"We will show her statements contradict known truths, that is, biblical propositions" (8:07). As soon as this statement is made, anyone who's rational can stop this video and save themselves over an hour of their lives. I just wish it had been said at 0:00
"So even if we could find no fault in her political philosophy, it might still be indefensible". -- The intellectual dishonesty of this speaker is shameful, at best.
His point is that you don't have to attack every single part of a systematic philosophy. Instead, if a crucial link is knocked out, the whole system falls. Even if one part is true, if the warrants presented fall, the systematic philosophy falls.
What you're calling a "logical blunder" at about 24:00 is really your literalism. Its a rhetorical trick. You're applying the term "inalienable" blanketed without any regard for context. An inalienable right has to be protected because life by definition is potentially vulnerable to threat by force from others- and can only be protected by force. Our rights are inalienable because we WANT our rights to be inalienable; the wish to regard a condition or right as inalienable requires protection.
Retaliatory force is to protect individual rights- that's all it is. That is the role of government in Objectivism, to serve justice by force. Where is the conflict in that? You have individual inalienable rights but how are they protected? If you use force against someone then you should be stopped- by force.
The man speaking is very ill-informed. I would think he would have wanted to actually read her books with some scrutiny (or at all) before claiming to refute her views. Bad job.
"Ayn Rand hates chicks and queers" is not a refutation of anything -- and even if Rand WAS a racist bitch, she would NEVER initiate force (law) upon anyone.
What some of you easily-herded mindless sheep may not like is that she reveals that almost everything that we hold closest to our hearts has been a lie the entire time. I do not see how this is a crime when all she did was snap us all back into reality for our own damn good.
@YJohannM Btw atheists, "Do whatever the hell you want because there are no objective morals anyway" isn't ethics or morals. It is just relative. And it would be crazy to think that torturaing babies for fun is just relative. And it wouldn't make any sense to be against a theist's point of view on ethics if morality is just relative anyway. But it is the sum total of your false mythology.
@rfvidz Objectivism has nothing to do with "moral relativism". Ayn Rand held that morality is objective and absolute, because it is based on the fact of reality as evaluated by a human consciousness, and there are no contradictions in reality.
@rfvidz With respect, you are wrong. Morals are Objective. Why? Everything man thinks (and does) is right or wrong. Right/Wrong pertain to Aristotle's law of identity in metaphysics. Man must use the method of reason and logic to reach proper conclusion, make the right choices (epistemology). In ethics Rand inducts that man must exercise virtues to gain values (e.g.,water,iPad, love , etc.) If you do not exercise virtues like rationality, productivity, selfishness etc then u can't sustain life
@rfvidz Btw replyer most atheists don't believe in the torturing of babies because rational thinking dictates that harming a child would be wrong, why? because we know it would hurt ourselves and we can empathise. Empathy is not a product of god, it is a product of rational thinking, after all how can one think about how another would feel without the ability to connect it? As for the theist view on ethics, he is correct.. doing as another says is not ethics, nor is believing without evidence.
@rfvidz Why do you suppose that Atheist's don't believe in some function of moral code that can't be argued against? It's not that morals are objective, but are rational. You pick the morality that makes the most sense in a herd mentality and those morals evolve and change with us. It was perfectly moral and good to sacrifice babies in Egypt, because morality is Subjective and those regions came to the conclusions of their morality from what most made sense to them.
@rfvidz actually the reason why i became an atheist is because i found the biblical god to be immoral... i do agree that torturing babies for fun is insane - was it the biblical god who killed every first born son somewhere or other? hm.... or was that false mythology?
@rfvidz 'Do whatever you want because there are no objective morals' is the strawman to end all strawmen arguments. There is no one atheistic set of morals, Buddhism is technically an Atheistic religion and yet it has a clear set of morals - so to say just because there isn't Christian morals in a person does NOT mean there are no morals at all. That's as ignorant as it is incorrect. There is a lot of morality in Christian theology, but these morals are not unique to Christianity.
