"Nanoparticles in items you use everydayare they safe, and why arent they better regulated?" Thom challenges Yaron Brook

[MrMontgomeryM]

Google nano paint china deaths.

[CentralFloridaVFP]

Chemtrails are loaded with Aluminum nano-particles.

What's your reaction to that, Tom?

[bonfirejovi]

Wow Thom has no grounding in reality, does he? A certain amount of risk is needed if there is going to be any room for entrepreneurship and innovation. The precautionary principle is a bad joke, it requires no scientific consensus.

So there is no scientific consensus that these nano particles kill, huh?

Thom Swede, Denmark, Netherlands are no socialists. They are welfare capitalists. Sweden has recently undergone mass privatization and deregulation.

Hahaha wtf is happiness economics?

[lucentenor]

Yaron's right on all points. Thom should start his own nanny state and see how well it works out for him.

[lucentenor]

What is this, the Silent Spring show?

[justonefirefly1]

forget it thomhartmann - you can't talk to greedy mobsters

[greatbroad]

Nobody could say Thom Hartmann just preaches to the choir. Love to hear the opposite view - kind of like an inoculation of "world view" to make us stronger and well-rounded.

[davidg1234]

Yaron is right. Science shouldn't be politicized this way. Just look at things as simple as Nuclear power. The US is wasting all their money paying their enemies for oil when they could have nuclear power on their doorstep. Even France knows that.

Science is no place for pushing a liberal agenda and increasing government control. The burden of proof should be on the Government and the critics.

[wv05]

Even France? What... then it must be obvious? Other than your randomly inserted France bashing I agree with you.

[justonefirefly1]

Oh so unregulation leads to all kinds of wonderful thing - like the bernie maddoff and the dick cheneys of this world/ god you are a dumb ass

[Austinbit]

@justonefirefly1 Maddoff could never be successful in a true capitolist society. Dick Cheney....I dont even know where his name comes into this. It seems like you spew names to prove your invalid point. Rather than call someone names, why dont you grow up and have an intellectual debate. Oh, I forgot. Your a statist, which is just a parasite to society. Anybody who can thrive off the works of another is a criminal. Clearly not an intellectual. Thats must be why you dont debate....

[justonefirefly1]

@Austinbit Madoff and cheney are the darlings of the capitalist system which indeed profits from the works of other by their abuse and criminals acts allowed by the unfair playing field that capitalism thrives on the which is the enslavement of others. Clearly you are a user who like madoff thrives as a parasite on the work of others by con and decepetion. cheney and his lack of real charm thrived on the bullying of others to take what was theirs. a thief is a thief no matter how rich.

[Austinbit]

@justonefirefly1 You must think money is evil, according to your depiction of capitolism. Capitolism is a celebration of mankind's morality. Enough that two men can come together, and make a mutually beneficial deal. You think this is evil? It is socialist and communist policies which force men to work for no benefit. "...bullying of others to take what was theirs." You seem to be depicting communism to me. Except in communism, they bully you for what is NOT theirs. SEE NEXT POST...

[Austinbit]

...SEE PREVIOUS POST... You should appreciate what the hero's of society have built up for you. (This includes CEOs, Scientists, doctors, etc.) Also, take their life stories as a source of inspiration. Instead of using jealousy as an excuse to steal their money through the use of crooked law systems which arent American. If you still feel that your welfare isn't treating you well, move to North Korea. Sure, you loose your posessions, but you will never have to see a rich person ever again. :)

[justonefirefly1]

@Austinbit No absolute power corrupts - not money. Yes to take advantage of another is evil. You are a sociopath. No regulations, no fairness, no care for the totallity of society leads to war and chaos. Men are supposed to be intelligent not greedy criminals.

[Austinbit]

@justonefirefly1 "absolute power corrupts" and your dictatorship or socialism wont lead to this...?

"...to take advantage of another is evil" - Indeed. Hence the reason that men and women must look out for themselves. For more advanced decisions, people specialize in certain fields. Medical=doctor. Financial=lawyer, etc. Just like today.

I'm not an anarchist. I believe in the constitution, law enforcement, acourt system, a military, and a few other government programs.

