservatism VS Objectivism Radio interview

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/

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.

"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/

Yaron Brook | Is Jordan Peterson Right or Wrong?

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's History Lesson - The Corporation, Part 3 of 3 (Audio Only)

The public corporation is under attack in America today. The regulatory burden is ever increasing: boards and CEOs are constantly harassed over wide-ranging issues from CEO pay to options "backdating," and the media continues to portray corporate America as a cesspool of corruption. The expenses and risks of being a public corporation are now so great that an unprecedented number of companies are choosing to "go private."

In this course, Dr. Brook discusses the history and economics behind the rise of the modern corporation, explaining how this form of business organization made possible new heights of wealth creation. He explains why the corporation, despite its productive virtues, has been attacked as illegitimate and immoral since its inception. Finally, he discusses the popular paradigm of "corporate social responsibility" and contrasts it with the proper corporate goal of shareholder wealth maximization.

This course was recorded at the 2007 Objectivist Summer Conference in Telluride, CO.

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.

Religion vs. Morality by Andrew Bernstein

Religion vs. Morality by Andrew Bernstein, Dallas, Texas, October 20, 2012.

Visit www.TheObjectiveStandard.com to explore more of these ideas.

Ayn Rand's Objectivism and the Role of Government (Don Watkins on The Rubin Report)

Don Watkins (Ayn Rand Institute Fellow) joins Dave Rubin to discuss explain the philosophies of Ayn Rand, why people freak out about her, as well as libertarianism, liberalism, and his views on Trump.

UFM.edu - What is Objectivism?

Craig Biddle is editor and publisher of The Objective Standard, a journal of culture and politics, and author of Loving Life: The Morality of Self Interest and the Facts that Support it. He also writes in the Capitalism Magazine website. Una producción de New Media/UFM 2009 http://www.ufm.edu http://newmedia.ufm.edu

Trump is not a Rightist and he is no Republican either

Before I go ahead with writing this article I need to provide definitions on what I mean by rightist and what I mean by Republican. By a Republican I mean someone whom is in favor of a government limited to the functions vital of a functioning free society. Specifically, limited to the use of defensive force against those whom are harming others and their property. With all of the proper limits, checks, balances and separations of powers. By rightist I mean in favor of the elimination of the initiation of a breaking of consent among society. To me to be "right" is the equivalent of being an Auberon Herbert "voluntaryist" or in the modern day equivalent to be for Capitalism.

Whom is on the right? Auberon Herbert based "volunatryists," Constitutional Republicanism, Classical Liberalism, Capitalism, better and consistent Right-Libertarians (fiscally responsible/socially tolerant types VS actual libertarianism philosophy or movement which is an ammoral and immoral mess). It also includes anyone that would consider themselves a radical for capitalism.

I find the best way to illustrate what I mean by The Right is the below chart/spectrum which shows what I consider leftist vs rightist and why you might actually be on the right on some issues in my definition.

  

In my view pro-same sex marriage legalization is on the right as it is for granting choice to consenting adults to own and use their bodies as they see fit. It is removing force from peaceful peoples lives. However, at the same time so is being pro-choice on abortions as it is about removing force on peoples lives. It is leftist to be pro-government using force in peoples lives. So, anyone that claims to be "right-wing," but, then is for adding more initiation of coercion that person is to the left or even depending on how much force the extreme left on that issue. A lot of you would be on The Right to me in social or personal issues, but, most more to the left on using force in the economy through taxation, regulations and the like. This places you in the degrees of leftism which is considered the moderate middle of modern Liberalism (as opposed to Classical Rightist Liberalism) or modern Conservatism.

I needed to setup the above opposition of views to show why I contend that Trump is not a Rightist and he is not a Republican in any sense of the actual definition. He is anti-Free Trade and pro-Tariffs which means that he is against the Global system of individual rights and thus anti-Capitalist. He has much more in line with classical Fascists and even certain forms of Socialism than he is a Capitalist. He is for initiating coercion into the lives of peaceful "illegal" immigrants whom he does not feel have the individual human rights the government is supposed to defend as their core reason for existing. Individual rights belonging to humans does not stop because they entered your Country through your borders. 