@rfvidz "And it wouldn't make any sense to be against a theist's point of view on ethics if morality is just relative anyway"
Relative ethics doesn't mean you cannot oppose other people's points of view, in fact it means precisely the opposite. It means that because ethics is a subjective endeavour, you're free to challenge other people's viewpoints relative to your own ethics. In fact, if ethics were absolute, and torturing babies was ethical, only then would you not be able to challenge it...
@rfvidz You do not understand atheism at all. "Do whatever the hell you want because there are no objective morals anyway" Not all atheists believe this. Do you know anything about philosophy at all? I mean that statement is as ignorant as saying, "I aint a monkey. My daddy wasn't a money. My grand da wasn't a monkey." In other words your stupid.lol
Most of the people who aren't trying to get a job are lazy. Most of us believe this. Unless you're too elderly or retarded, you can get some type of job. One out of seven Americans is on food stamps. Most of these recipients are young people who can work, but don't won't to because they have it made. We pay them for not working. As the Bible says: "Those who don't work shall not eat."
420captian: The government is most of the problem: the socialist government because it is spending money on social programs that reward lazy people for not working, spending money on foreign nations that don't reciprocate and are like welfare recipients, taxing people and businesses excessively and giving to the non-working. Capitalism had to have restraint, but not Marxist-Leninist ones because it goes against nature: individuals seeking their greatest potentials. Peace to you.
@MrRickywallace You alluded to "lazy people who don't work" 3 times in your comment. The problem I always have with people who think like you do is that you assume there are jobs out there for 15 million people who are out of work right now.last i looked unemployment is about 10%,there aren't enough jobs for even 5% of those people out of work.Please don't blame the poorest among us for all the problems many of us face. Peace to you.
oh I get it, you guys believe in the man-God, and so Rand is a problem. Now this makes sense. You believe in a supernatural deity that controls reality. Yes then. Rand is not for you. She is the devil without a doubt.
It's funny, Rand once said, "I'm an atheist, but not a militant one" - so many misquotes and purposeful misrepresentations here. She also wrote a full article on why the Government had nothing to say about homosexual behavior and that this was no ones business although she personally did not approve of it.
I listened to a few minutes and it was just like every other Rand basher I've ever heard--one straw man and ad hominem after another . 1. Yes, Rand opposed homosexuality--she said it was a disgusting aberration of nature--which it is. But then she fought for gay rights 2. She was an atheist, because she did not indulge mystic fantasies. 3. To equate Reason with "the muscle mystics of communism" is the intellectual crime of our age, which Rand thoroughly addressed and YOU failed to listen.
Scripture contains contradictory statements - Genesis 4:17 comes to mind since Cain's wife conveniently appears, and she is NOT one of the two people created by God.
Ergo, via your stated Christian Apologetic approach: because your entire argument rests on Scripture as the only Truth, as a result of this one statement being false, the fundamental background of this lecture is false, and by extension, every viewpoint and conclusion in it is false.
Better pure capitalism than pure socialism. I don't think that you realize what's happening. This moron of a president is like Lenin and Marx. He is trying to destroy capitalism and freedom. Read Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, and it will open your eyes. Also, read The Rage of Obama, which is about Obama's father's influence in bringing down colonialism. Obama is doing the same thing to capitalism, which is Marxist, and which will enslave us. Better pure freedom than slavery. Wise up.
@MrRickywallace I think capitalism is great,But there has to be fairness in capitalism,and there seems to be a lack of that right now.I also think are government is the problem,If we didn't spend all our tax dollars on war, military defense,and A terrible drug war,we would all be much better off. End the drug War,bring our kids home,and create jobs.Thank you and Peace.
This was a very interesting video. Better than I thought it would be.
Ayn Rand has been a very influential person in my life as regards my political philosophy. Although she disliked Libertarians, I am one mainly due to her.
lol only a fool would speak of absolute morality apart from the signet of an almighty creator. If there is no sovereign legislator of the law of good and evil, then there can be no such thing as true morality wherefore this inane bitch is chasing the wind when she speaks of "morality" or "virtue" as if they are any more than aggrandized opinions masquerading as innate truth.
