Yaron Brook's Keynote Address at July 4 Boston Tea Party Protest (Part 2 of 2) (HD)

[Brownyman]

It is so shitty he can't run for president :(

[windycityrodeo]

"Tea Party" is a Big Lie. It's not the simple 1700s. We now have millions of life-saving water-food-air-safety, police, military, etc. provided by "big government'"(We the People). During the real Tea Party there wre no freeways, bridges nor school that allowed real tax-paying patriots to work & contribute to the superior progress this nation has. I've never whined about paying taxes as without regulations many of us wouldn't be here. Due to Cheney's deregulations the Gulf is an oil pool."

[jimipatterson]

@windycityrodeo the men who destroyed the gulf didn't care about their work, or their product. they had no incentive to do their job properly because if anything went wrong; they knew they'd be bailed out. now, with a deregulated system, where the best man with the best technique prevails-- BP wouldve been out of business the day the well broke because the consumer who has individual rights to decide on what they want to buy, wouldnt choose a sloppy, corrupt corporation.

[wabsk8r]

Economics in One Lesson.

[killerbandit]

COMMUNITY.

[MoonMankkkkkk]

you fail, please try again ^_^

[killerbandit]

I know you think this is a curse word, but your ideology comes from a person who was foolish enough to think that capitaliism was not only an economic system but for some idiotic reason thought it could also be social policy.

[MoonMankkkkkk]

lol, buthurt

[MishuTaste]

Elmer Fudd (j/k).

[killerbandit]

You libertarians completely ignore the concept of community! It is infuriating. The worship of self and selfishness is way out of balance in the libertarian world view.

[Koutetsu]

You statists ignore the concept of individualism. A community is nothing more than the sum of its parts. Unless you believe 2+2=5?

[killerbandit]

A community IS more than the sum of its parts. What people can do as a group dwarfs the efforts of individuals.

I do not deny the importance of individualism, however it seems all to pervasive in the libertarian mindset that the community is nothing but a burden. Sorry, but you would not have the same standard of living without the efforts of others. Those who built your public roads, the water and electrical grids are all benefits of communal efforts.

[Koutetsu]

Voluntary cooperation = profitable trade. Involuntary cooperation = slavery. You are using the very old gimmick of quating opposites by substituting nonessentials for their essential characteristics: slavery versus trade. Voluntary trade is good for individuals. What's good for the individuals is good for society. Slavery is destructive to individuals. What's bad for individuals is bad for the society. This doesnt create anything other than the sum of the individuals actions that make up society

[Koutetsu]

equating*

[hapspir]

killerbandit, you misunderstand. When libertarians say that the individual must be free, that means that he has the right to form whatever associations or partnerships he wishes and to join any group efforts that he wishes. The key is in taking force out of the equation. Libertarians disapprove of forced/mandatory/compulsory activity. The reason that so many DO approve of force is because they feel that people will inevitably make bad decisions if given a choice.

continued . . .

[hapspir]

It is true that people make mistakes. But keep in mind that a government/community agency established to make these decisions for the community is composed of people. When a bureaucrat in charge of transportation for an entire country makes a mistake, the results can be disastrous. When an individual bus driver makes a mistake, it can be corrected much more easily. Please allow us to make our own mistakes and I promise you we will learn from them.

[killerbandit]

You are correct in your concern for the problems that over centralization can bring, and so am I.

The main issue here is how we as humans have chosen to live over the last few hundred years. You do need to remember that humans have never before lived in societies composed of millions or 10s of millions of people. Our brains are actually hardwired to live in groups/networks of about 200 people.

Managing a society of millions of people, while maintaining the freedom of individuals is not easy.

[bregew]

On principle, it should not matter how many people live on Earth. Your life is in your hands and your hands only.

The only number that matters is not the amount of people around you, but the fraction of cops you need to protect yourself from their flagrant coercions.

[killerbandit]

Really, you don't think that there just may be a limit to the amount of humans that can fit on a finite globe? As much as it goes against your inner most desire to be a rugged individual, you would not be in the position you are in without the assistance of those around you.

Your world view seems to be incredibly suspicious if you think the most important thing that gov. can provide is police protection from your neighbours.

