@pretorious700 Not often one gets to see someone humiliate themselves so convincingly, thoroughly and without provocation. I suggest you read the comment again. Then again. Then read it one more time. Then go and earn a bachelor's degree in English language studies and read it three more times. And then if you realize what a fool you've made of yourself, seriously consider voluntary sterilization as your service and duty to mankind. Best wishes and merry christmas!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
stossel is such an idiot. Randians are all the same. A philosophy that seems logical at first glance but who's entire foundation sits on the absurd idea that the "noble man" will make the right choices in the face of the overwhelming temptation of profit. It's such a stupid idea it's almost comical people take it seriously. Randroids should read Emma Goldman. You'll find all the good things in Rands philosophy minus the useless solipsism. Goldman understood the social aspect of humans.
So for all the advantages of the 'free market' one of them clearly isn't that it creates the greatest possible growth - the fastest growing countries at this point are all state-controlled markets.
@fleebenworth : Just because Lebron James is capable of dunking a basketball with 5 lb ankle weights on does not mean that the ankle weights are the source of his dunking ability. This analogy is not even perfect because training with ankle weights may actually improve his ability once they're removed. Government control just weakens an economies ability to bounce back.
The purpose of government is to throw an economic net over the populous and reap the fruits of harnessed human labor. That's the game irregardless of the social structure, most of us are pawns -happy provided people think they are provided with an education (we're not), and the freedom (to consume in a market-directed manner). Fear? Created by the government to keep people in line.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@Lordgeek4 I read it a while back - it really is vomit. I am, politically speaking, a libertarian - but Ayn Rand's view is for unrestrained capitalism with no consideration of long term environmental impacts, nor impacts on third parties. While these issues were not contemporary for Rand, and I can understand their omission - it unfortunately makes the entire book a vile piece of trash - an extremely entertaining, well thought out piece of trash - but there it is.
It's funny and emblematic of the intellectual bankruptcy of randian philosophy that these guys don't even agree with each other.
The president of the bank says he believes acting in the best interests of others will help them and society, and then the lispy president of hte Rand society says there is no such thing as public interest and altruism.
If you need more proof of the veracity of my charges, just look at the intellectual hoops and contortions this guy goes through starting at 8:34 to characterize Madoff as a guy who was not acting greedily out of his own self interest.
Even my deluded libertarian friends should be able to realize that Bernie Madoff was looking out solely for himself.
deluded contortions? The guy destroyed his life and every relationship with everybody he ever had, he lost the money that he stole. The guy actually would pray everyday that he would get COUGHT!
Its incredible that you can't understand a simple argument. Their arguemnt is that you should pursue your self interest, and that should be the only proper justification for your actions. The fact that other people might benefit from it is a secondary consequence of you pursuing your self interest.
And I'm telling you that they give no basis for that, it's simply a dogmatic assertion. I can give you numerous examples NOTABLY BERNIE MADOFF and GOLDMAN SACHS where people pursued their self-interests and wound up fucking themselves and a big portion of the general populace.
Furthermore if you listen again, the first banker clearly says that it is better to do things that are good for his CUSTOMERS. He may claim to believe this nonsense, but even he doesn't follow it.
Climate change is real. I don't want humans to go extinct. I believe that gov't should stay out of the wat as much as possible. but gov't must stand in the way of climate change or we're all dead. carbon must be taxed & capped. We have less than 6 years left to begin to reduce carbon output before it's too late to stop it. I'm losing hope here. please help me.
Do you honestly believe that the govt. can stop global climate change? How utterly absurd. Stop worring about it. The climate has been changing for millions of years, its always going to change. It gets hot it gets cold and there is nothing we as people can do about it. Just enjoy the shoty amount of time you have here as best you can and not be so up tight. Enjoy your life!! This isn't dress rehearsal.
Try to stay calm. The fact is, that humans will go extinct one way or another eventually. But probably not from global warming and not in six years. The carbon cap & trade is just another attempt by progressives to get the whole world behind a threat that, coincidentally, can only be solved by a massive redistribution of global wealth.
What if we are all fucking up the globe? It's a false dilemma. Even if humans are influencing climate change it doesn't NEED to be tackled necessarily by governments. If undeniable proof emerged tomorrow that the carbon trades are putting our species to death in the next century, people would still moan about the government taking the issue. There would still be another way to handle it but that involves self responsibility of us and our corporation to use less carbon. We're too myopic for that.