Of course you cannot oppose Ayn Rand's statements when they are true. She basically says that if you choose an empowering and reasonable philisophy, you will live long, and that if you choose a destructive philosophy, you will die earlier. Those statements don't directly promote her own philosophy. Basically, the statements say that if you choose to believe that evil always wins, you will die early and live a shitty life. And that's 100% true.
Communism is collectivistic; Objectivism is individualistic. They're opposites. I assume that this is what some Americans do when they disagree with something. They call it communistic. (referring to the Cold War)
I don't understand how people can expect Objectivism to be proven. The fundament in Objectivism is the belief in a reality that exists independent of the human mind . The sceptics want physical proof, but in the end, any physical proof exists in the same reality that is being proven.
Legitimate arguments are falsifiable, meaning that there are conditions under which they can be wrong, or "refuted". Only faith-based arguments "can't be refuted".
@marcdaddy33 Agreed. According to Rand's metapyhsics, there is no such thing as a "faith based argument". That'd be like saying there's a "cat-based dog". Words have exact meaning - if it's based in faith, it has NOTHING to do with argumentation
even when suggesting that communism has the same epistemology as rand is laughable, you must remember that the goals of communism are noble, it just had the wrong conclusions on how to reach that good.
The more I read/hear the word "refuted", the more I hate it. People tend to use it as a reflection of fact, not necessarily their own subjective opinion, which is nearly always the case. Unfortunately those same people lack the ability to distinguish between the two.
"If a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is proved, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and objective laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights etc." The Anti-Industrial Revolution
Considering this man was once a devotee of Objectivism and his claim that she not make an argument for this distinction is not his single smear, (e.g., she has the same epistemology as the Communist's), suggests that he his purposefully making strawmen out of Ayn Rand's position.
"A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right. It consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises." The Virtue of Selfishness, The Nature of Government.
"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction." Galts Speech, Atlas Shrugged.
"Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense.
A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim;
the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force." Virtue of Selfishness - Objectivist Ethics Ayn Rand.
@Xios117 I'd like you to listen to the video without me doing your homework for you. By your own admission you said you lost interest in the video. It'd be helpful if you can actually make an effort to be fair.
Accusing Rand of having the same epistemology as the communists has made me lose interest in a video that was aroused seeing the Ron Paul reference below the video. She was so far from the communist epistemology that it's laughable to compare them--that is, it would be if it weren't be presupposed seriously.
@Xios117 Look, Ron Paul recommended John Robbins' book. Rand's economic views are not communistic obviousl,y but epistemologically speaking they're practically the same.
@Lukyo1984 From the looks of it, I don't think there was a "blank" in the speech in the sense that something was missing. I think that might have been the point where they had to change sides on the audio tape.
"We will show her statements contradict known truths, that is, biblical propositions" (8:07). As soon as this statement is made, anyone who's rational can stop this video and save themselves over an hour of their lives. I just wish it had been said at 0:00
urcritic 1 week ago
What a laughable waste of my time.
LinnBoy 1 week ago
"So even if we could find no fault in her political philosophy, it might still be indefensible". -- The intellectual dishonesty of this speaker is shameful, at best.
christerryatl 4 weeks ago
His point is that you don't have to attack every single part of a systematic philosophy. Instead, if a crucial link is knocked out, the whole system falls. Even if one part is true, if the warrants presented fall, the systematic philosophy falls.
thegreatapologist 2 weeks ago
She was against collectivism. Simple.
AnubisEye009 1 month ago
Another stupid theistic.
notengonickcojones 1 month ago
@notengonickcojones He is theistic, but he makes excellent points that aren't reliant on theism.
thegreatapologist 2 weeks ago
A Christian arguing against Rand is like someone with Down's syndrome fighting a UFC champion.
Ataensic 2 months ago 5
Worst attempt at a refutation ever.
