He said that government must defend your right to life, liberty, and happiness. But why isn't health care the same thing as defending your from foreign invasion? Surely if the government can tax you to protect you from war, what if the agent of war is viruses and bacteria? Why mustn't the government protect you from infectious disease? Government should provide everyone with tax rebates to choose their own healthcare provider. Ppl who don't get health care shld pay endangerment tax 4 risks 2 us.
I don't think our republican elected oligarchy is any better than a democracy. The Majority of the oligarchy can, has, and does still steal your stuff and claims the right to control the individual. I'd prefer the majority of common people than the majority of a disconnected elite rule. What I actually want though is autonomy. Ⓐ
@JackVykios: We are not fighting to save the status quo. The status quo is not liberty, but soft tyranny. No, that is not a republic based on the principle of individual rights. We ARE fighting to restore liberty.
@elielevin Why just liberty? What about "life" and "the pursuit of happiness"? Are these not worthy causes as well? If people cannot afford their own basic needs, and are in no position to get to a position whereby they can afford them, then what are they supposed to do? If you're sick, you can't work. If you can't work, you can't pay your bills. If you can't pay your bills, you can't get healthcare, at which point you're probably going to die.
What constitutes as "basic needs" ? And why should the government put the "needs" of some over the liberty of others ? You can give any amount of money to the needy, if you feel like it. But the government should NOT force you, because doing so is a direct violation of YOUR individual rights. Every redistributionist tyrant claims to act in the name of the "general welfare", but they all do it at the expence of individual liberty of other people. It's a tyranny of someone's "need".
Thank you so much for posting this extraordinary video. Ayn Rand said once: "History wil support me!" And here we are today....after her death, we recognize that she was right and so is Yaron. May Reason prevail in America! May America be #1 for ever!
We have the capability to provide food and healthcare for everyone, so why not? We don't have a right to it, of course, but why not? Am I supposed to perform surgery on myself? Remove my own tumors (if and when they show up)? Or give up all my property to the banks in order to get a hope (not a guarrantee) of survival, only to emerge at the end with nothing but my life?
The government should protect its citizens, not just from humans, but from disease. The "irresponsible" are too small a...
@JackVykios (cont'd) minority to be worth fighting. They're more a symptom of a failing of the world to help them achieve their potential than a bloodsucking enemy.
And if the purpose of our lives is to fight to save a status quo that continues to fail so many people, rather than looking for a better alternatives that have been proven to work, then what's even the point of existance? If we won't move to make tomorrow better than today, then what's the point of today?
@JackVykios You don't have a right to someone else labor or mind and neither does the government. To provide credibility of ownership for such a thing over every individual citizen would require the state to be a god.
@MirageScience Yes, thank you. I read Atlas Shrugged, too.
The thing is, the US CAN provide health insurance (because most other developed countries have, to no complaint from the citizenry), it just doesn't. Why? Because stupidly rich businesspeople want to keep all the money they've made by cutting wages, raising prices, reducing standards and heading into international territory in the pursuit of conducting their affairs. This is because it is very difficult to put a price to labour...
@JackVykios Voluntary cooperation is infinitely superior to force, coercion and violence. You posture as being morally superior and caring. But you want to control people with force. To suit your desires. You think violence against innocent people to order the world according to your vision is not only okay but imperative. Your brutish materialistic spirit see a coal miner and can't fathom that an executive using his mind is doing more valuable work and making a larger contribution. Brutism
@carcabe Voluntary cooperation isn't going to happen because people are dicks. What is absolutely going to happen whether you like it or not is you are going to get taxed. Say what you want, but it is going to happen, and it isn't going to stop. I want those taxes to go to helping people achieve what they like without causing them to worry about affording healthcare, food or a home. Without these things it is next to impossible to succeed in life, and everyone deserves that chance.
@carcabe Violence? You mean taxes? Yeah, I'll care once these "innocent people" stop steering us toward climate change, increased extinctions and increased conflict in the middle east. Until then, I want their blood money to help people and recirculate.
Way I see it, life should never be held to a lower standard than money. Money is not and has never been an accurate method of determining social worth. Is it important? Yes, but not as much as enabling their minds to reach their potential.
@carcabe Sorry about all these replies, but one quick question. Do you believe that, just because someone isn't in any position to be providing "valuable work" or make "a larger contribution", they should be allowed to die if anything happens to them? By which I mean it is not their fault they are in their position; they are in the best position they are able to be in given their circumstance, but it isn't enough to ensure their survival in the modern world.
@progressxoverdue Has charity EVER actually pulled a country out of economic depression or poverty? Because I thought all that came down to the establishement of a higher standard of living, which is exactly what you people are arguing against so that rich people (probably* not you guys) get to keep all their money that way.
*mathematically speaking, since the rich are a vast minority.
@DenmarkRadar So what IS the state's prerogative? Because that seems to be the state's only purpose when it gets down to it, the only problem is the money isn't going where it's needed, but wherever powerful corporate sponsors want it to go.