In fact, if he was President in 1920's USA Ms. Rand would be rounded up and deported back to her very likely death in ironically of all places Russia. (Ironic, given how much Trump admires the Communist Dictator Putin.) This is because her way of getting here would not be allowed and she would be deemed illegal in his definition these days. What the US needs is a truly Rational and Reality based means of immigration.

I am in favor of Open Immigration for anyone that is not carrying an infectious disease, is an actual criminal (like the actual gangs of sex traffickers and such) and those whom are connected to/receive funds from organizations connected to or are themselves terrorists or terrorist material. This does not mean no screening at all and absolutely no border control. It means that you have one easy to access and easy to get screened for, and easy to cross border for new citizens to come through Openly VS Closed off borders.

In matters of trade I am for full Unilateral Free Trade globally for all. Capitalism is not a local thing, but, a universal and global thing. It is in essence of the system a Globalist or Globalism system of unfettered lassiez-fair trade across borders. Individuals and groups of individuals get to engage in consensual trade between each other for mutual benefit to mutual advantage, in win/win mutual exchanges or you are not in Capitalism. You get to hire workers from anywhere as well and that is part of trade. Free Trade and Open Immigration are corollary to one another. Labor should be open to as much of  Unilateral Unfettered Lassiez-Fair trade as goods or services are. 

This ironically is also the position Mike Pence used too have before he became Vice Presidential Candidate and then VP with Trump. He used too be much more Capitalistic in that sense, was for TPP and NAFTA for example. The point is that Trump is not a Capitalist if anything he is a Crony and he is actually well modeled in the villains in Atlas Shrugged. Whom used lobbying and pull, connections between the State and Economy to get their way over consensual trade between individuals. He is not as some have called him an Ayn Rand Hero he is someone Ms. Rand would hate and she would be rolling in her grave.

Finally, I need to erase any sort of conclusions you might be making based on a flawed view of what I mean by Capitalism. I do not mean Corporatism, Lobbyism, Cronyism, et cetera. What I mean by Capitalism is not even just the existence of Capitalists either. Capitalism is a form of social system with a distinct identity and character which separates it from all other ISMS. It is in essence consensualism or Voluntaryism. It is a free society it is a true market free of any sort of coercion backed monopolies or anything of the like.

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

The sort of social system I support does not really exist fully anywhere in any Country at this time nor in anytime in history. Capitalism is not a Conservative idea no matter how Conservatives steal and hijack the term for their own intruding into peoples rights for the sake or religion or tradition or family values. Capitalism is not a system of yesterday, but, as Ayn Rand said is the "Unknown Ideal." The ideal setup and system which has not yet been fully put into practice anywhere on this Earth. It is a forward looking system. In fact, it was the system and vision of the world of the Classical Lassiez-Fair Liberals. Of a world united in Individualism, Individual Enlightenment thinking and Individual Rights. This is what I mean by Capitalism; this is what I mean by The Right and those whom are of The Right and what a True Constitutional Republican would be defending too.

 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.

 
This is what it means to be fully of The Right it means to be for this view of the world. Trump has a malevolent sense of life he sees not opportunity not for win/win solutions, but, only the win/lose. There is no understanding of the need for greater philosophy either. He is a dead end road of pure pragmatism and populism with no sense of underlying principles or code of virtues to guide what he wants in life. He is an amoral at best and grossly immoral at worst human being. He is the kind of savage one dare not meet in a black alley on their own without a weapon to defend you. For he has no underlying code other than to trample others. This is not the code of a proper business man it is the code of the Highway robber, the code of the irrational whim worshiping mystic and a horrific second handed mentality.

Trump is as far from reality, reason, morality and rights as a President could get and he admires dictators of all stripes; look at his gushing over North Korea and Putin previously. This is not a good day for the American Dream and I fear where this is leading the West. USA please wake up you voted in a Wolf in Sheep clothing better snap out of it well you can. Before your Country is changed so fundamentally the World does not recognize Lady Liberty because she is dead in the name of Making America Great Again (for the Cronies.)