HexJamXXX 2 months ago 9
atlas shrugged movie is out
hendersonn11 2 months ago
What you're calling a "logical blunder" at about 24:00 is really your literalism. Its a rhetorical trick. You're applying the term "inalienable" blanketed without any regard for context. An inalienable right has to be protected because life by definition is potentially vulnerable to threat by force from others- and can only be protected by force. Our rights are inalienable because we WANT our rights to be inalienable; the wish to regard a condition or right as inalienable requires protection.
marce11o 2 months ago
Retaliatory force is to protect individual rights- that's all it is. That is the role of government in Objectivism, to serve justice by force. Where is the conflict in that? You have individual inalienable rights but how are they protected? If you use force against someone then you should be stopped- by force.
marce11o 2 months ago
epistula epistulae = letters
TheANTIGONE3 2 months ago
drop rand and read plato
TheANTIGONE3 2 months ago
no philosophy is defendible or defensible.....
TheANTIGONE3 2 months ago
leave rand where she is RIP
TheANTIGONE3 2 months ago
The man speaking is very ill-informed. I would think he would have wanted to actually read her books with some scrutiny (or at all) before claiming to refute her views. Bad job.
ObjectivistAesthetic 3 months ago
this guy can't tell the difference between initiation of force and self defense.
FAIL
Martintfre 3 months ago
"Ayn Rand hates chicks and queers" is not a refutation of anything -- and even if Rand WAS a racist bitch, she would NEVER initiate force (law) upon anyone.
deadsilentnight 3 months ago
What some of you easily-herded mindless sheep may not like is that she reveals that almost everything that we hold closest to our hearts has been a lie the entire time. I do not see how this is a crime when all she did was snap us all back into reality for our own damn good.
JulesManson 3 months ago
Btw theists, "Do as I say, or else" isn't ethics, it is might makes right. But it is the sum total of your false mythology.
YJohannM 3 months ago 6
@YJohannM Btw atheists, "Do whatever the hell you want because there are no objective morals anyway" isn't ethics or morals. It is just relative. And it would be crazy to think that torturaing babies for fun is just relative. And it wouldn't make any sense to be against a theist's point of view on ethics if morality is just relative anyway. But it is the sum total of your false mythology.
rfvidz 3 months ago
@rfvidz Objectivism has nothing to do with "moral relativism". Ayn Rand held that morality is objective and absolute, because it is based on the fact of reality as evaluated by a human consciousness, and there are no contradictions in reality.
jonathanaconway 3 months ago
@rfvidz With respect, you are wrong. Morals are Objective. Why? Everything man thinks (and does) is right or wrong. Right/Wrong pertain to Aristotle's law of identity in metaphysics. Man must use the method of reason and logic to reach proper conclusion, make the right choices (epistemology). In ethics Rand inducts that man must exercise virtues to gain values (e.g.,water,iPad, love , etc.) If you do not exercise virtues like rationality, productivity, selfishness etc then u can't sustain life
britishbrainz 2 months ago
@rfvidz Because mora relativism is obviously what Ayn Rand preached. Are you f-ing kidding me...
fab006 2 months ago
@rfvidz objectivism is the opposite of relativism. Not all atheists are/were relativist. Ayn Rand would be one of them...
There is nothing relative in a philosophy based on objective reality.
nekdolan 1 month ago
@rfvidz Btw replyer most atheists don't believe in the torturing of babies because rational thinking dictates that harming a child would be wrong, why? because we know it would hurt ourselves and we can empathise. Empathy is not a product of god, it is a product of rational thinking, after all how can one think about how another would feel without the ability to connect it? As for the theist view on ethics, he is correct.. doing as another says is not ethics, nor is believing without evidence.
KawallaBair 1 month ago
@rfvidz Why do you suppose that Atheist's don't believe in some function of moral code that can't be argued against? It's not that morals are objective, but are rational. You pick the morality that makes the most sense in a herd mentality and those morals evolve and change with us. It was perfectly moral and good to sacrifice babies in Egypt, because morality is Subjective and those regions came to the conclusions of their morality from what most made sense to them.