In any case, redistribution of wealth (but not a flattening of the scales) AKA welfare makes poor, useless people into consumers. Consumers provide income for businesses. Businesses create jobs, those jobs go to the useless people who are suddenly useful.
In my opinion the state should hold no prerogatives. The state is a construct (similar to a corporation) that individual humans agree to in order to better achieve their goals.
In a good state this is done (for example) through preventing/mitigating the use of force against the citizens, By way of an army, a police force and a juidicial system.
A bad state use force against its own citizens. For instance the current libyan dictator, who has upheld his regime since 1969 by jailing or shooting any that disagree with him.
Regarding the redistribution of wealth: Please look up "the broken window fallacy" on Wikipedia.
As redistribution is the quintessential broken window fallacy - you see that the poor receive money and pay their expenses (good) but you do not see the missing investments that would bring even greater wealth (bad) because those investments never happen since the money were taxed out of the investor's hands.
Remember that very few rich people hide all of their money under their mattress or in their personal vault.
They invest most of their wealth to generate a return, thus creating real and productive jobs for the unemployed. In all likelihood that's how they became rich in the first place. The only other way to become rich is inheritance.
@MirageScience (cont'd) as different tasks have different tolls. Someone working in a coal mine at great personal cost and effort will typically get paid less than a corporate executive. Argue whichever way you like, but the state provides many of our opportunities in life, whether you accept that fact or not. At the same time, a well fed and medically cared for populace works better and happier than one that is not, increasing productivity and actually improving the economy and the spoils.
@JackVykios The state doesn't "provide" things, it only takes things from one person and gives them to someone else. That is not a recipe for a "well fed and medically cared for populace".
This is excellent. I wish Brook was always like this.
shonstar 3 months ago
He said that government must defend your right to life, liberty, and happiness. But why isn't health care the same thing as defending your from foreign invasion? Surely if the government can tax you to protect you from war, what if the agent of war is viruses and bacteria? Why mustn't the government protect you from infectious disease? Government should provide everyone with tax rebates to choose their own healthcare provider. Ppl who don't get health care shld pay endangerment tax 4 risks 2 us.
dubtafoo 5 months ago
STOP MOVING!!!!! ARGGHHHHH
TaniaGroth 11 months ago
@TaniaGroth too much pacing, agreed, but I do the same thing when I get heated
shonstar 3 months ago
I don't think our republican elected oligarchy is any better than a democracy. The Majority of the oligarchy can, has, and does still steal your stuff and claims the right to control the individual. I'd prefer the majority of common people than the majority of a disconnected elite rule. What I actually want though is autonomy. Ⓐ
barccy 1 year ago
@JackVykios: We are not fighting to save the status quo. The status quo is not liberty, but soft tyranny. No, that is not a republic based on the principle of individual rights. We ARE fighting to restore liberty.
elielevin 1 year ago
@elielevin Why just liberty? What about "life" and "the pursuit of happiness"? Are these not worthy causes as well? If people cannot afford their own basic needs, and are in no position to get to a position whereby they can afford them, then what are they supposed to do? If you're sick, you can't work. If you can't work, you can't pay your bills. If you can't pay your bills, you can't get healthcare, at which point you're probably going to die.
JackVykios 1 year ago
@JackVykios
What constitutes as "basic needs" ? And why should the government put the "needs" of some over the liberty of others ? You can give any amount of money to the needy, if you feel like it. But the government should NOT force you, because doing so is a direct violation of YOUR individual rights. Every redistributionist tyrant claims to act in the name of the "general welfare", but they all do it at the expence of individual liberty of other people. It's a tyranny of someone's "need".
VonStierlitz 9 months ago
Outstanding!!
carveawoodeneye 1 year ago
Thank you so much for posting this extraordinary video. Ayn Rand said once: "History wil support me!" And here we are today....after her death, we recognize that she was right and so is Yaron. May Reason prevail in America! May America be #1 for ever!
propatria0704 1 year ago 2
We have the capability to provide food and healthcare for everyone, so why not? We don't have a right to it, of course, but why not? Am I supposed to perform surgery on myself? Remove my own tumors (if and when they show up)? Or give up all my property to the banks in order to get a hope (not a guarrantee) of survival, only to emerge at the end with nothing but my life?
The government should protect its citizens, not just from humans, but from disease. The "irresponsible" are too small a...
JackVykios 1 year ago
@JackVykios (cont'd) minority to be worth fighting. They're more a symptom of a failing of the world to help them achieve their potential than a bloodsucking enemy.
And if the purpose of our lives is to fight to save a status quo that continues to fail so many people, rather than looking for a better alternatives that have been proven to work, then what's even the point of existance? If we won't move to make tomorrow better than today, then what's the point of today?
JackVykios 1 year ago
@JackVykios You don't have a right to someone else labor or mind and neither does the government. To provide credibility of ownership for such a thing over every individual citizen would require the state to be a god.
MirageScience 1 year ago 2
@MirageScience Yes, thank you. I read Atlas Shrugged, too.