@FreeInquisition Exactly. It's one of the dead giveaways of a con job, particularly a government con job. When you go over how government works and ignore what they say, you learn that government doesn't solve problems. That's not the metric of government. The government perpetuates problems in order to justify the existence of bureaucracies. People dream of glory and being in government seems like a good way to get that.
Governments are some of the biggest polluters in the world and have done more damage to the environment than any logger or factory could if they tried. Trusting them to handle environmental issues is a classic case of putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
The unfortunate thing about the Objectivists is how much in bed they are with the conservatives on the issue of war and foreign policy. I mean, Yaron Brooks has published articles in Capitalism Magazine that sound practically neoconservative! It's insane.
Objectives have this ridiculous unwarranted superiority complex, esp. when it comes to libertarians. They think libertarians are frauds and all this other bullcrap. Pointless division within the liberty movement.
I doubt that everyone involved in the creation of our government did so for the sole purpose of protecting property rights. I am almost certain that some involved did so to secure their own political career & power at the expense of citizens, thus to violate property rights.
Plus, I'm sure you realize, especially with government, that intentions rarely correlate with results. The purpose of government is irrelevant if the nature of government & its inherent incentives conflict with that purpose
@truthadvocate, you're right, the founding fathers created our government not for the sole purpose of protecting property rights, but to protect ALL of our rights.
There were no income or property taxes for the first 137 years of America's existence, so no, the founders didn't, or couldn't, fleece the citizens for their own personal gain. That shit didn't start happening until the 20th century, and boy is it happening big time now.
Our ignorance and apathy has allowed this to happen.
137 years is not a long period of time. Midevil Ireland lasted for over 1000 years without income taxes, property taxes, or war. Why? Because it was a free market anarchy. People were free to make voluntary exchanges with each other without a coercive third party getting involved. They had complete control over their private property.
Sales tax is also a violation of property rights. It forces you to pay for government services whether you want them or not under threat of imprisonment.
Yaron Brook is so convincing. He argues with real concrete examples which are plain to see in reality.
sandb232 7 months ago
Alice Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand) lecturing the world on morals. If that isn't the definition of irony I don't know what is.
bddc201 9 months ago
@bddc201 If you interpret her writings as lectures on morals, you're an idiot.
pretorious700 2 months ago
@pretorious700 Not often one gets to see someone humiliate themselves so convincingly, thoroughly and without provocation. I suggest you read the comment again. Then again. Then read it one more time. Then go and earn a bachelor's degree in English language studies and read it three more times. And then if you realize what a fool you've made of yourself, seriously consider voluntary sterilization as your service and duty to mankind. Best wishes and merry christmas!
bddc201 2 months ago
Wow great vid-
papageorgio419 1 year ago
Ayn Rand was a genius.
notbestfriends 1 year ago 4
He couldn't have said defended his point better.
More people need to be truly selfish!
16LiveGrenades 1 year ago
@16LiveGrenades
It's their right. If YOU want to give, then feel free. It's your right.
Nonpeon 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
stossel is such an idiot. Randians are all the same. A philosophy that seems logical at first glance but who's entire foundation sits on the absurd idea that the "noble man" will make the right choices in the face of the overwhelming temptation of profit. It's such a stupid idea it's almost comical people take it seriously. Randroids should read Emma Goldman. You'll find all the good things in Rands philosophy minus the useless solipsism. Goldman understood the social aspect of humans.
doublestrokeroll 1 year ago
Wow, an honest banker! Never in my life time did I thought I'd see that. This man has courage and gets my respect.
stevieRay3211 1 year ago 5
So for all the advantages of the 'free market' one of them clearly isn't that it creates the greatest possible growth - the fastest growing countries at this point are all state-controlled markets.
fleebenworth 1 year ago
@fleebenworth : Just because Lebron James is capable of dunking a basketball with 5 lb ankle weights on does not mean that the ankle weights are the source of his dunking ability. This analogy is not even perfect because training with ankle weights may actually improve his ability once they're removed. Government control just weakens an economies ability to bounce back.
ptricky15 1 year ago
@ptricky15 Tell it to China, Venezuela, Russia, etc.
fleebenworth 1 year ago
The purpose of government is to throw an economic net over the populous and reap the fruits of harnessed human labor. That's the game irregardless of the social structure, most of us are pawns -happy provided people think they are provided with an education (we're not), and the freedom (to consume in a market-directed manner). Fear? Created by the government to keep people in line.