 

Darwin and the Discovery of Evolution

The theory of evolution is often disparaged by its opponents as being “just a theory” — i.e., a speculative hypothesis with little basis in hard, scientific fact. But this claim carries with it the implied accusation that Charles Darwin was “just a theorist” — i.e., he was merely an armchair scientist and that his life’s work was nothing more than an exercise in arbitrary speculation. A look at Darwin’s pioneering discoveries, however, reveals the grave injustice of this accusation. Darwin was not “just a theorist” and evolution is not “just a theory.” In this talk, Dr. Keith Lockitch explores Darwin’s life and work, focusing on the steps by which he came to discover and prove the theory of evolution by natural selection. Recorded March 18, 2008.

Creationism in Camouflage: The “Intelligent Design” Deception

For decades creationists have sought to replace evolution with the book of Genesis. But defenders of evolution have consistently prevailed in the schools and the courts of law. This struggle for intellectual survival has led to the evolution of a new “species” of creationist, better adapted to its inhospitable environment. The new Creationism goes by the name “Intelligent Design” and poses a greater danger than old-style creationism. In this talk Dr. Lockitch will examine the Intelligent Design movement: mysticism masquerading as science.

Religion VS Freedom with Onkar Ghate

Many of our political discussions today assume that the advocacy of economic freedom and of religion go together, that to be against social security and our tens of thousands of other controls means you must also be against evolution and contraception. As Americans we’re told that our choice is to embrace either superstition and capitalism or science and the modern regulatory-welfare state—and faced with such a choice, many of us understandably choose the latter. In this talk, Onkar Ghate argues that in fact religion undermines freedom and that our real choice is to embrace science and capitalism or the authoritarianism of religion and today’s Big Government. Recorded December 3, 2014.

Globalism is Good and Protectionism/Nationalism is evil ; Truedau and Trump courting disaster

During Trumps presidential campaign one overarching thing was prominent and that was a hatred for something called Globalism. In this vein Trump sounds a lot like those wacked out conspiracy theorists that talk about the takeover of the world by some Globalist entity known as The New World Order. What was it though which Trump means by this nebulous term such as globalism?

In truth globalism can have multiple sorts of meanings it can mean more than one thing. One definition is simply support of globalization and internationalism VS nationalistic protectionism. The other definition is something a lot more sinister the removal of Nation States existing in favor of an Authoritarian Global Government which sacrifices ones human rights to itself. However, which one is it that Trump was running against?

One could not be sure when he was running it could have been either definition that he was using. It took having evidence of which he was referring to in order to be able to be sure in a first handed way. However, now that we have seen his actual agenda and its policies one can no longer question that he was referring not only to the Global sacrifice of human rights. Instead he was referring to an odd combination of all kinds of Globalism mixed together with no real rhyme or reason behind them.

The biggest casualty in Trumps agenda is the very foundation of the Capitalism his own party used too traditionally give lip service too. For he is absolutely against the free crossing of goods and services across global borders for the sake of trading between Nations. He is not talking about the absorption of power into a Global Government based around some New World Order State. He is talking about something that is supported by all thinking economists on either side of the debate. He is against Globalization and that is what he means by globalism.

This is a serious mistake Globalization is good and it should not be fought by either philosophical left or right of the compass. It is a truth a fact of economics even the most mixed economies that freer trade the better the people in the Nation. We now have an interconnected world as well, so, to interfere and disrupt this intricate web by say using Tariff's or erecting other barriers to trade will be a calamity. The outlook is bleak for both the US and all the other Allies now joining in on the trade war we now appear to be in.

I hear some of you screaming at me, but, what about our jobs? What about them free trade actually makes room for locally better job opportunities as the jobs no one wants become the outsourced work to other Countries in other parts of the world. These jobs then help to rise the tides and the boats on them for the poorest among the human species in far off Countries. No expense hits us that is worth ending the effects of this Global Capitalism. Global Capitalism is the answer to Global Poverty and also stops wars because people that trade tend to not go to war.

How about the effects on me personally? I hear you say in an ever so self interested way. Well, good question as self interest is a virtue. However, have no fear you will continue to get better prices for all your good and services traded over borders. It is an economic known not just an assumption that free trade makes prices go down and supply go up. As good and services are traded back and forth. As different people all over the world trade with each other to mutual advantage and mutual benefit. Free Trade across borders is a moral outgrowth from your right to exchange your wealth for your own mutual advantage for your own gaining of your values. If you can trade why cannot others across border lines? They have all the same human rights as you do.