[wabsk8r]

Thanks! I think that if we run out of space on the planet--horizontally and vertically--we always have space travel as a possible solution. The other thing is that, if there does become overpopulation on the planet, rational people will slow down their reproduction rate (to the replacement rate or less) as a response to the nausea of overcrowding.

Your suspicion is good, but please note that the government not only protects me, my life, and property from killerbandits, but vice versa as well.

[MoonMankkkkkk]

Will you please stop commenting. It's quite annoying. Sooner or later, you will keep doing it and then I will have to address it with actual logical arguments instead of bromides, in which you will then use fallacy-ridden arguments in response to mine. Eventually, you will give up as you realize that you won't convince anyone, (including yourself), that your position is sound. This realization will result in denial of all counter-arguments presented here and you will become that much stupider.

[killerbandit]

ummmm.... no. If you can actually present an argument I would be happy to refute it. Otherwise you are just wasting your own time.

[MoonMankkkkkk]

I was actually referring to the fact that you have horrible means of elucidation and ratiocination, leading to concrete-bound assertions and equivocations, a complete misunderstanding of the philosophy, and a general inclination to speak in floating abstractions. Please read all your previous statements and see their logical fallacies in them, as well as actually thoroughly understanding Objectivism before you criticize it. Thank-you, and you just lost the game.

[killerbandit]

There are certain things you are forced to do. You are forced to eat. If you do not eat, then you are coerced by hunger.

As much as I do not like to give a large chunk of my paycheck to the government, I know that my tax dollars are (supposed to) go towards taking care of the commons. Like the sidewalk I used to go get my morning coffee, the health inspectors that check the coffee shop I use to insure it is sanitary, the electrical grid that was created with public dollars.

[hapspir]

Killerbandit, the only time that people are forced to eat is during a prison hunger strike. Coerced by hunger? You're not using the word "coerced" correctly. To coerce is to force a person to act against his will. You shouldn't equate the coercion of the IRS with the laws of nature.

I am curious about something. Let's call X the percentage of the taxes which you pay that is NOT used for the commons. How high would X need to be before you objected to the tax system?

[killerbandit]

There are certain things that we must do to avoid consequences, eg. we must eat to avoid hunger, in the same way that we must breathe.

I am not advocating the specific policies of any government.

What I am advocating is the idea that in order to live in societies that are as big as the one we live in right now, there are certain things that need to be done to keep a society of many millions of people civil.

I just think that rejecting this need out of hand is a bad idea.

[newcode2001]

A community is more than a sum of its parts. It is a dynamic interaction of exchanges, creations and destruction.  It is a great effort on the part of each individual to understand what have been the contributions of the many parts (people). It is an effort also to see and stomach the great destruction brought on by other parts (people). What will be my contribution in terms of negating destruction, while allowing the natural force of positive business-like activities that encourage greatness?

[Elasaltaculos]

What do you bring to the community? and what can you give me then? I don't bring a fucking thing to the table, because what I have worked for has been extorted from me by "the community".

An advocate for forced altruism is about as moral as those religious people who claim that the only thing keeping them from murdering and raping is "God's omniscience".

If you want to help others, that is fine, just don't think you have the moral authority to tell others to do so.

[killerbandit]

Maybe you could move to a country where it is nothing but rugged individuals such as yourself. I hear Somolia doesn't have any government or taxes so you should enjoy it there. Otherwise, just remember that anytime you turn on a light or drive on a public road you are benifiting from 'forced altrism'.

[Elasaltaculos]

Turn on a light? really? It is called paying the electric bill.

Drive on a public road? heard of gasoline taxes? If you have ever bought gasoline you have paid them.

Fucking moron.

[killerbandit]

Do you have the attention span of a Nat? How do you think that electricity got to your house? It is the PUBLIC infrastructure created by tax payer dollars.

The gas tax is one of the ways that public roads are maintained. You can avoid paying those taxes, but you need to go to a place that doesn't have public roads to do so.

[Elasaltaculos]

Wow, that almost sounded less stupid than the shit you said before. Attention span? because that is exactly what one needs to point how flawed what you are saying is, right?

It is a public infrastructure because the government mandates it to be so. It still doesn't change the fact that people pay for the electricity.

Of course you can avoid paying those taxes, that is why they are called excise taxes. Those are voluntary, as opposed to capitation taxes.

You fail once more

[killerbandit]

If I fail in your eyes I will take that as a high compliment.