MrChirpsky 1 year ago
That Atlas Shrugged is A Good Book, i just finished it.
Lordgeek4 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Lordgeek4 I read it a while back - it really is vomit. I am, politically speaking, a libertarian - but Ayn Rand's view is for unrestrained capitalism with no consideration of long term environmental impacts, nor impacts on third parties. While these issues were not contemporary for Rand, and I can understand their omission - it unfortunately makes the entire book a vile piece of trash - an extremely entertaining, well thought out piece of trash - but there it is.
AmagnonX 1 year ago
It's funny and emblematic of the intellectual bankruptcy of randian philosophy that these guys don't even agree with each other.
The president of the bank says he believes acting in the best interests of others will help them and society, and then the lispy president of hte Rand society says there is no such thing as public interest and altruism.
Pure lulz man
fleebenworth 2 years ago
If you need more proof of the veracity of my charges, just look at the intellectual hoops and contortions this guy goes through starting at 8:34 to characterize Madoff as a guy who was not acting greedily out of his own self interest.
Even my deluded libertarian friends should be able to realize that Bernie Madoff was looking out solely for himself.
fleebenworth 2 years ago
@fleebenworth
deluded contortions? The guy destroyed his life and every relationship with everybody he ever had, he lost the money that he stole. The guy actually would pray everyday that he would get COUGHT!
WarVideo 2 years ago
If you believe that he prayed to get "cought" I am completely unsurprised that you are gullible enough to buy this shit.
fleebenworth 2 years ago
@fleebenworth how many people have you stolen from today?
dduppie 1 year ago
Yes but not Rationaly.
Lordgeek4 2 years ago
@fleebenworth
Its incredible that you can't understand a simple argument. Their arguemnt is that you should pursue your self interest, and that should be the only proper justification for your actions. The fact that other people might benefit from it is a secondary consequence of you pursuing your self interest.
WarVideo 2 years ago
And I'm telling you that they give no basis for that, it's simply a dogmatic assertion. I can give you numerous examples NOTABLY BERNIE MADOFF and GOLDMAN SACHS where people pursued their self-interests and wound up fucking themselves and a big portion of the general populace.
Furthermore if you listen again, the first banker clearly says that it is better to do things that are good for his CUSTOMERS. He may claim to believe this nonsense, but even he doesn't follow it.
fleebenworth 2 years ago
@fleebenworth
Exactly, HIS customers, its better to pursue win-win situations where verybody benefits. Its in both parties self interest.
WarVideo 2 years ago
Comment removed
fleebenworth 2 years ago
Comment removed
fleebenworth 2 years ago
Atlas Shrugged parallels/predicted Americas destructive trend.
See the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom U.S. economy is no longer free.
islandmuffin 2 years ago 5
Great show, is there somewhere I could find more of it?
girlyoudontknow2 2 years ago 3
I personally prefer the Austrian School of Economics and Rothbardian - Hoppean anarcho-capitalism ethics.
murrayrothbard 2 years ago
Climate change is real. I don't want humans to go extinct. I believe that gov't should stay out of the wat as much as possible. but gov't must stand in the way of climate change or we're all dead. carbon must be taxed & capped. We have less than 6 years left to begin to reduce carbon output before it's too late to stop it. I'm losing hope here. please help me.
jffryh 2 years ago
@jffryh
youre retarded. hows that help?
wohs145 2 years ago
Do you honestly believe that the govt. can stop global climate change? How utterly absurd. Stop worring about it. The climate has been changing for millions of years, its always going to change. It gets hot it gets cold and there is nothing we as people can do about it. Just enjoy the shoty amount of time you have here as best you can and not be so up tight. Enjoy your life!! This isn't dress rehearsal.
am60mo 2 years ago 6
@fjjryh:
Try to stay calm. The fact is, that humans will go extinct one way or another eventually. But probably not from global warming and not in six years. The carbon cap & trade is just another attempt by progressives to get the whole world behind a threat that, coincidentally, can only be solved by a massive redistribution of global wealth.
have a look at this and try to relax...