When Hillary Clinton was revealed to be supportive of the world being a Global Market with Borders being mere stops on a world wide connected Globe of trading partners with borders being nothing, but, security stops for matters of National Security I cheered. That is exactly the world I want to live in an interconnected Global Capitalism. Not just Capitalism (here I mean free economy not cronyism and corporatism and lobbyists) for me, but, Capitalism for all. Capitalism is the only truly moral social system. Even mixed economy people tend to agree removing all markets would be a Statist nightmare. On the International Stage people that tend to be very much for mixed economies are on board that more Capitalism Internationally is a proper social system for raising the boats of other Nations.

It is unethical to say I have no right to pursue my own self interest and human flourishing. I am born in another Country that is more poor and I should be determined to live in an undeveloped squalor for life. Not due to some Altruistic impulse, but, due very much from an understanding of the fact that if you have the human right to attempt to flourish, so, do humans in other Nations. Borders do not remove a humans individual rights to life, liberty and property. They have a right to have access to international trade between their Nations and yours. Individuals and groups like Corporations in one Nation do not all of a sudden lose their right to win/win trades because they are behind a Border whether walled or without walls..

You have no right to say to a peaceful person in another Country that they do not get the chance to pursue their happiness and to leave poverty because they do not live within your borders. People in other Countries that are not harming others should be let to trade with whom they want to trade. Provided neither side of the trade is engaging in activities that are harming others or their property. All people that are not engaged in harm should be allowed to associate and deal with whomever they decide to. This does not stop where Borders exist. To me it is not just economical, but, moral. A matter of recognizing human rights are not Nationalistic constructs, but, Universal and Global they are International and should exist in all Nations on Earth in an ideal end scenario.

This includes the right to trade among Nations as they see fit provided they harm no one else or their property. Essentially as long as they themselves are not engaging in infringing those same International Individual Human Rights of other people in their activities. I am pro-Globalization and Globalism of Individual Human Rights and of the corollary the social system that allows that to happen which is Capitalism in other words the system that allows the existence of a free market. I am all for a New World Order. One of a replacement of some freedom and some oppressive regimes with Global Human Rights including the right to own and dispose of your own wealth/property as one or a voluntary group of people sees fit. I am for the replacement of an Old World of some liberty and some serfdom in the Globe with a Globe of International Freedom and Human Flourishing.

I am in favor of a removal of old systems of some freedom and some serfdom. Some rights acknowledgement and some infringement of rights. For a Global System of Freedom, Liberty, Equality before the law and Justice for all. In this sense I am for a New World Order, but, I am not in favor of a globe of more serfdom. A New World Order need not be a bad thing it is all about the philosophies and ideas behind the New World and what that New World Order does/stands for. If it is a New World based on the recognition of humans as having inherent rights and those rights being defended under law internationally then I am on board the New World Order train.

Sorry, Mr. Trump I am a Globalist and I supported your tax cuts as well as regulation reform. Globalism is not the enemy of Republicanism they go together and are both supposed to be for freedom of the individual VS the power of The State. Globalism is not your enemy you whom consider yourself US conservatives and Republicans. Do not listen to Trumpism it preaches against some of the most fundamental Republican values you claim to represent and is leading you to a nightmare of literally Global proportions. Do not blame your imaginary Globalist enemies nor the Democrats for your downfall on the Global Stage your own compromising your old virtues for replacement by unprincipled blowhardism was your death on the political stage. You are your own worst enemy and you are the immoral ones for not speaking up and sanctioning your own destruction at the hands of Emperor Trump.   

Whom I would be willing to ally with or support is contextual and not a free for all

I want to start out by saying this is my own outcome and application of Objectivism and is not/does not represent "the Objectivist rule." So, without further ado let me begin explaining my boundaries of allying and support in the cause of a proper political order. In life in matters of issue allying there are moral/ethical considerations one will be making. Everyone has their boundaries of what they would deem acceptable and that which they find unacceptable at all costs.

