This should be a "required" session for Highschool Seniors! Plan simple "economic" words for those entering the workplace/encomony, society as adults...
"The theory is that no amount of property at risk justifies the taking of a life.
Usually your's or another person's life must be at imminent risk before you can shoot (per epic37 at yota tech forum 3/5/05)." In PA, the law favors the intruder unless there is a home invasion with guns drawn.
That's funny, I didn't realize eating that much ice cream was in one's rational self interest. I should run out and start eating then. I'm actually allowed to eat as much as I want.
Your argument is silly for several reasons:
1. You are using an example with children.
2. Why would you use eating too much icecream as an argument against self interest? In fact people following their rational self interest would never eat too much icecream, obviously.( those following cravings instead will)
what it seems that you're not understanding is that, by having these "Buaracrats", you make it possible for the people who choose bad choices stay in business, instaed of letting reality take its course.
Dr. Brook makes an excellent case for Capitalism, but even so, I find it does not convince my Liberal friends, who feel that somehow government knows better than individuals. How many ways can it be said so that more people grasp this concept?
BTW, why is it that the ARI folks always seem to get the worst video and sound on their lecture presentations? Go out and buy a $300 modern DV camcorder & tripod so the image and sound are not so distractingly bad.
I suppose some video is better than no video, but for a university not to have one decent camera and the know-how to work it properly is embarassing. It reflects badly on the speaker, though no fault of his own.
Brook is actually the best objectivist speaker I've seen, in the sense that he can explain things in a way reluctant, uninformed listeners can in fact understand. It doesn't require any knowledge of philosophy or a long attention-span on their part to at least understand that there is a viable alternative to altruism: then they can make their own choices, that's their problem.
No matter how well a position is presented, there seems to be no way to access a closed mind--which is the bulk of the Liberals and religious concervatives that I know. I just finished with a mult-week debate with five friends via e-mail. It was an exercise in utter frustration. The people are unwilling to really listen, or unable to use Reason at all. Smart in many areas of their careers, but hard-core Socialists. :-(
True, but those people are a small minority. Another small minority are the true believers on the right.
However, the majority of americans are still grounded in reality, and they are open to rational ideas that would confirm what they already know deep down: this country is the best because of its emphasis on the individual, and on freedom.
Yes, I agree that the central focus of individual rights sets this nation apart from all others, however, we have a generation of people educated by the Liberal left and they almost unanimously (except for the few thinkers) accept the dogma. The majority of the people I work and associate with are Socialists, through and through. But I'm in New England, which is an Obama state, so perhaps other parts are not so Socialist.
How can we change this situation to enlighten people?
I doubt we can. We can work to change the culture, through the education of future generations, especially of future intellectuals. For that, we need to recruit people in academia, teachers, and maybe even so called "opinion multipliers".
This should be a "required" session for Highschool Seniors! Plan simple "economic" words for those entering the workplace/encomony, society as adults...
tknode1 2 years ago
@tknode1
My want to smoke/snort something--jail
My want to look at something on the net--jail
My want to play a poker machine at Joe's Bar--jail for Joe + me.
My want to bet a ball game--jail for bookie + me
My want to have a poker game (dollar-two) at home--jail
My want to shoot an intruder--biggie jail for me
My don't want open borders, nor the American Dream for unwanted guests--my seen as a bigot
lumpagogo 1 year ago
@lumpagogo you cant shoot someone who has broken into your home anymore? (In the US)
TheGodofAtheists 1 year ago
@lumpagogo
"The theory is that no amount of property at risk justifies the taking of a life.
Usually your's or another person's life must be at imminent risk before you can shoot (per epic37 at yota tech forum 3/5/05)." In PA, the law favors the intruder unless there is a home invasion with guns drawn.
lumpagogo 1 year ago
That's funny, I didn't realize eating that much ice cream was in one's rational self interest. I should run out and start eating then. I'm actually allowed to eat as much as I want.
Your argument is silly for several reasons:
1. You are using an example with children.
2. Why would you use eating too much icecream as an argument against self interest? In fact people following their rational self interest would never eat too much icecream, obviously.( those following cravings instead will)
deinse81 3 years ago
what it seems that you're not understanding is that, by having these "Buaracrats", you make it possible for the people who choose bad choices stay in business, instaed of letting reality take its course.
Twiggy269 3 years ago
Dr. Brook makes an excellent case for Capitalism, but even so, I find it does not convince my Liberal friends, who feel that somehow government knows better than individuals. How many ways can it be said so that more people grasp this concept?
BTW, why is it that the ARI folks always seem to get the worst video and sound on their lecture presentations? Go out and buy a $300 modern DV camcorder & tripod so the image and sound are not so distractingly bad.
basspig 3 years ago
"
Video courtesy of the Chapman University School of Business and Economics, recorded April 3, 2008."
ARI didn't record this
shovelcharge 3 years ago
I suppose some video is better than no video, but for a university not to have one decent camera and the know-how to work it properly is embarassing. It reflects badly on the speaker, though no fault of his own.
basspig 3 years ago
Brook is actually the best objectivist speaker I've seen, in the sense that he can explain things in a way reluctant, uninformed listeners can in fact understand. It doesn't require any knowledge of philosophy or a long attention-span on their part to at least understand that there is a viable alternative to altruism: then they can make their own choices, that's their problem.
deinse81 3 years ago
No matter how well a position is presented, there seems to be no way to access a closed mind--which is the bulk of the Liberals and religious concervatives that I know. I just finished with a mult-week debate with five friends via e-mail. It was an exercise in utter frustration. The people are unwilling to really listen, or unable to use Reason at all. Smart in many areas of their careers, but hard-core Socialists. :-(
basspig 3 years ago
True, but those people are a small minority. Another small minority are the true believers on the right.
However, the majority of americans are still grounded in reality, and they are open to rational ideas that would confirm what they already know deep down: this country is the best because of its emphasis on the individual, and on freedom.
deinse81 3 years ago
Yes, I agree that the central focus of individual rights sets this nation apart from all others, however, we have a generation of people educated by the Liberal left and they almost unanimously (except for the few thinkers) accept the dogma. The majority of the people I work and associate with are Socialists, through and through. But I'm in New England, which is an Obama state, so perhaps other parts are not so Socialist.
How can we change this situation to enlighten people?
basspig 3 years ago
I doubt we can. We can work to change the culture, through the education of future generations, especially of future intellectuals. For that, we need to recruit people in academia, teachers, and maybe even so called "opinion multipliers".
deinse81 3 years ago
Good point about it being in a company's self-interest to ensure that their products are safe.
z2b 3 years ago
Great lecture
guyusj 3 years ago
Woops. I didn't see the others. Sorry.
chopsky 3 years ago
Would love the rest of this.
chopsky 3 years ago