Clearly you arent

[aljkshdfhf]

Good idea, you don't seem to have an answer to my question. Face it, the military is the government and any real libertarian would want less military spending as much as any other spending. I win, goodbye.

[aljkshdfhf]

Are we still talking about whether the US needs a huge military force to defend us against invading armies? I never said anything about anarchy, I said if private citizens can manage their own roads and schools, they can also defend themselves against invading armies. I think it is unlikely we would be invaded by anyone anyway. So why do we need a military?

[Twiggy269]

having no government, is anarchy its exactly what you're talking about.

"private citizens can manage their own roads and schools, they can also defend themselves against invading armies."

If you take away the use of force from the government, then you're left with nothing at all, since its the only thing government does I knew you wern't an anarchist, which is why this conversation is pointless. Unless you plan on holding a premise as to what could, and ought to be, i'm not responding.

[Twiggy269]

this all started from you saying that Objectivists are hypocritical for saying that a military is a proper govt. function. Basically what you said is if you're an Objectivist, then you should be an anarchist or you're a hypocrite. Which is an amazingly stupid thing to say, and I honestly think you've gotten yourself in a little over your head in this, since you don't even know when your advocating an anarchist position.

[aljkshdfhf]

If you have such a problem with me I'll quote from the Campaign For LIberty, real libertarians:

"With our Founding Fathers, we also believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy, that American people cannot remain free and prosperous with troops in 130 countries and a steady diet of war propaganda. Our military is bankrupting our country."

A waste of money, a pointless stupid waste, that's the American military. We need to cut back on it as much as everything else the govt screws up.

[Twiggy269]

"We need to cut back on it as much as everything else the govt screws up."

wow.

How is that anything like what you were saying before?

Bettery yet, don't answer. I'm no longer going to waste this time.

[ankharris]

Objectivists, Scientologists, all these cults that consider themselves to be the only ones holding the secret to morality, their all the same. They just don't want to believe that they have a responsibility to their fellow humans.

[justinwlaurab]

Objectivism is a philosophy which holds a rational, explanable, non-mystical, non-secret, understandable-to-any-rational­-person code of ethics. It's only requirement is clear, logical thinking.

Believing that one has a responsibility to others is merely one code of ethics (altruism).

[ankharris]

WRONG! Objectivism is a cult. They expect people to follow their "clear, logical thinking" with unquestioning devotion to Ayn Rand. No one is allowed to think for themselves and when interviewed Objectivists can only spout the same recordings that have been fed to them.

Believing that one has a responsibility to others is written in our DNA, it helped us survive when we were huddled around the primordial campfires, it is who we are as creatures and is the only way to survive...

(TBC...)

[ankharris]

... is the only way to survive the current crisis we find ourselves in. Responsibility to others is also wisdom that can be found in every holy book since the dawn of mankind.

When we as a society learn to think with our own minds, as I believe will one day happen, then cults like Objectivism will die a well deserved death.

[ankharris]

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

— John Kenneth Galbraith

[bonfirejovi]

@ankharris Lol Galbraith was wrong about everything, I would find someone better to quote from. All his arguments were based on an appeal to pity.

[ankharris]

@bonfirejovi - So says you.  Got proof?

[justinwlaurab]

Not an accurate description of someone who subscribes to the Objectivist philosophy.

Biology defines the needs of man, but not the means. That is where consciousness (and as a result, ethics) is required.

If ethics stemmed from biology there would be no unethical behavior. Then, right or wrong, all cultures and people would have the same ethical codes--obviously not the case.

[justinwlaurab]

Wow! There are particles in our environment that are almost the size of atoms? Sort of like...atoms?

[MrMontgomeryM]

@justinwlaurab Your ignorance is dumbfounding. Nanoparticles are a big danger to humanity. Nano particles do not behaving in the same way as your bulk material, they exhibit different chemical and physical properties, some of which we are just finding out. The chemical processes taking place on the surfaces of nanoparticles are also very complicated and remain largely unknown. Nanoparticles are effectively a bridge between bulk materials and atomic or molecular structures.

[justinwlaurab]

@MrMontgomeryM I'll believe it is a problem when I see it. You won't convince me your position is correct with rudeness.