In my case I ground whether I would be willing to ally with you in politics on very similar grounds to that which I use with all other men qua men. The first consideration is are you living in reality or evading reality. Are you someone whom wants to push a theocratic moral view on other people? Are you wanting to tell other people 2+2=5? In addition are you yourself believing in delusions or living in the real world? You should be accepting objective reality and using rationality as your guide if you wish for my support or allying.

The second consideration is are you a person of good character or are you not. If you are I would be willing to ally and support you when pressing for changes within the system around my principles. This is something I will need to weigh even higher in some cases where someone is lacking consideration one out of pure lack of knowledge or ignorance. Some people might have delusional views not due to being an immoral person, but, completely out of lack of proper education in how to use their minds.

If you meet criteria number two, but, lack number one due to ignorance and not immoral reasoning there is a possibility we can still get along and at least ally together in an ad-hoc basis on a political level. I am more willing to accept this equation in my personal life over my political life. I would only be willing to accept this on the condition ultimately that you are not going to push your delusion through legislation. Or that you are not going to govern based on those delusions.

I also would not throw my support behind a candidate that called other people cockroaches or trashed them based on some sort of factor that has nothing to do with their character. I, for example would not support a party that had literal Neo-Nazis like Richard Spencer in their ranks. Nor would I support a candidate or party that supported socially pressuring or legally requiring heterosexual potential therapies for people. Nor would I support a person or ally with a person that thought it was OK to not feed your children or that children did not have rights. I would not support nor ally with an anarchist for any reason on any topic or any subject.

There are lots of conditions on my supporting you politically regardless of which party you may or may not be a part of. Context needs to be brought to bare on the issues and where you stand on them as well as your personal worldview. My support like my friendship or coupling is not a free for all. There are standards and there are contextual accommodation. Just because you claim to be for liberty and proper government does not mean I will automatically support or ally with you. Nor that I will not bash you either. Character is where it is at and reality is that on which my formulation of your character will indeed be based.

What is cultural libertarianism exactly?

Earlier today I found an interesting article on Reason.com about the Brietbart decision to use cultural liberarianism to define the movement against PC and Social Justice Political Correctness authoritarians on the far-far left. It made me think about what a truly libertarian culture would be and if it would match the definition as given by Brietbart. I found myself in agreement that the definition used seemed to simply be the civil libertarian aspect of the broader libertarian philosophy. 

However, while thinking through things I wonder if Brietbart realizes what a truly libertarian culture would entail. It would essentially be a culture where the moral philosophy was a form of the political philosophy known as libertarianism. What would this look like though? Would it match what Breitbart thinks it would? It would allow for freedom of speech for sure, but, it would also allow for so much more than that as well. 

A cultural libertarianism would be essentially a culture that thrived on methodological individualism. In other words one in which each individual lives their life according to their own wishes as long as they harmed none or their property was literally the foundation of culture itself. It means the conservatives at Breitbart would no longer care about socially conservative values. They would allow people that were traditionalists to live said way and also the most contrarian in their own words "degenerate." They would have no claim that "degeneracy" was even a thing as the only thing dictating morals would be whether or not you are treating others as sacrificial animals via some form of forced sacrifice to the "other."

Pornography would not only be legal, but, a moral institution that any religious demoralization against would be seen as an immoral call to sacrifice ones lively hood for the sake of a theocratic state. Similarly, all non coerced sex acts between unrelated adults of the proper age of consent no matter the biological sex or number would be seen as morally good. Sex, real sex, not the corrupted perversion of a predator would need to be seen as a good in of itself because it is a celebration of a primal aspect of life in a safe modern environment. Or at least Risk Aware and fully consensual.

That anything that people choose to do between consenting adults period through mutual informed and understood consent to mutual benefit. As long as it was not harming third parties (which would be illegal in this culture not only immoral) that this would would be seen as the moral good. So, prostitution the worlds oldest profession should not only be legal, but, is a moral and good living for those engaged in it via consensual means. Drug use, as it is not initiating coercion on others, and is using your own body as you see fit would be a moral good. That is of course as long as it is not accompanied by say using it and then driving or using it and then disturbing the peace. Not just pot, but, all drugs are moral. As this would be a culture based on libertarian philosophy also being the determinant of what is good or bad culturally. 