[Elasaltaculos]

with all those thumbs downs that your idiotic comments get, I doubt very much it is in my eyes only.

Feel complimented then, idiot.

[killerbandit]

hahaha, I am on a libertarian channel. I could post the word 'community' all by itself and get thumbs down.... Watch.

[justinwlaurab]

But how can you value community if you don't value yourself?

[killerbandit]

I haven't said anything that would suggest that I don't value myself or individual freedoms.

I am just pointing out that the love of self needs to be balanced with love of community.

[dduppie]

if you're community is worth loving, there would be no need to balance anything

[killerbandit]

You know that is a load of bull. If education as a child were worth loving there would be no need to make attendance mandatory....

[dduppie]

you do realize you just admitted mandatory education is a croc

[killerbandit]

No I didn't, I was pointing out that children do not always do what is in their own self interest. Take vegetables for example. Most children hate vegetables despite the fact that they are essential to growing up healthy. The same goes for education.

[Wejer3]

By nature, man has to be rational by choice - thinking is not automatic. The law applies the same to both children and to adults.

[picapauengracado]

Yaron Brook is representing objectivists, who generally don't consider themselves libertarians. Either way, there are socialist libertarians. In fact, how does liberty contradict community and fraternity? How is compulsory giving selfess? If you support voluntary interactions, Yaron's advocation of a minimal state shouldn't infuriate you one bit.

[killerbandit]

Come on you know objectivism focuses completely on the individual and leaves the concept of community alone at best. It was created as a direct reaction to communism and that shows.

[picapauengracado]

I don't agree or disagree. My point was solely and only that minimal government is not incompatible with community. Consider how compatible Kropotkin's Mutual Aid communist society is with a libertarian view of government. If you also support a bottom-up society, built on true and consensual relationships, libertarians are your political allies no matter how much you may disagree with the way they choose to govern their lives.

[killerbandit]

It is a balance, but I have to say that for large groups of people having no government can be just as harmful as having too much government.

I do think that we need more than the power of individual relationships in order to manage societies with populations in the billions.

[picapauengracado]

Sure, there is an optimal size for an institution, what's called (dis)economies to scale -- people don't want to bargain over every little thing (transaction costs), but on the other hand as an hierarchy grows there is an ever decreasing voice for the individual (information costs). Different social experiments is the only way to find the appropriate trade-offs; clearly when looking at all the various sizes of govts throughout the world, such trade-offs aren't being considered.

[killerbandit]

It is all about scale. For example communism works great in communities up to about 200 or so people, after that it tends to become destructive.

The question that remains is how do we balance freedom with responsibility when we get into societies so large. It literally has not been attempted until now.

[picapauengracado]

Only loony religious groups have voluntarily tried out communism. Nobody wants to be tied to only one single group; everybody has experienced the tyranny that is a conflict with a neighbor or a co-worker. So people want to diversify in their interest groups. There is a 2nd reason for that as well: flexibility. Only competing social orders manage to best figure out how to maximize value from all the unimaginable possible ways that human efforts and resources can be aimed and combined.

[Wejer3]

The twins of slavery and parasitism are always destructive, regardless if it is 200 people or 200 million.

Rationality ceases to exist at the point of a gun. And so does freedom.

[killerbandit]

You completely missed the point. In societies in which the communities do not get much larger than 200 people communism works great. The philosophy simply breaks down when you get into bigger communities.

The philosophy of communism was not pulled from whole cloth.

[Wejer3]

In that case, in a society no larger than 200 people, it would be alright for me to pull a gun at you and enslave you in order to get your possesions and wealth, simply because you are the man of ability, and I am the man of need.

That is Karl Marx in action; do you really think such a society would be 'great'?

In either case: quit wasting everybodies time with mindless bromides and empty slogans.

[killerbandit]

There are communities today that practice a form of social communism and are doing quite well. The benefit of a small group is the ability to gain consensus. With a community of 200, everyone knows everyone. Marx's mistake was to attempt to template it onto large societies, it doesn't work.

The thing I am pointing out here is that social co-operation is actually practiced and has been shown to work in some capacity. Objectivism is just another new age idea that will never work, as communism.

[Wejer3]

Voluntary co-operation has nothing to do with communism - in fact, it's the exact opposite. If you want to help your neighbour and your neighbour wants to help you, then there's no force involved and is perfectly alright. But when voluntary exchanges stop, and "need" is more important than "choice", then it is legitimate to use force to gain what you want, ie barbarism - this is what you are in fact advocating.