The thing is, the US CAN provide health insurance (because most other developed countries have, to no complaint from the citizenry), it just doesn't. Why? Because stupidly rich businesspeople want to keep all the money they've made by cutting wages, raising prices, reducing standards and heading into international territory in the pursuit of conducting their affairs. This is because it is very difficult to put a price to labour...
JackVykios 1 year ago
@JackVykios Voluntary cooperation is infinitely superior to force, coercion and violence. You posture as being morally superior and caring. But you want to control people with force. To suit your desires. You think violence against innocent people to order the world according to your vision is not only okay but imperative. Your brutish materialistic spirit see a coal miner and can't fathom that an executive using his mind is doing more valuable work and making a larger contribution. Brutism
carcabe 1 year ago
@carcabe Voluntary cooperation isn't going to happen because people are dicks. What is absolutely going to happen whether you like it or not is you are going to get taxed. Say what you want, but it is going to happen, and it isn't going to stop. I want those taxes to go to helping people achieve what they like without causing them to worry about affording healthcare, food or a home. Without these things it is next to impossible to succeed in life, and everyone deserves that chance.
JackVykios 1 year ago
@carcabe Violence? You mean taxes? Yeah, I'll care once these "innocent people" stop steering us toward climate change, increased extinctions and increased conflict in the middle east. Until then, I want their blood money to help people and recirculate.
Way I see it, life should never be held to a lower standard than money. Money is not and has never been an accurate method of determining social worth. Is it important? Yes, but not as much as enabling their minds to reach their potential.
JackVykios 1 year ago
@carcabe Sorry about all these replies, but one quick question. Do you believe that, just because someone isn't in any position to be providing "valuable work" or make "a larger contribution", they should be allowed to die if anything happens to them? By which I mean it is not their fault they are in their position; they are in the best position they are able to be in given their circumstance, but it isn't enough to ensure their survival in the modern world.
JackVykios 1 year ago
@JackVykios
If you want to help them - we won't stop you.
progressxoverdue 1 year ago
@progressxoverdue Has charity EVER actually pulled a country out of economic depression or poverty? Because I thought all that came down to the establishement of a higher standard of living, which is exactly what you people are arguing against so that rich people (probably* not you guys) get to keep all their money that way.
*mathematically speaking, since the rich are a vast minority.
JackVykios 1 year ago
@JackVykios
No, we hold that it is our individual prerogative to donate our own wealth to the people we deem needy.
Thus it is not the prerogative of the state (or any other second or third party) to steal wealth to redistribute.
DenmarkRadar 1 year ago
@DenmarkRadar So what IS the state's prerogative? Because that seems to be the state's only purpose when it gets down to it, the only problem is the money isn't going where it's needed, but wherever powerful corporate sponsors want it to go.
In any case, redistribution of wealth (but not a flattening of the scales) AKA welfare makes poor, useless people into consumers. Consumers provide income for businesses. Businesses create jobs, those jobs go to the useless people who are suddenly useful.
JackVykios 1 year ago
Comment removed
DenmarkRadar 1 year ago
@JackVykios
In my opinion the state should hold no prerogatives. The state is a construct (similar to a corporation) that individual humans agree to in order to better achieve their goals.
In a good state this is done (for example) through preventing/mitigating the use of force against the citizens, By way of an army, a police force and a juidicial system.
(continued)
DenmarkRadar 1 year ago
@JackVykios
...
A bad state use force against its own citizens. For instance the current libyan dictator, who has upheld his regime since 1969 by jailing or shooting any that disagree with him.
(continued)
DenmarkRadar 1 year ago
@JackVykios
...
Regarding the redistribution of wealth: Please look up "the broken window fallacy" on Wikipedia.
As redistribution is the quintessential broken window fallacy - you see that the poor receive money and pay their expenses (good) but you do not see the missing investments that would bring even greater wealth (bad) because those investments never happen since the money were taxed out of the investor's hands.
(continued)
DenmarkRadar 1 year ago 2
@JackVykios
...
Remember that very few rich people hide all of their money under their mattress or in their personal vault.
They invest most of their wealth to generate a return, thus creating real and productive jobs for the unemployed. In all likelihood that's how they became rich in the first place. The only other way to become rich is inheritance.
DenmarkRadar 1 year ago 6
@MirageScience (cont'd) as different tasks have different tolls. Someone working in a coal mine at great personal cost and effort will typically get paid less than a corporate executive. Argue whichever way you like, but the state provides many of our opportunities in life, whether you accept that fact or not. At the same time, a well fed and medically cared for populace works better and happier than one that is not, increasing productivity and actually improving the economy and the spoils.
JackVykios 1 year ago
@JackVykios The state doesn't "provide" things, it only takes things from one person and gives them to someone else. That is not a recipe for a "well fed and medically cared for populace".
r74quinn 1 year ago 7
It's nice to have an Objectivist voice at these Tea Party events, I smell change in the wind...
CapitalistPhil 1 year ago 2
@CapitalistPhil yup.
Sivels 1 year ago