JoeyStewart1990 1 month ago
@rfvidz actually the reason why i became an atheist is because i found the biblical god to be immoral... i do agree that torturing babies for fun is insane - was it the biblical god who killed every first born son somewhere or other? hm.... or was that false mythology?
earthypig 1 month ago
@rfvidz 'Do whatever you want because there are no objective morals' is the strawman to end all strawmen arguments. There is no one atheistic set of morals, Buddhism is technically an Atheistic religion and yet it has a clear set of morals - so to say just because there isn't Christian morals in a person does NOT mean there are no morals at all. That's as ignorant as it is incorrect. There is a lot of morality in Christian theology, but these morals are not unique to Christianity.
MrLemex 1 month ago
@rfvidz And to say Atheism is a 'mythology' is just plain wrong.
MrLemex 1 month ago
@rfvidz "And it wouldn't make any sense to be against a theist's point of view on ethics if morality is just relative anyway"
Relative ethics doesn't mean you cannot oppose other people's points of view, in fact it means precisely the opposite. It means that because ethics is a subjective endeavour, you're free to challenge other people's viewpoints relative to your own ethics. In fact, if ethics were absolute, and torturing babies was ethical, only then would you not be able to challenge it...
Wittgensteinism 2 weeks ago
@rfvidz You do not understand atheism at all. "Do whatever the hell you want because there are no objective morals anyway" Not all atheists believe this. Do you know anything about philosophy at all? I mean that statement is as ignorant as saying, "I aint a monkey. My daddy wasn't a money. My grand da wasn't a monkey." In other words your stupid.lol
greenghost2008 2 weeks ago
Refute 'A' is 'A'? Good luck with that, poser.
YJohannM 3 months ago 5
Yes, you probably can food stamps, if you're of that kind.
MrRickywallace 3 months ago
Most of the people who aren't trying to get a job are lazy. Most of us believe this. Unless you're too elderly or retarded, you can get some type of job. One out of seven Americans is on food stamps. Most of these recipients are young people who can work, but don't won't to because they have it made. We pay them for not working. As the Bible says: "Those who don't work shall not eat."
MrRickywallace 4 months ago
@MrRickywallace I'm pretty sure you can get food stamps while working.
DarkEmergence 3 months ago
420captian: The government is most of the problem: the socialist government because it is spending money on social programs that reward lazy people for not working, spending money on foreign nations that don't reciprocate and are like welfare recipients, taxing people and businesses excessively and giving to the non-working. Capitalism had to have restraint, but not Marxist-Leninist ones because it goes against nature: individuals seeking their greatest potentials. Peace to you.
MrRickywallace 4 months ago
@MrRickywallace You alluded to "lazy people who don't work" 3 times in your comment. The problem I always have with people who think like you do is that you assume there are jobs out there for 15 million people who are out of work right now.last i looked unemployment is about 10%,there aren't enough jobs for even 5% of those people out of work.Please don't blame the poorest among us for all the problems many of us face. Peace to you.
420captain 4 months ago
oh I get it, you guys believe in the man-God, and so Rand is a problem. Now this makes sense. You believe in a supernatural deity that controls reality. Yes then. Rand is not for you. She is the devil without a doubt.
shonstar 4 months ago
It's funny, Rand once said, "I'm an atheist, but not a militant one" - so many misquotes and purposeful misrepresentations here. She also wrote a full article on why the Government had nothing to say about homosexual behavior and that this was no ones business although she personally did not approve of it.
shonstar 4 months ago
I listened to a few minutes and it was just like every other Rand basher I've ever heard--one straw man and ad hominem after another . 1. Yes, Rand opposed homosexuality--she said it was a disgusting aberration of nature--which it is. But then she fought for gay rights 2. She was an atheist, because she did not indulge mystic fantasies. 3. To equate Reason with "the muscle mystics of communism" is the intellectual crime of our age, which Rand thoroughly addressed and YOU failed to listen.