Abortion, if you are a Pro-choice libertarian would not only become the lay of the law. Instead, the fact that you can abort and that you would find the child impeding your own happiness would be the moral good, Being Anti-abortion would thus become seen as the immoral and the pro-abortion stance would become the pro-life stance. Due to it being pro the life of the self-determined couple or single woman to pursue their happiness as they see fit. To not be a sacrifice to a potential life they did not consent to have to raise simply from having hot and heavy sex with loose seed. Abortion itself would become seen as the cultural good and to be against it a cultural evil. 

Similar to this though it would be immoral to try to stop someone from spouting anti-abortion rhetoric using the force of the state. As these people would also need to be seen as morally good if they are not harming others or their property. It would especially be vile for one to stop a anti-abortion person whom did not believe in forcing legislation, but, they themselves to a liberty stance that simply were not culturally libertarian. 

Or it could also go the opposite way too. It would be a double edged sword for there are pro-life libertarians for them this would mean that the overall culture would need to embrace their ethics in their view to become culturally libertarian. As to a pro-life libertarian it is anti-libertarian to be pro-choice in this area as it is the killing of a fellow innocent human. Which means in a culturally libertarian world for them it would mean both complete agreement under the law with granting from conception rights, but, also that the entire culture are in lockstep culturally with this move as well. 

We now see the issues with cultural libertarianism as lovely as it sounds at first. I am not arguing against a culture of liberty, but, there are some issues with trying to make culture conform only to libertarianism broadly. By this I mean the idea that all people everywhere in our culture should agree that as long as something is not coerced it is necessarily still OK, or good behavior or not self-destructive or even destructive without violence of the others around said person. This does not mean that we should not have a culture of liberty, but, it does mean that the real world is complex. There is no way to have every single person agree with this statement. Unless you are in favor of literally brainwashing anyone that disagrees into agreeing. 

What I mean to say is some people will still be more culturally conservative and or puritan. No matter even if the majority of the culture is more socially libertarian if you will. Some people will really not budge on the matters of sexual decency and the matters of drug use. Some people will always believe abortion is murder and some people will always believe it the actual pro-life view. However, I contend there is one form in which a culture can be both libertarian and also not be needing in fact a form of conformity in not conforming at all. That is a culture not of anything being good, but, communities about some definitive things being bad. 

That is if we have a culture in which the prevailing mindset is the government should protect our rights and let us be free to make up our own decisions on our moral frameworks. Where-ever you end up falling without trying to make it, so, that everyone thinks anything goes even if it is legal. You can have a culture which embraces proper rules of law, proper constitutional constraints and proper parliaments where they exist. A culture which says not you have to say anything goes because it is legal. Instead a culture that says I can think anything consensual is good, but, I have no right to try to condition my fellow humans into agreeing with me. A culture which says I might think anything is consensual is good, but, you are free to disagree and I still recognize your humanity within. 

We can have a culture like this without needing to have everyone agree with those whom are totally culturally libertarian. We can have people with all kinds of opinions on things as long as they do not try try to force it down our throats it is fine. This could be considered the best possible compromise for those whom do want to extend libertarianism to its own secular moral frame work within culture and those whom simply want libertarianism to remain a political philosophy. By essentially keeping it just that a philosophy on what the proper role of states are and not trying to persuade every single individual to have a completely anything peaceful is moral outlook. By separating political philosophy about the role of the government and justice from needing to be what guides your every thought or every decision. Essentially make it so the political is not the personal and vice versa. 

This does not mean that a complete live and let live attitude in your own moral framework is not the logical and rational end point of libertarian political philosophy. Nor does the fact that it is ones possible extension of the philosophy into morality mean that is in fact the most logical outlook. The point of this article is that there is a lot of diversity in opinion on many matters that libertarians want to make legal. We should not be looking for a future world where we snap our fingers and everyone agrees with us like a Magic Act in Vegas. We need to be open to a world of tolerance and toleration of a multiplicity of views on morality. As long as most people of each morality refrains from forcing or coercing the other into accepting said worldview. In this sense a cultural libertarianism only works if people are free to disagree with each other; even with the very concept of libertarianism itself.