[MrMontgomeryM]

@justinwlaurab You won't see the particles, they are too small, sorry to rudely awaken you, next time I will leave you sleeping with the fire comes.

[Aoteabird]

id like to thom interview pam marrone and ask her about the patented gmo bacillus thuringiensis . nano teck in foray 48B

[aljkshdfhf]

I don't understand Dr. Fudd's argument. Why can't private citizens also defend themselves against invading armies if every aspect of the rest of the govt is so unnecessary, why not the military? Completely hypocritical. I do like having government departments taking the time to review new technologies, industry definitely has a history of trying to make a buck regardless of how harmful their products might be. They don't care. I'd rather wait a few years and know something is safe.

[Twiggy269]

Military = force asserted through the barrell of a gun.

Which is EXACTLY what the government is.

The only logical function of a government is retaliatory force used against individuals or countries that initiate force to take away your "rights" and "liberties."

I don't have enough words to explicitly describe these rights, but i'm sure i'd be speaking to deaf ears anyway.

[aljkshdfhf]

Why? Why can't private citizens defend themselves against invaders with their own guns and do a better job than the government??? I don't see why if the govt is so bad at everything else they would be so good at defending us. Not to mention the military does a lot more than defend us and nation-building is their biggest job which is a lot of the same work that the govt can't do right in our own country so why would they be any good at it anywhere else??? Doesn't make any sense.

[Twiggy269]

"...against invaders with their own guns and do a better job than the government?"

Honestly I do not believe you're an anarchist, and quite frankly it is a stupid position to hold, having private protection forces, and no rule of law, so im skipping this.

"...nation-building is their biggest job which is a lot of the same work that..."

Nation building is not a legitimate part of the military, protecting the citizens is. Offering ideas to your defeated enemy on how to oranize is ok though...

[aljkshdfhf]

Why is the idea that private citizens can protect themselves such a bad idea? If private citizens can take care of their own roads and schools then why not defend themselves as well? I know some private citizens that would probably be braver and tougher than some people I know in the military. And a better shot. What exactly are you being protected from anyway? The Canadians?

[Twiggy269]

The problem with anarchy is that there is no rule of law. The rule is that my group of thugs can kill yours, so you have to do what I say. There is no protection of rights or liberties when the enforcement of those rights is up for grabs by the person with the most guns. Without one group that has the authority to use force, civil society breaks down, and becomes mob rule.

Which is essentialy what we have now, and is why it is a stupid premise to hold.

[justinwlaurab]

I think this is a good point, and I don't have an answer. My attitude toward this issue is that it's sort of like the last thing to deal with. I think the post office, education, parks, mueums, healthcare and all that stuff needs to be privatized before we can think about whether or not the military should be privatized.

[aljkshdfhf]

Well, I think that has contributed a lot to libertarian failures since Goldwater and I also think the reason for Ron Paul's popularity. His consistency makes his message more true. When it is just bickering over which big gov programs you like then it seems suspect. If it is just the left arguing for more schools less bombs and right-wing "libertarians" arguing for more bombs less schools, the libertarian message is easily discounted as right-wing rebranding and hypocrisy.

[PeterOrszagCallMe]

I'm always kind of amazed there are still Objectivists--their arguments seem to fall apart as they're voicing them.

[oggleman]

thom's guests annoy me, they just flood the airwaves with their words and don't let thom get a word in edgewise, their thinking must be "i said the most words, i win"

[PeterOrszagCallMe]

Actually, I'm always impressed that Thom lets his guests talk. I really admire him for that--and sometimes, as in this debate, their arguments fall apart without Thom saying too much.

[ankharris]

Well, Thom just let's them prattle on. It's his way of letting the audience see for themselves how goofy these people are.

[julsHz]

Sounds like the objectivist view coincides with the conservative view. It's OK if we purchase a toxic product and it kills us... we can just read a peer-reviewed article- HA- and simply choose not to buy it anymore. I'd be interested to know his view on abortion or euthanasia- any choice allowed there? Not real money makers.

[j0hnwi11iams]

When you're an objectivist you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't require the cooperation of others.

[justinwlaurab]

This is not the Objectivist position.

[j0hnwi11iams]

Greed is good if you can get away with it.