Success0527 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Scripture contains contradictory statements - Genesis 4:17 comes to mind since Cain's wife conveniently appears, and she is NOT one of the two people created by God.
Ergo, via your stated Christian Apologetic approach: because your entire argument rests on Scripture as the only Truth, as a result of this one statement being false, the fundamental background of this lecture is false, and by extension, every viewpoint and conclusion in it is false.
Did I do that right?
stolpsgti 4 months ago
Comment removed
stolpsgti 4 months ago
Better pure capitalism than pure socialism. I don't think that you realize what's happening. This moron of a president is like Lenin and Marx. He is trying to destroy capitalism and freedom. Read Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, and it will open your eyes. Also, read The Rage of Obama, which is about Obama's father's influence in bringing down colonialism. Obama is doing the same thing to capitalism, which is Marxist, and which will enslave us. Better pure freedom than slavery. Wise up.
MrRickywallace 5 months ago
@MrRickywallace I think capitalism is great,But there has to be fairness in capitalism,and there seems to be a lack of that right now.I also think are government is the problem,If we didn't spend all our tax dollars on war, military defense,and A terrible drug war,we would all be much better off. End the drug War,bring our kids home,and create jobs.Thank you and Peace.
420captain 4 months ago
In summation: Rand's philosophy contradicts the Bible, therefore it is false.
666dagstein 5 months ago
Comment removed
666dagstein 5 months ago
This was a very interesting video. Better than I thought it would be.
Ayn Rand has been a very influential person in my life as regards my political philosophy. Although she disliked Libertarians, I am one mainly due to her.
marcdaddy33 5 months ago
Part 2
I absolutely agree that our rights come from God
marcdaddy33 5 months ago
lol only a fool would speak of absolute morality apart from the signet of an almighty creator. If there is no sovereign legislator of the law of good and evil, then there can be no such thing as true morality wherefore this inane bitch is chasing the wind when she speaks of "morality" or "virtue" as if they are any more than aggrandized opinions masquerading as innate truth.
Ninjadelusion 6 months ago
Comment removed
Ninjadelusion 6 months ago
I think I hate this bitch as much as I hate the wicked socrates--no--shes worse.
Ninjadelusion 6 months ago
@Ninjadelusion She was right about collectivism, which is what Obama and his hencmen are. We need her political view, not her religious view.
MrRickywallace 5 months ago
@Ninjadelusion She was right about collectivism, which is what Obama and his henchmen are. We need her political view, not her religious view.
MrRickywallace 5 months ago
@MrRickywallace yeah, obama is on the other extreme--I think they both miss the mark. "pure" capitalism is disgusting. socialism? what a joke.
Ninjadelusion 5 months ago
Of course you cannot oppose Ayn Rand's statements when they are true. She basically says that if you choose an empowering and reasonable philisophy, you will live long, and that if you choose a destructive philosophy, you will die earlier. Those statements don't directly promote her own philosophy. Basically, the statements say that if you choose to believe that evil always wins, you will die early and live a shitty life. And that's 100% true.
mmaarrkkuuss1515 6 months ago
Communism is collectivistic; Objectivism is individualistic. They're opposites. I assume that this is what some Americans do when they disagree with something. They call it communistic. (referring to the Cold War)
I don't understand how people can expect Objectivism to be proven. The fundament in Objectivism is the belief in a reality that exists independent of the human mind . The sceptics want physical proof, but in the end, any physical proof exists in the same reality that is being proven.
mmaarrkkuuss1515 6 months ago
Legitimate arguments are falsifiable, meaning that there are conditions under which they can be wrong, or "refuted". Only faith-based arguments "can't be refuted".
aoiwarai 6 months ago
@aoiwarai
Only faith-based arguments "can't be refuted".
----
That is a ridiculous assertion.