Note: Objectivism and New age have nothing in common. Read wikipedia. Seriously.

[dduppie]

Objectivism isn't against consensus or cooperation or charity as long as it's voluntary.

Communism failed not because the community was too large, but it was based on immoral premises.

[grumpone]

You mean the REALITY not philosophy. The reality of give and take, of reciprocity that has been around the animal kingdom forever? Mistaking it for "communism" is not only folly but idiocy.

In these "communities" you help others because you know you'll get reciprocated and they'll help you when you need it. Otherwise you wouldn't do it.

[grumpone]

I lived through communism from birth till around 20 years old and ym very well placed to tell you that your book versions of communism has nothing to do with its brutal reality - "do as we tell you or you are imprisoned or dead." Grow up.

[killerbandit]

As I said before, in small communities the theory of communism works. As human have evolved to work in communities of approx 200 people, the concept of communism works quite well and existed long before a man named Marx came along.

The problem that Marx failed to understand is that managing societies with millions of members is a very different situation.

So as I said before, a reactionary ideology such as objectivism is just as silly as communism.

[grumpone]

Again if you did not understand it's not Cumminism (altruism by the threat of government force) that works in small communities - it's reciprocation on the basis of free will. You call reciprocation on the basis of free will Communism which is a perversion of terms. Communism has inherently NOTHING to do with free will - the governing elite FORCES you to action not your own free will. Jesus, some people cannot get it even if you draw it to them.

[killerbandit]

If you plan on living in a society that is based on millions of people living together in a small geographical region you are just going to have to get used to some 'forced altruism'. Otherwise find a small piece of land where you can live like a shut in for the rest of your life with out the burden of a large COMMUNITY.

[grumpone]

Now I am going to start calling you an imbecile, because that is what you are. You are so far up your own ass it's unbelievable. Have you ever heard of the constitution. No forced altruism there.

Also as long as I do not infringe on the constitutional rights of others no one can force anything on anyone. You clearly do not distinguish between freedom and coersion.

[grumpone]

Your mind is completely screwed up. Forced altruism is theft - theft of time and liberty of the individual. There is no such thing as community - only a lot of individuals. You really need to stop reading Marx.

[killerbandit]

I am not surprised that a Randbot does not believe in the concept of community but I have some news for you, we are social and communal animals by nature and your concept of the way we should arrange society is quite simply foolish.

[grumpone]

You have no arguments left and of course you then proceed to personal attacks. Being social animals has nothing to do with having to be forced by the threat of violence to do what YOU or anyone else wants people to do. You should really go into politics or government, you are perfect for them. All blind dogma, no reason.

[killerbandit]

Sorry, I thought not considering the social aspects of arranging a society was a foolish thing to do.

I can guarantee you that if we abolish any form of social organization through our government there will be someone else who will do it. I don't think they will hold elections either.

Your vision is of society has never existed in any form anywhere. It is a fantasy.

[grumpone]

My god my man, whoever was talking about anarchy????

You constantly put words into my mouth, I would advise you stop this ploy.

We need government to protect the constitutional rights of individuals, we need the courts and we need it to enforce legal contracts and defend the nation with a military. That's it.

The US constitution does not allow for any other type of government which (like you believe it must) enforces altruism.

[duke1duke1]

Objectivism isn't reactionary--it isn't anti-communist. It is pro-capitalism because the philosophy believes capitalism is the only system which allows men to fully pursue their own self-interest, which is the moral purpose of a man's life.

[killerbandit]

You need to learn the context of the creator of 'objectivism'. Ayn was raised in communist Russia where the economic system and the political system were one in the same. Her answer to the legitimate wrongs her family suffered under communism was the exact opposite of communism. The abolishment of community, the absolute free for all of a rule-free capitalistic system.

Maybe she was on to something, why should I pay for the police to protect you from me?

[duke1duke1]

Well, you are incorrect in her biography, (for example, she was raised in Czarist Russia) but my point still stands. Ayn Rand's politics is just a logical consequence of her moral advocacy of selfishness. She was against communism before she even saw the results--she was against communism when she heard their slogans that you should live for another man.