[justinwlaurab]

Because selfishness is the root of morality, greed is merely a great passion for one's own interest and for morality. I love to see a young student greedy for knowledge and greedy to make something they are proud of and I'm greedy to see young people greedy for themselves.

[j0hnwi11iams]

Now you're just redefining the word to mean what you wish it meant. What word would you use to describe the motive for exploiting others with no regard for their well being? If you can't talk about it that means it can't really happen? And you can to be the "objective" one.

[justinwlaurab]

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

[j0hnwi11iams]

The objectivist claims: That does not compute. Case Closed.

[ankharris]

I could never take Yaron seriously. When he thinks he's winning, he's OK, but have you ever noticed how he panics and gets screechy voiced when he knows he's losing an argument? And he also parrots the objectivism memes all the time like a robot, but when that fails him he again panics.

Also, pronounces his Ls and Rs as Ws, so he sounds like a 2 year old. How can I take that seriously?

[PeterOrszagCallMe]

I know, I keep picturing Elmer Fudd as I listen to him.

[ankharris]

Self interest is moral? In what alternate universe can this be true?

[justinwlaurab]

In order to value, you must be alive. To be alive, you must act according to your own self-interest. Self interest is the root of all ethics.

[j0hnwi11iams]

Says you. Who says that in order to be alive you must ALWAYS act in your self interest? How would you be able to guess what your self interest is? If everyone cared only about themselves, how would you survive with no social organization? Society needs a small degree of altruism in order to function at all. Like HONESTY. It is deeply encoded in our genes and the genes of all advanced social animals, particularly primates.

[justinwlaurab]

Knowing what is in your self interest is not a matter of guessing, but of thinking.

"If everyone cared only about themselves..."

--by voluntary agreement rather than force.

Society is an abstraction--only individuals are real. Individuals can decide how altruistic they want to be, but they cannot claim how altruistic other individuals should be.

Honesty is (generally) in one's self interest. Try doing business with someone who thinks you are dishonest.

[j0hnwi11iams]

Try doing business with someone always calculating whether or not to be honest at any particular moment.

[justinwlaurab]

The situation you describe occurs in every type of human interaction. No amount of government intervention can change it.

[dannidandannikins]

In what alternative universe is the destruction of the self moral?

If it is moral to be selfless, then it is moral for me to give... how then is it moral for the recipient of my generosity to take?

Read John Galt's speech from atlas shrugged and then, even if you still disagree with it, you'll have a chance of understanding why Objectivists regard self interest as virtuous.

[donkey69donkey69]

tx.

[manicmetropolis]

are you kidding me? this is the most rediculous thing i have ever heard from thom.

[killerbandit]

Yaron and his ilk ALWAYS fail to properly account for the responsibility we have to ALL other people. None of us are free from this responsibility.

[justinwlaurab]

We are all free from this "responsibility".

[killerbandit]

Oh you silly objectivists, you're always wishing that you had no responsibilities.

[dannidandannikins]

What responsibility are you talking about? Where does it come from? Who imposes it? Why should I acknowledge it?

If you answer these questions convincingly I'll give everything i own to the charity of your choice.

[killerbandit]

I would advise against giving everything you own away.

However the responsibility I am talking about is akin to the responsibility you owe your family. I know this may be a little hard to do for you and I simply because humans didn't evolve this sense to be compatible with societies that number in the millions or even billions.

Eg. You are responsible to the city down river from you to not pollute the water.

[dannidandannikins]

'You are responsible to the city down river from you to not pollute the water.'

That's not a responsibility to others, that's a responsibility to myself. If i poison the people downstream then a) I'll feel shit about it; b) they will want to do me harm and I'll have to find a way of defending myself. It has nothing to do with owing them anything, I owe it to myself not to inflict harm on others.

[dannidandannikins]

as for responsibility to my family, I owe it to myself to look after them: I love them and they are a value to me. but that doesn't extend to the whole of society, i can't love everyone, due to the very nature of love. Also, even if i didn't love my children (hypothetically, to my hypothetical children) i would acknowledge a duty to them - on the grounds that until they are adult i owe them sustenance since i created them, but again that in no way extends to the rest of society.