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
@marcdaddy33 Agreed. According to Rand's metapyhsics, there is no such thing as a "faith based argument". That'd be like saying there's a "cat-based dog". Words have exact meaning - if it's based in faith, it has NOTHING to do with argumentation
ryankuchinskas 5 months ago
Liberal/Conservative had far different cultural meanings 60 yrs ago
denny3161 7 months ago
even when suggesting that communism has the same epistemology as rand is laughable, you must remember that the goals of communism are noble, it just had the wrong conclusions on how to reach that good.
ridaderek 7 months ago
Comment removed
nerkyder 7 months ago
The more I read/hear the word "refuted", the more I hate it. People tend to use it as a reflection of fact, not necessarily their own subjective opinion, which is nearly always the case. Unfortunately those same people lack the ability to distinguish between the two.
ukpolemic 9 months ago 18
Pollution :
"If a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is proved, the law can and does hold him responsible. If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and objective laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights etc." The Anti-Industrial Revolution
Twiggy269 11 months ago
@Twiggy269
Considering this man was once a devotee of Objectivism and his claim that she not make an argument for this distinction is not his single smear, (e.g., she has the same epistemology as the Communist's), suggests that he his purposefully making strawmen out of Ayn Rand's position.
MoonMankkkkkk 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MoonMankkkkkk
I made a 2 part video response to this lecture, posted on my channel, if you haven't watched it, check it out!
Twiggy269 11 months ago
"A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right. It consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises." The Virtue of Selfishness, The Nature of Government.
Twiggy269 11 months ago
"It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction." Galts Speech, Atlas Shrugged.
Twiggy269 11 months ago
"Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense.
A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim;
the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force." Virtue of Selfishness - Objectivist Ethics Ayn Rand.
Twiggy269 11 months ago
When you start a conversation in the middle it becomes quite easy to fragment the context, thus, draw to question the validity of an idea.
lgchamberlain1965 1 year ago
@rfvidz Explain the epistemology of Rand and then of communism, and tell me precisely how they overlap. I'd like to hear how you think they overlap.
Xios117 1 year ago
@Xios117 I'd like you to listen to the video without me doing your homework for you. By your own admission you said you lost interest in the video. It'd be helpful if you can actually make an effort to be fair.
rfvidz 1 year ago
@rfvidz
The speaker literally never even remotely proved that the Communist's epistemology is the same as Ayn Rand's, so your answer is moot.
MoonMankkkkkk 11 months ago
Accusing Rand of having the same epistemology as the communists has made me lose interest in a video that was aroused seeing the Ron Paul reference below the video. She was so far from the communist epistemology that it's laughable to compare them--that is, it would be if it weren't be presupposed seriously.
Xios117 1 year ago 17
@Xios117 Look, Ron Paul recommended John Robbins' book. Rand's economic views are not communistic obviousl,y but epistemologically speaking they're practically the same.
rfvidz 1 year ago
@rfvidz
They're practically not. The Communists adopted a Hegelian epistemology, which has no relation in what way to Rand's epistemology.
MoonMankkkkkk 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rfvidz
"Rand's economic views are not communistic obviousl,y but epistemologically speaking they're practically the same."
---------
Assertions without evidence is not proof. Demonstrate how this is the case... merely stating they are the same is not enough.
marcdaddy33 6 months ago
@rfvidz Ron Paul is an enemy of Objectivism.
madderbass 1 month ago
Sorry, let me rephrase. ...That only government(s) have the legal monopoly of force over its citizens.
vtorrieri 1 year ago
Good lecture. But how do you refute the argument that only government(s) have the legal monopoly of force against its citizens?
vtorrieri 1 year ago
What was that blank at the 44th minute?
Lukyo1984 1 year ago
@Lukyo1984 I wish I knew. The audio was recorded that way unfortunately.
rfvidz 1 year ago
@rfvidz Oh ok. Anyway thanks for posting.
Lukyo1984 1 year ago
@Lukyo1984 From the looks of it, I don't think there was a "blank" in the speech in the sense that something was missing. I think that might have been the point where they had to change sides on the audio tape.
rfvidz 1 year ago