[killerbandit]

No, she was against communism when her father had his farm taken from him. Which, FYI, liberals are also against. Communism failed as it was a utopian ideology. That does not mean people organizing their communities in part through their government is 100% wrong.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

Ludwig Von Mises once wrote that you do not have to necessarily be a socialist/communist in order to aid it. As long as you believe that the government has the right to intervene in the economy and impinge one individual freedom--to whatever extent--you are abetting statism.

[killerbandit]

There is a reason why the people have formed a government.

It is us organizing against powers that would if they could do anything to us in order to make money and improve their own standard of life at the sacrifice of ours.

The government 'impinges' our right to produce food that is poisonous, or to burn something that will poison our air. The government provides the framework for our economy. Free markets are a delusion.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

Yes, we form governments to protect individual rights.

No rational human being would offer injurious products. I as a business owner would not prosper if I was derelict or produced deleterious commodities. Therefore, I would not do it.

I don't know about you, but I don't need a government to tell me not to eat poisonous foods.

[killerbandit]

1-There are plenty of irrational humans who would be very happy to sell poison as food, and put you out of business while they are at it.

2-I don't need the government to tell me not to eat poison either, but the government does help find out what food is poison. I mean I could wait until my neighbors die of food poisoning and hope that I don't happen to get food from the same establishment, but that seems a little reactionary to me.

[justinwlaurab]

if it is a balance then the point of balance between the community and individual has to be determined by the individual (this is the Objectivist position). No other individual or group of individuals has the right to impose their idea of what is an appropriate level of community on anyone else. If you want community--great. if you don't--great. Either way it's up to you, but you can't force someone to participate in a community or even reap the benefit of the community if they don't want to

[bregew]

If you read Ayn Rand's 'Virtue of Selfishness', you will find that yes, Objectivist's too acknowledge that individuals benefit from society--quite admirably so.

To paraphrase: each man gains an incalculable benefit from knowledge and trade.

We have knowledge of how electricity works. We gain by learning to live from it.

[justinwlaurab]

Communism is not community.

What Objectivism reacts against in communism is...

1.) Initiation of Force (regardless of "need", so-called "greater good", etc.)

2.) irrational morality (altruism).

[444DeanMachine]

the ending phrase in that speech - "In the name of our founding fathers." that is pretty shitty way to end it especially coming from an objectivist, it doesn't cohere to a philosophy of individualism to do something in the name of people existing in the past

[PortfolioManager1987]

Why not uphold the founding fathers as great men and bring a close to the revolution they began? And for that part of the video it seemed like a mention to celebrating such a great holiday and the fact everyone is all there able to gather freely etc -- the great gift of the United States thanks to the founding fathers -- why not give them a one up?

[444DeanMachine]

agreed and a big ups is fine just as long as we don't frame our actions on what they did a long time ago, we can't die or live in borrowed splendor of the past to justify new actions, innovations, advancements, and achievements of ours now

[Elasaltaculos]

how so?

[444DeanMachine]

because if you read Rand you'll understand that although she can hold up the old greats you must forge your own and never just give out credit to the dead even if what they did was pretty sweet. She didn't write her novels praising the founding fathers although her and them held similar ideologies on liberty she wrote as a breakthrough. We can't live today thinking that the constitution, the founding fathers, and not Rand either and other old things are paragons of perfection, gotta move it on

[Elasaltaculos]

Reasonable..... I don't think that praising great people for their foresight is necessarily a bad thing. If i can find disagreements with objectivism, it is usually about small things like this.

Thanks for clarifying.

[normativeRandroid]

individualism is not understood as each person having to originate all his own ideas without reference to others' ideas. Individualism, in this context, means that you are independent in making proper judgments. It is proper to accept true ideas even if others discovered them first so long as you can prove to yourself that they are true.

[444DeanMachine]

true and of course otherwise we'd have children learning the complex diagrams on Newton's theory of Gravity before they just accept that Newton figured it out and we thank him, but what I was saying was that there are better things beyond the founding fathers and Ayn Rand truely wanted more than they gave and to hold up a person who didn't achieve what you want as an idol, well that's just funky, like Edison holding up the guy who may have made a botched lightbulb, just perfect it!

[PCMechanic]

Wow! Great speech!

[justinwlaurab]

This is not the Objectivist position.

[sexlessparents]

what the fuck, i did not say anything