/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI
Frumibandersnatch 2 years ago
What if we are all fucking up the globe? It's a false dilemma. Even if humans are influencing climate change it doesn't NEED to be tackled necessarily by governments. If undeniable proof emerged tomorrow that the carbon trades are putting our species to death in the next century, people would still moan about the government taking the issue. There would still be another way to handle it but that involves self responsibility of us and our corporation to use less carbon. We're too myopic for that.
FreeInquisition 2 years ago
@FreeInquisition Exactly. It's one of the dead giveaways of a con job, particularly a government con job. When you go over how government works and ignore what they say, you learn that government doesn't solve problems. That's not the metric of government. The government perpetuates problems in order to justify the existence of bureaucracies. People dream of glory and being in government seems like a good way to get that.
ThePenWolf 2 years ago 4
Governments are some of the biggest polluters in the world and have done more damage to the environment than any logger or factory could if they tried. Trusting them to handle environmental issues is a classic case of putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
Read the story of love canal for a good example.
lordthawkeye 2 years ago 2
Ayn Rand had very little to do libertarianism.
Also wasn't Alan Greenspan a strong Ayn Rand supporter?
rmeddy1 2 years ago
Greenspan also claimed to be a free market advocate. As Obama illustrates non-stop, just saying something does not make it so.
fzqlcs 2 years ago 15
The unfortunate thing about the Objectivists is how much in bed they are with the conservatives on the issue of war and foreign policy. I mean, Yaron Brooks has published articles in Capitalism Magazine that sound practically neoconservative! It's insane.
Objectives have this ridiculous unwarranted superiority complex, esp. when it comes to libertarians. They think libertarians are frauds and all this other bullcrap. Pointless division within the liberty movement.
whoo689 2 years ago
@whoo689 At least they can all agree they that they want liberty, which some people "cough" (communists) can't agree on.
Lordgeek4 2 years ago 4
YES, STOP COMMUNISM HERE IN AMERICA.
Rico8458 2 years ago 23
The government should protect people's rights? In a fantasy world, yeah. But in reality you don't trust a fox to protect the hen house.
truthadvocate 2 years ago
a fox was not created for the sole purpose of protecting the hen house.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
I doubt that everyone involved in the creation of our government did so for the sole purpose of protecting property rights. I am almost certain that some involved did so to secure their own political career & power at the expense of citizens, thus to violate property rights.
Plus, I'm sure you realize, especially with government, that intentions rarely correlate with results. The purpose of government is irrelevant if the nature of government & its inherent incentives conflict with that purpose
truthadvocate 2 years ago 2
I agree with all you say here. My only point was the flaw in fox/hen house analogy.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
@truthadvocate, you're right, the founding fathers created our government not for the sole purpose of protecting property rights, but to protect ALL of our rights.
There were no income or property taxes for the first 137 years of America's existence, so no, the founders didn't, or couldn't, fleece the citizens for their own personal gain. That shit didn't start happening until the 20th century, and boy is it happening big time now.
Our ignorance and apathy has allowed this to happen.
BRYAN351 2 years ago 3
137 years is not a long period of time. Midevil Ireland lasted for over 1000 years without income taxes, property taxes, or war. Why? Because it was a free market anarchy. People were free to make voluntary exchanges with each other without a coercive third party getting involved. They had complete control over their private property.
Sales tax is also a violation of property rights. It forces you to pay for government services whether you want them or not under threat of imprisonment.
truthadvocate 2 years ago 3
@fzqlcs, the government shouldn't be a fox. We need to shoot the fox and replace it with a big, tough hen!
BRYAN351 2 years ago
who said government should be a fox? You inferred what what was not implied.
fzqlcs 2 years ago
I know ladyattis here on youtube took Market Anarchy as the logical conclusion of Rand's work.
I feel the same way.
I wonder if anyone else thinks so.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
is market anarchy another way of saying unbridled liberty to buy and sell as you please? if so, why is that objectionable?
fzqlcs 2 years ago 2
Probably.
And would do you think I object?
It says clearly on my profile that I'm an anarchist myself (Well, Anarcho Capitalist, to be more specific).
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
That second line should have read, "And what did I say that made you think I would object."
My bad.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
I agree.
AshillaBeige 2 years ago 2
Excellent segment. Hits directly to the point. Thanks for sharing it.
K.K.
Kittenkattan 2 years ago 2
The BB&T bank dude definitely has a point about property rights.
"Abolition of all rights of private property." --1st Plank of the Communist Manifesto.
What more needs to be said?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago 2